For what it's worth, I build musical instruments as a hobby, and there is a known issue with lacquer pooling around the guitar tuners on the headstock. I don't know if it is a similar cause here, but with regard to guitars -- if this happens, it has almost everything to do with curing. Here are some factors:

- 3 thin coats spaced 30 minutes apart, then a full nights cure, then repeat the next day. Then allow a few weeks before tightening the guitar tuners on. This allows the solvents to evaporate correctly between sprays. Applying too thick of a coat too soon will trap the solvents as the outer layer "skins." And while reducing the overall thickness of the clear would help prevent the problem, super thin clear coats aren't generally well received in the guitar world (where applicable) because they lack visual depth and have poor wear resistance.

- Tightening a guitar tuner on uncured clear will trap solvents under the nut. These trapped solvents will soften the paint or finish underneath. This will manifest as a flaking clear coat.

- In the luthier world, it's called creep. It happens to glue and clear coats. A thick glue, when squeezed together,will push out slowly over time during the drying process resulting in what is being called pooling here. This is removed before finishing, but a thick, built up clear coat will do this too. The continuous pressure on uncured clear will cause it to slowly migrate toward the outer edges and pool or bubble. The trapped solvents will then leach into the underlying finish, softening it, and making it flake off. If is unpainted natural wood, it is less likely to happen because the solvents leach into the raw wood and disperse better. The hardest part is that creep is difficult to catch because it all looks fine at first until a week or so later when the clear slowly migrates out to the edges.

The luthier community solved this problem a long time ago by applying more thin coats instead of fewer thicker coats, letting them dry between coats, and then allowing it to cure before covering up portions of it with screwed down nuts. Every so often, the issue re-emerges when a manufacturer decides to save time by changing up the process.

I am NOT saying that is what is happening to the PFs, and there are other things that can cause similar problems (like overtightening, bad lacquer chemistry, bad surface prep, etc.), but I can't help notice a similarity between these problems.
1 (resized).jpg2 (resized).jpg3 (resized).jpg4 (resized).jpg

Ha... At least lacquer on wood seems more similar to me than a 2 part uerthane on steel. But I know nothing about finishing a car and even less about painting PFs.

Actually they normally just say "creep" and leave of the "ing"!

I don't really care what they call it though if we could just get a decently dimple resistant surface with a solid clear coat

I would keep it as simple as this:

1. I might apply a sanding sealer (a really thinned lacquer) to the raw wood before painting to fill in the pores and make the underlying surface harder. I would use a duromoter to test the hardness of the wood before continuing and see if it was within a predetermined specification.

2. Make sure my supplier is using a finishing process that has the correct amount of time needed to have an effective dry/cure process.

3. Use a durometer to test the final coating. This could be as simple as a pencil scratch test (a set of calibrated pencils that mark paint coatings and produce a quantifiable hardness rating). If the coating was too soft (for whatever reason, including trapped solvents), it would objectively fail to be within the correct specifications and be, per se, a defective coating.

4. Use an ultrasonic thickness tester to test the thickness of the final coating. If the mils fall outside of a predetermined range, I'd fail it.

But I'm not Stern and won't pretend I'm more of an expert than they are on the subject. I also don't know if they are already doing this or perhaps something even more rigorous. I also recognize that they, as a large manufacturer, have a lot of additional factors to consider.

So from a consumer perspective, I suppose if I felt so inclined, I would simply use a durometer designed for paint to measure the finish hardness and compare it against other clear coats from other machines as well as the general specifications from several lacquer companies to see if it is either in spec or out of spec. If it fails, I would consider it defective as a matter of fact and leave Stern's response to its costumers to their own desires.

Possible, but it is worth considering that trapped solvents in the clear could be softening the paint underneath over time making it seem like the paint is the culprit. Also, the fact that the issue seems to be resolved when the paint is removed might be a result of the clear coat solvents no longer being trapped between the dried paint and the dried surface of the clear, letting those solvents penetrate into the raw wood and disperse. Again, this makes it appear like a paint issue, but it may not be.

This is true, but only to an extent. I don't mean any disrespect, but there are ways to test thickness of coatings and material hardness both before and after painting -- even with todays' chemical limitations -- to ensure a quality finish. There are also ways that someone's mixing ratios, method of application, and cure times could make the coatings better, worse, or just fail. With my (non-professional) experience of applying lacquer over unfinished, painted, and stained wood hundreds of times, I can tell you that it is reasonable, even with current lacquer compositions, to get a flexible but hard finish that is highly chip resistant and will not deform (pool, or creep, or whatever is used to describe it) when it is subjected to continued pressure the way my new JP LE appears to have done.

