"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

...
...I believe it was you who, earlier, said that if production
costs had risen, you'd find a way to control them or decrease them.

No, it was I, but you took what I said and conveniently snipped the part
which included either control cost or raise price which I also
pointed out in response to your comment there...

I probably snipped because I wanted to focus on fuel.

Changing the subject again...

No. We've been talking about costs you cannot control. Fuel/transportation
is one such cost.



[snip]

"things one doesn't want to do" Let's look at the answer our other
contestants chose. Mr. Miller says "evil and deception". Sorry...

Liar. I never said it was "evil". And I explicitly said it is *not*
deceptive.
*YOU* said it was deceptive.

OK. Perhaps you're right. But, you definitely HAVE been pointing to
increased profits as something you view as a negative reason for decreasing
package size.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

But, all along, you've been arguing
that the situation stinks. So, back to my question: Would it be better
if
you saw signage in the store announcing the size decrease? Or, temporary
packaging with a large banner announcing the change?

That's silly. Why would that be better?

Because you're complaining about package size as if it were hidden from
you
somehow. Something sneaky.

It *is* sneaky to repackage your product in a carton that's *nearly* the
same
size but twelve percent smaller, and sell it at the same price.

Can you describe ANY way to shrink a package that would NOT be sneaky?



The only to make it clear is to (ready?) make it
clear. I suggested two ways of doing so, both of which you consider silly.

They *are* silly.

Why silly?



By doing so, you're saying that you consider it unethical to shrink a
package. The only way for them to deal with increasing costs is to raise
their prices, as far as you're concerned.

I didn't say that.

I've told you that there are costs which cannot be controlled. Therefore,
size must decrease or price must increase. You don't like sizes being
changed, as you've repeated a number of times. That leaves price increases
as the only option. You may not have said it explicitly, but since there is
no other option, you've agreed to it.



But: I explained to you that customers have certain perceptions - certain
price levels beyond which they simply will not buy a product.
Manufacturers
know what these perceptions are, based on research and product movement
data. I asked you where YOUR limit was for a half gallon of ice cream. You
refused to respond sensibly.

I declined to respond, because the question is silly and irrelevant.

Customer perceptions (and YOUR perceptions) are silly and irrelevant? Why?

You conveniently left out the FACTS that I posted. The pre-colored paint by other brands is one gallon, it is the tint base that was less to allow for adding the colorant.

Okay. Oh, and when someone conveniently leaves out facts, it's to twist
someones else's words. I did no such thing; in fact, I did the
opposite. I seconded what you said - just because I didn't second
everything you said is no reason to get froggy.

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. com...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

But, all along, you've been arguing
that the situation stinks. So, back to my question: Would it be better
if
you saw signage in the store announcing the size decrease? Or, temporary
packaging with a large banner announcing the change?

That's silly. Why would that be better?

Because you're complaining about package size as if it were hidden from
you
somehow. Something sneaky.

It *is* sneaky to repackage your product in a carton that's *nearly* the
same
size but twelve percent smaller, and sell it at the same price.

Can you describe ANY way to shrink a package that would NOT be sneaky?

Certainly. If you're reducing the package size by 1/8, the straightforward
way to do it is to keep width and depth the same, and reduce length by 1/8. A
side-by-side comparison of the larger and smaller packages makes the
difference instantly obvious. The sneaky way to do it is with a 4.4% reduction
in each dimension, which is scarcely noticeable, and even if noticed would
hardly be suspected by the average person as resulting in a 12.5% decrease in
package volume.

The only to make it clear is to (ready?) make it
clear. I suggested two ways of doing so, both of which you consider silly.

They *are* silly.

Why silly?

Come off it, Kanter, who advertises his product as "Now! Less for your money!"
That's silly.


By doing so, you're saying that you consider it unethical to shrink a
package. The only way for them to deal with increasing costs is to raise
their prices, as far as you're concerned.

I didn't say that.

I've told you that there are costs which cannot be controlled. Therefore,
size must decrease or price must increase. You don't like sizes being
changed, as you've repeated a number of times.

I didn't say that either. I said I don't like package sizes being changed in a
way that disguises the change.

That leaves price increases
as the only option. You may not have said it explicitly, but since there is
no other option, you've agreed to it.

Wow! Two falsehoods in one! There *are* other options (e.g. cutting costs),
and no, I didn't agree to it.


