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.

"Chris" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.


This is Turtle.

You should call them back up and have them give a answer to this so we can get
both sides of the story. i tried calling the Sherwin Williams store in my area
and ask about it and the fellow who was talking to said this. I said i think the
gallion of paint you sell is short just a little bit of 1 gallion size. He said
awwww let me see how many qt.s are in a gallion ? I said 4 . He said well let me
call the area manager and I will get back with you. i told him Never mine I will
call back later.

See if you can get a better answer !

TURTLE

"Chris" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.


Admittedly, it's annoying when package sizes change (as they do constantly
with groceries), but I think "preyed on me" is not accurate. As you said,
the container was clearly marked.

On 07/29/05 11:19 am Doug Kanter tossed the following ingredients into
the ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

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.

Admittedly, it's annoying when package sizes change (as they do constantly
with groceries), but I think "preyed on me" is not accurate. As you said,
the container was clearly marked.

Yes, so are the 56oz. "half gallon" (NOT) ice cream packs "clearly
marked" -- but many people aren't going to read the markings on the
package every time, especially if it's a brand that they've been buying
for years.

And the "unit pricing" labels in the grocer store don't always help,
because the label for one brand may give the price in cents/oz. while
the label for another brand may be in $/lb.

Perce

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in message
...
On 07/29/05 11:19 am Doug Kanter tossed the following ingredients into the
ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

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.

Admittedly, it's annoying when package sizes change (as they do
constantly with groceries), but I think "preyed on me" is not accurate.
As you said, the container was clearly marked.

Yes, so are the 56oz. "half gallon" (NOT) ice cream packs "clearly
marked" -- but many people aren't going to read the markings on the
package every time, especially if it's a brand that they've been buying
for years.

Well, what's the company supposed to do? Using your ice cream example: You
know the price of dairy products has gone up, right? Now, Breyers has a
choice. They can raise the price, or shrink the package. The first option's
a little dicey. Breyers knows EXACTLY what price range is acceptable to
customers, and what price will make sales drop off by a huge percentage.
They get this information from the stores, obviously. Second option - shrink
the package. This has kept Breyers closer to the acceptable price range. In
a way, it's necessary because many shoppers think the cheap crap ice cream
is an identical replacement for Breyers, so if the price of Breyers is too
high, they'll make nothing. Lots of shoppers will opt for the lesser brand.

But meanwhile, Breyers ****es off customers by shrinking the package. What's
the alternative? Put up big signs pointing out that the package size has
been reduced? For how many months or years should these signs be displayed?
Maybe design some temporary packaging with a big reminder on the front?
That's expensive. Guess who's going to pay for that? And, how long should
that temporary packaging be used?


And the "unit pricing" labels in the grocer store don't always help,
because the label for one brand may give the price in cents/oz. while the
label for another brand may be in $/lb.

Wal Mart's famous for that nonsense. For that, you should scream at the
store manager, and also go past him/her and call the home office. In some
place, it's illegal, too. Call your county's department of weights &
measures.

Back to the paint: If you were responsible for cost control at
Sherwin-Williams, and because of some REAL factor (raw materials, labor,
etc), you absolutely had to maintain a certain profit margin, how would you
handle it?

Doug Kanter wrote:
....
Back to the paint: If you were responsible for cost control at
Sherwin-Williams, and because of some REAL factor (raw materials, labor,
etc), you absolutely had to maintain a certain profit margin, how would you
handle it?

Unequivocally, I would either find a way to cut production costs or
reluctantly raise prices. I would not under any circumstances choose
of my own volition the "under-size the container" solution.

And, btw, I think the undersized ply is an abomination too (and always
will no matter how long they label it 23/32".

"Duane Bozarth" wrote in message
...
Doug Kanter wrote:
...
Back to the paint: If you were responsible for cost control at
Sherwin-Williams, and because of some REAL factor (raw materials, labor,
etc), you absolutely had to maintain a certain profit margin, how would
you
handle it?

Unequivocally, I would either find a way to cut production costs or
reluctantly raise prices. I would not under any circumstances choose
of my own volition the "under-size the container" solution.

And, btw, I think the undersized ply is an abomination too (and always
will no matter how long they label it 23/32".

Some production costs are beyond your control. For instance, is latex paint
in ANY way dependent on the cost of petroleum? And, what about
transportation? Two years ago, I could ship groceries by truck for $1.50 a
mile. Now, it's between $1.90 and $2.25, depending on location. Pretty hefty
price hike. Would you be OK with paying $25 for a gallon of paint instead of
$19?

Excuse me, but do you work for one of these marketeers? IMHO, that's
the most transparent, nonsensical, rationalization one could respond
with.

If there's a recognized, or informal, standard unit of measure involved
in some trade, that should not be putzed about with. Good thing such
crooks can't transform the magnitude of a pound, gallon, dozen,
whatever for bulk products.

People in D.C. also should learn that what matters is the TRUTH. Tell
it. Charge accordingly. Let people make their own decisions as to
tradeoffs, and don't manipulate.

