# Primer FAIL in a big way



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

If you've seen my flickr set on the fifty-one-fifty project you'll see the ceiling area in the photo below is huge.

I mentioned in another thread we used SW high-build over Rapid Deco Level 5 drywall then re-primed with Promar 400 primer. This job was spec'd so we can only do so much in changing what we use.

The red arrows point to a largely mudded area that stands out like a sore thumb through our top coat of flat paint. That isnt the only area that stands out but its one with an entire window wall to reflect on the ceiling.

This is further evidence about why I swear by Gardz on new board. Its not just sw high build that does that, its every primer I ever used over bare drywall. 

We will be repainting that ceiling, no question about it. Which will be 2 primer coats and 2 finish and I seriously doubt it'll be perfect. Primers often suck at equalizing the porosity between mud and board. 

I dont think I can capture what I'm talking about with the camera but here is the before shot. It looks like we rolled the right wing portion, stopped, then rolled the left in another direction all due to that large mudded area butting with bare board.



I'll tell you, its very difficult for me to go into a job having to use product that you know wont work. We shot the additional 400 primer coat to help ensure this wouldnt happen.


----------



## IHATE_HOMEDEPOT (May 27, 2008)

I think I would consider spraaying it with a coat of mud first given that there are deeply embedded problems. The other thing would be since it sounds like you are commited to a redo why not just skim coat the problem areas as an attempt at a touch up.


----------



## TJ Paint (Jun 18, 2009)

why not just gardz it?


----------



## DeanV (Apr 18, 2007)

For me, problem areas like that are usually a result of drywall texture differences and would be very surprised if something like Guardz had enough build to mask these areas.

I am assuming you are also spraying and back rolling these coats? I have seen problems like that when coatings are only sprayed as well, although in lighting like that, any imperfections will show regardless of application method IMO.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

I know. Gardz is what it needs. Its what it should have got from the start. Specifiers are not painters. There are discussions going on about this issue. A smooth Level 5 flat ceiling is not something you fool around with. Period.


----------



## TJ Paint (Jun 18, 2009)

jack pauhl said:


> If you've seen my flickr set on the fifty-one-fifty project you'll see the ceiling area in the photo below is huge.
> 
> I mentioned in another thread we used SW high-build over Rapid Deco Level 5 drywall then re-primed with Promar 400 primer. This job was spec'd so we can only do so much in changing what we use.
> 
> ...


this is a level 5 finish? there shouldn't be any bare drywall vs mud areas on a level 5 finish. By def, it should have a uniform coating of mud over all drywall. Am I missing something?


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

DeanV said:


> For me, problem areas like that are usually a result of drywall texture differences and would be very surprised if something like Guardz had enough build to mask these areas.
> 
> I am assuming you are also spraying and back rolling these coats? I have seen problems like that when coatings are only sprayed as well, although in lighting like that, any imperfections will show regardless of application method IMO.


Dean you're right, it didnt matter sprayed or back roller but Gardz would have prevented it. If you havent seen Rapid Deco board its really something to see and feel. Its not like regular drywall at all. It feels like a finely sprayed finish on it. Hard, smooth.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

TJ Paint said:


> this is a level 5 finish?


Its Rapid Deco Level 5 system. Its specific treated board to be used with specific mud so the entire surface doesn't need skim coated. Its new.


----------



## DeanV (Apr 18, 2007)

I have always felt that a level-5 finish on ceilings prevented these issues, but the only level 5 I have dealt with is a complete coat of regular drywall mud, not these prefinished boards. I suppose the prefinish boards introduce a variable porosity rate between seams and pre-finished board again which is what a level 5 is in part all about getting rid of.


----------



## TJ Paint (Jun 18, 2009)

jack pauhl said:


> Its Rapid Deco Level 5 system. Its specific treated board to be used with specific mud so the entire surface doesn't need skim coated. Its new.


ok, first I've heard of it. sounds like its fail.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

Here is my take on this Rapid Deco system so far. Its awesome for a painter, its not fuzzy from sanding at all, its hard and smooth but the problem of getting mud to match board is the same as if it were a regular drywall job. The bare mud and bare board need to be equalized. Had this been a job with an eggshell paint we would have a disaster on our hands. 

I think in summary, the Rapid Deco board is very nice stuff but the mud remains an issue to eliminate porosity to that of the board which isnt porous.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

DeanV said:


> I have always felt that a level-5 finish on ceilings prevented these issues, but the only level 5 I have dealt with is a complete coat of regular drywall mud, not these prefinished boards. I suppose the prefinish boards introduce a variable porosity rate between seams and pre-finished board again which is what a level 5 is in part all about getting rid of.


I'm at a loss for the right words to describe this new board. If you were able to run your hand over it, you would know instantly the benefits it has over regular drywall. I'm very impressed with the board part of the system.

Here is a link to the Level 5 Type X board.


----------



## TJ Paint (Jun 18, 2009)

jack pauhl said:


> I think in summary, the Rapid Deco board is very nice stuff but the mud remains an issue to eliminate porosity to that of the board which isnt porous.


yeah, same old deal. If I were you, I'd shoot it with gardz. You know it works, the idiots who spec the project don't. Plus, nobody will know. And, its not like you are trying to cut corners, although you will save on labor from just applying one coat of guardz vs. the 2 of the 400.