But: I explained to you that customers have certain perceptions - certain
price levels beyond which they simply will not buy a product.
Manufacturers
know what these perceptions are, based on research and product movement
data. I asked you where YOUR limit was for a half gallon of ice cream. You
refused to respond sensibly.

I declined to respond, because the question is silly and irrelevant.

Customer perceptions (and YOUR perceptions) are silly and irrelevant? Why?

Again... I didn't say that. You keep attributing to me things I didn't say,
and then demand that I justify them.

No, Kanter, _your_questions_ are silly and irrelevant. I thought that was
clear.

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

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

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

...
...I believe it was you who, earlier, said that if production
costs had risen, you'd find a way to control them or decrease them.

No, it was I, but you took what I said and conveniently snipped the part
which included either control cost or raise price which I also
pointed out in response to your comment there...

I probably snipped because I wanted to focus on fuel.

Changing the subject again...

No. We've been talking about costs you cannot control. Fuel/transportation
is one such cost.

Actually, we were talking about disguising price increases by shrinking the
packages. *Do* try to pay attention a bit more closely.

[snip]

"things one doesn't want to do" Let's look at the answer our other
contestants chose. Mr. Miller says "evil and deception". Sorry...

Liar. I never said it was "evil". And I explicitly said it is *not*
deceptive.
*YOU* said it was deceptive.

OK. Perhaps you're right.

Is that as close as you can come to an apology for distorting my words into
the _exact_opposite_ of what I actually wrote?

But, you definitely HAVE been pointing to
increased profits as something you view as a negative reason for decreasing
package size.

I don't view "increased profits" as negative; rather, I take a negative view
of the greed that drives a company to increase its profits by providing its
customers with less value.

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

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

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
exterior white which were not a tint base were full gallons. One of
those was also S-W, btw...

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message

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.


Well you'll be sorry to learn this. The tint base was 3 11/16 quarts but the
ready mixed colors are 3 27/32. Yes, they are shorting what was formerly
known as a "gallon" of paint. This was on the line in question. Some
others were still a full gallon.

In alt.home.repair on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:01:15 GMT "Doug Kanter"
posted:


"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
...I would either find a way to cut production costs or
reluctantly raise prices. ...

Some production costs are beyond your control.

Where did I say they weren't? What about either...or did you not
understand?

...
...Would you be OK with paying $25 for a gallon of paint instead of $19?

The point is, either way you are paying the higher volume price...just
one way it's clear while the other way it's not (and a deliberate
attempt to pull a "fast one" over on the consumer, imo)...

Why not call a few manufacturers and see what their logic was. Start with
Sherwin-Williams. Continue with General Mills, Kraft. Del Monte etc etc etc.
Maybe they found out from focus groups that the smaller package was a better
idea. There might be a reason for this. Think about it. Let's say you have a
fairly strict food budget. $100 a week, to pick a number. Now, your favorite
ice cream goes up $1.00 in price. 5 cans of beans go up a quarter each. Your
detergent does the same, along with paper goods. Add it all up and perhaps
your bill is now $120.00. You may say you can adjust to that, but a whole
lot of people can't. So, who should the manufacturers cater to?

Not the best example. Most people can cut down on ice cream, but
being less hungry, and less dirty are very hard to do. Cutting down
on beans, detergent, and toilet paper, because the same money buys
less will just leave people needing more sooner, regardless of how
much money they have.

I'm not saying you're wrong to be outraged by a size change, but I don't
think the motives behind it are pure evil, as some people suggest.



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

Doug Miller wrote:

Greed

If they're successfully being greedy, how come their stock price
doesn't show it. How come YOU haven't bought the stock? Oh,
wait, because of your higher moral grounds? Hang on, i'll save a
place for your portrait in the Chappaquiddick Museum of Fighting For
The People


The people who put their money where their mouth is, apparently
feel that the shrinking-package syndrome is just playing catch-up with
external costs.





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

You don't have the balls.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message

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.


Well you'll be sorry to learn this. The tint base was 3 11/16 quarts but the
ready mixed colors are 3 27/32. Yes, they are shorting what was formerly
known as a "gallon" of paint. This was on the line in question. Some
others were still a full gallon.

I don't think that necessarily shows it's any different than previous,
however, does it?

Were any that were "full" gallons marked a tint base? I'd suspect not.

