This is just a general question, not aimed at anyone's
previous posting.

I have an old, 2-story house, about 1500 sq. ft., built in
1911, with knob & tube wiring and 60-amp service (fuse box).

I was thinking of having the old service replaced with
100-amp service and modern circuit breakers. Will this be
compatible with the existing (old) wiring?

Having said that, I realize that actually replacing the
wiring itself is a BIG job. Does anyone have ballpark costs
on what a job like that prices out to?

Thanks,
- John

John Albert wrote:
This is just a general question, not aimed at anyone's previous posting.

I have an old, 2-story house, about 1500 sq. ft., built in 1911, with
knob & tube wiring and 60-amp service (fuse box).

I was thinking of having the old service replaced with 100-amp service
and modern circuit breakers. Will this be compatible with the existing
(old) wiring?

Having said that, I realize that actually replacing the wiring itself is
a BIG job. Does anyone have ballpark costs on what a job like that
prices out to?

It's certainly possible, yes. I wouldn't particularly recommend it,
though. As you can tell if you read any of the thread , I'm not of the
opinion there's a reason to unilaterally gut K&T just because it's K&T,
but I am of the opinion that if one decides to upgrade it's generally
rational decision to do the full thing.

That said, if the intent is to add some new service and the condition of
the existing is good, then that is an in-between position.

In summary, in all the retrofits/rehabs we've done, it has been the
condition of the existing system combined w/ budgets and other
priorities that has ruled as to what was actually done in any give
project. Some try to divorce the decision from these practical
constraints but that is simply not realistic. Sometimes it has to be
done because it is an actual danger and the dollars have to come from
somewhere else getting cut back. Other times, there are better uses for
limited dollars.

I'd also recommend you at least consider 200A rather than 100A service
for an upgrade unless you're intending to be the permanent residents and
know there's no chance of seriously upgrading the amount of electric
utilities, etc., in the future. That's simply a cushion for down the
road that isn't that much more in cost as it's likely you'll need a new
drop anyway to support the 100A service.

What it would cost is essentially impossible to predict locally -- much
depends on the construction type, basement or not, attic or not, etc.,
etc. A good electrician can do wonders in retrofitting, particularly if
he does have access to top and bottom plates from above/below.

Of course, it's also possibly a time to consider what you have for
exterior wall insulation and so on, given a house of the age unless it
has been done previously, so perhaps two birds...

--

On Feb 7, 1:14�pm, John Albert wrote:
This is just a general question, not aimed at anyone's
previous posting.

I have an old, 2-story house, about 1500 sq. ft., built in
1911, with knob & tube wiring and 60-amp service (fuse box).

I was thinking of having the old service replaced with
100-amp service and modern circuit breakers. Will this be
compatible with the existing (old) wiring?

Having said that, I realize that actually replacing the
wiring itself is a BIG job. Does anyone have ballpark costs
on what a job like that prices out to?

Thanks,
- John

for easiest resale, and bggest profit, replace all the wiring. your
home is a investment, likely the largest asset you will ever buy. you
might as well take good care of it.

go with 200 amp. it costs little more, and is money well spent.

5 grand for a modest home rewire around here.... your costs will be
well your costs.........

even if you dont do a complete rewire once you install modern circuits
for kitchen bath etc, put furnace on its own breaker, and GFCI
required areas like kitchen bath and basement garage your near a full
rewire......

home inspectors today are very pickey

besides its a good time to insulate and save enrgy every day

You need to assess your reasons for making the upgrade. If the existing
wiring hasn't been altered much, there's probably not that much of it, and
it's likely in decent condition. If there are only a handful of lights and
outlets, the 60 amp service is probably adequate for what's there now. If
you intend to add lights, outlets, or appliances, or expand the size of the
building, It would make sense to install a new larger service. There isn't
much price difference between a 100 and 200 amp service, so I'd recommend
the larger. Often the limited amount of K&T circuits are just left alone and
slowly abandoned as new circuits are run to the various parts of the house,
which doesn't need to be done all at once. The cost of doing this type of
renovation varies wildly, depending upon where you live and with new 2008
codes kicking in, it can be pretty expensive. I'd call a couple of local
electricians to get an idea of prices



"John Albert" wrote in message
. net...
This is just a general question, not aimed at anyone's previous posting.

I have an old, 2-story house, about 1500 sq. ft., built in 1911, with knob
& tube wiring and 60-amp service (fuse box).

I was thinking of having the old service replaced with 100-amp service and
modern circuit breakers. Will this be compatible with the existing (old)
wiring?

Having said that, I realize that actually replacing the wiring itself is a
BIG job. Does anyone have ballpark costs on what a job like that prices
out to?

Thanks,
- John

Actually having the breakers will make it safer. This is because you will
put 15A breakers on all the K&T stuff, and there's no chance of them being
over fused like there is with the screw in fuses. One house i bought (and
rewired) had 4 THIRTY amp fuses in the box. Also, two of the circuits were
screwed down on the buss side and were not fused at all.

s


"John Albert" wrote in message
. net...
This is just a general question, not aimed at anyone's previous posting.

I have an old, 2-story house, about 1500 sq. ft., built in 1911, with knob
& tube wiring and 60-amp service (fuse box).

I was thinking of having the old service replaced with 100-amp service and
modern circuit breakers. Will this be compatible with the existing (old)
wiring?

Having said that, I realize that actually replacing the wiring itself is a
BIG job. Does anyone have ballpark costs on what a job like that prices
out to?

