My house just had a complete roof tearoff and application of 50 year
architectural asphalt shingles over 30 lb. felt and 1/2" CDX plywood.
The roofers finished last Friday, and I see some exposed nails and they
presumably replaced some shingles, therefore. Going up there now I see
more exposed nails. Some I can see standing over them, maybe half of the
nail head (1.25" galvanized roofing nails). Many more, I can see from
the side, if I look up the slope of the roof. I figure those are less
exposed than the ones you can see from above, but some moisture is going
to reach those nails too. How exposed does a roofing nail in this
circumstance have to be before it presents a problem? Thanks for the
information.

Dan

You should not be able to see ANY portion of the nail. Think of it
this way, if you can see it, so can the rainwater. Each row of nails
should be completely covered by the next row of shingles (except the
top row, and that'll be covered by a ridge cap most likely). Do not
let the contractor tell you any different. Take lots of pictures, keep
any documentation (contracts, work receipts, etc).

"Dan_Musicant" wrote in message
...
My house just had a complete roof tearoff and application of 50 year
architectural asphalt shingles over 30 lb. felt and 1/2" CDX plywood.
The roofers finished last Friday, and I see some exposed nails and they
presumably replaced some shingles, therefore. Going up there now I see
more exposed nails. Some I can see standing over them, maybe half of the
nail head (1.25" galvanized roofing nails). Many more, I can see from
the side, if I look up the slope of the roof. I figure those are less
exposed than the ones you can see from above, but some moisture is going
to reach those nails too. How exposed does a roofing nail in this
circumstance have to be before it presents a problem? Thanks for the
information.

Dan
As already noted by another poster--------every place you see a nail is a
potential leak. That is unless the roofer has an explanation as to why
there won't be any leaks.
MLD

"MLD" wrote in message news:kiPcf.4063$Y97.452@trndny05...

"Dan_Musicant" wrote in message
...
snip
Dan
As already noted by another poster--------every place you see a nail is a
potential leak. That is unless the roofer has an explanation as to why
there won't be any leaks.
MLD


There shouldn't be any explantion for exposed nails. It's wrong!!

"Dan_Musicant" wrote
My house just had a complete roof tearoff and application of 50 year
architectural asphalt shingles over 30 lb. felt and 1/2" CDX plywood.
The roofers finished last Friday, and I see some exposed nails and they
presumably replaced some shingles, therefore. Going up there now I see
more exposed nails. Some I can see standing over them, maybe half of the
nail head (1.25" galvanized roofing nails). Many more, I can see from
the side, if I look up the slope of the roof. I figure those are less
exposed than the ones you can see from above, but some moisture is going
to reach those nails too. How exposed does a roofing nail in this
circumstance have to be before it presents a problem? Thanks for the
information.

Dan

The only place you _may_ find "exposed" nail heads, would be on the last
piece of ridge cap, or on apron flashing. BUT, sealant should be covering
those nail heads, OR, some roofers take shingle material applying mastic on
the backside, and stick over the nail heads.

From your description, it sounds as if they nailed off-line. Nailing on-line
is crucial. If this is the case, I'll bet these guys were so proud they did
the job quick, and probably impressed you that they did the job so quick.
Unfortunately, if you can't be fast and good at the same time, it ends up
with a botched job. It will also void all warranties when nailing off-line.

If poor workmanship is so obvious just by looking at the job, it makes you
wonder what else they botched. I would be concerned the CDX didn't fall on
the rafters correctly among a list of other important factors.

On Thu, 10 Nov 2005 22:54:57 GMT, "josh" wrote:

:
:"Dan_Musicant" wrote
: My house just had a complete roof tearoff and application of 50 year
: architectural asphalt shingles over 30 lb. felt and 1/2" CDX plywood.
: The roofers finished last Friday, and I see some exposed nails and they
: presumably replaced some shingles, therefore. Going up there now I see
: more exposed nails. Some I can see standing over them, maybe half of the
: nail head (1.25" galvanized roofing nails). Many more, I can see from
: the side, if I look up the slope of the roof. I figure those are less
: exposed than the ones you can see from above, but some moisture is going
: to reach those nails too. How exposed does a roofing nail in this
: circumstance have to be before it presents a problem? Thanks for the
: information.
:
: Dan
:
:The only place you _may_ find "exposed" nail heads, would be on the last
iece of ridge cap, or on apron flashing. BUT, sealant should be covering
:those nail heads, OR, some roofers take shingle material applying mastic on
:the backside, and stick over the nail heads.

They didn't even put sealant on the two nails on the center ridge cap,
and I believe they cut for cap, one of the caveats I believe you posted
about not long ago in this newsgroup.

