1969 Camaro Special Order Paint Process

[DW31S]

About the video, is it me, or was the '66 Olds a shade of (almost hate to say it) Purple? However, the sky also seemed to cast a Purple-ish hue, as did some of the actors skin! Suffice to say that lighting, angles of light, age, etc., can change how a color is perceived.
Now back to the EO Camaro.....I'm guessing (have no cold hard facts to support my theory) that the primer used on Clem's Special Order Camaro could/would have been something other than Red Oxide or Black. That EO metallic would be much easier to spray (back to spray in a second) over a lighter primer than a darker. Is that a feasible thought? And the first two shots of the door panel being peeled back show two distinctly hidden colors.....one a shade of Purple and the other a shade of Grey. Could the unusual light primer (if in fact it was an out-sourced product that has been stated by an ex-assembly line worker) and some metallic overspray "created" a color mimicking Silver? We now know the the Special Paint cars received a substandard and out-of-the-norm paint job with a product likely obtained from an outside vendor and that color "could" have been mixed BY EYE to a 1" long paint chip. And then the front clip was painted by DIFFERENT painters in a DIFFERENT area under DIFFERENT conditions.
My point here is that with so many variables and the 47 (car built in 1968) year time span, how can there really be a 100% definitive conclusion? I don't think anyone involved here thinks that they themselves are wrong, and frankly, there may be some validity to their strong-willed opinion. Guys and gals, let's stop the mud slinging and childish rants and get back to the real reason we are united here.....we aren't gonna sing Kumbaya (sp.) around the campfire, but it is so counterproductive to cast negative slurs to one another......this is supposed to be fun!!!

[Lynn]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DW31S</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Guys and gals, let's stop the mud slinging and childish rants and get back to the real reason we are united here..... it is so counterproductive to cast negative slurs to one another......this is supposed to be fun!!! </div></div>

Exactly.

Everyone just needs to take a step back here.

We need all the different sources of information, and objective looks at each source.

I greatly appreciate the input from retired workers. Likewise, the recollection of an owner AND the observation of MANY cars over the years is valuable; as is GM documentation. They are all pieces of the puzzle.

Clem can’t understand why notarized statements of events from 46 years ago doesn’t result in a “closed case”. Sadly, it doesn’t. Not because of Clem, Clem’s integrity, or any thing else having to do with someone’s honesty. Memories fade. I can’t tell you how many times I have thought something happened a certain way and was corrected by a brother, a high school friend, or whatever. I AM NOT SAYING CATEGORICALLY THAT CLEM IS WRONG.

I have seen notarized statements from owners and dealers that turned out to be absolutely false. I can’t think of ONE where I believed the person making the statement was intentionally lying. They simply made mistakes. So, we have become skeptical of the notarized statements. Does that mean all of them are useless? Not at all. They are a piece of the puzzle.

Lastly, check the ego at the door. It gets in the way. We all have something to learn. When the obvious point of a post is to prove you are right, or how much you know, you aren’t likely going to be contributing in any meaningful way.

I spend more time on this site than any other car site. Why? Because I learn from some of the best. Because NORMALLY, we can agree to disagree, or at least disagree civilly.

[70 copo]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lynn</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DW31S</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Guys and gals, let's stop the mud slinging and childish rants and get back to the real reason we are united here..... it is so counterproductive to cast negative slurs to one another......this is supposed to be fun!!! </div></div>

Exactly.

Everyone just needs to take a step back here.

We need all the different sources of information, and objective looks at each source.

I greatly appreciate the input from retired workers. Likewise, the recollection of an owner AND the observation of MANY cars over the years is valuable; as is GM documentation. They are all pieces of the puzzle.

Clem can’t understand why notarized statements of events from 46 years ago doesn’t result in a “closed case”. Sadly, it doesn’t. Not because of Clem, Clem’s integrity, or any thing else having to do with someone’s honesty. Memories fade. I can’t tell you how many times I have thought something happened a certain way and was corrected by a brother, a high school friend, or whatever. I AM NOT SAYING CATEGORICALLY THAT CLEM IS WRONG.

I have seen notarized statements from owners and dealers that turned out to be absolutely false. I can’t think of ONE where I believed the person making the statement was intentionally lying. They simply made mistakes. So, we have become skeptical of the notarized statements. Does that mean all of them are useless? Not at all. They are a piece of the puzzle.

Lastly, check the ego at the door. It gets in the way. We all have something to learn. When the obvious point of a post is to prove you are right, or how much you know, you aren’t likely going to be contributing in any meaningful way.

I spend more time on this site than any other car site. Why? Because I learn from some of the best. Because NORMALLY, we can agree to disagree, or at least disagree civilly. </div></div>


Lynn,

At the risk of portraying you as someone who is trying to have it both ways, I am a bit confused.

At what point is enough eyewitness testimony enough? Just wondering since the biggest hurdle these days seems to be in reaching technical agreement on a revision to a topic when another group has a hard and fast position already established.

In this case it seems no amount of first hand evidence will convince everyone... Which then logically follows: Is there a better way to communicate new information and discoveries to the hobby in general?

[clem]

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 70 copo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Lynn</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DW31S</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Guys and gals, let's stop the mud slinging and childish rants and get back to the real reason we are united here..... it is so counterproductive to cast negative slurs to one another......this is supposed to be fun!!! </div></div>

Exactly.

Everyone just needs to take a step back here.

We need all the different sources of information, and objective looks at each source.

I greatly appreciate the input from retired workers. Likewise, the recollection of an owner AND the observation of MANY cars over the years is valuable; as is GM documentation. They are all pieces of the puzzle.

Clem can’t understand why notarized statements of events from 46 years ago doesn’t result in a “closed case”. Sadly, it doesn’t. Not because of Clem, Clem’s integrity, or any thing else having to do with someone’s honesty. Memories fade. I can’t tell you how many times I have thought something happened a certain way and was corrected by a brother, a high school friend, or whatever. I AM NOT SAYING CATEGORICALLY THAT CLEM IS WRONG.

I have seen notarized statements from owners and dealers that turned out to be absolutely false. I can’t think of ONE where I believed the person making the statement was intentionally lying. They simply made mistakes. So, we have become skeptical of the notarized statements. Does that mean all of them are useless? Not at all. They are a piece of the puzzle.

Lastly, check the ego at the door. It gets in the way. We all have something to learn. When the obvious point of a post is to prove you are right, or how much you know, you aren’t likely going to be contributing in any meaningful way.

I spend more time on this site than any other car site. Why? Because I learn from some of the best. Because NORMALLY, we can agree to disagree, or at least disagree civilly. </div></div>


Lynn,

At the risk of portraying you as someone who is trying to have it both ways, I am a bit confused.

At what point is enough eyewitness testimony enough? Just wondering since the biggest hurdle these days seems to be in reaching technical agreement on a revision to a topic when another group has a hard and fast position already established.

In this case it seems no amount of first hand evidence will convince everyone... Which then logically follows: Is there a better way to communicate new information and discoveries to the hobby in general? </div></div>it is the same on all these car website. if the truth goes against common beliefs you will have a battle on your hands if there is $$$ involved.

[tom406]

Thank you for the original posting on the special order paint process as told by the workers. Awesome info that will soon be unavailable to the hobby.

I never would have guessed that with all my relatives baiting me on Facebook with opinions on trophy hunting, $15 minimum wage, and abortion that the most volatile subject in my social media would be a purple Camaro, lol [img]<<GRAEMLIN_URL>>/cry.gif[/img]