Packard Forum Index » Project Blogs

Here's a Clipper from last year...

Attach file:

---

  (113.00 KB)


  (115.44 KB)


  (107.50 KB)

What model Clipper & is the Clipper dash pictured pre or postwar? That's an impressive job but the pattern doesn't quite look like what I think I see in a few pictures (not great quality) gathered of 21st series Custom dashes.

I'm trying to determine what is really supposed to be there on my 47. Someone with less artistic talent than I have did their interpretation with a swirling paint brush. Except for a few spots under chrome, not a lot left to go by.

HH56,

I'm not sure what your car is supposed to look like but maybe it's this?

flickr.com/photos/sjb4photos/4501236861/lightbox/

Rich

RichK, thanks much for the referral on the 47 dash. One of the best dash photos I've seen.

Sorry your experience turned out to be less than stellar but if I read the post correctly, at least it will be redone. Is he going to do it or someone else and this time hopefully to your satisfaction.

Howard, here is a photo of the glove box door on my 47 Custom Clipper. Lighting is not as good as RichK's, but it does show the pattern.

Attach file:

---

  (40.79 KB)

Oh, I tried hard to work this out with him. He initially was very resistant to anything being wrong. After some time, and a suggestion by me that others may like to see actual photos of his work, he stated to send it back (why spend another 300 in shipping). To that I say "fool me once....". There are too many quality issues. Frankly, I have concerns I would ever see my parts again.

* He did a horrible job with the paint and polish
* Scratched up the new chrome
* Cut up at least one of the brand new windows I sent to him leaving a poor radius and bevel.
* Jacked the install on the the rear quarter on the other side as now the latch doesn't align. (I have pictures that show it was fine before sending).

If anyone might not be paying attention, that's everything he was asked to work on. Also, he never mentioned he was having window issues, which further disappoints me.

My suggestion to him was I would eat the chrome and chrome scratch, window install and incorrect cutting, and ALL shipping (~900 the work and shipping ), and for him to return the funds for the "restoration wood grain". He would have nothing to do with it.


I've been chatting with GIT. So far, I'm impressed and I'll give it a whirl to do myself.

Rich

Hello Rich:

Sorry to hear about all the trouble you are having. IMHO you need to get your parts and as much money as you can from this guy and then run, don't walk, away.

By the way, if you do not have a copy of the 1941 Data Book, then you need to get one. The Data Book shows on pages 25 and 28 that the woodgraining for the 110 models was different from the 120 models. The book cites that the 110 had "...[a] a very beautiful combination of crotch and straight (Cuban) mahogany graining.." for both the instrument panel and window garnish mouldings.

Meanwhile, the 120s and 160s both had burled walnut woodgraining. I have no idea what butt walnut is - it is NOT in Packard's lexicon.

Finally, try and chase down an original 110 and get a good look as to the type of wood and pattern that was used. I have both a 120 and 160 model and they are grained as burled walnut. The Data Book does have some pre-production errors, so you will want to double check about Cuban Mahogany for your 110.

Best of luck.

--Roger--

here is a video of the burl elm pattern being installed on a 34 Packard dash.youtube.com/watch?v=x_tLs59WdTo&feature=player_embedded

If you buy the GIT kit, you get two patterns. Burl elm and straight grain mahogany are the ones I use most. GIT will tell you the correct base coat colors, ink colors and patterns to use. FYI, be sure to use their base coat paints. If you use Krylon or other rattle can paints, the ink won't work properly. I know because I tried it! Just be sure to practice on some old fenders or similar to get good at it. The toughest part is getting the right amount of ink on the roller so that it transfers well.

My applications are done in an artists method. I look at the pattern, some real wood like it, I "paint a picture" of it on the parts. So far, so good I think. That Clipper I posted was a 41. The original grain was a burled walnut with a straight grain on the main windows. My color is indeed more "fresh" and closer to what was never exposed to sunlight. One consideration seldom given to this whole topic, and that's the original substrates. They were cellulose lacquers and varnishes. If you were to hold up a glass jar of that stuff into some bright light it looks like beer. Very gold in it's make up and when exposed to UV rays it went green. To look at something 40, 50, 60, hell even 80 years later, can we really expect that it remained colorfast? Of course not.

Roger, the term "butt walnut" is in the Packard parts book as the grain listed for some of their parts. In later years it simply said walnut burl, and frankly even a butt walnut is a form of burl as well. The Butt Walnut was also used in some 32-3-4 Packards but it's rarely seen. From a veneer standpoint, the butt walnut looks as though it's taken from "the side of" the knots rather than across their faces. It's a handsome alternative to the usual burl. Lastly, the burl is walnut, the straight grain is the Packard "Carpathian Elm", not the other way around as is so commonly stated. Again, that according to the 30s parts book, not history book written post-Packard. As I said, I've been doing this since 1973 and developed my process over time. One of my brushes is over 40yrs old. I'm 3rd generation at this and will soon be advertising the craft to my fellow Packard owners. If you think YOU guys are picky, y'all ought to deal with early Ford guys! Just sayin...

Hi Guys,

Here are a couple of photos of my parts before I sent them out. I felt like they provided good examples of pattern prior to the RL Bailey restoration.

Anyway, I'd really like input on the pattern. GIT feels pretty confident they have the match. I did read the 1941 data book, and am perplexed a bit at that - I saw a couple of other anomalies when comparing my car to the data book.

Rich

Attach file:

---

  (20.61 KB)


  (26.33 KB)


  (25.35 KB)


  (17.61 KB)


  (19.67 KB)