We had some body work done on our 2003 Accord, and they did a poor job
of matching the colors between the hood and fenders. When I pointed
it out to the estimator, he said they must have used (too much or too
little) of the metallic particles. Causes the paint to reflect light
differently, and gives the effect of two, different colors. He had a
term for it. Duffing or something strange like that. Anyone know
what it was?

Dick

 

Dick <LeadWinger> wrote in news:7jkgd1t2ikjsuktjub6nghgl4d5unc84ou@4ax.com:

> We had some body work done on our 2003 Accord, and they did a poor job
> of matching the colors between the hood and fenders. When I pointed
> it out to the estimator, he said they must have used (too much or too
> little) of the metallic particles. Causes the paint to reflect light
> differently, and gives the effect of two, different colors. He had a
> term for it. Duffing or something strange like that. Anyone know
> what it was?
>


AFAIK, they're just called "aluminum flake", or "mica".

--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

On 16 Jul 2005 01:18:17 GMT, "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote:

>Dick <LeadWinger> wrote in news:7jkgd1t2ikjsuktjub6nghgl4d5unc84ou@4ax.com:
>
>> We had some body work done on our 2003 Accord, and they did a poor job
>> of matching the colors between the hood and fenders. When I pointed
>> it out to the estimator, he said they must have used (too much or too
>> little) of the metallic particles. Causes the paint to reflect light
>> differently, and gives the effect of two, different colors. He had a
>> term for it. Duffing or something strange like that. Anyone know
>> what it was?
>>
>
>
>AFAIK, they're just called "aluminum flake", or "mica".

How about "Leafing?" I found that term on the Internet.

Dick

 

Dick <LeadWinger> wrote in
news:18ogd1dvi1pc7be2gq21gv9agecgileipl@4ax.com:

> On 16 Jul 2005 01:18:17 GMT, "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote:
>
>>Dick <LeadWinger> wrote in
>>news:7jkgd1t2ikjsuktjub6nghgl4d5unc84ou@4ax.co m:
>>
>>> We had some body work done on our 2003 Accord, and they did a poor
>>> job of matching the colors between the hood and fenders. When I
>>> pointed it out to the estimator, he said they must have used (too
>>> much or too little) of the metallic particles. Causes the paint to
>>> reflect light differently, and gives the effect of two, different
>>> colors. He had a term for it. Duffing or something strange like
>>> that. Anyone know what it was?
>>>
>>
>>
>>AFAIK, they're just called "aluminum flake", or "mica".
>
> How about "Leafing?" I found that term on the Internet.
>


Um, no.

--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

Well, actually yes. I ran into that term when trying to come up with
a special "platinum" edition of a product my company made. This was
powder not liquiid coating and if it contained "leafing" aluminum it
absolutely has to be clear coated after the initial coat is on. We
found that out the hard way. Normal automotive metallic coatings are
not of the "leafing" type and can be enhanced by clear coat but it is
not an absolute necessity.

Frank

On 16 Jul 2005 02:44:43 GMT, "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote:

>Dick <LeadWinger> wrote in
>news:18ogd1dvi1pc7be2gq21gv9agecgileipl@4ax.com :
>
>> On 16 Jul 2005 01:18:17 GMT, "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote:
>>
>>>Dick <LeadWinger> wrote in
>>>news:7jkgd1t2ikjsuktjub6nghgl4d5unc84ou@4ax.com :
>>>
>>>> We had some body work done on our 2003 Accord, and they did a poor
>>>> job of matching the colors between the hood and fenders. When I
>>>> pointed it out to the estimator, he said they must have used (too
>>>> much or too little) of the metallic particles. Causes the paint to
>>>> reflect light differently, and gives the effect of two, different
>>>> colors. He had a term for it. Duffing or something strange like
>>>> that. Anyone know what it was?
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>AFAIK, they're just called "aluminum flake", or "mica".
>>
>> How about "Leafing?" I found that term on the Internet.
>>
>
>
>Um, no.

 

Frank Boettcher <fboettcher@comcast.net> wrote in
news:mfuhd1l11pogp4thud7i3dfka4n7okvbrd@4ax.com:

> On 16 Jul 2005 02:44:43 GMT, "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote:
>
>>Dick <LeadWinger> wrote in
>>news:18ogd1dvi1pc7be2gq21gv9agecgileipl@4ax.co m:
>>
>>> On 16 Jul 2005 01:18:17 GMT, "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>AFAIK, they're just called "aluminum flake", or "mica".
>>>
>>> How about "Leafing?" I found that term on the Internet.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Um, no.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Well, actually yes.


