Anthony,
It is in my humble opinion that you have made an exceptional effort in testing both products side by side. My observations of your seemingly dedicated and fair assessment of the product is based upon your efforts, responses, and assessments (based on factual data) and from what Mark has told me of your willingness, in reality, to be as fair as possible in providing the Autopians with good data. Therefore I do not doubt your credibility and sincerity in getting to the facts and to take it a bit further, I trust your ability in providing fair and accurate evaluations to the best of your ability. However I cannot honestly give you an assessment based solely on the photos of the two panels for the reason that the manner in which the photos were taken may have had an adverse impact upon the results, rendering an imprecise outcome.
Now please allow me to explain. You now know I am an analyst, and as such I too am quite anal, after all anal is the first four letters in analyst but I digress. My eyes are trained to look at things where most others would not. In the case of your two pictures, and I hope I can explain this well enough for all to understand, the two pictures were taken at two different angles, approximately 95°, and possibly within only a few minutes from each other. This is based upon the cloud formation seen in both pictures which was most helpful. Also the angle of the camera was lower in one picture than the other. These two seemingly harmless conditions can obscure final results even if both sections of the hood were polished by the same product. Being part of the testing community for the US Navy, the biggest advantage we have at our facility is the ability for repeatability which is how one ensures accurate measurements. And during testing we not only have the customer on-board watching but vendors, manufacturers, testers, and everyone who has a vested interest in the results.
If I may Anthony, I would like to ask a favor of you. I would like to have you take these pictures again now that you have a little clearer picture (pun not intended) on the importance of a more controlled testing process. And I think all would be agreeable that both you and Mark be present during the entire phase of the process. I want to make it very clear to all Autopians out there in Autopia Land that accuracy in executing and monitoring tests is crucial in all successful test assessments and final analysis. Then you both can submit your final conclusions. I would also suggest that you both sit down together and agree on what conclusions you both wish to come to in the final analysis which will be published. I know there has been a lot of hype over whether or not Acrylic-Wërks has leveling properties which I cannot ever remember Mark ever saying it had. My personal experience has been in light swirls, not deep scratches. At any rate, you two get together, draw up your conclusions then retake the test/challenge. And oh by the way, who ever said detailers had to hand-apply Acrylic-Wërks anyway? Mark told me never to apply Acrylic-Wërks using a buffer because if I didn’t know what I was doing I could burn right through the paint, especially on corners. And guess what, he was right but he told me after I had ruined part of the paint on my 1978 Thunderbird years before. So as a novice, I listened to Mark however, as far as professionals are concerned, by applying Acrylic-Wërks like you would your other products, you can get incredible results.
I appreciated and was quite honored by your asking my opinion Anthony – I hope I did not let you down.
Bruce
. I have been reading this thread, which is way out of hand, and becoming almost like "nursery school at the bowling alley" :wall . To make my final judgement, I will be waiting for my free sample (if it is still coming :nixweiss) from Mark. I have an 82 Honda CB750K with Royal Blue paint just screaming for attention from an applicator and buffing towel!