----------



## jacob33 (Jun 2, 2009)

jack pauhl said:


> I mentioned in another thread we used SW high-build over Rapid Deco Level 5 drywall then re-primed with Promar 400 primer. This job was spec'd so we can only do so much in changing what we use.


I think you should just get the architech or GC to sign off on the system you know and trust. Thats what I have always seen done when the painter did not like the system being used. As long as you can prove you point which I believe your photos or them seeing it will you should be fine.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

jacob33 said:


> I think you should just get the architech or GC to sign off on the system you know and trust. Thats what I have always seen done when the painter did not like the system being used. As long as you can prove you point which I believe your photos or them seeing it will you should be fine.


I hear ya... but thats almost the same as me telling you guys to use BEHR Ultra. People tend to trust the specifier recommendations over the painters.


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

jack pauhl said:


> I hear ya... but thats almost the same as me telling you guys to use BEHR Ultra. People tend to trust the specifier recommendations over the painters.


Touche:thumbup:.....I like Behr Ultra


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

aaron61 said:


> Touche:thumbup:.....I like Behr Ultra


Well Aaron... its me and you. I feel like a minority with my BEHR ULTRA


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

Don't really use it but I've got nothing against it.I just hate going to the Big Boxes to get paint.


----------



## DeanV (Apr 18, 2007)

High Fibre likes it as well. I believe he had good comments on it for trim.


----------



## straight_lines (Oct 17, 2007)

JP I really don't see how this can give the same benefits of a traditional lvl 5 unless the same mud was used to tape as the surface of the board.

Hell mud consistency from bucket to bucket can show in a finish much less two different materials. What a PITA I really don't envy you right now.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

straight_lines said:


> JP I really don't see how this can give the same benefits of a traditional lvl 5 unless the same mud was used to tape as the surface of the board.
> 
> Hell mud consistency from bucket to bucket can show in a finish much less two different materials. What a PITA I really don't envy you right now.


Why do guys skim the whole wall for Level 5? Its to cover the crappy board and fuzzy paper from sanding it. Its to smooth it up. Its a ton of labor to do. This board is smooth. The board doesnt need touched to make it Level 5 ready.

If you looked at regular board close up you can see it has a waffle knit type pattern on the surface of the paper. The Level 5 board isnt like that.


----------



## ProWallGuy (Apr 7, 2007)

i agree the Gardz would penetrate it well, and seal it/even out the porosity to provide a uniform surface to spray.

We have them provide a level 5 finish and 2 coats of Gardz to the walls we install murals on at the North Face chain.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

ProWallGuy said:


> i agree the Gardz would penetrate it well, and seal it/even out the porosity to provide a uniform surface to spray.
> 
> We have them provide a level 5 finish and 2 coats of Gardz to the walls we install murals on at the North Face chain.


You talking 2 coats of Gardz over a skim coated wall?


----------



## straight_lines (Oct 17, 2007)

jack pauhl said:


> Why do guys skim the whole wall for Level 5? Its to cover the crappy board and fuzzy paper from sanding it. Its to smooth it up. Its a ton of labor to do. This board is smooth. The board doesnt need touched to make it Level 5 ready.
> 
> If you looked at regular board close up you can see it has a waffle knit type pattern on the surface of the paper. The Level 5 board isnt like that.


I understand the concept of lvl 5, and know how porous regular board is. What I am saying is that it negates having a continuous smooth surface (like sprayed mud lvl 5) of the same material by there being a different finish on the face than the joints.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

straight_lines said:


> I understand the concept of lvl 5, and know how porous regular board is. What I am saying is that it negates having a continuous smooth surface (like sprayed mud lvl 5) of the same material by there being a different finish on the face than the joints.


ah gotcha... well just like many paint companies promise certain results... lafarge promises that the board and mud match.


----------



## straight_lines (Oct 17, 2007)

Yea tell me about it, you can't even get two buckets of mud bought in the same lot that are the same.


----------



## ProWallGuy (Apr 7, 2007)

jack pauhl said:


> You talking 2 coats of Gardz over a skim coated wall?


Yes.


----------



## daArch (Mar 15, 2008)

jack pauhl said:


> You talking 2 coats of Gardz over a skim coated wall?





ProWallGuy said:


> Yes.



yes!


----------



## nEighter (Nov 14, 2008)

isn't this a roll with the punches type of deal? My brain hurts. Let me get my bearings and come back.


----------



## CK_68847 (Apr 17, 2010)

DeanV said:


> For me, problem areas like that are usually a result of drywall texture differences and would be very surprised if something like Guardz had enough build to mask these areas.
> 
> I am assuming you are also spraying and back rolling these coats? I have seen problems like that when coatings are only sprayed as well, although in lighting like that, any imperfections will show regardless of application method IMO.