<snip>


> Normal automotive metallic coatings are
> not of the "leafing" type


You just told me "yes", but then right after that you say "no".

Which is it?


--
TeGGeR®

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

Dick wrote:
> We had some body work done on our 2003 Accord, and they did a poor job
> of matching the colors between the hood and fenders. When I pointed
> it out to the estimator, he said they must have used (too much or too
> little) of the metallic particles. Causes the paint to reflect light
> differently, and gives the effect of two, different colors. He had a
> term for it. Duffing or something strange like that. Anyone know
> what it was?
>
> Dick


------------------------------

On DODGE products I've driven, the metalic particles in the paint were
called:

:-) _R _U _S _T :-)

Have a good weekend. 'Curly'

 

On 16 Jul 2005 12:48:55 GMT, "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote:

>Frank Boettcher <fboettcher@comcast.net> wrote in
>news:mfuhd1l11pogp4thud7i3dfka4n7okvbrd@4ax.com :
>
>> On 16 Jul 2005 02:44:43 GMT, "TeGGeR®" <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote:
>>
>>>Dick <LeadWinger> wrote in
>>>news:18ogd1dvi1pc7be2gq21gv9agecgileipl@4ax.com :
>>>
>
>
>You just told me "yes", but then right after that you say "no".
>
>Which is it?


Yes, the term "leafing" related to metallic coatings exists. I'm only
experienced with it in powder coatings and don't know if it is also in
liquid coatings. But I do know that if it is used without clear coat
it will not work. While it looks fine when initially applied, the
aluminum comes to the surface and can be rubbed off giving an
inconsistent look. When immediatley clearcoated, it is absolutley
beautiful and durable. The original poster asked about the term. I
was offering clarification.

No, I've never seen it in automotive (after market) coatings, but,
while I've painted several cars (most recently a '90 Accord with a
Dupont metallic), I've not looked extensively to know that it is not
offered.

No intention to offend,

Frank

 

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:09:45 -0500, Frank Boettcher
<fboettcher@comcast.net> wrote:

>Yes, the term "leafing" related to metallic coatings exists. I'm only
>experienced with it in powder coatings and don't know if it is also in
>liquid coatings. But I do know that if it is used without clear coat
>it will not work. While it looks fine when initially applied, the
>aluminum comes to the surface and can be rubbed off giving an
>inconsistent look. When immediatley clearcoated, it is absolutley
>beautiful and durable. The original poster asked about the term. I
>was offering clarification.
>
>No, I've never seen it in automotive (after market) coatings, but,
>while I've painted several cars (most recently a '90 Accord with a
>Dupont metallic), I've not looked extensively to know that it is not
>offered.
>
>No intention to offend,
>
>Frank

I am the OP. When I take the car in tomorrow, I will ask about the
term he used and report it back to this thread.

I can't believe what they charge for the paint for Honda's. We had
only the hood and front bumper cover painted and the paint material
alone was $400. Would hate to think of what it would cost to paint a
house with that paint! :-)

Dick

 

On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 12:09:45 -0500, Frank Boettcher
<fboettcher@comcast.net> wrote:

>Yes, the term "leafing" related to metallic coatings exists. I'm only
>experienced with it in powder coatings and don't know if it is also in
>liquid coatings. But I do know that if it is used without clear coat
>it will not work. While it looks fine when initially applied, the
>aluminum comes to the surface and can be rubbed off giving an
>inconsistent look. When immediatley clearcoated, it is absolutley
>beautiful and durable. The original poster asked about the term. I
>was offering clarification.
>
>No, I've never seen it in automotive (after market) coatings, but,
>while I've painted several cars (most recently a '90 Accord with a
>Dupont metallic), I've not looked extensively to know that it is not
>offered.
>
>No intention to offend,
>
>Frank

Now that I have looked through several sites on auto painting I'm
pretty sure the term he used was FLOP, which is the change you see
when viewing from different angles. He said that had to be changed
when they repaint it.

Dick

 

I think this is the right term. The metallic flakes have to be
oriented a certain way or it doesn't match the car.

By the way, only high-end cars have mica, and the Accord doesn't
qualify. Accord is metallic.

