GBA Logo horizontal Facebook LinkedIn Email Pinterest Twitter X Instagram YouTube Icon Navigation Search Icon Main Search Icon Video Play Icon Plus Icon Minus Icon Picture icon Hamburger Icon Close Icon Sorted

Community and Q&A

Which painter’s claims to believe?

David_in_Maine | Posted in General Questions on

I’ve received two quotes from painters.  One says I need to paint my entire house; the other claims only the west side and all the trim needs painting.  There’s a $5k difference.  Both propose using the same paints. The painter advocating for painting the entire house says the anti-mold/fungicide chemicals in the existing paint are almost gone, and the N-E-S sides will start growing mold or fungus soon if not repainted.

The house is in the SF Bay area, straddling CZ 3C and 3B.  The west side is painted MDF (built in 1988), the other 3 sides stucco.  The west side gets blasted by sun all afternoon and evenings; the other 3 sides see 0-3 hours of direct sun, due to tall trees.  Humidity is not an issue; dry season humidity is 20-30%, rainy season (Nov-Mar) maybe 30-50% if its not raining.  There’s not much rain; average 15-20″/year.  The existing paint was done by a contractor 9 years ago. 

Which painter is more correct?

thank you to any and all that can help answer my question.

GBA Prime

Join the leading community of building science experts

Become a GBA Prime member and get instant access to the latest developments in green building, research, and reports from the field.

Replies

  1. walta100 | | #1

    MDF is very susceptible to water damage and I would want to keep it protected with a good coat of paint.

    If the paint is original from 1988 that would be amazing to me. It seems unlikely the old paint is going to look good next to the fresh paint.

    Walta

  2. Expert Member
    NICK KEENAN | | #2

    Nine years seems like a long time to go between paintings.

  3. Expert Member
    MALCOLM TAYLOR | | #3

    David,

    One easy way to find out who is right is to get the west side painted now, and keep an eye on the other three sides. If they need painting next year, get it done then. If not, wait a bit.

  4. ssnellings | | #4

    You've related what the painting contractors have told you about their proposed scope of work, but what is your scope of work? Why did you call them in the first place? Why didn't you call the contractor who did the work nine years ago?

    Did both contractors present themselves well? Have you seen examples of their work, or have they been referred to you by someone you trust?

    Both contractors may be correct, or neither. I'm not sure knowing which contractor got it more right is going to help you get the result you want.

  5. David_in_Maine | | #5

    Walta and DC--we completely repainted the house 9 years ago. Yes, in most climates, 9 years is more than stretching it. But its a pretty benign climate here, except for that summer afternoon sun.

    Sam--my scope of work is to catch up on all the maintenance so we can sell in the not-distant future. The contractor who did the work 9 years ago is the high-price bid. Both contractors present well; the lower bid contractor did the inside of our house 3 years ago. So both well qualified through personal experience.

    Malcolm--that sounds like a reasonable strategy. I know what an aging paint job on wood & MDF looks like; no idea on stucco.

    Thanks to all 4 of you for your comments and suggestions.

Log in or create an account to post an answer.

Community

Recent Questions and Replies

  • |
  • |
  • |
  • |