In most instances, starting from 126 oz, say, the net would still be
somewhat under 132 even after tinting. So, if they've "pre-tinted" from
the tint base quantity, it's still likely to be what you would always
have gotten starting from the tint base and custom tinting.

IOW, a "gallon" hasn't always been a gallon and the amount "short" in
the OP's note is the same amount short as has been shown for an extended
period of time.

I suppose it is possible a pre-tinted before (other than the basic
white) may have been marketed in 132 oz gal, but I have no old
examples of that to compare with. My suspicion is that they don't make
any distinction in manufacturing and use the tint base volumes in order
to achieve simplicity of manufacture of consistency of color.

In alt.home.repair on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 21:59:31 GMT "Doug Kanter"
posted:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...

1. People are price-conscious...see the "99 cent" pricing syndrome.

My mother told me she would hear an advertisement or see a product at
$7.99. To make it simple, she would think $8. Then later she
wouldn't remember if it were 7.99 or 8.99, and would often remember
the price a dollar higher than it was. The opposite effect of what
they wanted.

2. People have been conditioned to expect certain things to be in
certain size packages--coffee in 1-lb tins, for example. People tend to

There was a big outrage when they started messing with the size of
coffee packages. That was about 30? years ago?

not actively scan similar-sized containers for the actual label, so it...


Well, I think the solution is for enough people to bitch directly to
Sherwin-Williams, claiming that the precise one gallon size is important
because it allows people to determine surface coverage in a predictable way.
Of course, this isn't quite true, because humidity and a few other random
things can affect whether seven nineteenths of an ounce makes a difference,

It wasn't 7/19ths of an ounce. It was 5/32nds of a quart which is
about 8 times as much. It's almost 4% of the entire gallon. Other
than that, I agree with you.

Another difference about paint is that that is one product whose
package size hasn't varied for my whole life and probably much longer.

People are used to it with candy.

Also, when one runs out of candy no one says, Look, there's a corner
of your stomach that isn't covered in candy.

but if enough people yell about it, that won't matter.

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

In alt.home.repair on Sat, 30 Jul 2005 12:57:20 GMT "Doug Kanter"
posted:


What's the difference between greed, and wanting to do more business? Are
you in a business which has a policy of not finding ways to grow?

A private owner can sacrifice profits to do what is right, without
anyone to complain about it (except maybe his wife.)

But corporate CEOs and boards are always saying they have a duty to
the stockholders to maximize profits. I wonder how true that is, in
law and in practice.


This is what little I know about it. The law could be both stricter
and/or more lenient than in practice. I think it can both at the same
time, but in different ways, of course.

The law might provide exceptions, probably does provide leeway, but
that doesn't mean that stockholders were settle for less than the
maximum. OTOH, in practice most stockholder pay little attention to
what is going on, and only a few big ones do pay attention, most of
the time. And very few vote against board nominees, nor do they have
much chance of electing an opposition slate except when things are
very bad.

Acting the "right" way is good for customer relations, even if it is
only done because it is right, so decisions about "truth in packaging"
are probably never a violation of the management's duty to maximize
profits. OTOH, at the end of the line, stockholders won't care what
went wrong if the company is losing money or making a lot less than it
did. (How is Sherwin Williams doing financially?) Like owners not
caring why a team is losing when he fires the coach. But team owners
are different because usually one person makes the decision.

I've been to one corporate annual meeting, a Fortune 500 company but I
forget which. All I remember is that the meeting was west of Rutgers
University in NJ. (at some big community college or community
auditorium iirc.) One dissenter wanted a vote on something, maybe
enviornmental although I think it was not that but similar. She
didn't even get to make a speech. This is typical iiuc. But they did
have a nice buffet in the "lobby?".

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

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
m...

Certainly. If you're reducing the package size by 1/8, the straightforward
way to do it is to keep width and depth the same, and reduce length by
1/8. A
side-by-side comparison of the larger and smaller packages makes the
difference instantly obvious. The sneaky way to do it is with a 4.4%
reduction
in each dimension, which is scarcely noticeable, and even if noticed would
hardly be suspected by the average person as resulting in a 12.5% decrease
in
package volume.

Side by side comparison. OK. You wrote that yesterday. I assume that by now,
you've realized why it's unlikely you'd have an opportunity for such a
comparison. There are at least two reasons.