Thanks,
- John

Forgot to mention. Total rewiring is not as bad as it might first appear.
When i did one of ours, (3 bedroom two story) I found it fairly easy to do.
Since the K&T wiring is not attached to the studs down the walls, i was able
to pull the romex with the old wires. also, pulling a floor board or two or
maybe even a baseboard will get you places you wouldn't even imagine.
Especially with the balloon construction, i was actually able three times to
push my fish tape all the way from the ground floor outlet boxes all the way
to the attic. Use a few 4x4 junction boxes and you're all set. I spent a
total of about 100 hours all my my lonesome doing this one. This included
setting a new panel.

s


"John Albert" wrote in message
. net...
This is just a general question, not aimed at anyone's previous posting.

I have an old, 2-story house, about 1500 sq. ft., built in 1911, with knob
& tube wiring and 60-amp service (fuse box).

I was thinking of having the old service replaced with 100-amp service and
modern circuit breakers. Will this be compatible with the existing (old)
wiring?

Having said that, I realize that actually replacing the wiring itself is a
BIG job. Does anyone have ballpark costs on what a job like that prices
out to?

Thanks,
- John

"S. Barker" wrote in message
...
Actually having the breakers will make it safer. This is because you will
put 15A breakers on all the K&T stuff, and there's no chance of them being
over fused like there is with the screw in fuses.

He can simply install type "T" fusestat bases, to prevent oversized fusing


One house i bought (and
rewired) had 4 THIRTY amp fuses in the box. Also, two of the circuits
were screwed down on the buss side and were not fused at all.

s


"John Albert" wrote in message
. net...
This is just a general question, not aimed at anyone's previous posting.

I have an old, 2-story house, about 1500 sq. ft., built in 1911, with
knob & tube wiring and 60-amp service (fuse box).

I was thinking of having the old service replaced with 100-amp service
and modern circuit breakers. Will this be compatible with the existing
(old) wiring?

Having said that, I realize that actually replacing the wiring itself is
a BIG job. Does anyone have ballpark costs on what a job like that prices
out to?

Thanks,
- John

"S. Barker" wrote in message
...
Actually having the breakers will make it safer. This is because you will
put 15A breakers on all the K&T stuff, and there's no chance of them being
over fused like there is with the screw in fuses.

That's type "S" fusestat base, my mistake

One house i bought (and
rewired) had 4 THIRTY amp fuses in the box. Also, two of the circuits
were screwed down on the buss side and were not fused at all.

s


"John Albert" wrote in message
. net...
This is just a general question, not aimed at anyone's previous posting.

I have an old, 2-story house, about 1500 sq. ft., built in 1911, with
knob & tube wiring and 60-amp service (fuse box).

I was thinking of having the old service replaced with 100-amp service
and modern circuit breakers. Will this be compatible with the existing
(old) wiring?

Having said that, I realize that actually replacing the wiring itself is
a BIG job. Does anyone have ballpark costs on what a job like that prices
out to?

Thanks,
- John

I've wondered about those. Do they not come back out? Couldn't someone
just remove them and go back to a standard fuse?

s


"RBM" wrote in message
...

"S. Barker" wrote in message
...
Actually having the breakers will make it safer. This is because you
will put 15A breakers on all the K&T stuff, and there's no chance of them
being over fused like there is with the screw in fuses.

He can simply install type "T" fusestat bases, to prevent oversized fusing


One house i bought (and
rewired) had 4 THIRTY amp fuses in the box. Also, two of the circuits
were screwed down on the buss side and were not fused at all.

s


"John Albert" wrote in message
. net...
This is just a general question, not aimed at anyone's previous posting.

I have an old, 2-story house, about 1500 sq. ft., built in 1911, with
knob & tube wiring and 60-amp service (fuse box).

I was thinking of having the old service replaced with 100-amp service
and modern circuit breakers. Will this be compatible with the existing
(old) wiring?

Having said that, I realize that actually replacing the wiring itself is
a BIG job. Does anyone have ballpark costs on what a job like that
prices out to?

Thanks,
- John

Once the base is screwed in, it's next to impossible to remove. There is
actually a special tool made to remove it. I call it the "mangler". You wind
up destroying the socket. It's a cheap alternative to a breaker panel,
although you still have the danger of having live exposed terminals to deal
with




"S. Barker" wrote in message
...
I've wondered about those. Do they not come back out? Couldn't someone
just remove them and go back to a standard fuse?

s


"RBM" wrote in message
...

"S. Barker" wrote in message
...
Actually having the breakers will make it safer. This is because you
will put 15A breakers on all the K&T stuff, and there's no chance of
them being over fused like there is with the screw in fuses.

He can simply install type "T" fusestat bases, to prevent oversized
fusing


One house i bought (and
rewired) had 4 THIRTY amp fuses in the box. Also, two of the circuits
were screwed down on the buss side and were not fused at all.

s


"John Albert" wrote in message
. net...
This is just a general question, not aimed at anyone's previous
posting.

I have an old, 2-story house, about 1500 sq. ft., built in 1911, with
knob & tube wiring and 60-amp service (fuse box).

I was thinking of having the old service replaced with 100-amp service
and modern circuit breakers. Will this be compatible with the existing
(old) wiring?

Having said that, I realize that actually replacing the wiring itself
is a BIG job. Does anyone have ballpark costs on what a job like that
prices out to?

