As many of you have noted we have had a good technical debate for quite some time on this topic. I have completed my research into this issue and have reached some overall conclusions as to the paint color used by chevrolet and in doing so have also made some informed determinations as to the "0" code on the TT and why it was used. This ongoing research over a three year period has left no stone un-turned and the conclusion is that ERMINE WHITE was the color used.

The overall direction that all the information provided and the modern science used to make the determination clearly points in one current direction.

The technical detail in support (and there is Plenty to report) to follow later this weekend.

Now time to let it begin to sink in

Lots of questions coming I'm sure. This is to be a long thread for sure.. I look forward to starting to bang this around Phil and thanks in advance for working so tirelessly for all these years

Phil....

Did you say 0 and Ermine White in the same sentence? Then what's C????

Is it something to do with lacquer vs. enamel?

I can't wait to see your technical report!!!!

Well.... You've got my attention!!
Andy V

I'm standing in the "can't wait till then line" also.

Phil,


First off!!!



I do not like the way this post sounds...I know the time and effort you put into this and most of all I know you are a man of science but I'm concerned a wee bit....


I have some questions...

How many original trucks were sampled?
You can't count the heat damaged cowl paint from my truck!

Why do feel the first batch of cars were shot in Enamel?

Why do you not think the GM literature that you read mentioning Ermine being the color wasn't for the mass amount of planned C-1 availability to the National market?
The 0-1 cars were available for only the first week and only within the Local region.

How do we know this same literature isn't the root of the Ermine with clear crap?

Why would Chevrolet even tag their cars with a Special Paint code when they were really using an already coded color?



Is your paint guy still leading you to believe that these paint scan cameras( which ever one is used) can capture the exact make up of a paint that was shot over 40 years ago even after the standard breakdown of tints (over time) and even the UV protected, seemingly flawless original paint?

Why is it hard to believe the words from someone that actually worked the program 41 years ago?


These are the types of questions that need to be addressed and answered!
Some of these questions will be answered more with the interpretation of the facts such as this whole paint scan time machine thing. A system that was designed only to match paint as best as it can for the insurance agencies!


I bring all of this up only because it wasn't too long ago that the matching of this paint almost pointed you in the direction outside of the GM line...... AND MOST IMPORTANTLY....WE CAN'T AFFORD BEING WRONG ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS!


Please don't bury us with too much techincal stuff!

Hey you guys gotta give me a little time to post this stuff up...

Tony,

Don't worry we will have plenty of time to thrash this topic to death. Oh yea- Science, "like a Pepsi Gotta have it".

All doubters, Haters, Spectators in here! Admission is free! I am buying the brew While we are at it - also trying to figure out a way to do a "dime a dog" night too.

quote:

While we are at it - also trying to figure out a way to do a "dime a dog" night too.

Part# 1

How the heck did we get here? Where is Here?

"Here" is the land of "Myths" and we are about to bust one, but first the Myth and the follow on Myths:

So "0" on the TT indicated Clear Coat over Ermine White (the "0-1 Paint Code" Myth)

One Myth gives birth to another - so soon came the additional follow on Myth that since the 0-1 cars had the "clear Coat" then therefore all 0-1 coded Camaros were IMS "festival Cars" and all of the other C-1 cars were official Camaro IPC production replica's... and so on... . other Myths soon followed like the Wopper on the Canadian Indy Pace cars AJ Foyt connection.. bla, bla,bla (Well You get the picture) now back to the topic.

The history, of how the 0-1 Clear coat Myth got started:


I went back to the earliest of the IPC author archives I have. There was an issue of Super Chevy Published in Feb 1983. Author Doug Marion states that he did "a few years of research". Neat enough, Marion states in the article that the production documents on the Pace Car program were already "missing" at that time.

In the article (which is comparitively well written BTW) - Not a damn thing mentioned about Clear Coat over Ermine in the Marion article so - the Myth was not yet started.

Later in the 1980's we had the rise of the Camaro Clubs. More "Research" was done, books were written and Bingo there it is the "Myth" appears. "The Clear Coat" over the Cars to "keep the decals looking nice and fresh" - for the month of May.

Despite the fact that there is not one shread of evidence to support this story -it is still the current accepted story and is repeated with each new Camaro book written, even today.

Why did they need this story? Simple. The Camaro clubs and the Camaro authors right up to this day need an easy way to explain away the presence of the "0" code on the Trim tag. As we know by the Mid 1980's the codes on the 1967 Camaro Trim Tag were broken. So here is how it likely all came together:

Rememberences of the period had no doubt confirmed just how good the cars looked on race day. The existing Chevrolet documentation from the promotion had already stated in writing that the Paint on the 1967 Pace car was was Ermine White, so the Clear Coat Myth was simply created to reconcile the stories from the eyewitnesses on the scene in 1967 - and to fix the issue of the why Chevrolet would use an "0" code instead of a "C" on the Trim tag. The cars could then be easily seperated into "festival cars" and "replica's" and all was good in Camaro Myth Land.

Trouble for the Myth

Things really started to unravel for the Myth in the early 1990's when the old USCC began to note that the number of 0-1 cars was quickly exceeding the Math model for the numbers of vehicles surviving. Meaning if the other major myth of a production total of "120 cars made" was to hold-then the USCC had an amazing number of cars in its registry already and also each already owned by USCC members. The odds of that ocurring at random were and are not likely, and as a result as early as 1993 the USCC began to question total production of IPC's to be likely much higher that previously thaught.

The internet and this site

We built our own registry which was a continuation of the registry compiled by Matt Murphy. We quickly ran into major Math problems just like the USCC did with the sheer numbers of 0-1 cars listed. Far more then would be required by IMS for use in the 500 festival or other race related activities.

But there is more: Cars owned by members here with 0-1 tags that were delivered to dealers - not to the Chevrolet Zone or to IMS. So with one myth falling the other was sure to fall also.

Not one member here found any traces of Clear Coat of any type on the surviving original paint areas on any of the 0-1 cars participating here. The hunt for the truth was on!

So we began to wonder what the "0" code could mean?

And with that the research began three long years ago.

The latest public thread is still on this board and before I go into Part #2 I would strongly suggest this as required reading if you have not already done so:

https://camaropacecars.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/1490019733/m/7960004724

Ok ......

Phil. My appologies I too have tried to start threads in the past but had people responding before I could even get to the next segment...sorry

I think this thread is going to be good.. regardless of the outcome I am praying that we can all keep cool and really debate the heck of of this thing. This is important and the outcome is a top 5 topic for our entire hobby

I procliam that I shall keep an open mind throughout the whole thing and my friend #78 is anxiously awaiting what color she shall be shod

Tom,

All is good. I would like people to comment and inject as we go along. Since there may be some folks looking at this issue for the very first time - I am going all the way back to why the 0-1 paint question was asked in the first place.

Next Part Tomorrow.

Wow!!!

I just realized in my rush to post to this thread how it sounds!!!



Phil.....

What I actually thought I wrote was....



"First off!

I do not like the way my post sounds...I know the time and effort you put into this and most of all I know you are a man of science but I'm concerned a wee bit...."

I added this to the beginning of my post simply because I felt the series of questions right off the bat may be a touch over the top.....I'm afraid I made it sound a lot worse.... however...I do think they are quite important.

Once again! I want you know that I respect your three year research project and please don't think I'm that brash..... I was just rushing my post!


I'll be good!

Tony,

You are good. Without the debate you encourage by posting - this site would not be nearly as effective at discovering things. If you need to get something here post up.

I will get to all the questions raised but to answer them I will likely do a round up after the conclusions are told here so everyone reading this is on the same page.