I have a related issue with my LE, but it is not general pooling around the posts. With the removed artwork, and what appears to be a thinner clear coat, there is no noticeable pooling around my posts. HOWEVER, a manufacturing error caused a side wall to be overtightened. As a result, the edge of the wall was pressing against the playfield where there was artwork underneath. The area exposed to the pressure displaced the clear coat causing it to raise (pool) along the edges of the side wall just as it did with earlier pros in the area around posts and washers that had artwork underneath. I don't know if that meets the definition of "fixed pooling problems" or not, but the issue with deformed clear coats in areas of pressure and artwork still remains in my mind. They just removed the artwork and apparently used a thinner clear to reduce the effect.

I think they pretty much already do that, so it might not be that bad! This was supposed to be raised above it, but it was incorrectly tightened against it, creating the problem. My obsessive side wants the posts to be centered in that little circle ring though, and they really aren't, so it kind of calls attention to them. I actually think a black sticker above the clear would be less obvious! Either way, these are things I don't notice while actually playing a game.

Hmmm.... They aren't water jetting them, are they? I can't imagine they are. But they aren't, right?

What is it, exactly? As someone who owns an odd-ball vintage bowler, I'm curious.

Ahh, nice. Full size then. I got one in a pinball form-factor.

strikes (resized).jpg

Based on my experience with a new JP2 LE, I would say that is a (slight) possibility.

That's me. I also found three bubbles/blisters. But peeling paint that is right in front of my face? That's kind of hard to be okay with.

Check out this top-down photo: https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/welcome-to-the-jurassic-park-le-club/page/16#post-5225485

Thanks. I'm going to work with Stern and get their input. I wanted to keep everyone in the loop since this is important for so many people. But I genuinely feel bad if it makes people miss out on a great game for what could be an anomaly or an issue that could be resolved. It is pretty early, still. I'm not panicked just yet!

This top-down view captures the wrinkling better: https://pinside.com/pinball/forum/topic/welcome-to-the-jurassic-park-le-club/page/16#post-5225485

As am I. I have reached out to them already regarding the missing parts on the playfield that they forgot to install and they were great about it. I have every reason to think that they'll be professional about this issue as well.

The part that's weird to me is that I would have expected a scrape or something. Not wrinkled paint with clean wood underneath, nor wrinkled paint that has a hard gloss coat on it. It's almost like it wrinkled before the gloss coat got hard, but it looks like the apron wrinkled it... But why would the apron be installed on soft gloss coat? So I'm not sure how this could even happen. But I'm no expert. We'll see what they say.

I bought the superchex (like 6 months before the pro came out). It's fantastic.

Doesn't matter. Everyone loves it both ways.

I've seen no scratches. An overtightened area placed pressure on the gloss coat, which migrated out from under it and caused a raised deformity in the clear, and a slight loss of paint. In another area, paint wrinkled along the apron and the clear coat on that wrinkle has hardened into that shape (locking in the wrinkle, so to speak).

Hard can crack, soft can dimple. I'd say you need to consider the impact from modern games against that surface and try to balance the hardness level.

Quick Update:

Stern has been fast to respond to my emails. They said they sent my pictures to quality control and offered to send me a bottle of clear touch-up to mitigate the paint peeling issue.

I believe they are sincere in wanting to provide a good resolution. I suspect my Stern contact is proactively trying to do what he can while we wait to hear back from QC and I do appreciate the gesture. Neither Stern (nor I!) have made any final determinations on an appropriate resolution.

It isn't their official/final resolution. Just a suggestion to mitigate the damage so I can play it again. We are still waiting to hear back from QC.

Thanks for sharing that experience. It it's helpful to know that.

Hand painted art on harpsichords has been around for centuries. Pianos have high quality clear over paint that is tough but flexible. Guitars use clear over paint, stain, graphics, and raw wood.

I'll let you know. I sent them photos of the paint peeling on my new LE. They've been reviewing them. But it's only been a week, so I don't have an answer yet.

