My 72 Paramount with chromed lugs, etc. seems to have been fully chromed before painting. I certainly agree with Marc Boral that it seems to lead to lower paint "stick". harvey sachs
At 00:41 5/17/2001 -0700, Marc Boral wrote:
>Yes, that is chrome under the paint. However, those portions of the frame
>that are covered by paint were not polished prior to chroming, so don't be
>fooled into believing that the concealed chrome looks like the exposed
>chrome on your stays/blades/crown/head lugs.
>There were a few Italian frame manufactures that tried to con us by touting
>the benefits of chroming the entire frame prior to finishing. I can't
>remember their explanation. I think it has a detrimental effect on the
>finishing aspects. Paint and primer has a much harder time adhering to a
>chrome surface, unless special prep work is done. The problem is that most
>of the frames were not prepped properly after the chroming process.
>Consequently, paint scratches easier, flakes off, rusts faster.
>Some frames have a lot of exposed chrome, and it is easier just to dip the
>entire frame instead of just the exposed areas. Dipping the entire frame
>also eliminates transition lines. Your Basso is the perfect example because
>it probably has chromed stays/blades/crown/head lugs.
>Jim Hultman wrote:
> > I've got a late eighties Basso SL painted blue with white panels, (Once
> > belonged to Rory O'Reilly, I'm told). The Basso has plenty of scratches;
> > under all of them I see chrome plate, or is it nickel? Anybody care to
> > discuss the merits of plating, then painting? Seems redundant to me.
> > Jim Hultman