Thanks,
- John

i c, thanks!


s

"RBM" wrote in message
...
Once the base is screwed in, it's next to impossible to remove. There is
actually a special tool made to remove it. I call it the "mangler". You
wind up destroying the socket. It's a cheap alternative to a breaker
panel, although you still have the danger of having live exposed terminals
to deal with




"S. Barker" wrote in message
...
I've wondered about those. Do they not come back out? Couldn't someone
just remove them and go back to a standard fuse?

s


"RBM" wrote in message
...

"S. Barker" wrote in message
...
Actually having the breakers will make it safer. This is because you
will put 15A breakers on all the K&T stuff, and there's no chance of
them being over fused like there is with the screw in fuses.

He can simply install type "T" fusestat bases, to prevent oversized
fusing


One house i bought (and
rewired) had 4 THIRTY amp fuses in the box. Also, two of the circuits
were screwed down on the buss side and were not fused at all.

s


"John Albert" wrote in message
. net...
This is just a general question, not aimed at anyone's previous
posting.

I have an old, 2-story house, about 1500 sq. ft., built in 1911, with
knob & tube wiring and 60-amp service (fuse box).

I was thinking of having the old service replaced with 100-amp service
and modern circuit breakers. Will this be compatible with the existing
(old) wiring?

Having said that, I realize that actually replacing the wiring itself
is a BIG job. Does anyone have ballpark costs on what a job like that
prices out to?

Thanks,
- John

On Feb 7, 6:46�pm, "RBM" wrote:
Once the base is screwed in, it's next to impossible to remove. There is
actually a special tool made to remove it. I call it the "mangler". You wind
up destroying the socket. It's a cheap alternative to a breaker panel,
although you still have the danger of having live exposed terminals to deal
with

"S. Barker" wrote in message

...



I've wondered about those. �Do they not come back out? �Couldn't someone
just remove them and go back to a standard fuse?

s

"RBM" wrote in message
...

"S. Barker" wrote in message
om...
Actually having the breakers will make it safer. �This is because you
will put 15A breakers on all the K&T stuff, and there's no chance of
them being over fused like there is with the screw in fuses.

He can simply install type "T" fusestat bases, to prevent oversized
fusing

One house i bought (and
rewired) had 4 THIRTY amp fuses in the box. �Also, two of the circuits
were screwed down on the buss side and were not fused at all.

s

"John Albert" wrote in message
gy.net...
This is just a general question, not aimed at anyone's previous
posting.

I have an old, 2-story house, about 1500 sq. ft., built in 1911, with
knob & tube wiring and 60-amp service (fuse box).

I was thinking of having the old service replaced with 100-amp service
and modern circuit breakers. Will this be compatible with the existing
(old) wiring?

Having said that, I realize that actually replacing the wiring itself
is a BIG job. Does anyone have ballpark costs on what a job like that
prices out to?

Thanks,
- John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

many homeowners insurance cmpanies refuse to insure homes with fuses,
although in many respects fuses are better

wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 6:46?pm, "RBM" wrote:
Once the base is screwed in, it's next to impossible to remove. There is
actually a special tool made to remove it. I call it the "mangler". You
wind
up destroying the socket. It's a cheap alternative to a breaker panel,
although you still have the danger of having live exposed terminals to
deal
with

"S. Barker" wrote in message

...



I've wondered about those. ?Do they not come back out? ?Couldn't someone
just remove them and go back to a standard fuse?

s

"RBM" wrote in message
...

"S. Barker" wrote in message
om...
Actually having the breakers will make it safer. ?This is because you
will put 15A breakers on all the K&T stuff, and there's no chance of
them being over fused like there is with the screw in fuses.

He can simply install type "T" fusestat bases, to prevent oversized
fusing

One house i bought (and
rewired) had 4 THIRTY amp fuses in the box. ?Also, two of the circuits
were screwed down on the buss side and were not fused at all.

s

"John Albert" wrote in message
gy.net...
This is just a general question, not aimed at anyone's previous
posting.

I have an old, 2-story house, about 1500 sq. ft., built in 1911, with
knob & tube wiring and 60-amp service (fuse box).

I was thinking of having the old service replaced with 100-amp
service
and modern circuit breakers. Will this be compatible with the
existing
(old) wiring?

Having said that, I realize that actually replacing the wiring itself
is a BIG job. Does anyone have ballpark costs on what a job like that
prices out to?

Thanks,
- John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

many homeowners insurance cmpanies refuse to insure homes with fuses,
although in many respects fuses are better

As usual, total ignorance. Show some documentation on even one insurance
company that won't insure a dwelling with "S" fuses.

On Feb 7, 10:46�pm, "RBM" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Feb 7, 6:46?pm, "RBM" wrote:





Once the base is screwed in, it's next to impossible to remove. There is
actually a special tool made to remove it. I call it the "mangler". You
wind
up destroying the socket. It's a cheap alternative to a breaker panel,
although you still have the danger of having live exposed terminals to
deal
with

"S. Barker" wrote in message

m...

I've wondered about those. ?Do they not come back out? ?Couldn't someone
just remove them and go back to a standard fuse?

s

"RBM" wrote in message
...

"S. Barker" wrote in message
om...
Actually having the breakers will make it safer. ?This is because you
will put 15A breakers on all the K&T stuff, and there's no chance of
them being over fused like there is with the screw in fuses.

He can simply install type "T" fusestat bases, to prevent oversized
fusing

One house i bought (and
rewired) had 4 THIRTY amp fuses in the box. ?Also, two of the circuits
were screwed down on the buss side and were not fused at all.

s

"John Albert" wrote in message
gy.net...
This is just a general question, not aimed at anyone's previous
posting.