I agree. I use a lot more of the 200 SW flat than the 400 sw flat but have never had problems with either one of them showing seams. To tell you the truth, I never prime my ceilings while using flat paint. Hell i rarely backroll the ceilings with flat. I have never had a problem while cross hatching the ceiling with a flat finish. I think it is a mud issue myself. Another thing regarding the spec. If it is speced for sw 400, and you use a better product or something you like, I really dont see you getting hosed over in the end. I have deviated away from the spec quite a bit. The architecht isnt going to watch your every move unless something is way off.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

CK_68847 said:


> I agree. I use a lot more of the 200 SW flat than the 400 sw flat but have never had problems with either one of them showing seams. To tell you the truth, I never prime my ceilings while using flat paint. Hell i rarely backroll the ceilings with flat. I have never had a problem while cross hatching the ceiling with a flat finish. I think it is a mud issue myself. Another thing regarding the spec. If it is speced for sw 400, and you use a better product or something you like, I really dont see you getting hosed over in the end. I have deviated away from the spec quite a bit. The architecht isnt going to watch your every move unless something is way off.


Thanks guys, appreciate the input. The spec was sw high build, the 400 primer was simply used as an extra coat of something before the finish over the high build. Just to build it up more.

If I didnt take as many pictures of the surfaces I paint, I would be sitting here scratching my head on the possibilities or the cause of the issue. Being able to line up the bare drywall photo with the pattern seen through the painted ceiling helps pinpoint exactly what is causing the flash point (line across the ceiling).


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

You guys think to much!


----------



## DeanV (Apr 18, 2007)

Backrolling solves most problems on ceilings IMO. Usually on large ceilings any eveness problems are from a spray only application of primer. This is what I have found when I have had to help some GC's I have worked for who sometimes did their own painting. Everytime breaking out a roller fixed the problems or would have prevented the problem in the first place.


----------



## Harry (Aug 4, 2008)

I'd have asked to use a sealer, not a primer. That looked like a nighmare waiting to happen. Many guys don't even understand the value of a good sealer.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

Harry said:


> I'd have asked to use a sealer, not a primer. That looked like a nighmare waiting to happen. Many guys don't even understand the value of a good sealer.


Dont have to tell me that. Im going back tomorrow, apparently 11 trim carpenters trimming a house goes quicker than we thought. Ill use a different camera and try to snap a few finish shots. 

But, I can see why it was spec'd because High Build says:
Fills and surfaces rough and uneven new drywall construction and ensures the finish coat will be a smooth and uniform sheen. Uniforms various porosities between drywall paper and joints.

Well, those labels say a lot of things dont they. Make a lot of promises. We shot 70 gallons of primer on ceilings so its not like we were skimping at all. That primer is on there and then it got a coat of 400 primer!


----------



## Harry (Aug 4, 2008)

jack pauhl said:


> Dont have to tell me that. Im going back tomorrow, apparently 11 trim carpenters trimming a house goes quicker than we thought. Ill use a different camera and try to snap a few finish shots.
> 
> But, I can see why it was spec'd because High Build says:
> Fills and surfaces rough and uneven new drywall construction and ensures the finish coat will be a smooth and uniform sheen. Uniforms various porosities between drywall paper and joints.
> ...


I never would have considered the veneer (body) and the joints as being similar in nature...meaning, there is no comparison between drywall and veneer. I say veneer because it sure looks as though the drywall itself has a skim coat that is a true veneer...a much denser material than the joints.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

Harry said:


> I never would have considered the veneer (body) and the joints as being similar in nature...meaning, there is no comparison between drywall and veneer. I say veneer because it sure looks as though the drywall itself has a skim coat that is a true veneer...a much denser material than the joints.


Oh yeah Harry... the term veneer is a good way to describe that Level 5 board, its smooth. The drywall guys did a nice job with it. This was their first time with the new system too. Its the first job in our area to get that board.

I'll add that the TDS on the board say use a high build primer too.


----------



## Harry (Aug 4, 2008)

jack pauhl said:


> Oh yeah Harry... the term veneer is a good way to describe that Level 5 board, its smooth. The drywall guys did a nice job with it. This was their first time with the new system too. Its the first job in our area to get that board.
> 
> I'll add that the TDS on the board say use a high build primer too.


Thanks JP,
I'm curious now, lol. I would love to see exactly what they use and how they use it to achieve a superior finish.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

Harry said:


> Thanks JP,
> I'm curious now, lol. I would love to see exactly what they use and how they use it to achieve a superior finish.


I posted four photos of the same area hoping to capture the best I can how blotchy the finish coat of paint is over a coat of high build primer and a coat of 400 primer. Go to flickr to see other 3

There are obvious joint issues too exposed in the left portion of the photos. You all know what that means. When they fix those, we will repaint the ceiling, again.

After closer inspection this morning I can say the high build did absolutely nothing at all in masking/equalizing the porosity between mud and board. In fact, it looks horrible, the mud areas are very obvious. A heavy build of high build, a coat of 400 primer and a coat of flat paint and you can still see blotchy areas? Wow Sherwin Williams, you guys have got to be kidding me! That is pathetic.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

To be fair, I am unaware of any drywall primer that would have worked, worked better, maybe. I haven't tried everything on the market but I have tried 17 or so to date over various board and mud types. There is no single topic I have written more about in the past besides drywall primer and why I despise it on new board.

