Hi All,

I live in NYC and I am considering a new shingle roof over the
existing roof. The current roof is the original and is 15 years old
made of composite shingle (contractor grade 20 year life). The roof is
2,400 square feet and has a 6/12 pitch, nothing fancy. The roof is in
just ok shape, but it's getting old fast.

A roofing contractor quoted me a price of $1.75 sq foot to install
timberline 30 shingles or Certain Teed woodscape 30 shingles, rounded
to $4,000. Is that a fair price? Assuming that is a fair price, does
it make sense to upgrade to a better shingle say certain teed landmark
50 shingles? Is the same amount of labor required to install a 50 year
shingle as compared to a 30 year shingle? Thanks in advance for your
advise.

wrote

Assuming that is a fair price, does
it make sense to upgrade to a better shingle say certain teed landmark
50 shingles? Is the same amount of labor required to install a 50 year
shingle as compared to a 30 year shingle? Thanks in advance for your
advise.

For what it's worth, here is my experience. I've had my roof done a
couple of times, so I've seen the cost of the shingles. The cost of
doing your roof is in the labor. I would not skimp on the shingles because
why go through a reroof more often than necessary? They still just
nail down each shingle, doesn't matter how good it is.

Would I go for a 50 year shingle? I don't know. I wouldn't touch
a 20 year shingle. But, as I recall, if the job was $3500, the shingles
themselves were only a few hundred.

I'm sorry I don't know where I saw it, maybe someone here knows
one, there is some online estimator for what you can expect to pay
for installation. Check out the website of the brand you're considering
using. The one I used even listed the name of the local installer.

nancy

wrote in message
A roofing contractor quoted me a price of $1.75 sq foot to install
timberline 30 shingles or Certain Teed woodscape 30 shingles, rounded
to $4,000. Is that a fair price? Assuming that is a fair price, does
it make sense to upgrade to a better shingle say certain teed landmark
50 shingles? Is the same amount of labor required to install a 50 year
shingle as compared to a 30 year shingle? Thanks in advance for your
advise.

Price sounds reasonable. Upgrading to a 50 year would have a slight labor
upgrade. Most 30 year are 4 bundles per square, the 40 and 50 year are 3
bundles so a little more handling labor is needed. Worth it? If you care
about the long term, certainly. If you are moving out in two years,
probably not.

On Apr 27, 8:47 am, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:
wrote in message
A roofing contractor quoted me a price of $1.75 sq foot to install
timberline 30 shingles or Certain Teed woodscape 30 shingles, rounded
to $4,000. Is that a fair price? Assuming that is a fair price, does
it make sense to upgrade to a better shingle say certain teed landmark
50 shingles? Is the same amount of labor required to install a 50 year
shingle as compared to a 30 year shingle? Thanks in advance for your
advise.

Price sounds reasonable. Upgrading to a 50 year would have a slight labor
upgrade. Most 30 year are 4 bundles per square, the 40 and 50 year are 3
bundles so a little more handling labor is needed. Worth it? If you care
about the long term, certainly. If you are moving out in two years,
probably not.

Before I spent more money on shingles, I'd spend it on having the
previous shingles taken
off, so you get a superior install.

On Apr 27, 9:56 am, wrote:
On Apr 27, 8:47 am, "Edwin Pawlowski" wrote:

wrote in message
A roofing contractor quoted me a price of $1.75 sq foot to install
timberline 30 shingles or Certain Teed woodscape 30 shingles, rounded
to $4,000. Is that a fair price? Assuming that is a fair price, does
it make sense to upgrade to a better shingle say certain teed landmark
50 shingles? Is the same amount of labor required to install a 50 year
shingle as compared to a 30 year shingle? Thanks in advance for your
advise.

Price sounds reasonable. Upgrading to a 50 year would have a slight labor
upgrade. Most 30 year are 4 bundles per square, the 40 and 50 year are 3
bundles so a little more handling labor is needed. Worth it? If you care
about the long term, certainly. If you are moving out in two years,
probably not.

Before I spent more money on shingles, I'd spend it on having the
previous shingles taken
off, so you get a superior install.

Agreed. The tear-off is the most important part of the job in my
experience. I was on a roofing crew and we always did a tear-off so I
assumed we would not consider anything else.