:
:From your description, it sounds as if they nailed off-line. Nailing on-line
:is crucial. If this is the case, I'll bet these guys were so proud they did
:the job quick, and probably impressed you that they did the job so quick.
:Unfortunately, if you can't be fast and good at the same time, it ends up
:with a botched job. It will also void all warranties when nailing off-line.

Maybe I should call the shingle manufacturer's rep if the warranty might
be voided. I guess my first call will be to the estimator and see what
he says. Maybe he will get them over here and fix the exposed nailheads.

What does it take to fix such a thing? This is a 2 story 1925 square
foot house and I found around 70 exposed nails today. Probably 35% of
those can be seen standing directly over them, the other 65% if you are
looking at an angle or from the side. One section of the roof is a lot
worse than the others. Some have only 1-3 exposed nails, one has around
10, but one section has around 50 exposed nails.
:
:If poor workmanship is so obvious just by looking at the job, it makes you
:wonder what else they botched. I would be concerned the CDX didn't fall on
:the rafters correctly among a list of other important factors.

I'm going to go in the attic and see if I can find evidence of plywood
not falling on the rafters. Some of the nailing was pretty poor -
sometimes 5-6 straight nails missed a rafter. Maybe they went back and
put in more nails, I can't tell from the attic, but I sort of have to
wonder when I see so many in one place.

Comments inserted

"Dan_Musicant"wrote
They didn't even put sealant on the two nails on the center ridge cap,
and I believe they cut for cap, one of the caveats I believe you posted
about not long ago in this newsgroup.

Cutting cap, from a 3 tab shingle for a laminated shingle, is a cost cutting
feature to save the _contractor_ money. I would be interested in which
brand you had installed. I do believe every _major_ manufactuer, has an
accessory cap available.

Also, you mentioned the nails are 1.25" length. It would be interesting to
know the length recommended for the 50 year laminate for which you have.


Maybe I should call the shingle manufacturer's rep if the warranty might
be voided. I guess my first call will be to the estimator and see what
he says. Maybe he will get them over here and fix the exposed nailheads.

What does it take to fix such a thing? This is a 2 story 1925 square
foot house and I found around 70 exposed nails today. Probably 35% of
those can be seen standing directly over them, the other 65% if you are
looking at an angle or from the side. One section of the roof is a lot
worse than the others. Some have only 1-3 exposed nails, one has around
10, but one section has around 50 exposed nails.


First, if they nailed off-line, they put holes too low, when they shot the
fasteners. Not only is too low a concern, but shooting off-line too high is
a concern. You must catch the shingle where it's laminated together,
otherwise you're not securing the exposed part of the shingle to the deck.
Also, if you nail too high, you're not catching the previous shingle with
the fasteners. This is a concern, especially when the winds pick up.

Pulling the exposed nails, then to properly place them, the hole is still
there, the damage is done.

I'm going to go in the attic and see if I can find evidence of plywood
not falling on the rafters. Some of the nailing was pretty poor -
sometimes 5-6 straight nails missed a rafter. Maybe they went back and
put in more nails, I can't tell from the attic, but I sort of have to
wonder when I see so many in one place.

I had seen a job, as what you described. We had done 3, tri-plexes for a
fellow over a couple years. He called looking for an estimate on a fourth
job. I was close to $900 higher than his highest bid. Of course, this was
the only one with everything spelled out, using the exact materials.

I followed up on the lead, and Bruce said if I would cut it closer to a $400
difference, he would award the job to me. No can do Bruce, you know the
work, go ahead and take your chances.

A couple months later, Bruce called me. He said he was embarrassed to call
me, but didn't know where to turn. He climbed on the roof, and seen nail
heads between the rows. He asked me to come look, and he would pay the fee.
No charge to this fella, I had to see what he was talking about.

He then asked me what it would cost, to fix the problem. Well, the roofer
had two complete rows, disappear when he got to the ridge, this was besides
the hundreds of shiny heads that could be seen.

I told him, the quote was still in the computer, and was still good. We
ended up, tearing off the brand new roof. And, Bruce, well he took the
company to court. But, the company went belly up.

Exposed nails must be sealed. I just put 11 squares of arch. shingles
on my new garage. I am not an experienced roofer and used a nail gun.
I took my time but wound up with 5 halfway exposed nails, plus 2 for
the final ridge cap shingle. I used roofing cement to seal each nail
and the cap. I would be ticked if there were 70 and I paid someone
else.