For those not familiar with sherwin williams high build, it does NOT raise the paper on drywall like other primers do. In fact, our nice sprayed (517) coat of high build left a super smooth finish, one of the nicest I've seen with drywall primers on new drywall. It does an awesome job at that... but obviously smooth doesn't mean equalized.

I dont think we need to beat a dead horse here so in conclusion, this job should have got Zinsser Gardz and a coat or two of flat. Knowing how to apply a proper film of any finish paint over a sound equalized surface goes a long way in comparison to what we found with the system outlined here on this job. I've done some awesome finishes with 1 Gardz, 1 semi-matte paint that makes 3 and 4 coat systems look rookie.

All looks good from this angle and this lighting.


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

You guys do realize it is "drywall" it will never be Smooth! It is gypsum, wrapped in paper, screwed to studs,then taped & mudded!!!!
If you are expecting perfectly flat & or smooth you need to start with a different system.
You can't start with an imperfect surface/drywall,& expect perfection.That just doesn't make sense? IMHO.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

aaron61 said:


> You guys do realize it is "drywall" it will never be Smooth! It is gypsum, wrapped in paper, screwed to studs,then taped & mudded!!!!
> If you are expecting perfectly flat & or smooth you need to start with a different system.
> You can't start with an imperfect surface/drywall,& expect perfection.That just doesn't make sense? IMHO.


This being a new system, I feel the right components are here with the LaFarge Level 5 system, its damn smooth aaron. It just needs to be treated with sealer vs primer. Why LaFarge recommends a high build is beyond me due to its native smooth surface.

Smooth isnt the issue here at all. Its the mud flashing, "joint photographing" which is a pretty common issue with any drywall to paint system. Seriously, this new system is a perfect surface to start painting on, just got to seal it up first. I tried posting a video but while I can clearly see the blotchy areas on my pc original, the uploaded video lost too much quality to see it.

Obviously you can see the system provides a smooth finish here in this photo


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

Why don't you ask for a rep from LaFarge to assess the situation??


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

aaron61 said:


> Why don't you ask for a rep from LaFarge to assess the situation??


Already contacted them but for another reason. I don't want to mention it until we hash things out with LaFarge first. I sort of have a keen sense on certain things upon first inspection of new products and the areas of possible failure and I saw a few issues we would face as far back as Sept 14th. 

I'll end up writing a piece to summarize my methods for finishing Level 5. They're performed as a sidecar during this project, on this project for the purpose of the article. I would have contacted SW too prior to posting about all this but what we experienced is no surprise to me, its expected.


----------



## Wallnut (May 4, 2010)

i think you may have over looked the fact that a high build means longer drytime... the outer side of the layer of primer would try quicker locking the moisture in against the joint compound possibly re-activating it an causing it to flash. I would have put a thin coat of 400 on first to create a barrier first then put the high build to level the boards.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

Wallnut said:


> i think you may have over looked the fact that a high build means longer drytime... the outer side of the layer of primer would try quicker locking the moisture in against the joint compound possibly re-activating it an causing it to flash. I would have put a thin coat of 400 on first to create a barrier first then put the high build to level the boards.


Thanks for the input. High build specs has 4 hour recoat time, our 3 day wait should be fine. The job sat for 1 month before we primed it. Our photos go back to sept 14 showing finished drywall.

Regardless, I would think the same theory would apply with 400 primer applied last given the dry time allowed for the high build.


----------



## Wallnut (May 4, 2010)

jack pauhl said:


> Thanks for the input. High build specs has 4 hour recoat time, our 3 day wait should be fine. The job sat for 1 month before we primed it. Our photos go back to sept 14 showing finished drywall.
> 
> Regardless, I would think the same theory would apply with 400 primer applied last given the dry time allowed for the high build.


Im not saying that you re coated to quickly... Im saying that I think the specs to use a high build first straight on fresh drywall may have been a problem... you want something quick drying.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

*money shot*

Captured a decent shot showing how shiny the Rapid Deco Level 5 Type X drywall is.




Then better shot of joint photographing.


----------



## Metro M & L (Jul 21, 2009)

I can see what you were saying in the original post about it looking like it was rolled amateurishly in two different directions. 

Is the board deflecting in between joists giving you that chattered look? You might take a twelve inch drywall knife or level and see if it's actually in plane. 

If it is actual deflection of the plane I guess you would be back to skim coating for optimal results; which is what is spec'd in a true level 5 finish. When the material is knifed onto the board concave sections would be filled vs. spraying which will add material to all deformities equally - valleys and hills both ened up being raised. This would smooth the edges but wouldn't make for an over all flatter surface like skim coating would.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

Metro M & L said:


> I can see what you were saying in the original post about it looking like it was rolled amateurishly in two different directions.
> 
> Is the board deflecting in between joists giving you that chattered look? You might take a twelve inch drywall knife or level and see if it's actually in plane.
> 
> If it is actual deflection of the plane I guess you would be back to skim coating for optimal results; which is what is spec'd in a true level 5 finish. When the material is knifed onto the board concave sections would be filled vs. spraying which will add material to all deformities equally - valleys and hills both ened up being raised. This would smooth the edges but wouldn't make for an over all flatter surface like skim coating would.