Here's what I learned. There is often water damage to the deck
underneath that needs repair. Also, even if the deck is OK you will
almost always find areas that are wet. Tear-off give you a chance to
dry it out before re-roofing.

Having said that: Tear off can be a tremendous amount of work. The
crew I was on had between 8 and 11 men and we would work on the
biggest roofs. Everyone on the crew including the foreman would work
exclusively on the tear-off and clean-up until the roof was totally
clean. Then the crew would be split between men on the roof and men
on the ground, continuing the clean up.

So, it would have to add a lot of expense to the project when you are
hiring ten men. Some of the roofs I worked on had as many as four
layers including the original wooden shakes!! We filled so many
dumpsters we lost count.
Do not put yourself in that situation.

So buy the good shingles but don't skimp on the tear-off. Some
roofers won't give any warranty without one.

On 27 Apr 2007 10:39:04 -0700, Lawrence
wrote:


Here's what I learned. There is often water damage to the deck
underneath that needs repair. Also, even if the deck is OK you will
almost always find areas that are wet. Tear-off give you a chance to
dry it out before re-roofing.

Will it dry out even if they start putting the tar paper on ten
minutes later, and the shingles as sooon as the tar paper is on?

That's how they did mine.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Hi All,

I live in NYC and I am considering a new shingle roof over the
existing roof. The current roof is the original and is 15 years old
made of composite shingle (contractor grade 20 year life). The roof is
2,400 square feet and has a 6/12 pitch, nothing fancy. The roof is in
just ok shape, but it's getting old fast.

It's a bad idea to reroof over the old stuff. It's just delaying the
inevitable expense, that's all. It also helps in trapping heat in the
attic, and the new shingles won't lay down properly.

Do it right - pay the $ to have the old shingles taken off. I wish the
previous owner did the same at my house - at the ridge, there's 1.5" of
shingles, which is 2 or 3 layers. The local roof guy estimated 11,000 pounds
of shingles & tar paper on the roof, and that it will cost more to remove
that than to install new shingles.

because of cost most younger people cant afford 50 year shingles, by
the time they get older, a 50 year shingle doesnt matter, they
proobably wouldnt live long enough for payback. then add people
moving, probably cant get the cost back at home resale time even if
the warranty is transferable

On Apr 28, 8:36 am, " wrote:
because of cost most younger people cant afford 50 year shingles, by
the time they get older, a 50 year shingle doesnt matter, they
proobably wouldnt live long enough for payback. then add people
moving, probably cant get the cost back at home resale time even if
the warranty is transferable

That's a good point. Plus, most people don't live in the same place
for that long anyway.

I would strongly consider using an architectural shingle though. They
can make
a dramatic difference in how the house looks and I think you do get
that money back
when you sell.

On Apr 27, 10:46 pm, mm wrote:
Here's what I learned. There is often water damage to the deck
underneath that needs repair. Also, even if the deck is OK you will
almost always find areas that are wet. Tear-off give you a chance to
dry it out before re-roofing.

Will it dry out even if they start putting the tar paper on ten
minutes later, and the shingles as sooon as the tar paper is on?

That's how they did mine.

Ten minutes of drying out is better than none I suppose. It's
possible your deck was dry and intact. It's also possible on a large
house to work on the dry side of the roof while the wet side can dry a
bit. It's also very possible that your crew didn't care what the deck
looked like and just wanted to get the job over with. In any case,
there is no opportunity to inspect or repair the deck if no tear-off
is done. That is my point.

On the crew I was on we did many repairs where large sections of the
deck had to be replaced with new wood. In other cases where the deck
was just wet, we would work on the dry side of the house or do clean-
up on until it had a chance to dry out.

It may not even be something you as a homeowner would notice. The
foreman would not necessarily take the time to find the homeowner to
explain those details since he don't like to waste any time while the
roof is off. I get the impression that the homowners have the same
attitude. Once you start tearing off their roof they are very careful
to stay out of your way and not bother the foreman with any questions.

So, unless you actually go up there yourself to look at the deck there
is no way for you to really know, eh? You can't really tell that much
from the ground. I never once saw a homeowner come up on the roof so
it is really up to the the judgment and integrity of the foreman in
the end. I'm fairly certain that the contract would have something to
say about structural repairs and how they are to be paid for.