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 02:45:36 GMT, "josh" wrote:

:Comments inserted
:
:"Dan_Musicant"wrote
: They didn't even put sealant on the two nails on the center ridge cap,
: and I believe they cut for cap, one of the caveats I believe you posted
: about not long ago in this newsgroup.
:
:Cutting cap, from a 3 tab shingle for a laminated shingle, is a cost cutting
:feature to save the _contractor_ money. I would be interested in which
:brand you had installed. I do believe every _major_ manufactuer, has an
:accessory cap available.

They installed Elk Corporation Prestique Plus:

http://www.elkcorp.com/contractors/p...stique_phd.cfm

They do have the cap, but I didn't see any going up the conveyor belt,
although at the time I didn't know about them and wasn't looking for
them. I read your post that mentioned the cap a day or two later and it
didn't ring a bell, so I suspected that they'd cut for cap.
:
:Also, you mentioned the nails are 1.25" length. It would be interesting to
:know the length recommended for the 50 year laminate for which you have.

I don't know. I suppose 1.25".
:
:
: Maybe I should call the shingle manufacturer's rep if the warranty might
: be voided. I guess my first call will be to the estimator and see what
: he says. Maybe he will get them over here and fix the exposed nailheads.
:
: What does it take to fix such a thing? This is a 2 story 1925 square
: foot house and I found around 70 exposed nails today. Probably 35% of
: those can be seen standing directly over them, the other 65% if you are
: looking at an angle or from the side. One section of the roof is a lot
: worse than the others. Some have only 1-3 exposed nails, one has around
: 10, but one section has around 50 exposed nails.
:
:
:First, if they nailed off-line, they put holes too low, when they shot the
:fasteners. Not only is too low a concern, but shooting off-line too high is
:a concern. You must catch the shingle where it's laminated together,
therwise you're not securing the exposed part of the shingle to the deck.

I see that. I have a 3 tab shingle in the room with me and can see that
the overlap is barely more than an inch. Not all the shingles look the
same, by a long shot, but this one has a whitish line at about the
midway point in the overlap, and I assume that's the nail line and I
guess they should really be on that line, not so much as a 1/4" below it
or the nail can be seen, at least from the side.

:Also, if you nail too high, you're not catching the previous shingle with
:the fasteners. This is a concern, especially when the winds pick up.
:
:Pulling the exposed nails, then to properly place them, the hole is still
:there, the damage is done.

I'm wondering how I'll know if they did a kludge and reused the shingles
with holes in them or replaced them with new shingles. I guess I could
get up there on the roof and watch them like a hawk, but I was trying to
avoid that scenario. I suppose I was engaging in a lot of wishful
thinking when I put so much trust in these guys. This is my first
contract in my life. I was hopeful but I'm taking my knocks now. I'll
find out what they say this morning, the estimator (who I think is also
one of the company owners, probably, or at least a higher up), and the
project manager who I'm going to call in an hour or so.
:
: I'm going to go in the attic and see if I can find evidence of plywood
: not falling on the rafters. Some of the nailing was pretty poor -
: sometimes 5-6 straight nails missed a rafter. Maybe they went back and
: put in more nails, I can't tell from the attic, but I sort of have to
: wonder when I see so many in one place.
:
:I had seen a job, as what you described. We had done 3, tri-plexes for a
:fellow over a couple years. He called looking for an estimate on a fourth
:job. I was close to $900 higher than his highest bid. Of course, this was
:the only one with everything spelled out, using the exact materials.
:
:I followed up on the lead, and Bruce said if I would cut it closer to a $400
:difference, he would award the job to me. No can do Bruce, you know the
:work, go ahead and take your chances.
:
:A couple months later, Bruce called me. He said he was embarrassed to call
:me, but didn't know where to turn. He climbed on the roof, and seen nail
:heads between the rows. He asked me to come look, and he would pay the fee.
:No charge to this fella, I had to see what he was talking about.
:
:He then asked me what it would cost, to fix the problem. Well, the roofer
:had two complete rows, disappear when he got to the ridge, this was besides
:the hundreds of shiny heads that could be seen.
:
:I told him, the quote was still in the computer, and was still good. We
:ended up, tearing off the brand new roof. And, Bruce, well he took the
:company to court. But, the company went belly up.

The estimator told me they roofed with integrity, did the job right.
They appear to take a lot of pride in correcting mistakes, so maybe they
will correct these. How do you correct an exposed nail? How many
shingles do they have to pull and replace and how? How many in a given
area before it makes more sense to pull the whole area and replace them
all? Thanks for the help!

PS I was wondering if there's any way to repair at least some of the
exposed heads (maybe the ones down flush and barely showing). I'm
probably naive, but I thought that maybe inserting a small rectangle
(1.5" x 2") of thin stainless steel with sealant/adhesive under it over
each exposed nail might make a permanent fix that would last decades.
They could be sprayed with color matching paint. I know, it's probably a
foolish dream.

