Kurt Ullman wrote:
I have some wooden windows that are rotting. One contractor
wants to go through and replace them. Another wants to "scab" them.
According to him that means taking out the bad part, milling a
replacement and then "grafting" it on the good part. This has a
couple of pluses, not the least of which is MUCh less cost and we
also don't have to mess with restaining the insides since they were
left intact.
The home is about $400,000, so I have some concerns about
matching the current windows outside and also that it might look,
well "scabby". Any comments?

----
Ideologue: noun. Someone who disagrees with the writer on
an issue and is insufficiently apologetic about it.
Stolen from Billo in misc.writing


One other thing I will add to compare the two contractors. The guy who
wants to replace all your windows is probably recommending that route
because that's what he knows. He probably would be a *bad* contractor
to go in and replace rotted sections with newly milled pieces. He
knows that he can order new windows, and then show up and replace them
all in one day, get his money, and then leave.

If I had to guess, I would say the guy who wants to only replace the
rotted parts probably knows what he is doing and is willing to put
extra time into doing a proper fix without making as much money on the
deal. He will need to make up the new pieces of wood, go in and cut
out the rotted sections, splice in the new pieces and then possibly put
in an epoxy filler. Then let that dry, come back the next day to sand
and prime, then come back again to paint (unless he was going to leave
that to you if that wasn't part of the deal). He will probably take
longer to do it right. If it was me, I would probably go with the
selective replacement guy rather than the whole window replacement guy,
regardless of the cost difference.

Ken