We have nothing to do with the drywall portion of this job but you are correct about the deflecting. If you set a straight edge over the joints shown on the left (almost against far left wall), it needs more mud there. The joint in the center of the photo left to right actually separated.


----------



## Masterpainter (Aug 14, 2010)

Oh how I HATE Ceilings. What a pain!! The more and more I am painting, the more I am beginning to agree with Jack on the primers. I had a ceiling where I needed to patch a bunch of nail holes. This was a repaint in an existing home. They also had some water stains from where their air handler leaked in the attic. So I primed the stain with zinsser bin. Also primed the drywall mudded spots with bin. I coated the ceiling with one coat master hyde and the bin spots flashed like crazy. So I put a coat of primer on per my paint reps recommendation, then put another top coat of paint. It looked much better, but not to the standards that I would have liked it. I feel now like I would have stain blocked the water spot, mudded the nail holes, Gardzed the hole ceiling, then one top coat of Super Hide, and I probably would have been done. Oh well, I guess I will continue to learn the hard way.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

Like I've written so many times before about primers, some do a "better" job than others but the ones I tested all showed some degree of ineffectiveness in the finish coat. Like this ceiling for example, it looks fine from certain angles but good lighting always exposes it.


----------



## Paradigmzz (May 5, 2010)

Texture covers a multitude of problems... 

Just sayin' :whistling2:


----------



## straight_lines (Oct 17, 2007)

I can see why you would have issues with this board. It looks like satin painted, so the mud would for sure not be the same texture. 



Masterpainter said:


> Oh how I HATE Ceilings. What a pain!! The more and more I am painting, the more I am beginning to agree with Jack on the primers. I had a ceiling where I needed to patch a bunch of nail holes. This was a repaint in an existing home. They also had some water stains from where their air handler leaked in the attic. So I primed the stain with zinsser bin. Also primed the drywall mudded spots with bin. I coated the ceiling with one coat master hyde and the bin spots flashed like crazy. So I put a coat of primer on per my paint reps recommendation, then put another top coat of paint. It looked much better, but not to the standards that I would have liked it. I feel now like I would have stain blocked the water spot, mudded the nail holes, Gardzed the hole ceiling, then one top coat of Super Hide, and I probably would have been done. Oh well, I guess I will continue to learn the hard way.


 Should have spot primed over the zinnser with the ceiling paint before your finish and it would have probably been ok.


----------



## Wallnut (May 4, 2010)

wow that looks horrible...
sorry man.


----------



## Harry (Aug 4, 2008)

If the ceiling isn't perfect, it ain't gonna look great, we all know that. JP, you're right, I don't think anything would help that. As for the high build, I would like to see if there are any specs on how it can transition the joints to body with that drywall.

A painter's nightmare of course...throw up some blinds quickly!


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

Harry said:


> If the ceiling isn't perfect, it ain't gonna look great, we all know that. JP, you're right, I don't think anything would help that. As for the high build, I would like to see if there are any specs on how it can transition the joints to body with that drywall.
> 
> A painter's nightmare of course...throw up some blinds quickly!


haha.. funny thing happened this morning... I'm in a well-off neighborhood with this house, its multi million (close to 5 I heard) and I am walking a load up to the job from the street and I see this guy coming out of the drive across the street and he pulls along side and says good to see Sherwin Williams or something along those lines. I'm thinking what the hell is he talking about (not carrying any paint) and he's pretty much stopped next to me with his window down. He motioned to my painter pants, apparently he saw the SW logo on the back pocket. He says I hope you are using Sherwin Williams! I instantly replied surprised at the remark, do you work for Sherwin Williams? He said yeah as he was creeping away from me and waved off.

Hey sw exec, drop by your neighbors house some time.


----------



## Wallnut (May 4, 2010)

i still dont think its the primers fault.


----------



## straight_lines (Oct 17, 2007)

You should have plopped a card in his hand with this thread address on the back. 

I do agree with Wallnut, and would thing a high build would have been the only way to hide that if its even possible. Thing I don't get is how good the walls turned out yet these ceilings look like sh!t.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

Wallnut said:


> i still dont think its the primers fault.


Sorry, I missed something. I wasn't aware you felt that way. What are you thinking? I'm open to hearing anything, after all its new product.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

straight_lines said:


> You should have plopped a card in his hand with this thread address on the back.
> 
> I do agree with Wallnut, and would thing a high build would have been the only way to hide that if its even possible. Thing I don't get is how good the walls turned out yet these ceilings look like sh!t.


haha... the answer is the paint. We could have applied Duration Home Matte, BEHR Ultra, Glidden UltraHide, and handful of others direct to that board and it would have looked better than the ceilings. We did in fact paint 1 small room with Duration direct to board and it looks fine with 1 coat of paint. I'll snap photos next week. I should note, that wall shot, thats not the finished product. That was 1st coat.

Im confused.. we did use high build.?


----------



## StefanC (Apr 29, 2009)

I dunno, I always shot SW high build on standard drywall, pole-sanded, sprayed and backrolled 2 coats of 400 and had it coming out looking great. Looks like the problem is in the drywall system used. If there's a noticeable transition between the compound and board, paint or primer won't fix it. Did you hold a straight edge up to the joint to see if they're 100% flush?

edit- Looking at the pictures again, I think the problem absolutely started with the drywall. I would sand, shoot a thick coat of high build and hope for the best! .. or skim coat it.


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

I would break out my Titan 1200 & shoot a heavy knock down texture.
It will look Fabulous!!!


----------



## Masterpainter (Aug 14, 2010)

straight_lines said:


> I can see why you would have issues with this board. It looks like satin painted, so the mud would for sure not be the same texture.
> 
> 
> 
> Should have spot primed over the zinnser with the ceiling paint before your finish and it would have probably been ok.


Appreciate the feedback. I did think of what you are thinking, I think that I was dealing with some small mill thickness issues when all was said and done. You have primer, and then spot prime with ceiling, when all around it does not. Plus the bin has a semi like gloss to it, where all around it was porous as crap, so the paints are also curing at different rates. Like I said, still turned out really nice, just not as nice as I would have liked, which is perfect.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

I guess my point was 1 coat of paint would have produced nicer results without this issue and would look better vs the 3 coat system used. Rather than 70 gallons of primer plus all the flat finish paint on top of it. Huge waste of time and money for a system that failed. 

Even though I am aware of the shortcomings of using primer, I am still amazed when I see it fail. Just the thought of doing all that work on such a huge house.


----------



## StefanC (Apr 29, 2009)

You're saying that the high build made it look worse?


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

StefanC said:


> You're saying that the high build made it look worse?


1 coat of high build, plus 1 coat of 400 primer over it plus 1 coat of flat paint looks worse (as seen in photo) than 1 coat of paint applied directly to the bare drywall. Im going to grab photos next week so we can take a look at 1 coat of (paint) vs 2 primer and 1 finish.


----------



## Metro M & L (Jul 21, 2009)

jack pauhl said:


> 1 coat of high build, plus 1 coat of 400 primer over it plus 1 coat of flat paint looks worse (as seen in photo) than 1 coat of paint applied directly to the bare drywall. Im going to grab photos next week so we can take a look at 1 coat of (paint) vs 2 primer and 1 finish.


I think you just answered your own question. 

Spraying a lot of high build material with out back rolling will result in a less than even coating. 

My back rolled ceilings usually turn out better


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

I'm debating to a) post photos of 16 drywall primers rolled over bare drywall or b) post the links to all the extensive testing I've done on drywall and primers for those 16 or c) let this one go

Spraying has nothing to do with what primer is "capable" of doing or specifically not capable.


----------



## Paradigmzz (May 5, 2010)

Metro M & L said:


> I think you just answered your own question.
> 
> Spraying a lot of high build material with out back rolling will result in a less than even coating.
> 
> My back rolled ceilings usually turn out better




I jusrt figured out what Vermont Painter was talking About!!!!!! HAHAHA

Jack your post drew him back into the fold!!!!!


This b the thread >> here


----------



## jacob33 (Jun 2, 2009)

jack pauhl said:


> I'm debating to a) post photos of 16 drywall primers rolled over bare drywall or b) post the links to all the extensive testing I've done on drywall and primers for those 16 or c) let this one go
> 
> Spraying has nothing to do with what primer is "capable" of doing or specifically not capable.


Not to doubt your testing ability, but I have never had the issues you are. Not real sure what is going on. I have done and seen a lot of painting and rarely had or heard of problems. Usually it is fairly simple especially new build. Repaints take a little more work and prep, I have seen failures there when people did not sand or clean. I guess all I can do is tell you good luck.


----------



## Harry (Aug 4, 2008)

There may be numerous problems with this job. Could be the dissimilar materials (board and joints), and could also be the framing above. Many ugly jobs are blamed on the taping when the framing was actually the culprit...


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

Im keeping my thoughts about what scott said to myself for time being. 


same job, primer, this wall (room) was rolled. And should also note there is a lot less mud on this wall.




Wall drying down after it was rolled, can still see roller paths




Wall taped


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

jacob33 said:


> Not to doubt your testing ability, but I have never had the issues you are. Not real sure what is going on. I have done and seen a lot of painting and rarely had or heard of problems. Usually it is fairly simple especially new build. Repaints take a little more work and prep, I have seen failures there when people did not sand or clean. I guess all I can do is tell you good luck.


Im with ya jacob, I too painted for years thinking there wasnt anything wrong. It was my photo taking that really brought out things you can easily overlook. After initially seeing (anomalies) in my photos is when I really started dissecting my work and taking a closer look in different lighting which led to a whole new way of painting bare drywall. Dont get me wrong, guys do primer and paint all day long without hitch (in their eyes). I wish I could say this is isolated to me but its every job I have ever seen other paint contractors do when using primer. Its a job this week, last week, the job before etc. All these guy do primer and I can point this out to every last one of them and they are not my jobs but they are "ok" with it. 

