In article , Banty wrote:
In article t, Norminn
says...

Doug Miller wrote:
In article et, Norminn
wrote:


You don't normally need to prime a wall that is already painted.


Not normally, but in a case such as this -- where he's painting over a color

that will be difficult to hide -- a tinted stain-blocking primer can be a
great help.

Primers have a lot less hiding power than paint. Why would you prime
and paint when two coats of paint would cover better?

Right.

Tinting primer only makes sense when covering, or going to, a very deep color
from or to a light color.

Which is *exactly* the situation the OP described...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:
Norminn wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
Norminn wrote:

You don't normally need to prime a wall that is already painted.

Not normally, but in a case such as this -- where he's painting over a color
that will be difficult to hide -- a tinted stain-blocking primer can be a
great help.

Primers have a lot less hiding power than paint. Why would you prime
and paint when two coats of paint would cover better?

You're missing the point. Two finish coats is a given anyway. The question is
one coat of tinted blocking primer plus two finish coats, vs. three finish
coats.

I don't know if it's automatically a three coat job. Two finish coats
should cover. If it's not, either the paint is a low solids cheapo
brand or it's being put on too thinly.

There are other reasons to omit the primer entirely. Leftover tinted
primer is pretty much useless, whereas leftover finish paint is very
useful. There's also the Murphy's Law factor - you'll either have too
much leftover primer _and_ finish paint left over, or you'll run short.
The first case gives the OP inventory - not really a benefit, and the
second case costs her more for the expensive finish paint. The most
economical way to maximize the materials cost is to use the same color
finish paint on two coats for the three rooms and skip the primer.

R

wrote:
Unfortunately, cheaper paint is not really an option for two reasons:
(1) Having read about the unreliable quality of cheaper paints, I'm
really hesitant to try a cheaper paint, especially because I'm a novice
at this

Year after year, Consumer Reports puts Behr (Home Depot) and American
Traditions (Lowes) at or near the top of their interior paints lists
after testing for durability, fading, and I forget what-all else. I
don't remember if they test number of coats needed.

I've used both of those brands in a total of 8 rooms in my old and new
houses, and been perfectly happy with them, though the longest I've
lived with any of them was three years. American Traditions feels
easier to work with than Behr; it's a little less watery and seems to
give better coverage on the first coat, but I've never needed more than
two coats from either one, with and without primer.

I have seen homes painted in higher-end paints, and I really can't see
any difference. Maybe I'll regret my choices in 5 years, but I'm
probably going to want to change colors by then, anyway

Painting is so easy, even as a novice, that you'll soon be wondering
what the hell was so intimidating about it. It's also serious instant
gratification, almost addictive Have fun and good luck.
--
Jennifer

Doug Miller wrote:
In article t, Norminn wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:

In article et, Norminn

wrote:


You don't normally need to prime a wall that is already painted.


Not normally, but in a case such as this -- where he's painting over a color
that will be difficult to hide -- a tinted stain-blocking primer can be a
great help.


Primers have a lot less hiding power than paint. Why would you prime
and paint when two coats of paint would cover better?


You're missing the point. Two finish coats is a given anyway. The question is
one coat of tinted blocking primer plus two finish coats, vs. three finish
coats.


Primer is a waste in this situation. Two coats of paint cover most
colors. Three for drasticly different colors. If three coats of paint
are needed to cover a color, then three it is. Primer doesn't cover.

In article t, Norminn wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article t, Norminn
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:

In article et, Norminn

wrote:


You don't normally need to prime a wall that is already painted.


Not normally, but in a case such as this -- where he's painting over a color

that will be difficult to hide -- a tinted stain-blocking primer can be a
great help.


Primers have a lot less hiding power than paint. Why would you prime
and paint when two coats of paint would cover better?


You're missing the point. Two finish coats is a given anyway. The question is

one coat of tinted blocking primer plus two finish coats, vs. three finish
coats.


