bodge wrote:just seen the notes i jotted down at the time of speaking to the paint supplier and if i wrote it down word for word they spoke of medium and large silver flake ? this may lead to confusion to the likes of me and you bob but im sure they know the differance beetwen a mettalic and a metalflake within the paint industry,they are after all doing it for a living theres also the possibility they were dumbing it down for me as im obviously not trade and a bit thick.
my understanding is that mica is the additive that defines a pearl paint,they are not differant or similar one is the defining ingrediant of the other.
from my reading of various paint forums and suppliers sites pearl/pearlescent is simply a word to describe the look of a mica infused paint which could also be substituted with the term pearlesque.
reading back thro the thread you (bob) seem to seperate mica from pearlescent due to the very differant visual effect of a basic pearl/pearlescent paint as used by ducati and others from the later more vibrant and obvious effect of what you consider pearlescent which is understandable but the paint industry dont from my research seem to make that distinction.
mica or its modern substitutes, within the industry seem to all be considered pearls or pearlescent/pearlesque the differant visual effects are created by different methods of application. the ducati/early method of using mica/pearls/pearlescent seems to be simply adding it to a solid basecoat. apparently the deeper the mica in the finish the more it "pops" so by clearcoating over the top of a mica/pearl/pearlescent base coat you get a more dramatic effect but it can also be placed in a tinted laquer over a solid base or in a solid base with a tinted laquer ontop or even used in a 3 coat system ! this maybe why, from my reading so far the industry dont use differant names for every possible effect you can create using mica or its modern substitutes they just talk of pearls and then the mixes and methods used.
this is my understanding from all ive read recently but im certainly no expert so if anyone can point to a definitive source on this ide certainly be interested.
although tbh if i hadnt allready ordered the paint ide be seriosly tempted to paint it red by now.
" theres also the possibility they were dumbing it down "
____ The act of 'dumbing-down', (amongst other conception losses), seems to lead to
designation-crashing due-to over-broadening of classification-segments ! _ So if taken to more extreme dumbing-down, then a top-expert might try explaining to a monkey that there's only just two types of paint - 'solid' and 'non-solid', (and of-course not even attempt to explain that there's many other trees & branches of multiple classifiable subcategory-segments to individually designate each & every existing variant). _ But even the TOP-notch top-experts would-not be able to keep
all the non-solid paint-variant designation-names all clear & straight ! _ So some acceptable amount of dumbing-down inevitably has to be acceptable, but I think we all ought be smarter than monkeys enough to not go-ahead & continue-on ignoring our common-sense ability to adhere sensibly chosen designation-wording that best describes any obvious differences which most-any human is
capable of seeing !
" my understanding is that mica is the additive that defines a pearl paint,they are not differant "
____ Unless material taken from actual pearls is included in a paint-type, there really
ought-not be any paint referred-to simply as 'pearl' paint !
However any paint that fairly exhibits a pearl-like finish-reflection, does deserve the name-designation: 'pearlesque'.
__ Anyone with normal sight really ought-to be able to see & note the fairly obvious difference in appearance between the 'mica-paints' (as used on many Duke-models) and common 'pearlesque' type paints (which I don't believe were ever factory applied to Duke-singles) ! _ As the contributory particles within mica-paint more-so looks like
micro-metallic, whereas pearlesque-paint looks as if
it's particles have been further pulverized into very-fine chalky dust !
So I'd agree that any contributing mica-content is indeed not exactly the same (between std.mica-paint and pearlesque-paint), (
although I wouldn't expect the likes of a monkey to conceive any difference).
" from my reading of various paint forums and suppliers sites pearl/pearlescent is simply a word to describe the look of a mica infused paint which could also be substituted with the term pearlesque. "
____ So apparently your web-surfing has revealed that either the chanced-upon contributed writings were allowed to be worded in a dumbed-down fashion, or the writers themselves were communicating merely with their-own knowledge which had been attained in dumbed-down form to begin with.
__ Why would both designations -(pearlesque & pearlescent) exist to denote the very-same category-segment of paint ? _ As there would've been no need to coin the name 'pearlescent' when 'pearlesque' already filled-the-bill (prior to any new development in pearlesque-paint).
