In alt.home.repair on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 12:07:54 -0500 Duane Bozarth
posted:

Duane Bozarth wrote:

meirman wrote:

In alt.home.repair on Sat, 30 Jul 2005 18:42:40 -0500 Duane Bozarth
posted:

Chris wrote:

I recently bought a "gallon" of paint at Sherwin Williams in that new
plastic jug with a handle and a pour spout. When I got home, I was
outraged to see that the container is labeled as having 123oz (I think)
or "3 27/32" quarts (I'm sure). What a rip off!! I expected I was
buying a *gallon* of paint and they preyed on me because of that
reasonable expectation. ...snip rest of diatribe...

Well, you'll be pleased to learn this is as it has always been w/ base
for tint--there's room left to make the full gallon w/ the tint.

To be sure, I just checked on several really, really old (some as much
as approaching 25-30 yrs) from several manufacturers including S-W.
All tint bases were from 126 to 128 oz. A couple of cans of finish

128 oz. *is* a full gallon. So you are saying that even base came in
full gallons back then, and the most any of yours allowed for tint was
2 oz.


Sorry, there was a typo and a mental faux pas going on in tandem
there...I for some reason was thinking 132 oz/gal and wrote too
quickly...the actual numbers for tint base were from 123 to 125, the
non-tint-white was the full gallon...

The 123 would be in the range observed for a heavy tint but that isn't
consistent w/ 27/32 qt -- 123/128*32 == 31 (approx). 27/32*128 == 108
oz which is a considerable shortage.

Man, I'm full of wonders on this...

27/32 is on the quart not the full gallon! So 27/32*32 + 3*32 == 123
oz.

Oops, you're right. Congratulations. We all fell for this.

Ergo, if this is a change it is very small and would assume it was for a
deep tint.

Right, there was never a problme to begin with. 114 posts for
nothing. Ugh.

Meirman
--
If emailing, please let me know whether
or not you are posting the same letter.
Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.