Auto Paint Query

On Jul 30, 9:29*am, "PanHandler" > wrote:
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> Is this the old SAAB? *If so, roll that thing into Earl Scheib and
> tell 'em you want the $300 special.
>
> You might want to ask if you can stick around and help 'em tape it, so
> they don't paint your tires, rims, and windows.
>
> While we're on the topic, what appears to be the clear coat on my 95
> BMW has blistered and cracked in a few spots on the trunk lid -
> must've been bird turd - any recommendations for that?
>
> How would the overspray hit the "rims" and not the entire wheel? * :-)

Overspray? This is Earl Scheib, that wouldn't be overspray. If it
ain't taped, it's painted.

a.

> wrote:
>On Jul 30, 9:29=A0am, "PanHandler" > wrote:
>>
>> How would the overspray hit the "rims" and not the entire wheel? =A0 :-)
>
>Overspray? This is Earl Scheib, that wouldn't be overspray. If it
>ain't taped, it's painted.

Hey, at least they use the spray gun instead of a 4" brush....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

lein wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2:35 pm, Mercellus Bohren > wrote:
>> On Jul 29, 4:29 pm, "NapalmHeart" > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> "Mercellus Bohren" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> I decided to do some touch-up painting on my car where the
>>>> road
>>>> pebbles had dinged the paint on the hood in the front near
>>>> the
>>>> headlight. I ordered the correct touch-up paint based on
>>>> the paint
>>>> color number. I guess I got a little overzealous in my
>>>> usage, because
>>>> now I have a pretty funny looking patchwork of obvious
>>>> touch-up paint
>>>> swatches in about a six-inch area of the car hood (or
>>>> bonnet for you
>>>> brit-holes). There are also a couple of other small spots
>>>> that look
>>>> funny.
>>>> A local auto body place does computer paint matching. Can
>>>> I have them
>>>> just paint these areas, or will they want to paint the
>>>> whole car? How
>>>> much do you think to just touch-up my rsfck-up?
>>>> Thanks for any useful information.
>>> They should be able to just fix your mess. At the worst
>>> they would repaint the hood.
>>> Ken
>> I'm sure prices vary. But, say they wanted to paint the whole hood.
>> What would the going rate be for just that at decent auto body shop? I
>> really don't have a clue what something like this would cost. I've
>> searched the web of semi-useless info, and I can't seem to get a fix
>> on the dollars.
>
> Why don't you just buy a can of flat-black spray paint and use it to
> paint the hood. If your wife says anything, tell her you did this to
> reduce sun glare.


Take it to Earl Scheib. He'll paint ANY car for just Twenty-nine
ninety-five!

--
Yrs.,

Ike

************************************************** ******
"L'audace, L'audace, Toujour L'audace."
************************************************** ******
http://www.frappr.com/rsfckers

In article >, Ike > wrote:

>Take it to Earl Scheib. He'll paint ANY car for just Twenty-nine
>ninety-five!

Friend of mine checked into that back in the 70s.... the ads said "we'll paint
your entire car for only $29.95."

He found that was literally true.

If you wanted them to mask off the glass, tires, trim, headlights, taillights,
turn signals, and so forth before they started spraying -- well, that was an
extra couple hundred dollars.

Scott Dorsey wrote:

> > wrote:
> >On Jul 30, 9:29=A0am, "PanHandler" > wrote:
> > >
> >> How would the overspray hit the "rims" and not the entire wheel?
> =A0 :-)
> >
> > Overspray? This is Earl Scheib, that wouldn't be overspray. If it
> > ain't taped, it's painted.
>
> Hey, at least they use the spray gun instead of a 4" brush....
> --scott

I remember a maintenance department pickup my highschool had painted
back in 1974. Literally _everything_ was painted schoolbuss yellow
except the headlights and the windows. We thought it was the funniest
thing we'd ever seen.

Back then they had a $29.95 special, as I recall it, and my school got
every drop of paint they could.

--
Steve Bell
New Life Home Improvement
Arlington, TX

KLS > wrote in
:


>
> I still don't understand why you need details about his/her disability
> before allowing yourself to be sympathetic. Is there some "I'm more
> deaf than you" standard of yours s/he has to meet?
>


I know why you're doing this. You're just trying to be nice; to be a good
person, sticking up for life's downtrodden. That's a normal reaction, and
an admirable one. It helps prove that human beings are, in the main,
decent, caring, and just want to help make things better. But in reacting
this way, you're not seeing the difference between having a problem and
using that problem as a self-serving ruse for other things.

What got my back up was the OP's use of official deaf-bureaucracy
buzzwords, like "hearing impaired", and "disability", and then playing the
victim card by saying he was worried somebody would "take advantage" of him
because of his "disability".

I have one working ear, with a hearing aid stuck in that one (deafness
diagnosed at age 5; am 46 now). I have less unassisted hearing than most
people officially classified as deaf. In spite of that, I function more-or-
less normally in hearing society. It irks me no end to have the deaf and/or
hard-of-hearing crowd pull the victim thing.

Just speaking for myself, of course, I find the idea of victimization to be
grossly insulting, as is the idea of "impaired" or "disabled", especially
in the sense of that condition requiring me to receive special treatment,
or making me subject to specially bad treatment.