I have an old, 2-story house, about 1500 sq. ft., built in 1911, with
knob & tube wiring and 60-amp service (fuse box).

I was thinking of having the old service replaced with 100-amp
service
and modern circuit breakers. Will this be compatible with the
existing
(old) wiring?

Having said that, I realize that actually replacing the wiring itself
is a BIG job. Does anyone have ballpark costs on what a job like that
prices out to?

Thanks,
- John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

many homeowners insurance cmpanies refuse to insure homes with fuses,
although in many respects fuses are better

As usual, total ignorance. Show some documentation on even one insurance
company that won't insure a dwelling with "S" fuses.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

here we go again

call your insurance company and ask..............

in the past posters have reported it here.

OH JESUS! is there ANY THING these so called insurance companies of yours
allow!?


i'm done with this thread.


I might have to figger out how to use the filters in this reader.



s

wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 6:46?pm, "RBM" wrote:
Once the base is screwed in, it's next to impossible to remove. There is
actually a special tool made to remove it. I call it the "mangler". You
wind
up destroying the socket. It's a cheap alternative to a breaker panel,
although you still have the danger of having live exposed terminals to
deal
with

"S. Barker" wrote in message

...



I've wondered about those. ?Do they not come back out? ?Couldn't someone
just remove them and go back to a standard fuse?

s

"RBM" wrote in message
...

"S. Barker" wrote in message
om...
Actually having the breakers will make it safer. ?This is because you
will put 15A breakers on all the K&T stuff, and there's no chance of
them being over fused like there is with the screw in fuses.

He can simply install type "T" fusestat bases, to prevent oversized
fusing

One house i bought (and
rewired) had 4 THIRTY amp fuses in the box. ?Also, two of the circuits
were screwed down on the buss side and were not fused at all.

s

"John Albert" wrote in message
gy.net...
This is just a general question, not aimed at anyone's previous
posting.

I have an old, 2-story house, about 1500 sq. ft., built in 1911, with
knob & tube wiring and 60-amp service (fuse box).

I was thinking of having the old service replaced with 100-amp
service
and modern circuit breakers. Will this be compatible with the
existing
(old) wiring?

Having said that, I realize that actually replacing the wiring itself
is a BIG job. Does anyone have ballpark costs on what a job like that
prices out to?

Thanks,
- John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

many homeowners insurance cmpanies refuse to insure homes with fuses,
although in many respects fuses are better

wrote in message
...
On Feb 7, 10:46?pm, "RBM" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Feb 7, 6:46?pm, "RBM" wrote:





Once the base is screwed in, it's next to impossible to remove. There is
actually a special tool made to remove it. I call it the "mangler". You
wind
up destroying the socket. It's a cheap alternative to a breaker panel,
although you still have the danger of having live exposed terminals to
deal
with

"S. Barker" wrote in message

m...

I've wondered about those. ?Do they not come back out? ?Couldn't
someone
just remove them and go back to a standard fuse?

s

"RBM" wrote in message
...

"S. Barker" wrote in message
om...
Actually having the breakers will make it safer. ?This is because
you
will put 15A breakers on all the K&T stuff, and there's no chance of
them being over fused like there is with the screw in fuses.

He can simply install type "T" fusestat bases, to prevent oversized
fusing

One house i bought (and
rewired) had 4 THIRTY amp fuses in the box. ?Also, two of the
circuits
were screwed down on the buss side and were not fused at all.

s

"John Albert" wrote in message
gy.net...
This is just a general question, not aimed at anyone's previous
posting.

I have an old, 2-story house, about 1500 sq. ft., built in 1911,
with
knob & tube wiring and 60-amp service (fuse box).

I was thinking of having the old service replaced with 100-amp
service
and modern circuit breakers. Will this be compatible with the
existing
(old) wiring?

Having said that, I realize that actually replacing the wiring
itself
is a BIG job. Does anyone have ballpark costs on what a job like
that
prices out to?

Thanks,
- John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

many homeowners insurance cmpanies refuse to insure homes with fuses,
although in many respects fuses are better

As usual, total ignorance. Show some documentation on even one insurance
company that won't insure a dwelling with "S" fuses.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

here we go again

call your insurance company and ask..............

in the past posters have reported it here.

The problem is, in your total ignorance, you wouldn't know and "S" fuse if
it bit you on the ass. Because of your ignorance, you make totally bogus,
unsubstantiated statements

On Feb 8, 7:13�am, "RBM" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Feb 7, 10:46?pm, "RBM" wrote:





wrote in message

...
On Feb 7, 6:46?pm, "RBM" wrote:

Once the base is screwed in, it's next to impossible to remove. There is
actually a special tool made to remove it. I call it the "mangler". You
wind
up destroying the socket. It's a cheap alternative to a breaker panel,
although you still have the danger of having live exposed terminals to
deal
with

"S. Barker" wrote in message

m...

I've wondered about those. ?Do they not come back out? ?Couldn't
someone
just remove them and go back to a standard fuse?

s

"RBM" wrote in message
...

"S. Barker" wrote in message
om...
Actually having the breakers will make it safer. ?This is because
you
will put 15A breakers on all the K&T stuff, and there's no chance of
them being over fused like there is with the screw in fuses.

He can simply install type "T" fusestat bases, to prevent oversized
fusing

One house i bought (and
rewired) had 4 THIRTY amp fuses in the box. ?Also, two of the
circuits
were screwed down on the buss side and were not fused at all.

s

"John Albert" wrote in message
gy.net...
This is just a general question, not aimed at anyone's previous
posting.