On 2005-11-11, Dan_Musicant wrote:

They installed Elk Corporation Prestique Plus:
http://www.elkcorp.com/contractors/p...stique_phd.cfm

On Fri, 11 Nov 2005 02:45:36 GMT, "josh" wrote:

Also, you mentioned the nails are 1.25" length. It would be interesting to
know the length recommended for the 50 year laminate for which you have.

I don't know. I suppose 1.25".

From the Prestique Plus spec sheet on elkcorp.com:

FASTENERS

While nailing is the preferred method for Elk shingles, Elk will
accept fastening methods according to the following instructions.

ALWAYS NAIL OR STAPLE THROUGH THE FASTENER LINE.

NAILS: Corrosive resistant, 3/8" head, minimum 12-gauge roofing
nails. Elk recommends 1-1/4" for new roofs and 1-1/2" for roofovers.
In cases where you are applying shingles to a roof that has an exposed
overhang, for new roofs only, 3/4" ring shank nails are allowed to be
used from the eaves edge to a point up the roof that is past the
outside wall line. 1" ring shank nails allowed for re-roof.

STAPLES: Corrosive resistant, 16-gauge minimum, crown width minimum of
15/16". Note: An improperly adjusted staple gun can result in raised
staples that can cause a fish-mouthed appearance and can prevent
sealing.

Fasteners should be long enough to obtain 3/4" deck penetration or
penetration through deck, whichever is less.

Cheers, Wayne

I would be very interested in knowing who the roofer was, especially if
in Florida. We had the same shingle, similar problems with sloppy
installation. I've posted details about it previously in AHR. We had
many, many shingles nailed off the line - there is NO margin for error,
as ours delaminated and fell off. Many were cut and pieced improperly,
so the overall pattern is haphazard. Roofer used regular shingles for
ridges, which also looked like crap. Elk used to have install
requirements and warranty applications on their website, but which were
taken down for a time. There is a form to be filled out and mailed to
them for warranty - I would not count on the roofer to have done it. I
believe the warranty is void if not installed according to instr. I
learned, from our mess, a good deal about roofing that I had never
expected to learn.

Our condo board did nothing for a long time, and in the meantime the
replacement value declines. They should have hired an attorney right
away, as the shingles fell of in numbers. Still falling off, but not
often, and after two major reworks. This shingle is worse on steep
roofs, we have mansards, and the city now requires a spot of cement
under each tab on mansards. The outcome of all of our grief is that the
darn things stayed on pretty well through last year's storms whilst most
buildings in the area lost shingles.

The estimator told me they roofed with integrity, did the job right.
They appear to take a lot of pride in correcting mistakes, so maybe they
will correct these. How do you correct an exposed nail? How many
shingles do they have to pull and replace and how? How many in a given
area before it makes more sense to pull the whole area and replace them
all? Thanks for the help!

I am not much for lawyering up, but this is a job that seems worthy of
an attorney handling construction defects. No way should such slop get
a pass. Just for good measure, I would file a complaint with the agency
that licenses the city building inspector who signed off on the job. My
town has some real bad practices, and they just might have saved a life
or two if they did a better job. I am very serious and pretty familiar
with some awful professional practices. I bitched to our city manager
about code issues, with no results, two years ago. Right now, we have a
section of rotted atrium roof beam propped up with jacks = when it began
to sag years ago, some genius put in two sections of downspout between
the atrium ceiling and railings to hold up the roof!! Work is under way
to replace the beam and jack up the sagging roof. A condo across the
street has had work being done on roof and exterior walls for the past
6-7 months - apparently rotted out walls. And it is a neighborhood with
investors rabidly buying in and avoiding maintenance to make a buck.

PS I was wondering if there's any way to repair at least some of the
exposed heads (maybe the ones down flush and barely showing). I'm
probably naive, but I thought that maybe inserting a small rectangle
(1.5" x 2") of thin stainless steel with sealant/adhesive under it over
each exposed nail might make a permanent fix that would last decades.
They could be sprayed with color matching paint. I know, it's probably a
foolish dream.

Comments inserted

"Dan_Musicant" wrote

They do have the cap, but I didn't see any going up the conveyor belt,
although at the time I didn't know about them and wasn't looking for
them. I read your post that mentioned the cap a day or two later and it
didn't ring a bell, so I suspected that they'd cut for cap.

Dan, the brand of cap won't sabotage the perfomance of the covering. I'm
just anal about aesthetics, some people probably wouldn't notice, even
if/when it was pointed out. I probably notice this practice, because I'm in
the business, and it rubs me the wrong way.

