I won't comment on the Colnago as I don't know much about these bikes, but I do know that on French constructeur bikes the paint was thinner than modern paint jobs.
Logical when you think they spent hours and hours thinning down lugs, making things crisp and neat; putting on a heavy coat of paint clogging up the lugs and rounding off detail would have destroyed all their preparatory work.
Why is it that modern paint is on average quite thick? Is it that it just can't be thinned down more, or is it an esthetic choice?
Is it a problem due to the chemical nature of the paint, or the way it is applied to the frames?
Why can't a small batch of paint approaching what was used on early bikes be produced for restorers looking for an authentic looking finish be produced? Not cost efficient?
It was mentionned that some makers (Peter Weigle for ex) are capable of producing a thin paint job, what is their secret?
Alexander March
Bordeaux
France