I have an old, 2-story house, about 1500 sq. ft., built in 1911,
with
knob & tube wiring and 60-amp service (fuse box).

I was thinking of having the old service replaced with 100-amp
service
and modern circuit breakers. Will this be compatible with the
existing
(old) wiring?

Having said that, I realize that actually replacing the wiring
itself
is a BIG job. Does anyone have ballpark costs on what a job like
that
prices out to?

Thanks,
- John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

many homeowners insurance cmpanies refuse to insure homes with fuses,
although in many respects fuses are better

As usual, total ignorance. Show some documentation on even one insurance
company that won't insure a dwelling with "S" fuses.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

here we go again

call your insurance company and ask..............

in the past posters have reported it here.

The problem is, in your total ignorance, you wouldn't know and "S" fuse if
it bit you on the ass. Because of your ignorance, you make totally bogus,
unsubstantiated statements- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

do note my earlier statements about difficulty in getting homeowners
insurance was confirmed by a insurance agent. who posted to this
discussion, and that made you bogus............

so i will e mail him and ask about breakers too.

On Feb 8, 7:13�am, "RBM" wrote:
wrote in message

...
On Feb 7, 10:46?pm, "RBM" wrote:





wrote in message

...
On Feb 7, 6:46?pm, "RBM" wrote:

Once the base is screwed in, it's next to impossible to remove. There is
actually a special tool made to remove it. I call it the "mangler". You
wind
up destroying the socket. It's a cheap alternative to a breaker panel,
although you still have the danger of having live exposed terminals to
deal
with

"S. Barker" wrote in message

m...

I've wondered about those. ?Do they not come back out? ?Couldn't
someone
just remove them and go back to a standard fuse?

s

"RBM" wrote in message
...

"S. Barker" wrote in message
om...
Actually having the breakers will make it safer. ?This is because
you
will put 15A breakers on all the K&T stuff, and there's no chance of
them being over fused like there is with the screw in fuses.

He can simply install type "T" fusestat bases, to prevent oversized
fusing

One house i bought (and
rewired) had 4 THIRTY amp fuses in the box. ?Also, two of the
circuits
were screwed down on the buss side and were not fused at all.

s

"John Albert" wrote in message
gy.net...
This is just a general question, not aimed at anyone's previous
posting.

I have an old, 2-story house, about 1500 sq. ft., built in 1911,
with
knob & tube wiring and 60-amp service (fuse box).

I was thinking of having the old service replaced with 100-amp
service
and modern circuit breakers. Will this be compatible with the
existing
(old) wiring?

Having said that, I realize that actually replacing the wiring
itself
is a BIG job. Does anyone have ballpark costs on what a job like
that
prices out to?

Thanks,
- John- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

many homeowners insurance cmpanies refuse to insure homes with fuses,
although in many respects fuses are better

As usual, total ignorance. Show some documentation on even one insurance
company that won't insure a dwelling with "S" fuses.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

here we go again

call your insurance company and ask..............

in the past posters have reported it here.

The problem is, in your total ignorance, you wouldn't know and "S" fuse if
it bit you on the ass. Because of your ignorance, you make totally bogus,
unsubstantiated statements- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

hey i bet you didnt know bad credit can make it hard to get homeowners
insurance too? are you aware of that? I mean you present yourself as a
expert

S. Barker wrote:
...is there ANY THING these so called insurance companies of yours
allow!?

....



Apparently not. And, on top of knowing every underwriter agent who
apparently applies his/her own rules on coverage, he seemingly knows
somebody to whom every conceivable disaster has personally occurred...

--

On Feb 8, 9:44�am, dpb wrote:
S. Barker wrote:
...is there ANY THING these so called insurance companies of yours
allow!?

...



Apparently not. �And, on top of knowing every underwriter agent who
apparently applies his/her own rules on coverage, he seemingly knows
somebody to whom every conceivable disaster has personally occurred...

--

hey it is what it is........... nothing lasts forever.

now think of the costs to insurance of a even minor fire

$300,000 is probably a good average for repair, smoke removal and
cleaning every thing you own.

had friends with house fire, the firedex people chartge a fortune.

with todays sue everyone society insurance is picky about everything
like no railings, and cracked sidewalks which can be a trip
hazard......

you want YOUR insurance rates to go up? insuring poor condition stuff
just makes it more expensive for everyone

wrote:
....

you want YOUR insurance rates to go up? insuring poor condition stuff
just makes it more expensive for everyone

All I'm concerned about here is at least countering the FUD and utter BS
you continually post on the subject...

Insurance companies have _very_ expert folks who do their fiducial
calculations on risk on large populations of properties, prime causes,
etc. Those figures _may_ include factors for some conditions and may
also require inspection or correction of identified factors in some
specific instances. A typical premium would be for distance from a fire
station or hydrant for residential fire coverage, for example.

OTOH, to date I've yet to see any evidence of a blanket proscription by
any major underwriter to support your claims against K&T other than
inspection.

Finis...(at least until the next time it's required to correct such BS).

--

On Feb 8, 1:50�pm, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

you want YOUR insurance rates to go up? insuring poor condition stuff
just makes it more expensive for everyone

All I'm concerned about here is at least countering the FUD and utter BS
you continually post on the subject...

Insurance companies have _very_ expert folks who do their fiducial
calculations on risk on large populations of properties, prime causes,
etc. �Those figures _may_ include factors for some conditions and may
also require inspection or correction of identified factors in some
specific instances. �A typical premium would be for distance from a fire
station or hydrant for residential fire coverage, for example.