--
Tegger

On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 01:05:48 +0000 (UTC), Tegger >
wrote:
>KLS > wrote in
:
>>
>> I still don't understand why you need details about his/her disability
>> before allowing yourself to be sympathetic. Is there some "I'm more
>> deaf than you" standard of yours s/he has to meet?
>
>I know why you're doing this. You're just trying to be nice; to be a good
>person, sticking up for life's downtrodden. That's a normal reaction, and
>an admirable one. It helps prove that human beings are, in the main,
>decent, caring, and just want to help make things better. But in reacting
>this way, you're not seeing the difference between having a problem and
>using that problem as a self-serving ruse for other things.

I think you forgot that after warming up the OP with a little
sympathy, I told him/her s/he really had to get local quotes, period,
and would get more productive responses here by posting those as
points of comparison.

>What got my back up was the OP's use of official deaf-bureaucracy
>buzzwords, like "hearing impaired", and "disability", and then playing the
>victim card by saying he was worried somebody would "take advantage" of him
>because of his "disability".

I understand this, too (you and I have a lot more in common than you
might realize), but in my opinion your initial response was not
instructive enough to the OP to avoid this kind of language. What you
say here makes a lot more sense.

>I have one working ear, with a hearing aid stuck in that one (deafness
>diagnosed at age 5; am 46 now). I have less unassisted hearing than most
>people officially classified as deaf. In spite of that, I function more-or-
>less normally in hearing society. It irks me no end to have the deaf and/or
>hard-of-hearing crowd pull the victim thing.

Don't forget: your success in society does not assure others' similar
success. What works for you doesn't for a lot of people, especially
if they can't talk or speechread. And simply notifying people that
they're deaf or h-o-h isn't a "pull the victim thing" in my book as it
helps people understand whom they're dealing with. But I do agree
that often this information is irrelevant to matters at hand on
newsgroups. Cocktail parties and job interviews are entirely
different situations.

>Just speaking for myself, of course, I find the idea of victimization to be
>grossly insulting, as is the idea of "impaired" or "disabled", especially
>in the sense of that condition requiring me to receive special treatment,
>or making me subject to specially bad treatment.

Makes sense to me, too.

In article >, wrote:
>On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:53:11 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Ike >
> wrote:
>>
>>>Take it to Earl Scheib. He'll paint ANY car for just Twenty-nine
>>>ninety-five!
>>
>>Friend of mine checked into that back in the 70s.... the ads said "we'll paint
>
>>your entire car for only $29.95."
>>
>>He found that was literally true.
>>
>>If you wanted them to mask off the glass, tires, trim, headlights, taillights,
>
>>turn signals, and so forth before they started spraying -- well, that was an
>>extra couple hundred dollars.
>
>No it wasn't. The labor charge was 29.95. The extra cost was for materials and
>paint. It was not anywhere near a couple hundred dollars. The masking job was
>not always exactly perfect, but they did mask the car. You can still get a
>"production" paint job a Maaco today for about $400 complete.

I'm just telling you what my friend told me...

On Jul 31, 5:58*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
> In article >, wrote:
> >On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 19:53:11 GMT, (Doug Miller) wrote:
>
> >>In article >, Ike >
> > wrote:
>
> >>>Take it to Earl Scheib. *He'll paint ANY car for just Twenty-nine
> >>>ninety-five!
>
> >>Friend of mine checked into that back in the 70s.... the ads said "we'll paint
>
> >>your entire car for only $29.95."
>
> >>He found that was literally true.
>
> >>If you wanted them to mask off the glass, tires, trim, headlights, taillights,
>
> >>turn signals, and so forth before they started spraying -- well, that was an
> >>extra couple hundred dollars.
>
> >No it wasn't. The labor charge was 29.95. The extra cost was for materials and
> >paint. It was not anywhere near a couple hundred dollars. The masking job was
> >not always exactly perfect, but they did mask the car. You can still get a
> >"production" paint job a Maaco today for about $400 complete.
>
> I'm just telling you what my friend told me...

Now that's funny.

On Jul 29, 4:59*pm, Mercellus Bohren > wrote:
> I decided to do some touch-up painting on my car where the road
> pebbles had dinged the paint on the hood in the front near the
> headlight. I ordered the correct touch-up paint based on the paint
> color number. I guess I got a little overzealous in my usage, because
> now I have a pretty funny looking patchwork of obvious touch-up paint
> swatches in about a six-inch area of the car hood (or bonnet for you
> brit-holes). There are also a couple of other small spots that look
> funny.
>
> A local auto body place does computer paint matching. Can I have them
> just paint these areas, or will they want to paint the whole car? How
> much do you think to just touch-up my rsfck-up?
>
> Thanks for any useful information.

In addition to the other suggestions you've received on this issue, if
you want to try to fix it yourself, you could do the following...

make sure that the touch up paint that you have applied is *above* the
surface of the original paint. If not, put some more on. Get to a
real auto paint supply and get yourself a "nib file" or "run razor" or
similar device, an assortment of fine (1000-2000) grit sandpaper, a
good power buffer and lambswool pad, and some polishing compound.
Explain to the counter guy what you're trying to do, he will likely be
able to offer recommendations on specific products to use. Carefully
bring the level of the touch up paint down to the level of the
surrounding paint with the nib file, taking care not to actually cut
into the original paint. Then wash the panel THOROUGHLY with dish
soap and warm water, rinse, and wet sand the panel lightly with fine
grit sandpaper - nothing you'll find at your local hardware store,
start with 1000 or 1500, work up to 2000. Don't try to take a whole
lot of paint off, you're just gently smoothing the surface. Then buff
with polishing compound on a lambswool pad, wash again with your dish
soap, and apply two or three coats of good wax.

enjoy!

nate