TTFN,
J

Who? Me? No.

Do you know the precise reason for the size change?

wrote in message
oups.com...
Excuse me, but do you work for one of these marketeers? IMHO, that's
the most transparent, nonsensical, rationalization one could respond
with.

If there's a recognized, or informal, standard unit of measure involved
in some trade, that should not be putzed about with. Good thing such
crooks can't transform the magnitude of a pound, gallon, dozen,
whatever for bulk products.

People in D.C. also should learn that what matters is the TRUTH. Tell
it. Charge accordingly. Let people make their own decisions as to
tradeoffs, and don't manipulate.

TTFN,
J

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 12:36:44 -0400, "Percival P. Cassidy"
wrote:

On 07/29/05 11:19 am Doug Kanter tossed the following ingredients
into the ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

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).


Yes, so are the 56oz. "half gallon" (NOT) ice cream packs "clearly
marked" -- but many people aren't going to read the markings on the
package every time, especially if it's a brand that they've been
buying for years.

Damn! I know the feeling!!!
I get gypped every time I buy lumber!!!!! :-)


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 7.1

iQA/AwUBQutRpgIk7T39FC4ZEQIF4QCeOpNVPz4zJ6pv0qT5tIWDIi LwMKsAnAkH
UyYL6sgCbT1OpGu2wK4Xspb+
=psyS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
-john
wide-open at throttle dot info

"Chris" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.


And you thought that the cute marketing and packaging was to your benefit.
wrong again melon head. ( humor is intended )

I have gotten so that I read the packaging on everything before I buy.
Products change so fast it is harder and harder to maintain the "informed
consumer" status.

In alt.home.repair on 29 Jul 2005 06:23:38 -0700 "Chris"
posted:

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.

In addition, I would suspect (but don't know) that it's going to screw
up experienced painters who know how much they can paint with a
gallon.

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:

posted:


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.


My first guess is that the contents of the can are
deliberately kept a bit "short" of a gallon to allow for a
typical addition of tint. Remember, most paint color is
blended in the store and some of the tones require a lot of
added pigment.

Nobody

In alt.home.repair on Fri, 29 Jul 2005 13:26:14 -0700 nobody
posted:

meirman wrote:

posted:


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.


My first guess is that the contents of the can are
deliberately kept a bit "short" of a gallon to allow for a
typical addition of tint. Remember, most paint color is
blended in the store and some of the tones require a lot of
added pigment.

Aw, come on. Wasn't that true, isn't that true, with paint that comes
in cans too.

We should learn if it is base or not, but Edwin says even his base is
only 1/16 of a quart shy, 2/32, not 5/32nds.

I know what they do with candy, they keep making the bar smaller and
smaller with the same price until there is a price hike, when they go
to the higher price and original size. I don't know if that is the
case here or not.

Nobody


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 in message
...

In addition, I would suspect (but don't know) that it's going to screw
up experienced painters who know how much they can paint with a
gallon.

Oh for crissakes people. No 2 "gallons" of colored paint contain the same
amount of paint. The base paint takes a certain volume. They have to leave
room for adding colorant in the store to make any color you want.
Experienced painters are going to be "screwed up" because they haven't ever
gotten an exact gallon in their lives, and they never expect to.

"jeffc" wrote in message

Oh for crissakes people. No 2 "gallons" of colored paint contain the same
amount of paint. The base paint takes a certain volume. They have to
leave room for adding colorant in the store to make any color you want.

No so. I just looked at two cans of Pittsburgh paints. One was a pre
colored paint the it is clearly marked "one gallon" while the base for
tinting is marked 3 15/16 quarts. Another brand is plainly 1 gallon also.

If the OP bought a pre colored paint, he is screwed, If it was in fact a
base for tinting, there may be some legitimacy, but it still seems like a
lot of room for tinting.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"jeffc" wrote in message

Oh for crissakes people. No 2 "gallons" of colored paint contain the
same amount of paint. The base paint takes a certain volume. They have
to leave room for adding colorant in the store to make any color you
want.

No so. I just looked at two cans of Pittsburgh paints. One was a pre
colored paint the it is clearly marked "one gallon" while the base for
tinting is marked 3 15/16 quarts. Another brand is plainly 1 gallon also.

If the OP bought a pre colored paint, he is screwed, If it was in fact a
base for tinting, there may be some legitimacy, but it still seems like a
lot of room for tinting.


Maybe it's related to current fashions. Are more people asking for dark
colors than in the past? If you want a green that's 30% darker than an army
uniform, does it require more tint (by volume) than a pale green?

"Chris" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.

Um, it's so that it can take all sorts of colors, i.e. colorant. It takes
space ya know.

My God, people, paint is not like ice cream. The grocery is not going
to add chocolate sauce before you leave, making it a "true"
half-gallon.

Like jeffc said, a can of paint is less than 1 gallon so they can add
colorant! How do you suggest they get all those colors if the can is
full to the top?