When my LE arrived, there were a few parts that they forgot to install on the playfield, and one of the plastics was chipped. They were quick to apologize and seemed a bit embarrassed about the missing parts. They immediately put in an order to have them sent to me. That was only a week ago and I already got a notification from UPS that it shipped.

The peeling paint is currently being reviewed by their QC people. That seems to be taking a bit longer.

I'm not sure I follow. If the clear is soft, and I clamp a washer down on it, why wouldn't that result in being displaced into a pool next to the washer?

I know this isn't a paint related issue, but with regard to playfield quality...Along with peeled paint and missing parts that were never installed on the playfield, I just discovered what appears to be the wrong colored insert installed on my LE playfield. All RESCUE targets are supposed to be red/orange. Somehow, a clear one got into my playfield. Do they make orange bulbs?

INSERT Problem (resized).jpg

Thanks... I'll look into it.

It is normal in other fields to apply a thinned laquer first. It acts as a sanding sealer and fills the pores. This makes the surface a lot stronger and far less prone to damage.

A month? Mine has been with QC for a week and a half and I thought that seemed long without an update. I guess I better reset my expectations.

I'm sorry your having trouble to. I do believe Stern cares and doesn't want this for their customers. Things can take time. In the meanwhile, there's plenty of pinball to play while I wait.

A few things actually. Some minor stuff like the helicopter blades were hitting the ramp and they asked me to bend it, and a side wall was overtightened, causing it to bend and leave an indent into the playfield.

They also forgot to install some parts, paint is chipping/peeling below the flipper, and they used the wrong color insert in a pretty important place (which basically mismarks an important part of the ruleset).

They may very well do that as far as I know. They are still reviewing the situation and I don't believe want decision has been made yet.

Thank you for sharing that experience. I can be too patient at times for my own good. Especially when I like a company and more so when I like the people that work there.

I think the right people are aware. I also think you are right that I need a timeframe. I will take your advice and follow up regularly.

I posted this in the JPLE thread, but wanted to let people here know as well that two senior people reached out to me regarding the PF issues I had and they are sending my distributor a new populated PF to swap. Based on the communications I've had with them, I have no doubt that this is an important issue for them to get right. I appreciate everyone's advice here. It helped tremendously.

Yeah, Stern. So many people were involved and at such high levels within the company that I had a high degree of confidence that they were committed to getting everything right.

I had good dealings with JJP in the past. Hopefully they will take care of you as well.

Yes. The distributor will be bringing it over, installing it, and sending the old one back for me.

So the trick is in the details here. What is meant by cheap? Usually, "cheap" refers to using a lacquer with less solids and more solvent. The solvent is cheaper. Quart to quart, a cheap lacquer will produce thinner finishes. Which sometimes is desired. Higher solid lacquers are generally more costly.

But the real story is in the formulation and application process.

Regarding formulation, a high grade instrument laquer will generally contain a larger amount of plasticizers. These small molecules surround the long polymer chains and prevent them from wrapping into each other to form crystalities that can make the surface brittle. Usually, having a subpar formula isn't really a cheap thing so much as it is the wrong formula. For example, one could easily use an expensive formula that is so hard, it will produce spider web cracking over time. This isn't necessarily cheap, just wrong!

The last real factor is in the category of application (which also includes prep and cure). For example, if a guitar shop wouldn't even buff out a guitar in less than 10 days because the finish is still too soft, it makes me wonder if anyone is bolting parts to a PF within that time. And are suppliers correctly communicating the hold times they used so the assembly people can time it right? And even if they are, the wrong spray schedule could trap solvents and produce a host of other issues that change cure times. I honestly don't think it's an issue of Stern being cheap with the paint. I think it's more in the category of a costly manufacturing issue that they would like to resolve.

Bottom line for me is that even with cheap laquers and formulas that could stand to be tweaked, movement in a clear coat after application, lifting, peeling... I'd look to my application/cure process first. It's almost definitional... If it's still moving and hardening it's not really cured yet because that's all "cured" really means: it's stopped moving and has hardened up.

Like I said before, I don't know PFs. But on a guitar, if I sprayed some heavy coats, and let the surface tack up in a few days, I could install a guitar tuner over the gloss. It'd look great. Over the next 2 weeks, the soft clear would migrate (creep) out around that guitar tuner and puddle. It would get harder too as it continued to cure, but trapped solvents would soften the paint under it. The soft clear might stick to the underside of the guitar tuner too. As a string put tension around the post, it would slightly angle it up and away from the headstock surface opposite the string. The laquer, stuck to the bottom of the tuner, would lift in a moon shape along with the post it was attached to and likely chip where the thicker part of the puddle met the thinner part of the lacquer. On the other side, the post would move slightly into the bubble where the lacquer creeped. That bubble, now hardened, would likely crack or chip away. I know this because I've done it. On a banjo. Not a PF. So maybe that's different.