Primer is a waste in this situation. Two coats of paint cover most
colors. Three for drasticly different colors. If three coats of paint
are needed to cover a color, then three it is. Primer doesn't cover.

Are you missing the word "blocking" in the phrase "blocking primer"
accidentally or intentionally?

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

clipped

Primer is a waste in this situation. Two coats of paint cover most
colors. Three for drasticly different colors. If three coats of paint
are needed to cover a color, then three it is. Primer doesn't cover.


Are you missing the word "blocking" in the phrase "blocking primer"
accidentally or intentionally?


A blocking primer, as I understand it, keeps stains and some wood
pigments from bleeding through into the PAINT coating. Has nothing at
all to do with whether the paint that goes on after it COVERS the
underlying color. Entirely different issues.

Norminn wrote:
clipped

Primer is a waste in this situation. Two coats of paint cover most
colors. Three for drasticly different colors. If three coats of paint
are needed to cover a color, then three it is. Primer doesn't cover.

Are you missing the word "blocking" in the phrase "blocking primer"
accidentally or intentionally?

A blocking primer, as I understand it, keeps stains and some wood
pigments from bleeding through into the PAINT coating. Has nothing at
all to do with whether the paint that goes on after it COVERS the
underlying color. Entirely different issues.

Most stain blocking primers don't mention their hiding ability as
they're primarily sealers and don't hide all that well.
http://www.benjaminmoore.com/wrapper...art=7.4.2.2 6
There are a few stain blocking primers that have improved hiding
ability. Zinsser makes two - High Hide and Deep Tint (although this
one relies on added colorant to improve the hide).
http://www.zinsser.com/subcat.asp?CategoryID=1

R

In article , Doug Miller
says...

In article , Banty
wrote:
In article t, Norminn
says...

Doug Miller wrote:
In article et, Norminn
wrote:


You don't normally need to prime a wall that is already painted.


Not normally, but in a case such as this -- where he's painting over a color

that will be difficult to hide -- a tinted stain-blocking primer can be a
great help.

Primers have a lot less hiding power than paint. Why would you prime
and paint when two coats of paint would cover better?

Right.

Tinting primer only makes sense when covering, or going to, a very deep color
from or to a light color.

Which is *exactly* the situation the OP described...


Eh - the dark orange to cream, yes. The others, nah. *Maybe* the lime green to
cream, if the lime green is very deep, but most of the time it's not .... White
to baby blue? C'mon.

He only needs one tinted primer. Frankly, I'd just go with the two coats paint.

Banty


--

In article et, Norminn wrote:
clipped

Primer is a waste in this situation. Two coats of paint cover most
colors. Three for drasticly different colors. If three coats of paint
are needed to cover a color, then three it is. Primer doesn't cover.


Are you missing the word "blocking" in the phrase "blocking primer"
accidentally or intentionally?


A blocking primer, as I understand it, keeps stains and some wood
pigments from bleeding through into the PAINT coating.

Yes, and it also is better at hiding hard-to-cover colors such as the vivid
orange and lime green that the OP described.

Has nothing at
all to do with whether the paint that goes on after it COVERS the
underlying color. Entirely different issues.

Not correct.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Not sure if anyone still cares, but quick update: I went ahead and
bought Benjamin Moore's top-line eggshell paint. I primed the orange
walls using BM's stain-blocking primer, but painted straight over the
white walls in the bedroom.

In both rooms, the first coat of paint covered so well that I didn't
end up painting a second coat. Of course, like I mentioned, (1) I don't
get much natural light in either room, and (2) I wasn't too picky about
my own workmanship, so it might actually be a shoddier paint job than I
think. Still, I'm mostly happy with the results (the blue didn't turn
out to be the exact same shade I had in my mind, but it's acceptable).

In any case, I'm definitely a fan of Benjamin Moore now; although this
is the only paint I've used so far, it seems very good paint for sloppy
novices like me to work with - easy to put on, quick-drying, great
coverage, tolerable smell, and fairly easy to wash off of skin and
hardwood floors.