 New CA Chroming Reg, LA Times Article |
|
|
|
Porsche, and the Porsche crest are registered trademarks of Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG.
This site is not affiliated with Porsche in any way. Its only purpose is to provide an online forum for car enthusiasts. All other trademarks are property of their respective owners. |
|
|
  |
| burton73 |
 May 27 2023, 10:50 AM
Post
#21
|
|
burton73  Group: Members Posts: 3,486 Joined: 2-January 07 From: Los Angeles Member No.: 7,414 Region Association: Southern California 
 |
QUOTE(gereed75 @ May 27 2023, 05:41 AM)  There was a recent thread here on chrome wrapping. I see no reason that wrapping is not a suitable substitute Yes true hex chrome plating is a tough proposition in todays environmental regs. Tri chrome is indeed a different bluish color The old standard was copper/nickel/chrome. Copper was the first to go (cost and cyanide based process). Most of the coating is nickel followed by a “flash” of chrome. Wonder how the production of chrome wraps compares environmentally to chrome plating?? I had this 1960s Lucite lamp that was done in polished brass finish and when I restored it I thought of replating it and decided to try a wrap in rose gold finish. Close enough for a study to see how chrome would look. The finish on the metal part was 60 years old and I did not polish it just put the high quality 3/M film on it. You can see how a bumper would look. Not as good as a perfect polished re-chrome but not bad from a few feet away. On small areas like the frame it really does not matter but you have to look at the large area of the lamp base. This is now 6 years old. Bob B   |
   |
 
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 19th April 2024 - 11:12 PM |
Invision Power Board
v9.1.4 © 2024 IPS, Inc.