 

On 17 Jul 2005 13:32:03 -0700, jmattis@attglobal.net wrote:

>I think this is the right term. The metallic flakes have to be
>oriented a certain way or it doesn't match the car.
>
>By the way, only high-end cars have mica, and the Accord doesn't
>qualify. Accord is metallic.

You mean the Accord is not a high-end car? Dang. Could have fooled
me. :-)

Dick

 

Accord is a study of efficiency, and doesn't indulge with true excess.
After 5,500 miles with my '04 EX V6, and coming out of an Infiniti
I30t, I can name lots of cost cutters utilized in the Accord. And it
doesn't bother me, because I chose to save about $10,000 even though I
could afford it.

*Soundproofing -- completely inadequate.
*Limited Slip Differential -- missing in action, this car desperately
need it considering the 240 hp. The Traction Control cost them almost
nothing to add, and doesn't work worth a hoot.
*Leather -- definitely low grade stuff, and will probably start
disintegrating in 5 years if not cared for religiously.
*No fog or turn lights standard.
*Unbelieveably cheezy front license plate holder doesn't even fit
standard-sized plates.
*The paint has little luster, and no depth at all. You can wax all you
want, you won't improve the appearance any.
*The ride, at least with the standard 16" alloys on the EX V6, is much
too jiggly. To show the TL in a better light, I think Honda
intentionally sucked some of the "double wishbone performance" out of
the Accord. Good on paper, mediocre ride in actuality.
*Jeez, just how many pieces did they use to assemble the dash? It
looks good, but seems to be a lego set.
*Creaks, rattles.
*Too little boost in the power steering at low speeds, again to
distinguish it from the TL.
*Even though the stereo system is a great improvement over previous
Honda's, they couldn't have spent more than $5 on the rear speakers.
Exotic Neodymium magnets? HA. Small and cheap, and can't even keep up
with the head unit's marginally good output.

 

Dick wrote:
> I can't believe what they charge for the paint for Honda's. We had
> only the hood and front bumper cover painted and the paint material
> alone was $400. Would hate to think of what it would cost to paint a
> house with that paint! :-)
>

that $400 wasnt just for a quart of paint. chances are, they had to buy:

primer
plastic primer for bumpers (unless you like the peel-off paint look)
base coat- dual stage paint
urethane thinner
urethane hardener
color coat- dual stage paint
clear coat.

that works out to an average of $57 per item. color coat was probably in
the area of $100/qt.

compare that to $80 for a 5 gallon bucket of premium latex paint at
lowes. i was able to paint my moms house with 2 buckets, and a "wagner
paint crew" sprayer.

80 quarts of paint, times $300 (ill leave off the plastic primer) means
$24k for the nicest looking home in southern california! hehe

 

Dick wrote:
> On 17 Jul 2005 13:32:03 -0700, jmattis@attglobal.net wrote:
>
>
>>I think this is the right term. The metallic flakes have to be
>>oriented a certain way or it doesn't match the car.
>>
>>By the way, only high-end cars have mica, and the Accord doesn't
>>qualify. Accord is metallic.
>
>
> You mean the Accord is not a high-end car? Dang. Could have fooled
> me. :-)
>
> Dick

i saw a "stripped" version (DX?) of the latest accord, and it stuck out
like a turd in a punch bowl. the mirrors and door handles were black,
and it was a light colored car.

 

On 17 Jul 2005 13:32:03 -0700, jmattis@attglobal.net wrote:

>I think this is the right term. The metallic flakes have to be
>oriented a certain way or it doesn't match the car.
>
>By the way, only high-end cars have mica, and the Accord doesn't
>qualify. Accord is metallic.

Here's the latest on my light shading problem. The car has now been
painted a second time with very little improvement. (Desert Mist
color.) They will start a third painting in the morning. The body
shop has run numerous test panels, called the paint manufacturers,
etc. The maddening part is that the entire front of the car was
painted (twice) with the same paint, same gun, same painter, etc. Yet
the hood looks completely different depending upon how you look at it
in sunlight. Sometimes it looks dark gold. Sometimes it looks very
silver. They are blaming it on the Honda formula for the metallic
particles.

I went over to the body shop where I should have taken it in the first
place (does all work for local Honda dealer) and they said it is not a
problem with the metallic particles at all, but is because the first
shop does not use OEM (PPG) paint. They said if you use Dupont or a
couple of others he named, that is exactly the problem you will have.
I have to think he knows what he is talking about as they do Honda's
all day long. Anyone else had this experience with non-OEM paints?

Dick