Let me address each arguement in order:

"RicodJour" wrote:
Consumer Reports doesn't agree with your opinion of Benny Moore paints.


My reply:
I am a member at consumerreports.org and I checked. You're just WRONG.
Consumer Reports rates Ben Moore as "Very Good" but it is also listed
as "still under test." Furthermore, CR doesn't mention testing Ben
Moore's best housepaint, which is what I was referring to.

"RicodJour" wrote:
There is no way to reduce painting labor using the same equipment. The

way most people try to reduce painting labor is by cutting corners
during the prep work.

My reply:
The more you write, the more I see you have no idea what you're talking
about. If you had ever painted much, you would know that there is a
significant difference in labor applied depending on the quality of the
paint. For instance, the better the hide on the paint, the better it
sprays and flows, the longer it holds a wet edge, the better surface
tension - all these and several other factors affect the labor applied.
It should be obvious to anyone that labor is reduced when you don't
have to re-paint as often (the coating lasts longer.)

It is equally as obvious to an painting professional that "cutting
corners" only ADDS to the labor in the end (early failures, lost
clients, etc) it doesn't reduce labor.

"RicodJour" wrote:
I generally figure paint at roughly 10 to 15% of the job cost using
good quality US paints, so it's not necessary for the Euro paint to
last twice as long to reap benefits.

My reply:
It completely depends on the job. You simply cannot generalize like
that. There are jobs that are single level (no ladderwork) new
pre-primed where labor is significantly less than a 100+ year old, 3
level craftsman house that's peeling. Sometimes paint is 5% of the
total job cost (bear in mind I only use Ben Moore's best paint and it's
not cheap) and sometimes it's 40%.

"RicodJour" wrote:
Beyond the economics, there's the aesthetic criteria. You can't argue
that a granite countertop is an unjustified expenditure based solely on

the fact that it costs more. When was the last time someone walked
into a house and said, "Oooh! Plastic laminate!"?


Paint is the final, most visible part of the construction or remodeling

process. Not exactly the place where I'd start settling for "good
enough". The Euro paints have textures and sheens that are different
than what's generally available in the US. Some of the paints looks
like suede, and others I can't describe. US paint manufacturers are
entering that market with some of their designer paints, but the end
result is not even close. It's a start, though.

My reply:

Well, no kidding. How it looks and performs is where it's at. I do not
agree that the european paints "look" any richer or better than Ben
Moore's Super Spec, for instance. I will agree that there is indeed a
difference in the "look" or richness/consistency of color and sheen
between "good" paint and cheap crap. It's something that people walking
or driving by any of my work notice right away. It's a certain "glow"
obtained when the prep work is done right, the right paint is applied
correctly and the job is finished properly.

"RicodJour" wrote:
One aspect you may have overlooked, something I can't, is the depth of
color. The Euro paints use more pigment and more of them.
http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/know...0,16417,216054...



This part was especially interesting to me as I learned of a US
manufacturer of high end paints that I was unaware of:
" The Donald Kaufman Color Collection ($40 to $75 per gallon) is a set
of 37 preblended "full-spectrum" paints. Whereas most paints use just
three pigments and obtain a static color, Kaufman's paints use up to 12

pigments to create a paint whose numerous hues react to changing light
with much of the same richness and range of color found in the natural
world."
http://www.donaldkaufmancolor.com/

My reply:

I didn't overlook "color depth" - which really is about opacity. I
could go into a long dissertation on paint color chemistry, but suffice
to say that there is indeed a difference and it's visually obvious to
almost anyone. Some flat paints look chalky and thin, some look rich
and smooth but still are non-reflective as flat paint should be. I find
that Ben Moore's paints achieve this look where others don't... except
the most expensive coatings. The quality, consistency and other factors
like 'grind' determine how pigment works, not just how many different
pigment colors are used. If you think about it, how many pigment colors
are used to obtain a particular color wholly depends on the color you
want to get. I have never seen ANY paint that only uses three pigment
colors.

Another factor to consider is how paint affects your spray equipment.
Cheap paint typically has what we call a "high grind" - it is very
abrasive - and it will wear out expensive valves in a hurry. That
certainly adds to the cost of labor.


"RicodJour" wrote:
I'll have to try some of their stuff. If it's cheaper to buy and gives

similar results as the more expensive Schreuder paints, I'll use it.

I reply:
I suggest a side-by-side comparison (using Ben Moore.) I think you'll
see little if any difference between two high quality paints. On the
other hand, some of the paints Consumer Reports rate a good paints I
wouldn't use for barn paint. Sometimes I have to use what a client
supplies - and recently I had to use Behr paint (CR rates as a top
paint) which was AWFUL CRAP. I had to repaint three times (which Behr
eventually paid for) in order to get a desirable finish - the paint was
somewhat translucent and had an extremely inconsistent sheen. I used
every trick in the book to make it work and a rep from Behr had to come
see for herself and she agreed with my conclusions. This only
reaffirmed my belief that Ben Moore is a better paint.

---------

"jeffc" said what I wrote was:

A complete crock of ****. You don't compare "Benjamin Moore" paint to
"Sherwin Williams" paint. There is no such thing. There is Benjamin
Moore
Regal and Sherwin Williams SuperPaint, etc. You can only talk about
specific paints. BM makes good paint and they make crap paint. SW
makes
good paint and they make crap paint. It depends on how much you want
to
spend. For a "professional", you really don't know what you're talking

about.

I reply:

Yes, I do compare Benjamin Moore with Sherwin Williams at any grade. I
only use Ben Moore's best paint and I would only compare that with
Sherwin Williams best paint. There is no comaprison... Ben Moore is
clearly better (and costs quite a bit more too) paint. I have not found
ANY of Ben Moore's paint to be "crap" even their 'cheapest' contractor
paints are decent. On the other hand, IMHO Sherwin Williams best paints
aren't as good as Ben Moore's lowest cost paints. There is simply no
comparison unless SW has completely changed their formulation in the
last year or two. I refuse to work with the stuff.

So as for your rule that, "You can only talk about specific paints"
normally I would agree however, with some brands of paint, -throughout
their entire line- are inferior to other brands that seem to care more
about the quality of their entire line of paint.

That's my opinion. Take it or leave it. It's only based on painting a
few thousand buildings over a few decades.

-Jeff
RicodJour wrote:
jeffc wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote in message
jeffc wrote:
"RicodJour" wrote in message

There is no way to reduce painting labor using the same equipment. The
way most people try to reduce painting labor is by cutting corners
during the prep work.

The easy way to reduce costs is to use better paint that goes on in one
coat.

All paint goes on in one coat. Whether it covers in one coat is
another story.

One heavy coat is inferior to two thinner coats for several reasons.

Duh! What did you think I meant? I'm not talking about heavy coats or thin
coats. I'm talking about cost savings using more expensive paint that
covers in 1 coat.

It was not clear what you meant. Maybe I'm not being clear, my
apologies. I've never seen a single coat cover to my satisfaction,
regardless of paint quality/cost. Your standards might differ. A
single coat is not as durable. When an average room takes an hour to
roll out, why even mention single coat coverage? It's false economy.

R