OTOH, to date I've yet to see any evidence of a blanket proscription by
any major underwriter to support your claims against K&T other than
inspection.

Finis...(at least until the next time it's required to correct such BS).

--

so you didnt read the post by a insurance agent about K&T???

The rubber fire hazard was pasted by a link to a inspection site.

whats amazing you just keep spouting the same wrong info despite my
back up posts of info, and even a insurance agent post.

do you have some other troubles? i feel bad for you

wrote in message
...
On Feb 8, 1:50?pm, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

you want YOUR insurance rates to go up? insuring poor condition stuff
just makes it more expensive for everyone

All I'm concerned about here is at least countering the FUD and utter BS
you continually post on the subject...

Insurance companies have _very_ expert folks who do their fiducial
calculations on risk on large populations of properties, prime causes,
etc. ?Those figures _may_ include factors for some conditions and may
also require inspection or correction of identified factors in some
specific instances. ?A typical premium would be for distance from a fire
station or hydrant for residential fire coverage, for example.

OTOH, to date I've yet to see any evidence of a blanket proscription by
any major underwriter to support your claims against K&T other than
inspection.

Finis...(at least until the next time it's required to correct such BS).

--

so you didnt read the post by a insurance agent about K&T???

The rubber fire hazard was pasted by a link to a inspection site.

whats amazing you just keep spouting the same wrong info despite my
back up posts of info, and even a insurance agent post.

do you have some other troubles? i feel bad for you

About the only thing that is clear from your posts is that the elevator
doesn't go to the top!!!

About the only thing that is clear from your posts is that the elevator
doesn't go to the top!!!

yeah we agree yours doesnt.........

how sad.

the bottom line is if you cant get homeowners your home wouldnt
sell........

wrote:
....

the bottom line is if you cant get homeowners your home wouldnt
sell........

The point would be that in that case apparently the current owner would
be uninsured as well...

The previous post did _NOT_ say anything that backs up your assertion of
any major underwriting having a proscription against K&T simply because
it is K&T...unless and until you can show such, there's nothing but FUD
and BS in your posting of the same.

--

On Feb 8, 6:28�pm, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

the bottom line is if you cant get homeowners your home wouldnt
sell........

The point would be that in that case apparently the current owner would
be uninsured as well...

The previous post did _NOT_ say anything that backs up your assertion of
any major underwriting having a proscription against K&T simply because
it is K&T...unless and until you can show such, there's nothing but FUD
and BS in your posting of the same.

--

note he said it was a underwriting issue once insured it was fine and
not all agents ask all the questions..........

wrote:
....

...once insured it was fine...

QED.

Which is entirely contrary to your earlier (and repeated contention).

As for the other question, it still does _NOT_ indicate there is a
blanket proscription against insuring K&T by any underwriter. If there
were, there would be no leeway for not "asking the question".

--

"dpb" wrote in message ...
wrote:
...

...once insured it was fine...

QED.

Which is entirely contrary to your earlier (and repeated contention).

As for the other question, it still does _NOT_ indicate there is a blanket
proscription against insuring K&T by any underwriter. If there were,
there would be no leeway for not "asking the question".

You're never gonna get through. He knows and has read about people who had
K&T in bad condition and justifiably couldn't get insurance, so in his
peculiar way of thinking , all K&T MUST be in bad condition, simply because
it's old, and no one can get insurance. He doesn't let the fact that every
day thousands of houses with K&T wiring are being bought, sold, and insured,
dampen his argument

--

On Feb 9, 1:09�am, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

...once insured it was fine...

QED.

Which is entirely contrary to your earlier (and repeated contention).

As for the other question, it still does _NOT_ indicate there is a
blanket proscription against insuring K&T by any underwriter. �If there
were, there would be no leeway for not "asking the question".

--

i know you must do your job pergfectly every day, never making a
single mistake. a agent needing a commision may decide to forget the
question so a home slips thru a company who otherwise wouldnt insure
it.

some companies may allow it, many others like state farm dont, and K&T
isnt geting any younger

if a buyer cant get insurance, the home wouldnt sell......

On Feb 9, 8:02�am, "RBM" wrote:
"dpb" wrote in ...
wrote:
...

...once insured it was fine...

QED.

Which is entirely contrary to your earlier (and repeated content
You're never gonna get through. He knows and has read about people who had
K&T in bad condition and justifiably couldn't get insurance, so in his
peculiar way of thinking , all K&T MUST be in bad condition, simply because
it's old, and no one can get insurance. He doesn't let the fact that every
day thousands of houses with K&T wiring are being bought, sold, and insured,
dampen his argument

well gee a buddy of mine had K&T troubles, his homeowners company sold
all its customers, the buyer another homeowners company came and
inspected every home. had 2 friends this happened too, both insured by
the company that went out of business.

will was a elderly single guy and his K&T suited him fine, a
electrician wrote a report it was safe, none the less he was required
to get his home rewired.

all the other companies he called refused to insure him, a couple
would bbut the premium was 3 times his price. his neighborhood
although not fancy was pretty good.

will was really steamed, he had the rewiring done, and some other fix
ups, but died 6 months later he was 74...............

You see i have real world experience, you fellows just know you have
insurance and all is fine. but that changed for will and could for
you........

wrote:
....

...so a home slips thru a company who otherwise wouldnt insure
it.

If there were a proscription, it would be in the terms and exclusions of
the policy. Any agent for a reputable underwriter who knowingly and
willingly bypassed the corporate protocol wouldn't stay one more than
being discovered once or twice at the outside.

