Liquid Glass: The Plot Thickens

[Don]

Great work, Don.....but 1 question remains:

It appears that the CLASSIC brand may have been selling the compound "since 1954" as the ad states...but clearly, NOT under the "Liquid Glass" name since the judge apparently awarded the Corvette-picture "Liquid Glass" product a complete victory (CLASSIC was forced to liquidate).

But: why does #2 say "new" -- does it mean "new" formula or "new" as in new product? Because if it's the latter, then which product is/was the Liquid Glass that we know existed decades earlier (we saw the pictures of the $2.50 Liquid Glass from Poorboys on another Liquid Glass thread).

See what I'm saying? I think the e-mail and the court decision established #2 as the rightful copyright owner of "Liquid Glass" as a name and compound, but if so, then why are they saying "new" in 1988 if the stuff had already been around a few decades?

Sorry, REALLY trying to get to the bottom of this! lol

If you want, I will send them an e-mail but since you hit them first, I don't want to intrude on your space. Let me know if you'll followup or I will.

You won't hurt my feelings if you want to email them I'm pretty sure the "New" stand for new (improved/revised) formula. If you look at the cans on the shelf now, the space in the upper right corner now says "Clear Coat Safe," but every thing else appears to be the same.

 

[Don]

I just posted it on Autopia, let's see if anyone there can help

 

[HondaMan]

Don, great, let me know what they say over there....someone there should know.

Why would anybody advertise something as "Clear Coat Safe" -- isn't clear coat just clear paint? If it wasn't good for clear coat, it wouldn't be good for (colored) paint on the car, right?

BTW, do you have a link to the rankings for this "Wax Test"?

 

[Don]

Don, great, let me know what they say over there....someone there should know.

Why would anybody advertise something as "Clear Coat Safe" -- isn't clear coat just clear paint? If it wasn't good for clear coat, it wouldn't be good for (colored) paint on the car, right?

BTW, do you have a link to the rankings for this "Wax Test"?

I'm guessing, but I think the bit about "clearcoat safe" is because this is and old time (sort of) product and many uninformed, newer car owners might think that it's loaded with harsh abrasives that will harm their clear coat...you have to admit that clearcoat is misrepresented by many in the auto (not detailing) industry as being more delicate and more durable that it really is (amazing how they can get away with saying both at the same time, ain't it?...I.E. "Clearcoat is so tough, that you'll never have to wax your car"/"Don't use abrasives on clearcoat, abrasives will take the clearcoat right off."). As for single stage paint, sometimes it DOES require products with a bit more 'bite' to it than BC/CC paint does.

You can go to THE WAX TEST. COM, but they only give a sample rating on one of the products, they are also VERY touchy about the results being posted even if you just post the list from 1 to 42 without posting any of the details.

 

[Don]

So far, the ONLY response

I poste on Autopia, and Web-Cars...here is the one response I've gotten so far...not much help

FROM WEB-CARS

I was told years ago it had some kind of valcanic ash as one of the ingrediants Ha ha ha I used First Finish products for a few years and the product is the same xcept First Finish has no silicone...Just another segment of living and learning...to me neither has a long protection period...and I put so many coats on a 89 vette I had in 98 that it should have had 10 inches of protection. Its reflective properties after a few coats are the same as todays Zaino and matter of fact it sure acts the same over all but in the bluer color.....shitzzz it may be made by the same chemist differant marketing for all we know!!!

[

 

[Poorboy]

Great work, Don.....but 1 question remains:

It appears that the CLASSIC brand may have been selling the compound "since 1954" as the ad states...but clearly, NOT under the "Liquid Glass" name since the judge apparently awarded the Corvette-picture "Liquid Glass" product a complete victory (CLASSIC was forced to liquidate).

But: why does #2 say "new" -- does it mean "new" formula or "new" as in new product? Because if it's the latter, then which product is/was the Liquid Glass that we know existed decades earlier (we saw the pictures of the $2.50 Liquid Glass from Poorboys on another Liquid Glass thread).

See what I'm saying? I think the e-mail and the court decision established #2 as the rightful copyright owner of "Liquid Glass" as a name and compound, but if so, then why are they saying "new" in 1988 if the stuff had already been around a few decades?

Sorry, REALLY trying to get to the bottom of this! lol

If you want, I will send them an e-mail but since you hit them first, I don't want to intrude on your space. Let me know if you'll followup or I will.

the answer you are looking for is that.... yes the company in NJ owns the rights to the name , many companies have tried to use names close to them but were sued...the formula changed because even though they had the name, they lost the original chemical composition which went to another company i will not name.

 

[Don]

Oh man....you can't leave us hanging like that :boohoo :wall :wall

 

[HondaMan]

Thanks Poorboys...all I remember is, back in 1988-92 when I had my Vette, I had to go with one of the products and went with the one with CLASSIC in the names, figuring it was the original and the first one. Seems I was wrong.

Whatever.

Since we're on the subject of Vettes and Liquid Glass, I was kinda curious: since a Corvette is unique (fiberglass) I was wondering if any sealants or synthetics work either REALLY WELL or REALLY BAD on a Vette...or like, most cars, if the differences are really of a minute quality. Since I don't have a new C-6, this isn't of Earth-shaking importance, I'm sure the guys on any Corvette message boards have discussed this to death, but if anybody here has a quick answer, let 'er rip.

 

[JaredPointer]

Since we're on the subject of Vettes and Liquid Glass, I was kinda curious: since a Corvette is unique (fiberglass) I was wondering if any sealants or synthetics work either REALLY WELL or REALLY BAD on a Vette...or like, most cars, if the differences are really of a minute quality.

Just a guess, but I would imagine they would work the same as any other painted fiberglass on any other car. Or is there something different about Corvette fiberglass? Or, more likely, I'm just an idiot.

 

[Don]

Just a guess, but I would imagine they would work the same as any other painted fiberglass on any other car. Or is there something different about Corvette fiberglass? Or, more likely, I'm just an idiot.

Even though the body panels ae fiberglass, the paint should be the same as any other car (although I would hope the workmanship would be better than most)

 

[CharlesW]

since a Corvette is unique (fiberglass) I was wondering if any sealants or synthetics work either REALLY WELL or REALLY BAD on a Vette...or like, most cars, if the differences are really of a minute quality.

While I am not a Corvette authority, I think the finish is still paint, even on the new ones. My '81 is acrylic lacquer. (last year for the lacquer), and I used Meguiar's Medallion Premium Paint protection on it for at least 10 years. The past 2-1/2 years, the Klasse AIO/4 Star UPP has been my choice. I think any good quality product should work.
The bodies were no longer true fiberglass after the C3, I think. They were a molded plastic composite of some sort, but they were still painted panels. I really like Vettes, but I never did get caught up in wanting to know all the specifics about them. Just wanted one to drive.

Charles