And just for transparency, I am just a hobbiest. I defer to the experts in this field.

He is local. The store is owned by a great guy and a long time pinball fan. It's called Little Shop of Games.

Has anyone tried to remove a post from an area where there is pooling but no chipping? I'm curious if the bottom of the post is stuck to the clear when trying to remove it.

That's good advice for protecting the PF. If you happen to notice that it is stuck without warming it though, I'd be curious because it would pretty much completely convince me that the parts were installed before the clear cured.

Did you sand it out, or were you actually able to manipulate the cured surface with pressure?

Curious. I never heard of a lacquer flexible enough to do that after curing. In fact, I can't even imagine how to intentionally replicate that. You learn something new, everyday.

That shirt wouldn't have faded if they had used automobile paint.

Not holding a grudge. Not sure what the hippie reference is about. I just happen to like jp. That's all. No worries.

I hear you. The game does have a lot of objectively good things about it when compared to other games of its kind. But I can't argue that you actually like those things. If you don't, you don't.

And for what's it's worth, I was born in the 70s. Watching Hendrix live was a bit before my time.

I don't know any other hawkmoons. "Hawkmoon77" is a reference to a U2 song.

I want to say it's a crazy coincidence, but some of these problems seem to occur with some degree of regularity.

I've had a few QC related issues with my JPLE, but the overwhelming majority of people have said that theirs are okay. Also, Stern has contacted me and indicated that they will address the issues I have. The level of support I've gotten through Stern has given me a high degree of confidence.

Glad to hear it. Stern offered to swap mine out as well.

It's the best game, all around, that I've ever played.

Yes. They are sending a fully populated PF to my local distributer, who will bring it over and do the swap for me. No down time.

So I thought this was pretty cool of Stern...

They already said they'd send my distro a populated PF because of the problems I had. One of those problems involved a missing part.

The new PF was expected to take a few weeks. So they sent me the replacement part in advance so I could enjoy the game the correct way while I waited. They didn't have to do that, and I didn't even ask for that, but they did it anyway.

Missing parts, a peeled paint (probably from bad apron install), wrong color insert, some pooling wherever the side walls touched the PF (3 spots that I can see), and some other nit-picky stuff. Thankfully mine appears to be an anomaly.

This is so bizarre to me. Warming a clear coat is not supposed to make it do that. Are they not using laquer?

It does appear thin. Under the right lighting, you can see on mine the difference in height of the different colors of the graphics printed on it. The clear is not thick enough to fill in that height difference.

It looks like a dull drill bit to me chipped the holes during the cut-out process. If that's the case, it's a shame it wasn't caught before printing and assembly. Or maybe it was caught, but was within acceptable levels. Hard to say. Either way, I hope ercvacation get's it resolved to a point he's happy with. And even if not, other than the one larger chip, I think the rest could be repaired very well with sandpaper and clear (not that he should have to do that with a new pin, but in a worst case scenario...).

30 days is usually plenty for getting a good quality clear.

So... After talkng with Stern about my issue, I had the distinct impression that they know that people intend to do this and why it's their new default offer.

I wouldn't make that assumption. It is very possible the problem is cure time and not chemistry. To have an older and thickly coated clear coat with plenty of time to cure may be better than a new thinly coated clear coat with only a weeks cure time.

Besides, you can always clamp something to the surface in a hidden area and see if it develops a pool before you repopulate the entire field.

Not all the LEs.

I've seen 2 new Wonkas at my distro. Both were perfect. Also one YBR WOZ that was perfect, other then it arrived with Wonka pinblades in it!

My LE is like that and it still had problems.

I think some people here are angrier than that.

This all the way. When I first started using laquer, I didn't have any ability to control humidity, application thickness, or any of those other variables that most people ignore but are laid out quite specifically on the side of the can. I had trapped solvents, poor adhesion, and soft finishes. A proper environment is critical for any type of specialty finish.

Not me. I emailed them and was told it is "backordered". From what I hear, best chance is sometime in Jan.