Basically went from priming, to not priming to 2 coats over bare drywall, to Gardz over drywall and dropped primer altogether because there are "better" results to be found using other methods.


----------



## vermontpainter (Dec 24, 2007)

I wasn't taking a shot at Jack. I happen to respect a lot of what he does and says.

I do think that the drastic difference in absorption rate between the smooth wallboard and the compound is a big part of the problem. I also agree with Harry that the framing in that ceiling has to be perfect in order to get a great finish.

I've had situations like that with big open expanse of ceiling, high windows washing it in light from different directions. This brings out the angular sheen in even the flattest of flats.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

I get the framing aspect of the issues in the photo... no argument there at all. It does have a popped joint and a few joints along the left of some of those photos reflect the joints need floated out further. Had we used Gardz and paint, those joints would stand out much more than they do.

We've hashed over this prime job and the drywall work extensively, LaFarge is coming out to have a look too. I can say these drywall guys did a nice job. Everything is smooth, tight and sharp. They are aware of areas that need work and that shows they care about their workmanship. Even that very light skim coat they did on any non level 5 board actually looks smooth, surprisingly. Most guys leave the wall solid white with mud for level 5.

The rooms without a long window wall to reflect light on the ceiling look great like guys saying they never have trouble, until you hop up on a step ladder with your head 6" from the ceiling and then look toward the window. Then you see it all the same.


----------



## Lambrecht (Feb 8, 2010)

Talked to my brother who has been a finisher for 30 yrs about Rapid Deco lvl5, he said even though the board is already lvl 5 the entire board needs to be skimmed not just the joints otherwise the finish coat of paint will be uneven which is the problem you have been having. He said the company that makes the product came to his business to demo it when it first came out and they said it needed the entire surface skimmed. They have always skimmed these boards and he said no complaints from any painters about paint finish problems.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

Lambrecht said:


> Talked to my brother who has been a finisher for 30 yrs about Rapid Deco lvl5, he said even though the board is already lvl 5 the entire board needs to be skimmed not just the joints otherwise the finish coat of paint will be uneven which is the problem you have been having. He said the company that makes the product came to his business to demo it when it first came out and they said it needed the entire surface skimmed. They have always skimmed these boards and he said no complaints from any painters about paint finish problems.


I'd have to agree based on what we saw too. But, if the painter does Gardz like we did, one coat of paint looks finished.


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

jack pauhl said:


> Im with ya jacob, I too painted for years thinking there wasnt anything wrong. It was my photo taking that really brought out things you can easily overlook. After initially seeing (anomalies) in my photos is when I really started dissecting my work and taking a closer look in different lighting which led to a whole new way of painting bare drywall. Dont get me wrong, guys do primer and paint all day long without hitch (in their eyes). I wish I could say this is isolated to me but its every job I have ever seen other paint contractors do when using primer. Its a job this week, last week, the job before etc. All these guy do primer and I can point this out to every last one of them and they are not my jobs but they are "ok" with it.
> 
> Basically went from priming, to not priming to 2 coats over bare drywall, to Gardz over drywall and dropped primer altogether because there are "better" results to be found using other methods.


Not trying to be a D*ck,but from this statement,do you think maybe you are being hypercritical?
If it takes a picture to see it and "different lighting" and no one else seems to have these problems then you might be over thinking things.(not on this particular project though)
I believe PDCA Standards state normal lighting,no less than 3' away at normal angle.
I don't care who you are you can always find something wrong with any painted surface.


----------



## Wallnut (May 4, 2010)

jack pauhl said:


> Sorry, I missed something. I wasn't aware you felt that way. What are you thinking? I'm open to hearing anything, after all its new product.


my original thought was that when you put a high build primer with longer dry time on top of fresh joint compound it could re-activate the compound causing flash. I would have put a THIN coat of 400 on first and then applied the high build.


----------



## Wallnut (May 4, 2010)

the ceiling probly look worse because drywallers hate doing ceilings and rush through it.... maybe you should use some 80 grit over the flash areas and try to fix it... 

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it'll still be a pig!


----------



## jacob33 (Jun 2, 2009)

aaron61 said:


> Not trying to be a D*ck,but from this statement,do you think maybe you are being hypercritical?
> If it takes a picture to see it and "different lighting" and no one else seems to have these problems then you might be over thinking things.(not on this particular project though)
> I believe PDCA Standards state normal lighting,no less than 3' away at normal angle.
> I don't care who you are you can always find something wrong with any painted surface.


That is the key there PDCA Standards. Unless you are charging a large amount or time and material than good work is all that is required. Perfection is difficult and extremely expensive.

Now if it legitimately looks bad than that needs to be remedied.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

Wallnut said:


> the ceiling probly look worse because drywallers hate doing ceilings and rush through it.... maybe you should use some 80 grit over the flash areas and try to fix it...
> 
> You can put lipstick on a pig, but it'll still be a pig!


haha reminds me of someone who posted turd polish. You can only polish so much.

