trip to swirlville

holland_patrick · 06-24-05, 08:11

Well I was excited when I saw this

figuring it was a concorse event I was waiting to see thse wonderful cars it total detailed glory

this is not for the feint of heart..

I can't belive this guy got to touch these cars... Even the yellow on had swirls

holland_patrick · 06-24-05, 08:13

[IMG]http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y136/holland_patrick/Farr%20con/7871cb73.jpg[/IMG

Rolla · 06-24-05, 08:57

Wow that is pretty sad what they did to those nice cars!

Lowejackson · 06-25-05, 06:01

It is a shame to see such nice cars not properly prepared.

sQuashed · 06-25-05, 06:08

Poor Brian Skibo

J.J. · 06-25-05, 07:17

If those were my cars, you'd be able to eat of em. I would dare you to find a swirlie!

JJ

Spilchy · 06-25-05, 01:04

SilverLexus · 06-25-05, 01:33

Holy Buffer Hologram Batman!

Might be good to resize these pics to 800 pixels wide or less.

Mosca · 06-25-05, 01:36

Woah. Wait a second. Other than the last one, those aren't bad at all. IMO, they are pretty damn good. Angle the camera a little and they'd look perfect. Do you take the most forgiving or the least forgiving shots when you take pictures of your own car?

How old are some of them? Is the paint original?

I don't think that that is much swirling and defect at all for older cars. I'd prefer minor swirls and original paint to a swirl free repaint. Sure, there's a little buffer trail on the one car. But n the next shot, well, that's not going to be fixed by detailing. That car needs a repaint.

I'll say that I think they are pretty dang good, or at least that you shouldn't criticize them without seeing the "before" pictures.

Tom

Rollman · 06-25-05, 02:44

Ok so who's gonna call this Brian guy and tell him he needs to learn how to detail cars.

Superior Shine · 06-25-05, 04:24

"finely Detailed" !?!?!?!?!?!

1 Clean WS6 · 06-26-05, 07:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mosca

Woah. Wait a second. Other than the last one, those aren't bad at all. IMO, they are pretty damn good. Angle the camera a little and they'd look perfect. Do you take the most forgiving or the least forgiving shots when you take pictures of your own car?

How old are some of them? Is the paint original?

I don't think that that is much swirling and defect at all for older cars. I'd prefer minor swirls and original paint to a swirl free repaint. Sure, there's a little buffer trail on the one car. But n the next shot, well, that's not going to be fixed by detailing. That car needs a repaint.

I'll say that I think they are pretty dang good, or at least that you shouldn't criticize them without seeing the "before" pictures.

Tom

Thank you Tom for that post. Once again you so eloquently put into words what I was thinking.

When I first saw this thread I have to admit I was a bit angry. Pat you are a good bud on this forum and I respect your work and posts but I am going to have to give this thread a big

!

For one we have no idea what these cars looked like to begin with...they could have been totally trashed for all we know. Another thing is we have no idea what the owners paid that detailer to do?!?! They could have said something like "$50 a car...wash and wax them" so of course the swirls would still be present. When you do this for a living you soon realize that the majority of folks do not hold the quality of their paint to the standards most Autopians do nor are they willing to pay to have them brought up to those standards....regardless if it a $10K Kia or $100K Modena. Can those finishes be improved upon?? WITHOUT QUESTION...I agree with you in that regard BUT we have no idea what the detailer was paid to do. You have to give him the benefit of the doubt.

One last thing I must mention is that since the detailer is not here to defend himself I think we have no right to butcher his work. As Tom said...other than the last one they really are not all that bad.