On 02/03/2016 09:44 AM, Tony Hwang wrote:
philo wrote:
On 02/03/2016 08:55 AM, trader_4 wrote:



Two aspects to that.

1 - Being the roofing pro, he should have told you that he wouldn't
do the job unless it was a tear-off.

2 - IMO, tear-off is well worth the extra cost. The older the house,
the more true that is. With a tear-off you can see any rot, any
bad plywood, etc.

In my neck of the wood, tear off is must. No one dare to pile up shingles
on top of each other. Any roofing job includes tear off. What kind of
people would do roofing without tear off? To save money? Our roof is
metal ceramic coated tiles. Nothing to do with roof in my life time.
Wind proof, fire proof.



Per code: One (and only one) roof may be installed over another, so
unless the wood has rotted a tear-off is not usually done here in Milwaukee