That leaves price increases
as the only option. You may not have said it explicitly, but since there
is
no other option, you've agreed to it.

Wow! Two falsehoods in one! There *are* other options (e.g. cutting
costs),
and no, I didn't agree to it.

Nope. If you've already cut costs as much as possible in the area of labor,
and raw materials you CAN control, there are still some things you cannot
change. No avenue left but to adjust size or price.

What business are you in???

meirman wrote:
But corporate CEOs and boards are always saying they have a duty to
the stockholders to maximize profits. I wonder how true that is, in
law and in practice.


It never seems to bother them when their negotiating their own compensation
packages. Just this last week there was some media coverage of the former Delta
Airlines CEO who managed to get a multi-year multi-million dollar "consulting
fee" thaat included clauses to prevent the consultations from being either
inconvenient nor taking very much of his time. All it took was a lot of
stockholder money.

There ought to be a law mandating the maximum amount of compensation allowed in
publicly held corporations directly tied to the income of their average
employee. In Japan, the CEOs of the largest corporations make 7-10 times that
of their average employee; here it can run 100s of times.

Don't tell me you have to offer 100s of times the average salary to attract the
best. I'm sure they're not interested in earning what the average man makes and
will accept what you offer on top of that. Even if they wouldn't, what have you
lost? Most of these overpaid CEOs seem to be running their companies into the
ground. The CEO of Delta didn't set the world on fire with anything except his
exit package.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
om...

Certainly. If you're reducing the package size by 1/8, the straightforward
way to do it is to keep width and depth the same, and reduce length by
1/8. A
side-by-side comparison of the larger and smaller packages makes the
difference instantly obvious. The sneaky way to do it is with a 4.4%
reduction
in each dimension, which is scarcely noticeable, and even if noticed would
hardly be suspected by the average person as resulting in a 12.5% decrease
in
package volume.

Side by side comparison. OK. You wrote that yesterday. I assume that by now,
you've realized why it's unlikely you'd have an opportunity for such a
comparison. There are at least two reasons.

Guessing games again, Kanter?

That leaves price increases
as the only option. You may not have said it explicitly, but since there
is
no other option, you've agreed to it.

Wow! Two falsehoods in one! There *are* other options (e.g. cutting
costs),
and no, I didn't agree to it.

Nope. If you've already cut costs as much as possible in the area of labor,
and raw materials you CAN control,

Unjustified assumption on your part. That's a big IF.

there are still some things you cannot
change. No avenue left but to adjust size or price.

No, there are at least two other things you can do as well.

What business are you in???

Irrelevant.

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

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

There's a word for a human who has chosen to stop learning. The word is
"corpse". Rest in peace.

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:
There's a word for a human who has chosen to stop learning. The word is
"corpse". Rest in peace.

Your continued inability to carry on a logical discussion is duly noted.

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

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

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...

What business are you in???

Irrelevant.


Translation: You've never in your life been involved with marketing a
product. So, you bash any idea which might reveal your lack of experience.
Why do you get involved in these discussions to begin with? Feelings of
powerlessness elsewhere in your life?

Duane Bozarth wrote:

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message

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.


Well you'll be sorry to learn this. The tint base was 3 11/16 quarts but the
ready mixed colors are 3 27/32. Yes, they are shorting what was formerly
known as a "gallon" of paint. This was on the line in question. Some
others were still a full gallon.

Actually, after I posted before, I realized the numbers here are
grossly larger than the historical values so I do agree this is
"shorting" and is to be regretted that S-W has chosen to mask their cost
increases in such a manner...

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. Yes, I know that the container is accurately
labeled but I still think that the practice is misleading. The
container doesn't even have an integral, normal number of metric units.
I'd actually appreciate it if they sold 1 liter and 4 liter containers
(6% more paint than a quart or a gallon) and I'd even live with that at
7-8% above the qt/gal price. They could market it as giving you a
little more so you don't run out with 1sq ft on a job.


FWIW, I have 2 gallons of Classic 99 paint by Sherwin
Williams-regular(old) style can, both say 124 fl oz., 3 7/8 US quarts,
underneath that, in smaller but easily readable print, the can says
Before Colorant Added.

I also have 3 gallons of their primer Preprite, which are labeled 1 US
gallon. Both were purchased in the past month.

I wonder if they just forgot to put on the "before colorant added" part
on the label of the new style container?

Melissa

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..

What business are you in???