If it was in fact a base for tinting, there may be some legitimacy, but it still seems like a lot of room for tinting.

5 ounces is by not a lot of tint.

On 07/30/05 07:33 am Hopkins tossed the following ingredients into the
ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

My God, people, paint is not like ice cream. The grocery is not going
to add chocolate sauce before you leave, making it a "true"
half-gallon.

Like jeffc said, a can of paint is less than 1 gallon so they can add
colorant! How do you suggest they get all those colors if the can is
full to the top?

So if I buy an old-fashioned metal can of paint that is labeled "1
gallon" (and really does contain a full gallon), it has no room for
tinting??? Baloney!!!

Perce

In article , "Percival P. Cassidy" wrote:
On 07/30/05 07:33 am Hopkins tossed the following ingredients into the
ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

My God, people, paint is not like ice cream. The grocery is not going
to add chocolate sauce before you leave, making it a "true"
half-gallon.

Like jeffc said, a can of paint is less than 1 gallon so they can add
colorant! How do you suggest they get all those colors if the can is
full to the top?

So if I buy an old-fashioned metal can of paint that is labeled "1
gallon" (and really does contain a full gallon), it has no room for
tinting??? Baloney!!!

Did it actually have a full gallon of tint base in it? Or was it a few ounces
short, so that the tint would bring it up to a full gallon? I never bothered
checking, did you?

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

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

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

"Hopkins" wrote in message

Like jeffc said, a can of paint is less than 1 gallon so they can add
colorant! How do you suggest they get all those colors if the can is
full to the top?

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 t he colorant.


If it was in fact a base for tinting, there may be some legitimacy, but
it still seems like a lot of room for tinting.

5 ounces is by not a lot of tint.

Perhaps, but Pittsburgh allows for 2 ounces.

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.

you werent ripped off if the lable was marked properly, but i know
how you feel, bought a pound of bacon that i realized was 12 oz when i
got home.

"Chris" wrote in message
oups.com...
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.


One time I bought a 2x4, and the damn thing was only 3.5" x1.5"!!!

"Ranieri" uh-uh wrote in message
...



One time I bought a 2x4, and the damn thing was only 3.5" x1.5"!!!

But it was a real 2 x 4 before it was planed to get what is considered
straight. I buy wood at a full 1" thick, but have to plane it down to 3/4"
to make it usable. I know this up front and expect to do it. It was cut a
true 1" at the sawmill though.

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
...

"Ranieri" uh-uh wrote in message
...



One time I bought a 2x4, and the damn thing was only 3.5" x1.5"!!!

But it was a real 2 x 4 before it was planed to get what is considered
straight. I buy wood at a full 1" thick, but have to plane it down to
3/4" to make it usable. I know this up front and expect to do it. It was
cut a true 1" at the sawmill though.


I thought the size diff was due to shrinkage as the wood dried. Not true?

In article , "Doug Kanter" wrote:

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
m...

"Ranieri" uh-uh wrote in message
...



One time I bought a 2x4, and the damn thing was only 3.5" x1.5"!!!

But it was a real 2 x 4 before it was planed to get what is considered
straight. I buy wood at a full 1" thick, but have to plane it down to
3/4" to make it usable. I know this up front and expect to do it. It was
cut a true 1" at the sawmill though.


I thought the size diff was due to shrinkage as the wood dried. Not true?

Not true. Ed's explanation is correct; the amount of shrinkage is measurable,
but _nowhere_near_ the 25% that would be required to turn two inches into one
and a half.

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

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

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
But it was a real 2 x 4 before it was planed to get what is considered
straight. I buy wood at a full 1" thick, but have to plane it down to
3/4" to make it usable. I know this up front and expect to do it. It
was cut a true 1" at the sawmill though.


I thought the size diff was due to shrinkage as the wood dried. Not true?

Partly true. It will shrink a bit as it dries, but then it is planed to a
consistent size. It may be possible that some 2 x 4 can be made to 1 5/8 or
1 11/6, but then that would drive everyone crazy.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
But it was a real 2 x 4 before it was planed to get what is considered
straight. I buy wood at a full 1" thick, but have to plane it down to
3/4" to make it usable. I know this up front and expect to do it. It
was cut a true 1" at the sawmill though.


I thought the size diff was due to shrinkage as the wood dried. Not true?

Partly true. It will shrink a bit as it dries, but then it is planed to a
consistent size. It may be possible that some 2 x 4 can be made to 1 5/8 or
1 11/6, but then that would drive everyone crazy.

Actually, like the paint or coffee, they did used to be...

Somewhere along about in the 60s, they went to the "standard" sub-1/2"
dimensions. I figured at the time it was a combination of making a
convienient standard at the "even" fraction plus better sawmill control
to shave a few extra tuba-ex's from a log, just like getting a few extra
sheets of ply by going from full dimension to sub-32'nds--over enough
sheets, that extra 32-nd of material adds up to quite a bit of raw
material saved.

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.

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.

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...

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 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.

"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.