I see that. I have a 3 tab shingle in the room with me and can see that
the overlap is barely more than an inch. Not all the shingles look the
same, by a long shot, but this one has a whitish line at about the
midway point in the overlap, and I assume that's the nail line and I
guess they should really be on that line, not so much as a 1/4" below it
or the nail can be seen, at least from the side.

I was thinking maybe they did nail on-line, but used the nail line, to align
the bottom of the shingle? I believe Elk has a 5-5/8" exposure (you would
have to check me on this). The bottom of each shingle should be aligned to
the "cut out" of the previous shingle. But then again, since I've seen
off-line nailing by the hundreds, nothing surprises me.

Also, not just online nailing is important, but placement of the nails.
Example- 1" in from each end, and 1 foot in from each end (or manufacturer
recommendations). You don't want nails any closer than 2" from butt end of
shingles.


I'm wondering how I'll know if they did a kludge and reused the shingles
with holes in them or replaced them with new shingles. I guess I could
get up there on the roof and watch them like a hawk, but I was trying to
avoid that scenario. I suppose I was engaging in a lot of wishful
thinking when I put so much trust in these guys. This is my first
contract in my life. I was hopeful but I'm taking my knocks now. I'll
find out what they say this morning, the estimator (who I think is also
one of the company owners, probably, or at least a higher up), and the
project manager who I'm going to call in an hour or so.

Being anal like I am, I probably would take a can of fluorescent spray paint
and mark each bad shingle. That way I would know which ones they replaced,
or should've replaced. I'm not suggesting you do this, but just something I
would do.

The estimator told me they roofed with integrity, did the job right.
They appear to take a lot of pride in correcting mistakes, so maybe they
will correct these. How do you correct an exposed nail? How many
shingles do they have to pull and replace and how? How many in a given
area before it makes more sense to pull the whole area and replace them
all? Thanks for the help!

Well, with as many goofs as you explained, I hardly believe for one minute,
that they roof with integrity. No one should have that many mistakes on one
roof. The damaged shingles needs replaced, nothing less would do, for a
newly done job. I would not settle for sealant of any type. To replace a
shingle, you need to pull the fasteners from the shingle/s above the bad
one, plus the fasteners in the bad one.


PS I was wondering if there's any way to repair at least some of the
exposed heads (maybe the ones down flush and barely showing). I'm
probably naive, but I thought that maybe inserting a small rectangle
(1.5" x 2") of thin stainless steel with sealant/adhesive under it over
each exposed nail might make a permanent fix that would last decades.
They could be sprayed with color matching paint. I know, it's probably a
foolish dream.

I wouldn't waste my time, just have it done correctly.

I would suggest contacting the shingle manufacturer and request an
on site manufacturer's rep. The issue may be able to be handled
by phone, but you may be headed for problems with the roofer and
having the rep on site would add much to the total conversation.

(top posted for your convenience)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Keep the whole world singing . . . .
DanG (remove the sevens)




"Dan_Musicant" wrote in message
...
My house just had a complete roof tearoff and application of 50
year
architectural asphalt shingles over 30 lb. felt and 1/2" CDX
plywood.
The roofers finished last Friday, and I see some exposed nails
and they
presumably replaced some shingles, therefore. Going up there now
I see
more exposed nails. Some I can see standing over them, maybe
half of the
nail head (1.25" galvanized roofing nails). Many more, I can see
from
the side, if I look up the slope of the roof. I figure those are
less
exposed than the ones you can see from above, but some moisture
is going
to reach those nails too. How exposed does a roofing nail in
this
circumstance have to be before it presents a problem? Thanks
for the
information.

Dan

Roofers often hire inexperienced help as "nailers". You sure had some
poor nailers on your job. You should see no nails except at the very
end of the top cap. There is probably a lot more wrong with your job.
Better have it inspected by a professional.

On 10 Nov 2005 16:22:00 -0800, "Al Bundy" wrote:

:Roofers often hire inexperienced help as "nailers". You sure had some
oor nailers on your job. You should see no nails except at the very
:end of the top cap. There is probably a lot more wrong with your job.
:Better have it inspected by a professional.

Thanks, I was thinking the same thing today about having inspected by a
professional. I was wondering just who, though.

The project manager came by today an hour after he sent out a couple of
guys with some shingles, who repeatedly shook their heads at what they
saw and started replacing shingles. I stood on the roof and watched them
work. I could see that they were replacing shingles. The process of
removing nails from the shingle above has me worried. It seems like that
will damage the roof. Also, nailing with a hammer in that circumstance
looks iffy, like they can easily damage the shingles. They have to lift
up an edge of a shingle to nail down the one below. I don't think the
younger guy is very experienced and the older guy seems tired, way too
tired to be a regular roofer.

