What is micro marring?

[Kotsios]

Opinions please.

[imported_MCA]

My opinion with absolutely no science behind it...Micro-marring is a general term to describe the most minute blemish on the paint surface. Swirls from improper drying or QD techniques are fairly common examples - Buffer trails and the resultant hazing from compounding can also be considered `micro-marring`. You can see the marring with proper lighting but generally you will not be able to feel them with either your finger nail or with the plastic-bag test.

[Ron Ketcham]

Yup!

Micro-marring is itty bitty, tiny imperfections in a surface.

Grumpy

[Dan]

I guess we all differ in our definition, but mine would be:



Any sort of surface imperfection that impacts overall gloss, but not big large enough to be identified as another sort of defect ie fine swirling, sand blasting, chips, etc. It is one step up from general haze.



To me, micromarring is stuff that is so small it does not fit into any other bucket of defect names.

[Kotsios]

Do most polishes leave some type of marring due to the abrasives in polish?

[RaskyR1]

Taken from one of Mike Phillips threads on Autogeek



The difference between Rotary Buffer Swirls, Cobweb Swirls and Micro-Marring - Auto Geek Online Auto Detailing Forum

Micro-Marring - Tick-Marks - DA-Haze



These three terms are pretty much the accepted terms for a scratch pattern left in some paints from the oscillating and rotating action from a compound or polish and a buffing pad when applied using a DA Polisher.



Unlike Cobweb swirls or Rotary Buffer Swirls, the scratch pattern instilled by a dual action polisher is made up of millions of tiny scratches, some are curved or circular but some are straight, like a small tick mark you would make with a pencil if you were keeping track of a count of some type.



Tick Marks are a sign that either the paint is on the soft side, so easily scratched or the pad and compound or polish you`re using are too aggressive to finish out without leaving a mark.



In most cases Tick Marks can be removed by re-polishing with a different pad and product combination.

[lostdaytomorrow]

Marring on the micro-scale, in my opinion.

[Accumulator]

Different people are gonna see this differently (gee, sorta-pun ).



IMO the "micro" means "not readily seen with the naked eye", the sort of stuff that the "average non-Autopian" wouldn`t notice at all.

[Dan]

Different people are gonna see this differently (gee, sorta-pun ).



IMO the "micro" means "not readily seen with the naked eye", the sort of stuff that the "average non-Autopian" wouldn`t notice at all.

We`re on the same page for once! :pound: I concur, micromarring is a condition that impacts gloss, but is not readily seen with your eyes. If you can see it, its swirls.



The above AG shots... in my book, swirls (granted machine generated). I could QD dirty cars and keep my finish "AG micromarring free"...lol.

[Kotsios]

We`re on the same page for once! :pound: I concur, micromarring is a condition that impacts gloss, but is not readily seen with your eyes. If you can see it, its swirls.



The above AG shots... in my book, swirls (granted machine generated). I could QD dirty cars and keep my finish "AG micromarring free"...lol.

Accumulator is saying you can see micro marring, you are saying something different, you are saying if you see it its swirls if you can`t see it with the naked eye and need a magnification device its micro marring.

[Kotsios]

For me the example that rasky pictured is borderline micro marring and swirls somewhere in between.

[Accumulator]

We`re on the same page for once! I concur, micromarring is a condition that impacts gloss, but is not readily seen with your eyes. If you can see it, its swirls...

Heh heh..."..for once..." :chuckle:

Accumulator is saying you can see micro marring, you are saying something different, you are saying if you see it its swirls if you can`t see it with the naked eye and need a magnification device its micro marring.

No, actually I *think* Dan and I really do agree on this one, but that it shows just how difficult it is to discuss some of these topics! I think the operative word in Dan`s post is "readily", which I guess is one of the vague terms that make this sort of thing tricky.



I *do* sometimes use maginfication for this some of the time, moreso since my second LASIK. Using magnification to get a better look-see is one thing, but anything so "micro" as to actually *require* maginfication to notice it at all is, well...IMO it borders on being Autopian-nutty about this stuff.

[Kotsios]

I seem to get, lets call them micro swirls when using all in ones,

that are visible on side panels

of the car in direct sunlight viewing them at slight angle 12 inches away from paint is this typical. I also get then with 205 but not 85rd. I get them very slighly with prima amigo. I do not get them with DG 111 which does have slight abrasive cleaning, according to Jerry at Duragloss. Am I asking to much from some of these products?

[RaskyR1]

For me the example that rasky pictured is borderline micro marring and swirls somewhere in between.

The problem here is that all these terms get thrown around and tend to be used interchangeably and the fact is they are all different.



Dan, you stated the quote below:

Any sort of surface imperfection that impacts overall gloss, but not big large enough to be identified as another sort of defect ie fine swirling, sand blasting, chips, etc. It is one step up from general haze.

Reading the above you are basically saying that the super fine "micro marring" installed into the paint by a rotary buffer is the same as the super fine "micro marring" instilled into the paint by a DA. I strongly disagree with that and feel they need their own classification, just like "Pig Tails" and "Tracers" have their own term. While they are all defects in the paint, it`s necessary as detailers to understand the difference between them.



We as detailers also need to start agreeing on a standard for these terms that get thrown around so loosely, which is exactly what Mike P has attempted to do in the thread I posted above....(and he did a great job at it too IMO). If we continue to use these terms so loosely, people like the original poster are only going to continue to be confused and also makes it more difficult do diagnose issues that people are seeing in their paint.









If you haven`t read Mike`s Thread in its entirety, I strongly suggest doing so.





Just my $.02





Rasky

[Dan]

Reading the above you are basically saying that the super fine "micro marring" installed into the paint by a rotary buffer is the same as the super fine "micro marring" instilled into the paint by a DA. I strongly disagree with that and feel they need their own classification, just like "Pig Tails" and "Tracers" have their own term. While they are all defects in the paint, it`s necessary as detailers to understand the difference between them.



We as detailers also need to start agreeing on a standard for these terms that get thrown around so loosely, which is exactly what Mike P has attempted to do in the thread I posted above....(and he did a great job at it too IMO). If we continue to use these terms so loosely, people like the original poster are only going to continue to be confused and also makes it more difficult do diagnose issues that people are seeing in their paint.

Rasky, I wouldn`t categorize pig tails or tracers as micromarring as those can be seen AND diffrentiated from a general condition that impacts gloss. Also both pigtails and tracers require a much more agressive polish to remove than micromarring.



By no means is this a complete list, but going from worst to least:



RIDS

Sanding Marks

General Swirls

Pig Tails

Hologramming

Micromarring

Haze



And I completely agree, we need to standardize these terms and levels.