Obviously the newer term 'pearlescent' has been derived from the previously established term 'florescent' (which had become 'coined' to represent the peculiarly-bright red; orange; yellow; green; & blue light-
reflective 'florescent-colors' that seem to emit their seemingly self-radiant light-colors in a glowing-luminosity, [as-if lite-up by a black-light in a dark room, except rather in a normally-lite environment]).
When ya see real 'pearlescent' paint-finish (especially in sunlight), the difference from mere pearlesque-paint is quite striking (similarly as like florescent-paint colors compare to pastel-paint colors) !
If you ever see pearlesque and pearlescent side by side in sunlight, you'd then have-to become inspired to make-sure to always keep references to them well distinguished, (and probably even care to straighten-out others who use those two terms interchangeably) !
" you (bob) seem to seperate mica from pearlescent due to the very differant visual effect of a basic pearl/pearlescent paint as used by ducati and others from the later more vibrant and obvious effect of what you consider pearlescent which is understandable but the paint industry dont from my research seem to make that distinction. "
____ Firstly, it seems I need to make it clear that Ducati (singles) never (originally) sported any pearlescent-paint or
real pearlesque-paint ! _ But it would be fair enough to refer to the original mica-paint as
pearlesque-like paint-finish.
I-myself think it would be most descriptive to call the stock paint "micro-metallic", (rather than any of the other barely applicable designations). _ But since the particle-ingredient is rather 'mica' instead of a metal, I'm thusly fine with continuing the acceptance of the long-established
mica-term for (more accurately !) designating the stock mica-paint.
So why ever refer to the stock paint by any other name-designation !? _ As doing-so just clouds communication concerning detail-differences between the somewhat similar paint-types !
__ Your minimal sampling of the entire paint-industry is quite probably fairly representative of what they (as a whole) bother to release for public-consumption. _ And I'm really not surprised that they don't promote much distinction between paint-types,, since from
their perspective,
we (outside of their domain), are the (equivalent)
monkeys !
But rather more-so likely, the industry probably hasn't adopted a 'standardization' to officially clarify the coined-names for permanently establishing the various (appropriately acceptable) designations to eternally represent their respective paint-types.
" mica or its modern substitutes, within the industry seem to all be considered pearls or pearlescent/pearlesque "
____ Of-course that's quite fairly understandable whenever referring to newer paint-finishes which became created
after their respective name-designation had come to be coined (for the very-first of such example of paint).
But it's fairly disconcerting to allow a new pearl-type paint assume the identity of the old mica-paint,, so if an intended duplication-paint is still pretty-much the exact-same formula as the old original mica-paint, then it's really not fair (and also misleading) to refer to it as any kind of more-modern pearl-type paint (just-because the pearl-name has become more popular).
(
Similarly,, if the new Cagiva name had popularly stuck [instead of giving-way back to the 'Ducati' name again], and someone created a complete new motorcycle made of all nos.Ducati-parts produced back before the Cagiva-name took-over Ducati,, I doubt that very many of us would agree that the resulted DUCATI-bike ought rather be called a 'Cagiva' (just cuz that's a new/popular updated-name) !
So in like-kind, a real original-type 'mica-paint' ought not be reclassified & called a 'pearl-paint' (just cuz 'pearl' happens to be the newest popular updated-name [for similar appearing paint-finish]) !
But of-course if the modern pearl-paint imitation -[of the original mica-paint] is-not really the same-formula as the original mica-paint, then it ought not be called mica-paint !)
" this maybe why,
the industry dont use differant names for every possible effect you can create using mica or its modern substitutes "
____ No-doubt,, as it would be hard enough for them themselves to keep it all straight, let-alone bother with allowing us-monkeys to try to do-so.
" this is my understanding from all ive read recently but im certainly no expert "
____ But you do seem to be heading in that general direction for-sure,, and just may possibly become as an expert, if you ever decide to adopt
law&order to avoid using distinguishing-descriptive paint-designations interchangeably (as you current seem inclined to be willing to do).
____ Hopefully someone-else with a fairly decent understanding/grasp of what's-what concerning paint-designations (relating to their paint-finish appearance) will provide
his opinion on what's most commonly accepted as generally appropriate (in regards to this off-shoot discussion of ours).
Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob
