When is paint really 100% original and the value added.

[whiterabbit]

Lets assume the car in question is very low miles and pretty much concours with the exception of a couple of small clearcoat issues (inch in diameter max) on the hood and one door which seem common on the 78-89 911's. It is also a rare color with great options.

If the two panels in question were just recently clearcoated with the actual original paint underneath remaining is it ethical for the dealer to say the car has 100% original paint?

If not then would the car be drastically de-valued due to not having 100% original paint? The car in question is priced at the very very top of the current 3.2 market.

Thanks for any contructive input. As an fyi the dealer disclosed the clearcoat and I don't think without his disclosure anyone would know. I for sure can't tell other even with the panel open and looking underneath other than seeing the before photo.

[ficke]

Yes. The point of saying original paint is to demonstrate that the car has no hidden body repair or rust damage that could have been covered up with new paint.

[cvlcporsche]

Paint meter.... Either it's original or it's not. If you are worried spend a few hundred bucks on a paint meter. Get a base reading in the door jam. These cars were painted when new by an actual human vs. the modern cars painted robotically. As such paint depth varies more than a modern car. As a general rule OE paint air-cooled cars should show 3-4.5mils in the jams as a baseline. A typical range would be 4-6mils, generally higher in horizontal surfaces. While you are doing this be looking for other signs of paintwork: mask lines on the edges, overspray on trim, texture or color variances, etc. A reading much higher than 6 should be looked at carefully. Higher than 8-9mils and it's definitive.

The other challenge is that some cars were repaired before delivery either at the factory, the port or the dealer due to QC issues or transport damage. So it's not a perfect science, but it certainly takes more than just an eye.

In the end in today's market original rules the day, however in my experience very, very few air cooled cars are still 100% original paint. Probably single digit %, however I find probably at least half the sellers say they have original paint. When pressed they usually say "well it looks original to me"

[mreid]

Original paint as a driver for the top of the price range doesn't mean anything UNLESS the rest of the car is bone stock. Frankly, I would pay more for a 911 in that MY range with a proper new paint job (with no hidden damage) if there were other modifications from stock.

[wgwollet]

CIVICPORSCHE

Your comments are correct. I measured many cars with a good paint gage and the numbers you say seem about right. If someone does just the clear coat and its done very good most would not know.

Find a true original painted car before 1974 is getting very rare. I believe to leave the paint alone within reason. I like original as opposed to restored. I have a 1978 911 in a rare color. It has paint flaws and wear but I plan to leave it alone it's original paint.

[KNS]

I think when cars become older and more valuable a repaint matters less and less. As mentioned finding a car from the early '70s with factory paint can be very difficult.

I've heard it more than a few times that a Ferrari from 1965 (for example) may have had a complete and well done repaint in 1968 but because 45+ years of patina are evident and the rest of the car is in excellent condition it is still a very sought after car.

Along the same lines, I've seen it numerous times on "Chasing Classic Cars" that said Ferrari or Porsche Speedster, etc has been through three color changes and no one seems to care.

911SCs and 3.2s aren't there yet (and might never be) but I think it's less of an issue as time goes by.

[rw229]

IMHO, there is a BIG difference between "paint work" and a full repaint. In the case above, I don't consider it a negative being a fairly minor cosmetic repair, but would have to see it in person. Full repaints scare me because it speaks volumes on how the car was (or was not) cared for, whether not cared for or a major accident.

[Milesaway]

Original paint is incredible and impossible to duplicate. Any painting inc re clearcoating is the end of any originality and quality. All original is worth at least 50% more IMHO.

[whiterabbit]

Thanks for all the replies, lots of differing opinions. The car in question is totally stock otherwise and as stated the only paintwork is two panels clear coated with before and after pics. I think the dealer is being pretty honest in saying 100% orginal paint. Maybe the line "close to" should have been added

[Six Gun]

Originally Posted by milesaway

original paint is incredible and impossible to duplicate. Any painting inc re clearcoating is the end of any originality and quality. All original is worth at least 50% more imho.

me thinks thou doest exaggerate!!!!

[COLB]

In the era of cars (50-60s) where "all original" really bumps value, the cars were all single stage paint -- so the clearcoat question is not really relevant.

In later years where clearcoat became standard, I don't think there is any detriment to value in spot sanding and refinishing small clearcoat problems. It is still the original paint underneath.

This is different than an over the top respray (dubious work, and almost always flawed).

A window out, bare metal, quality repaint -- professionally done in original colors -- is actually a bump in value to any car post-1973 car that is not a ~25k mile museum piece/garage queen.

[McLovin]

Paint is all original when it is all original, i.e., no paintwork has ever been done.

It's "mostly original" when some repairs have been done, but most of it is original.

Etc.

I used to be a big "all original" paint person. It was very important to me. It's of far less importance to me these days. Although I'd still be a little concerned about a 100% repainted car, on a 20+ year old car having a panel or two that have been properly repainted doesn't bother me in the least.

In fact, in many ways, I prefer if the car has had some paintwork done. I'm completely done with "collector" cars/garage paperweights, I drive all of my cars now, park them in grocery store parking lots, etc. 100% original paint is a little stressful to me, maybe it's not rational, but it is. Once a panel or two have been repainted, redoing those or some other paint work isn't a big deal.

That being said, I do think 100% original paint is neat, mainly because it's so unusual on any car that has been rolling around on this earth for 25+ years.

[ficke]

Original paint tells more than a 'Carfax' for accident damage. Clear coat does not interfere with that information.

[MrBonus]

Given that some of these cars have changed hands 3-4 (or more) times in 25+ years, I think it's next to impossible to state that paint is 100% original if repair work was done out of pocket and done well if previous owner(s) did not disclose it.

My car, for example, had some hideous aftermarket wing put on by its original owner and it was replaced with a repainted "original" deck lid like the one it came with from the factory. I only knew this because the person I bought it from disclosed it. Had I not been told, I would have assumed my car was 100% original.