The project manager comes by an hour later and declares that nails that
you can see from the side are OK, particularly on a low sloped roof. I'd
think it the other way around. He says they'll only replace shingles
with nails you can spot from directly overhead. He also declared my
north dormer 4/12 and therefore the single layer of underlayment is
sufficient. I told him I measured it at 2.71/12, but he said he'd
measured it 4/12. I insisted, so he got his guage and measured and he
said it said it was 3/12. I said the instructions on the package clearly
indicate that this requires double underlayment. He said it wouldn't
leak and I said it would after a few years. He changes his tack and says
the double underlayment in under 4/12 sloped roofs is only for when you
use 15 lb. felt and they'd used 30 lb. felt. To this I said I'd reread
the instructions. Here's the instructions verbatim:

" UNDERLAYMENT

Apply underlayment (Non-Perforated No. 15 or 30 asphalt saturated felt).
Cover drip edge at eaves only. ICBO requires No. 30 underlayment for
re-roofing over wood shingles.

For low slope (2/12 up to 4/12), completely cover the deck with two
plies of underlayment overlapping a minimum of 19". Begin by fastening a
19" wide strip of underlayment placed along the eaves. Place a full 36"
wide sheet over the starter, horizontally placed along the eaves and
completely overlapping the starter strip."

To me, that means they didn't do the job right. Am I wrong?

I told him I had a mind to have the roof professionally assessed and he
said go ahead. I called one of the estimators I had bid the roof and he
called me back and said their fee is normally $300. He said that after
they finish their repairs today if I still want to to call him back and
he'd come out and do the inspection. Is $300 too steep for that? I can
call some other local roofers.

The project manager said the crew chief that did the job hasn't gotten
compaints before and he doesn't know why this job turned out so bad. He
admits that when he came back to replace badly nailed shingles he seemed
to have done "nothing." I'm afraid that I'm not going to wind up with a
long-lasting roof job here. The roof looks a ton better than it did, all
the sagging is gone, or almost all of it, but if I have leaks I'll be
bummed. Their warranty is for 7 years. Of course, the shingles are 50
year. Maybe I should try to get the Elk rep over here.

Thanks for your help.

Dan

I don't know whether the actual shingle has changed, but the sales pitch
has. 10 year longer warranty (attractive to homeowner), fewer nails
required (attractive to installer) - since all of the disasters, they
are probably cranking out shingles as fast as they can. 50 year? The
replacement value goes down with time, used to be on the website. Keep
an eye by your downspouts after it rains and see if you see piles of
granules.

"Dan_Musicant" wrote
To me, that means they didn't do the job right. Am I wrong?

Dan, you're right. Also, you shouldn't be able to see heads of fasteners
PERIOD.


I told him I had a mind to have the roof professionally assessed and he
said go ahead. I called one of the estimators I had bid the roof and he
called me back and said their fee is normally $300. He said that after
they finish their repairs today if I still want to to call him back and
he'd come out and do the inspection. Is $300 too steep for that? I can
call some other local roofers.

I have been in court for testimony, on more than one occasion. First, before
you have anyone come out, and assess the project, make double sure, they
have qualifications which will stand up in court. Otherwise, you're throwing
your money away, again.

Qualifications should include at least five years in the profession.
Licensed, bonding (if required), and insurance. Any roofing certifications
from manufacturers, such as Master installer etc. A list of projects and
permits pulled within the last five years.

I can't speak for other areas of the country, or even in my state. For my
area, an assessment would include detailed & typed documentations of the
problems, with photos & labeling provided at a cost of $150.00. Actually
going to court, providing sworn testimony, or questions/answer sessions for
your attorney/others, or any other incurred time, would be additional, @ $60
per hour plus expenditures.

If you already have a family attorney, I would put in a call to them, for
advice on exactly where to proceed before spending anymore.

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 21:54:26 GMT, "josh" wrote:

:
:"Dan_Musicant" wrote
: To me, that means they didn't do the job right. Am I wrong?
:
an, you're right. Also, you shouldn't be able to see heads of fasteners
:PERIOD.

Does that mean from overhead or from an angle? The PM contends that if
you can only see it from the side, it's not of consequence.
:
:
: I told him I had a mind to have the roof professionally assessed and he
: said go ahead. I called one of the estimators I had bid the roof and he
: called me back and said their fee is normally $300. He said that after
: they finish their repairs today if I still want to to call him back and
: he'd come out and do the inspection. Is $300 too steep for that? I can
: call some other local roofers.
:
:I have been in court for testimony, on more than one occasion. First, before
:you have anyone come out, and assess the project, make double sure, they
:have qualifications which will stand up in court. Otherwise, you're throwing
:your money away, again.
:
:Qualifications should include at least five years in the profession.
:Licensed, bonding (if required), and insurance. Any roofing certifications
:from manufacturers, such as Master installer etc. A list of projects and
ermits pulled within the last five years.