Irrelevant.


Translation: You've never in your life been involved with marketing a
product.

Whether I have or not is not relevant to what we started out discussing. As
usual, as soon as you began to lose the argument, you tried to change the
subject. Stick to the point, or shut up.

So, you bash any idea which might reveal your lack of experience.

What ideas was I bashing, Kanter, other than labelling as "silly" your
suggestion that a manufacturer should display a banner calling attention to
his smaller package and/or higher price? That *is* silly.

Why do you get involved in these discussions to begin with? Feelings of
powerlessness elsewhere in your life?

Oh, and what university is your degree in psychoanalysis from?

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

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

In alt.home.repair on Sat, 30 Jul 2005 15:38:10 GMT
(Doug Miller) posted:

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

I am sticking to the point. You're talking about "increasing profitability".
I'm modifying that slightly

In other words, NOT sticking to the point.

I think in fairness, it was the same point.

Bye.


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

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.

exterior white which were not a tint base were full gallons. One of
those was also S-W, btw...


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

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..
In article , "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
.. .

What business are you in???

Irrelevant.


Translation: You've never in your life been involved with marketing a
product.

Whether I have or not is not relevant to what we started out discussing.
As
usual, as soon as you began to lose the argument, you tried to change the
subject. Stick to the point, or shut up.

It certainly *is* relevant. You claimed I kept changing the subject. You
kept focusing on "deceptive" and "sneaky". That suggests "covert" -
something manufacturers try and put over on the buying public. The opposite
of that would be "openness", "informative". Instead, you said there was an
in-between: The specifics of the package dimensions. I asked you why this
would be unlikely to work. You didn't respond. So, one by one, you eliminate
possibilities.

Whether in law, science, marketing or philosophy, most decent discussions
involve the introduction, dissection, and rejection/acceptance of wide
ranging hypothetical ideas. (Search the web for transcripts of Supreme Court
sessions, for instance). If you don't have the energy or intellect for this
practice, don't waste peoples' time.


So, you bash any idea which might reveal your lack of experience.

What ideas was I bashing, Kanter, other than labelling as "silly" your
suggestion that a manufacturer should display a banner calling attention
to
his smaller package and/or higher price? That *is* silly.

Why do you get involved in these discussions to begin with? Feelings of
powerlessness elsewhere in your life?

Oh, and what university is your degree in psychoanalysis from?

One needs only to pay attention through one's adult life to notice these
things.

"tm" wrote in message
...
"Doug Kanter" wrote:
"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote
"Doug Miller" wrote

Excuse me, where is the deception in selling a 1.75-quart container
that
is clearly labelled "1.75 quarts"?

Oh, it is perfectly legal. It is just that after selling true half
gallon
for more than a half century, shrinking containers is a sleazy, but
legal,
method of increasing prices and hoping that the consumer does not
notice.
How often do you check the milk container to see if it is still a quart
or
half gallon? Do you do it every time you go shopping? Shame on you if
you don't.

I'll repeat a question I asked earlier, which nobody is comfortable
answering: If you were informed of the size change, would that have
satisfied you? If yes, how would you like to be informed?

Preferably over dinner with Selma Hayek.

In the tight blue number from X-Men?

"meirman" wrote in message
...
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.

exterior white which were not a tint base were full gallons. One of
those was also S-W, btw...


Meirman

I've been busy for 30 years, so I never checked with a measuring cup but,
maybe they *did* come in a full gallon, but the cans were larger to allow
for the tint? I dunno.....

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.

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.

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

Duane Bozarth wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message

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.


Well you'll be sorry to learn this. The tint base was 3 11/16 quarts but the
ready mixed colors are 3 27/32. Yes, they are shorting what was formerly
known as a "gallon" of paint. This was on the line in question. Some
others were still a full gallon.

Actually, after I posted before, I realized the numbers here are
grossly larger than the historical values so I do agree this is
"shorting" and is to be regretted that S-W has chosen to mask their cost
increases in such a manner...

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.

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

I'm convinced the OP got the "full gallon" and there is no volume
reduction at all...

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.

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

Hey, it's usenet....that's what we're here for, right?

"meirman" wrote in message
...


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

Meirman


I had fun with Mr. Miller, as always. Not sure if he's returned his comment
card yet, though.

a one gallon paint can will hold, if you fill it to the brim, about 132
ounces.