Ace-Garageguy

Stripping is going to be your best bet. Yes, it does appear you've gone through the clear and exposed the substrate, so when you shot additional metallic color over the area, local differences in thinner absorption caused the metallic flakes to lie down differently on that spot. Stripping will eliminate the issue. You could possibly let the paint harden fully, clear it again, let that harden, and then shoot more color and clear...but I've always found that taking extra time and doing repairs the "hard" way (stripping) works best and takes less time in the long run.

That squirrel is me after two pots of coffee. Same sentiment, just faster.

Pretty sure I know heem.

What irked me today? Adult "men" who act like spoiled babies.

Yeah, the frame is stick welded and way mo heavier than it needs to be, but it's an admirable accomplishment.

bringing one home

Except for stupid, and the absolute certainty that it can't be fixed.

Seeing your consistent results has established, in my mind, that you've got it down, know what you're talking about, and don't bloviate with nothing to show. Having followed your work for years now, and tending to be a hypercritical SOB myself, I pretty much accept your advice as gospel. EDIT: And there are very few people in any field I can say that of.

I would interpret that to mean "shrinking" over time, losing gloss and possibly showing sanding scratches. I've seen this on lotsa different lacquer clears, on real cars and models. It'll usually polish back up if there's enough material present to avoid burn-through. But I don't have recent experience with any of the Duplicolor clears...so I'm glad to have the benefit of yours.

Yes, but "complaining" isn't really the same as demanding stuff that's just not on the list of possibilities, and getting in a snit because the world doesn't cater to your every whim...which is part of the Karen-effect. I tend to reserve my "complaining" for people who don't DO their jobs, don't KNOW their jobs, don't CARE about doing their jobs, or are just generally idiots in positions of authority...and the idiots who tolerate them.

Agreed, but not as bad as the old Testors metallics that gave a big metalflake bass-boat effect...which worked well for some scale applications like fiberglass dune buggies. The Duplicolor paints labeled "mica" or "pearl" usually have much finer flakes, and can sometimes provide an acceptable scale finish on a custom, but you never know until you get it home and do a sprayout. This is a Duplicolor "mica", acceptable flake size for a custom paint job, but still way too huge to represent OEM paint.

Rob...I mocked up a very similar nose back in 2012: Parts used noted in thread below:

Far as I'm concerned, that's the bottom line. Who cares what they're "designed for"? If they work better than the rest, and they do for me (without excess paint going everywhere, which I think is the implication), that's all I need to know.

Pretty good advice in all aspects of life.

Have you ever used them?

I've never met a car salesman who could actually do that...at least if the question was technical...though I've met plenty who'll say anything to try to make a sale.

It does indeed.

Folgers is OK, but it's Chock full o' Nuts for me... ...though it's not always convenient to go home ad brew a cup, unfortunately.

You can get Duplicolor rattlecans at most general auto-parts stores. Use one of the many Duplicolor primers, depending on your specific project, i.e. a "high-build" primer over heavy bodywork, etc. Also see Steve Guthmiller's recommendations posted elsewhere. His work speaks for the veracity of his opinions.

I sometimes have a hard time believing that an entity capable of creating this would have intentionally created so much stupid, but maybe that's just part of the Cosmic Joke.

Depending on whose version of the "truth" you subscribe to, everything that defines 21st century civilization is subject to the constant fear-mongering "existential threat" bleating. But I always tend to consider the source when I see hysterical headless chickens running in circles, waving "the sky is falling" flags. Still, perception is everything. On a quantum level, there is no reality that can be easily grasped by our tiny little minds anyway, so take the sage's advice: "Don't Worry; Be Happy". "Don't Panic" is also good advice. And always know where your towel is. Finally, remember that the answer to everything is 42. Or not.

Then there's another way to look at it. A sufficiently powerful "simulation" machine could well take an infinite amount of "memory" and computing power. Think of the reflection of a mirror in a mirror as the "simulation", and reflections that go on to infinity... Again not a very good analogy, but...hmmmmm.

Assuming, of course, that quantum entanglement is a "real" phenomenon, and not just the appearance of something "real" happening. Consider the number of particles involved in displaying a moving picture on a 2-dimensional screen, compared to the number of particles involved in the "real" 3-dimensional environment the 2D display represents. Not a very precise or particularly apt analogy, but you probably get my drift. PS: My cat's middle name is Schrödinger.