The guy I called is from a large reputable roofing company. I haven't
checked them out in detail, but will before I hire them for an
inspection. They were the high bidder on the job and their bid looked it
- fancy packaging. They, too, were recommended in the local area Good
Service Guide along with about 4 other roofers, including MY roofer!
:
:I can't speak for other areas of the country, or even in my state. For my
:area, an assessment would include detailed & typed documentations of the
roblems, with photos & labeling provided at a cost of $150.00. Actually
:going to court, providing sworn testimony, or questions/answer sessions for
:your attorney/others, or any other incurred time, would be additional, @ $60
er hour plus expenditures.

Sounds expensive to take this to court.
:
:If you already have a family attorney, I would put in a call to them, for
:advice on exactly where to proceed before spending anymore.

I don't have an attorney, but my sister (who lives close by) probably
does or knows of them, or can get a good recommendation.

I don't know if he'll budge on the side-seen nail heads, but he changed
his mind about the double underlayment on the low sloped dormer (about
500 square footer). He called and said they WOULD tear it off and apply
two layers of underlayment (maybe a second on top of the first, I don't
know) and put new shingles on top. Hopefully, this time they will nail
them right.

I think it might still be a good idea to have that inspection. It is apt
to turn up some other things they could fix before I pay them. So, even
if the report doesn't figure in a court case, I can use the findings to
get the roofer to fix problems. They seem to be willing to fix things
when I make problems apparent to them. But I don't know much about
roofing, so a professional inspection seems to me to be worth the money,
even if it costs $300.

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 23:18:09 GMT, Dan_Musicant
scribbled this interesting note:

an, you're right. Also, you shouldn't be able to see heads of fasteners
:PERIOD.

Does that mean from overhead or from an angle? The PM contends that if
you can only see it from the side, it's not of consequence.

See my earlier post about the surface tension of water and how it will
curl around the bottom edge of the shingle. On a 4/12 pitch, I've seen
water marks on shingles up to an inch above the bottom edge of the
shingle above. Those fasteners will get wet. Over time that moisture,
with repeated freezings and thawings, will move those fasteners around
a bit and eventually they will leak. Absolutely and with no other
questions asked I will tell you they will leak.

On the other hand, if you have a seven year labor warranty, what the
hell? If you get any leak whatsoever, this fellow is liable for it.
Any problems ought to show themselves in that seven year time frame.
Ask him if he will be liable for consequential damage like interior
painting?

Right now the owner of the company is on the defensive and of course
he will deny, deny, deny. That being said, it sounds like he might
just be firing one of his crews because they screwed up this job so
badly. You will find that you will get better service if you become
his friend rather than his enemy. At this point he knows his crew
messed up a simple job. He knows his good name is on the line. He
should want to make it right, and so far as he is able at the moment,
he seems to be doing that.

But be firm. There are likely other problems you can't see right now
that will turn up over time. Keep his phone number handy...you will be
needing it later...


--
John Willis

(Remove the Primes before e-mailing me)

Two to 2.5 cents inine from this peanut gallery:

"John Willis" wrote in message
...
: On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 23:18:09 GMT, Dan_Musicant

: scribbled this interesting note:
:
: an, you're right. Also, you shouldn't be able to see heads
of fasteners
: :PERIOD.
For sure! From ANY direction. I can't find it, but there is a
spec on how/where nails go in shingles. Anyone know it?

:
: Does that mean from overhead or from an angle? The PM contends
that if
: you can only see it from the side, it's not of consequence.
....
asked I will tell you they will leak.
:
: On the other hand, if you have a seven year labor warranty,
what the
: hell? If you get any leak whatsoever, this fellow is liable for
it.
Umm, he doesn't sound like the kind to rush right over to take
care of any future problems; he can't do it right the first time,
has time to do it over partially now, but I wouldn't bet on later
on. He just doesn't want to bother.

