Date:         Thu, 4 Jan 2007 11:02:57 -0800
Reply-To:     Nathaniel Poole <npoole@TELUS.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Nathaniel Poole <npoole@TELUS.NET>
Subject:      Re: Kool Patch
In-Reply-To:  <20070104125819.43BF21165CB@hamburg.alientech.net>
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

Sure, but as has been pointed out, there is a difference when the
preservative is part of the original intent and design, incorporated when
new, as opposed to looking at something that is weathered and saying, I want
to stop the weathering process, so I will seal it from the elements by
applying an impervious coating. And yes, preservationists often bring
artifacts into climate controlled environments, but some are to large for
this. These cases present a real problem, which is not usually solved by
applying a sealing surface.

Even with these coatings, I doubt the vehicles mentioned would be exposed to
Saskatchewan winter roads. Because even these coatings are imperfect, over
time resulting in the problems that people here are talking about.


On 1/4/07 4:09 AM, "Mike S" <mikes@flatsurface.com> wrote:

> At 02:28 AM 1/4/2007, Nathaniel Poole wrote...
>> Professional preservationists almost never apply any kind of
>> impermeable
>> coating to a surface they want to preserve - for this very reason.
>
> Odd, since other than a DeLorean, I've never seen a car without an
> impermeable coating, unless it's been temporarily removed with the
> intent of repainting it. Professional preservationists typically have
> the luxury of keeping their items in climate controlled environments,
> but even so, every car at Greenfield Village and in the Harrah
> collection is covered with an impermeable coating.
>