...many others like state farm dont, ...

You haven't even shown that State Farm has such a restriction, what more
"many" others...

Just face up to the fact that while there may be some requirements for
inspection and all (which I agree and have always agreed on), there is
no documented evidence of a policy of general refusal by even one major
company. Your previous posting has no corroborating evidence to that
effect and in fact completely discredits your other FUD claim of being
refused in case of claim.

If you'll simply keep at least even reasonably close to some semblance
of fact rather than hyperbole and FUD, I'll let most of the rest of your
raving go...this part is simply so far from reality as to deserve to be
countered when it occurs.

--

On Feb 9, 2:05�pm, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

...so a home slips thru a company who otherwise wouldnt insure
it.

If there were a proscription, it would be in the terms and exclusions of
the policy. �Any agent for a reputable underwriter who knowingly and
willingly bypassed the corporate protocol wouldn't stay one more than
being discovered once or twice at the outside.

...many others like state farm dont, ...

You haven't even shown that State Farm has such a restriction, what more
"many" others...

Just face up to the fact that while there may be some requirements for
inspection and all (which I agree and have always agreed on), there is
no documented evidence of a policy of general refusal by even one major
company. �Your previous posting has no corroborating evidence to that
effect and in fact completely discredits your other FUD claim of being
refused in case of claim.

If you'll simply keep at least even reasonably close to some semblance
of fact rather than hyperbole and FUD, I'll let most of the rest of your
raving go...this part is simply so far from reality as to deserve to be
countered when it occurs.

--

you ignore the post here by a insurance agent backing up my
statements........

why is that???

wrote:
On Feb 9, 2:05�pm, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

...so a home slips thru a company who otherwise wouldnt insure
it.
If there were a proscription, it would be in the terms and exclusions of
the policy. �Any agent for a reputable underwriter who knowingly and
willingly bypassed the corporate protocol wouldn't stay one more than
being discovered once or twice at the outside.

...many others like state farm dont, ...
You haven't even shown that State Farm has such a restriction, what more
"many" others...

....

you ignore the post here by a insurance agent backing up my
statements........
why is that???

1. I've seen no post from anybody other than you and RBM in this
subthread. Some words were claimed to be from some agent, but again,
that's secondhand and not the underwriter's policy statement. As noted,
I don't believe any underwriter would allow an agent to simply disregard
an established underwriting protocol simply to collect the commission on
a sale--just won't happen and any so-called agent who claim such just
isn't credible im(nsh)o.

2. What you just posted completely rebutted your claims as we just got
thru discussing. You forget that somehow?

--

On Feb 9, 4:56Â*pm, dpb wrote:
wrote:
On Feb 9, 2:05�pm, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

...so a home slips thru a company who otherwise wouldnt insure
it.
If there were a proscription, it would be in the terms and exclusions of
the policy. �Any agent for a reputable underwriter who knowingly and
willingly bypassed the corporate protocol wouldn't stay one more than
being discovered once or twice at the outside.

...many others like state farm dont, ...
You haven't even shown that State Farm has such a restriction, what more
"many" others...

...

you ignore the post here by a insurance agent backing up my
statements........
why is that???

1. I've seen no post from anybody other than you and RBM in this
subthread. Â*Some words were claimed to be from some agent, but again,
that's secondhand and not the underwriter's policy statement. Â*As noted,
I don't believe any underwriter would allow an agent to simply disregard
an established underwriting protocol simply to collect the commission on
a sale--just won't happen and any so-called agent who claim such just
isn't credible im(nsh)o.

2. What you just posted completely rebutted your claims as we just got
thru discussing. Â*You forget that somehow?

--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

thankfully few are probably still reading this.

summary you are certain K&T and fuse boxes are not a insurance
problem, despite a agents posting here, and numerous search links
describing troubles insuring K&T

I suggest anyone curious calls a bunch of insurance companies and ask.

simple quick effective and local to your area.

have a great day

"dpb" wrote in message ...
wrote:
On Feb 9, 2:05?pm, dpb wrote:
wrote:

...

...so a home slips thru a company who otherwise wouldnt insure
it.
If there were a proscription, it would be in the terms and exclusions of
the policy. ?Any agent for a reputable underwriter who knowingly and
willingly bypassed the corporate protocol wouldn't stay one more than
being discovered once or twice at the outside.

...many others like state farm dont, ...
You haven't even shown that State Farm has such a restriction, what more
"many" others...

...

you ignore the post here by a insurance agent backing up my
statements........
why is that???

1. I've seen no post from anybody other than you and RBM in this
subthread. Some words were claimed to be from some agent, but again,
that's secondhand and not the underwriter's policy statement. As noted, I
don't believe any underwriter would allow an agent to simply disregard an
established underwriting protocol simply to collect the commission on a
sale--just won't happen and any so-called agent who claim such just isn't
credible im(nsh)o.

2. What you just posted completely rebutted your claims as we just got
thru discussing. You forget that somehow?

--Here is a link that sums it up perfectly clearly and rationally. It has
statements from the chief author of the NEC as well as a spokesman for
State Farm. It pretty much says: Knob and tube is old. Being old it may be
in poor condition. If it's in poor condition they don't want to insure it.
Of course that's exactly what every sane and rational person on this
newsgroup has been saying all along. Having said that, leave it to Hallerb
to completely misinterpret the content of the link.
http://www.2insure4less.com/info/Kno...ube-wiring.htm

--Here is a link that sums it up perfectly clearly and rationally. It has
statements from the chief �author of the NEC as well as a spokesman for
State Farm. It pretty much says: Knob and tube is old. Being old it may be
in poor condition. If it's in poor condition they don't want to insure it.

plus theres no date on the page you posted, my agent said they used to
write new policies awhile ago

wrote in message
...

