kodamar
Well Known Member
As I predicted, the first service guy who put my newly purchased 28,000 mile '63 two-door hardtop on a lift has declared that there's "no way" that it has original paint.
While there are a couple of minor but noticeable blend areas on the driver's side due to minor dent repairs as well as some crude small 'brush' touch ups, I am convinced that most of the paint is original.
There is no evidence of overspray or taped chrome pieces, and more importantly the guy I bought it from is the original owners' grandson who has known of the car since it was new. It was owned by his grandparents and garaged until 1977 when it was given to his parents and garaged at the same house for 30 years until I purchased it this spring. There would have never been a reason to have the entire car painted.
The interior is perfect with no fading or sun damage that would indicate exposure to any elements that would have faded the paint finish enough to justify a repaint, and the original chrome is free from pitting and weathering.
His claim is from seeing "bondo" and "sand marks" at the back edge of the rocker panel where it meets the quarter panel. This is true, but I have heard that the use of factory seam sealer, as well as sometimes sloppy application and visible 'repairs' being common to cars of that era. He also claims the paint finish is not consistent enough, and has visible 'roughness' underneath. Again, I say the paints of the day were not applied with perfection.
There is another such car in my area that is still driven by the original owner, so I am going to do a close-up comparison when I see him again. Does anyone else have an 'original' '63 with evidence of sloppy factory seams and visible defects?
I just picked up a late 1964 copy of "Popular Science" where James R. Whipple tests the new 1965 cars (Ford, Chevy & Plymouth) and praised the 'improved' cosmetic quality, noting that "A careful inspection of the sheet metal showed no painted-over dents, ripples, or file marks." Would this indicate that American cars before this were prone to these defects?
While there are a couple of minor but noticeable blend areas on the driver's side due to minor dent repairs as well as some crude small 'brush' touch ups, I am convinced that most of the paint is original.
There is no evidence of overspray or taped chrome pieces, and more importantly the guy I bought it from is the original owners' grandson who has known of the car since it was new. It was owned by his grandparents and garaged until 1977 when it was given to his parents and garaged at the same house for 30 years until I purchased it this spring. There would have never been a reason to have the entire car painted.
The interior is perfect with no fading or sun damage that would indicate exposure to any elements that would have faded the paint finish enough to justify a repaint, and the original chrome is free from pitting and weathering.
His claim is from seeing "bondo" and "sand marks" at the back edge of the rocker panel where it meets the quarter panel. This is true, but I have heard that the use of factory seam sealer, as well as sometimes sloppy application and visible 'repairs' being common to cars of that era. He also claims the paint finish is not consistent enough, and has visible 'roughness' underneath. Again, I say the paints of the day were not applied with perfection.
There is another such car in my area that is still driven by the original owner, so I am going to do a close-up comparison when I see him again. Does anyone else have an 'original' '63 with evidence of sloppy factory seams and visible defects?
I just picked up a late 1964 copy of "Popular Science" where James R. Whipple tests the new 1965 cars (Ford, Chevy & Plymouth) and praised the 'improved' cosmetic quality, noting that "A careful inspection of the sheet metal showed no painted-over dents, ripples, or file marks." Would this indicate that American cars before this were prone to these defects?