: Any problems ought to show themselves in that seven year time
frame.
: Ask him if he will be liable for consequential damage like
interior
: painting?
I suspect this type of person wouldn't feel liable for any
consequential damage at all, including the inside attic debris,
etc..
:...
Somewhere I saw a comment that legal action wouldn't be worth it,
but I disagree. If he won't make it right before he calls it
finished, I'd say take him to small claims court, depending on
the max you can sue for there. Around here it's $6,000, and that
6k would not only pay for the inspection the OP discussed, plus
the repairs, but maybe even a beer or two afterwards. It's also
a lot easier to win in small claims courts as a generaal rule.
If the contractor values his business at all, he'll stop
before he has to get to court and take care of things. He won't
like the bad PR that could scrape up for him.
OTOH, you can't be an a_hole about it, either. If it hasn't
already been done, someone should get up there with a camera and
take pictures of the problems, with at least one of the pictures
including that day's newspaper for "proof" of the date the
pictures were taken. That would be usable in most small claims
courts; they like pictures.

: But be firm. There are likely other problems you can't see
right now
: that will turn up over time. Keep his phone number handy...you
will be
: needing it later...
.... or sooner. g. If all this info is correct, that guy's
doing the same stuff to other people too, so he should be
stopped. Gives the whole industry a black eye.
:
:
: --
: John Willis
:
: (Remove the Primes before e-mailing me)

HTH,

Pop

"Dan_Musicant" wrote

Does that mean from overhead or from an angle? The PM contends that if
you can only see it from the side, it's not of consequence.

Dan,

This person is yanking your chain. You're not supposed to see the fasteners
from any angle. I suggest you read the warranty, posted on Elk's site. Your
warranty is void, when not installed correctly. You can read the
installation procedures, also on their site. In bold letters, it states:
"Always nail or staple through the fastener line". It also states exposure
is 5-5/8", with the nail line at 6-1/8".

There's not a lot of margin for error, when installing these shingles.

This is why I would also be concerned of placement of fasteners, with a
proper distance from the seams.

On Sun, 13 Nov 2005 00:36:48 GMT, "josh" wrote:

:
:"Dan_Musicant" wrote
:
: Does that mean from overhead or from an angle? The PM contends that if
: you can only see it from the side, it's not of consequence.
:
an,
:
:This person is yanking your chain. You're not supposed to see the fasteners
:from any angle. I suggest you read the warranty, posted on Elk's site. Your
:warranty is void, when not installed correctly. You can read the
:installation procedures, also on their site. In bold letters, it states:
:"Always nail or staple through the fastener line". It also states exposure
:is 5-5/8", with the nail line at 6-1/8".

Yes, the nail heads themselves are very nearly 3/8 inch in diameter. So
assuming the nail line and cutouts of the shingles are accurately placed
and that the nail is driven dead on the nail line, there would be a tad
(1/64th inch, approximately) over 7/16 from the bottom of the overlieing
shingle to the bottom edge of the nailhead. Whether or not you can see
that nail head depends a lot on how raised the overlieing shingle edge
is. All this varies from shingle to shingle. I can try again, but
yesterday the project manager didn't want to replace a shingle on the
basis of whether a nail in it was visible. He said it had to be visible
from straight over it, looking down at a 90 degree angle from the
shingle.
:
:There's not a lot of margin for error, when installing these shingles.

Also, a lot of the nails are at a fairly (obviously) pronounced angle,
because the nailer was in such a hurry he couldn't be bothered to adjust
his position when nailing the entire shingle. Many are not flush,
either. Some stand up, I'd say, a good 3/16".
:
:This is why I would also be concerned of placement of fasteners, with a
roper distance from the seams.

That's another area where I think they are guilty. They fired away a lot
of times, putting easily double the number of fasteners in a shingle as
if they could correct their errors by firing in more nails.

I'm concerned about another thing right now. The project manager gave
his two men instructions early yesterday afternoon to remove all the
shingles from the north dormer, which is the 20' x 25' less than 3/12
sloped roof that requires double underlayment. They left the current
layer of 30 lb. underlayment. I can understand doing that overnight to
leave protection against any possible precipitation (although there's
none in the forecast). However, I doubt that this existing layer of
underlayment should be left on there before they proceed. The
manufacturer's specification is for overlapping double underlayment, not
one layer on top of another. Here's what it says on the shingle package:

" UNDERLAYMENT

Apply underlayment (Non-Perforated No. 15 or 30 asphalt saturated felt).
Cover drip edge at eaves only. ICBO requires No. 30 underlayment for
re-roofing over wood shingles.

For low slope (2/12 up to 4/12), completely cover the deck with two
plies of underlayment overlapping a minimum of 19". Begin by fastening a
19" wide strip of underlayment placed along the eaves. Place a full 36"
wide sheet over the starter, horizontally placed along the eaves and
completely overlapping the starter strip."


Maybe I should print that out and hand that to them when they come in
the morning, although it wouldn't surprise me if the person in charge
wouldn't comprehend it. If they try to put a second layer of
underlayment over the existing one, it won't be to specification and the
lower layer will have hundreds and hundreds of nail holes in it to boot.