--Here is a link that sums it up perfectly clearly and rationally. It
has
statements from the chief ?author of the NEC as well as a spokesman for
State Farm. It pretty much says: Knob and tube is old. Being old it may
be
in poor condition. If it's in poor condition they don't want to insure
it.
Of course that's exactly what every sane and rational person on this
newsgroup has been saying all along. Having said that, leave it to
Hallerb
to completely misinterpret the content of the link.

http://www.2insure4less.com/info/Kno...be-wiring.htm- Hide quoted
text -


its last line says and this is a direct paste

Finding an insurance company willing to insure homes with "knob and
tube' wiring won't be easy

" Of course that's exactly what every sane and rational person on this
newsgroup has been saying all along. Having said that, leave it to
Hallerb
to completely misinterpret the content of the link."

I rest my case

In article , says...

Which is entirely contrary to your earlier (and repeated contention).

As for the other question, it still does _NOT_ indicate there is a
blanket proscription against insuring K&T by any underwriter. If there
were, there would be no leeway for not "asking the question".

I'm not sure how many insurance companies you've ever written business
for, but believe it or not, most of their underwriters don't do field
inspections themselves. They rely on agents of varying competence and
eithical standards. Not all agents do everything they're supposed to.

In fact, many of them lie. Sorry, I know that's shocking.

They check the box that says there's no obsolete or undersized wiring,
that says the house has at least 120A service and a breaker panel; they
say the house has no polybutylene plumbing without having ever looked at
the pipes. Not big lies, not things they'll usually get caught on, but
it's quick and easy and gets them another policy with very little work.
They check the boxes without ever asking the customer the questions.
And the underwriters weren't there, they didn't see it, they don't know.

For example, many companies require that the agent personally inspect
every property before insuring it. It's a contractual obligation, right
there in the underwriting instructions too, even a signed statement on
each application. Yet there's a thriving business in contract
photographers doing drive-by photos of homes so that they can be insured
by agents who are sitting in an office far away.

Is it a contract violation? Yes, definitely.

Do the underwriters always catch it? Hardly. They catch egregious
offenders, or follow-up after a loss when there's something an agent
really couldn't have missed if he'd ever set foot on the premises.

Underwriters know it happens, but they don't know exactly how often or
which policies were sold that way. They pay for enough post-sale
inspections to catch the most obvious violations, and they stop
accepting business from agents who send them too much junk, but they
can't be out there holding agents' hands at every sale making sure they
do what they've agreed to do.

Ever hear the story of the insurance agent who carried a fire hydrant in
the trunk of his car? Somehow, all his inspections showed the homes
were within 1000 feet of a hydrant. Gave him a huge pricing advantage
over other agents who were writing honest business. And the thing is,
large fire losses are rare enough that it could take years for the
insurance company to find out even one of the policies was sold through
willful misrepresentation by the agent, let alone discover a pattern.

Now, I don't mean to tar all insurance agents with this brush -- most of
the agents I know are honest, ask the underwriting questions they're
supposed to ask, and decline the applicants they're supposed to decline.

But there are enough cheaters in the business that the carriers are
investing in all sorts of automated underwriting systems. The hydrant
trick wouldn't work any more around here, at least not with companies
that are on top of the game -- they use GIS maps of every single fire
hydrant in the state, and independently verify the distance to the
hydrant. One or two cheaters can squander the underwriting profit of a
hundred honest agents, so it's worth investing in Big Brother
techniques.

--
is Joshua Putnam
http://www.phred.org/~josh/
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html

In article , says...
wrote:
...

...so a home slips thru a company who otherwise wouldnt insure
it.

If there were a proscription, it would be in the terms and exclusions of
the policy.

Poppycock. There are all sorts of underwriting exclusions that aren't
in the policy exclusions. That's why they're underwriting exclusions.
If they were excluded by the policy, they wouldn't be a liability to the
company.

For example, many companies have underwriting exclusions for particular
breeds of dogs. My own homeowner's insurance is with a company that
does not accept applicants who own various hazardous breeds of dogs.
Nothing in the policy excludes coverage for those dogs, if someone's dog
does maul the neighbor's child, the company has to pay.

That's why there's an underwriting exclusion, so the company won't
knowingly assume the risk of insuring animal liability for those dogs.

The company also won't knowingly accept homes with polybutylene
plumbing, because of its awful track record of brittle fractures. But
if a home slips through that does have polybutylene, and a pipe ruptures
and flows through the house all day, there's no exclusion in the policy
for that -- it's covered. If it weren't covered, the company would be
happy to insure homes with polybutylene plumbing, because it wouldn't
expose them to liability for it.

There are non-standard carriers that will accept all sort of awful
conditions -- they don't have underwriting exclusions, because they *do*
have policy exclusions. Have a lousy roof? Get a nonstandard policy
that excludes damage caused by roof leaks or collapse. Have EFIS
siding? Get a policy that doesn't cover damage when it leaks.


Any agent for a reputable underwriter who knowingly and
willingly bypassed the corporate protocol wouldn't stay one more than
being discovered once or twice at the outside.

If you like to eat sausage, don't watch it being made.

--
is Joshua Putnam
http://www.phred.org/~josh/
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html