On another note... worthy observation I might add... here is eggshell paint (red I might add) applied directly to bare drywall. Photo is dry and different angles and stages of paint as it dries can be seen here. I guess I expect more from primer. just sayin


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

jacob33 said:


> That is the key there PDCA Standards. Unless you are charging a large amount or time and material than good work is all that is required. Perfection is difficult and extremely expensive.
> 
> Now if it legitimately looks bad than that needs to be remedied.


Obviously I dont go by those standards. Just because I didnt "notice" it at a glance doesnt mean its done properly and because a photo simply brought it to my attention simply mean it was overlooked much like when you do touchups, you can stare at the same area and see different things at various times of the day.

Besides, it specifically states in the contract that the paint is to be inspected at various stages of the day including at night. So the job looks ok some of the time in other words if you stand right here between 2-4p. Seriously think about that... it took 2 coats of primer and 1 finish coat of flat paint to produce less quality results vs one coat eggshell paint of all things.


----------



## StefanC (Apr 29, 2009)

jack pauhl said:


> it took 2 coats of primer and 1 finish coat of flat paint to produce less quality results vs one coat eggshell paint of all things.


Was that the eggshell paint on the walls that you showed pictures of? I don't think that's a fair comparison. As you know, what looks great on walls can look like complete crap on ceilings. I'm beginning to think that you're just here to bash SW primers. I don't think the problems you're seeing have anything to do with primer. :no:


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

StefanC said:


> Was that the eggshell paint on the walls that you showed pictures of? I don't think that's a fair comparison. As you know, what looks great on walls can look like complete crap on ceilings. I'm beginning to think that you're just here to bash SW primers. I don't think the problems you're seeing have anything to do with primer. :no:


No thats two separate jobs, different mud in fact. The key being how the primer vs eggshell paint looks over the mud. The mud is the only thing in question here. All that blotchy stuff you see in those previous photos are the mud areas. I'm not bashing on sw primers Stefan, it is what it is, I have a long (years) history talking about this sort of thing with many other primers too. SW just happened to be the primer(s) used on this job. 

What do you think the problems I'm seeing have to do with if its not what we put over it? I gotta laugh because strangely enough, this is the exact same response I get from guys IRL until I show them physically be it paint or any other method than their own and even then they still dont want to believe it but yet you'll see them change up their system down the road for sure.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

Has anyone here applied 2 coats of flat paint over bare drywall and it looked great because painters do that all the time. I have many times with many brands and lines of paints, cheap ones around $7 to those in the $40's and they look awesome in 2 coats.


----------



## DeanV (Apr 18, 2007)

But they often suck (literally) on the repaint.

Cheap flat paint is usually easy to make look good even when you apply it wrong (especially since usually cheaper=flatter). It just sucks for everything else paint is supposed to do.


----------



## Workaholic (Apr 17, 2007)

DeanV said:


> But they often suck (literally) on the repaint.
> 
> Cheap flat paint is usually easy to make look good even when you apply it wrong (especially since usually cheaper and cheaper=flatter). It just sucks for everything else paint is supposed to do.


I agree Dean, a cheap flat paint is easier for a novice to make look good but imo lacks in some of the pluses such as washability and they can often leave the walls thirsty if the walls were never sealed properly.


----------



## StefanC (Apr 29, 2009)

jack pauhl said:


> What do you think the problems I'm seeing have to do with if its not what we put over it?


The mud, tape, drywall and/or framing? I don't know because I'm not there but from the pictures it looks like the seams themselves are the problem. Are the seams _at all_ raised or lowered from the level of the board? Or maybe the super smooth finish of the board accentuates the imperfections of the drywall work; as you know, painting a smoother surface will bring up more sheen. 

I usually just shoot a good coat of PM 400 flat on smaller homes and it looks decent. I shot a slightly shinier flat( just a touch more sheen) and the drywall work looks like crap. Houses are next door to each other, same model home, same long kitchen ceiling etc, only difference is the little extra sheen and it looks absolutely awful. 

I'm just trying to figure out how adding primer can make the drywall look worse. Have you tried anything to remedy the problem?


----------



## StefanC (Apr 29, 2009)

Workaholic said:


> I agree Dean, a cheap flat paint is easier for a novice to make look good but imo lacks in some of the pluses such as washability and they can often leave the walls thirsty if the walls were never sealed properly.



Absolutely agree 100%. Cheap flats have their place, ceilings :yes:


----------



## aaron61 (Apr 29, 2007)

"specifically states in the contract that the paint is to be inspected at various stages of the day including at night."

Why on God's Green Earth would you have that in your contract?


----------



## Schmidt & Co. (Nov 6, 2008)

I use the PDCA standard of a "properly painted surface" in my contract.......

The painting contractor will produce a “_properly painted surface_”. A “_properly painted surface_” is one that is uniform in color and sheen. It is free of foreign material, lumps, skins, sags, holidays, misses, strike-through, or insufficient coverage. It is a surface that is free of drips, splatters, spills, or over spray, which the contractor’s workforce causes. Compliance to meeting the criteria of a “_properly painted surface_” surface shall be determined when viewed without magnification at a distance of five feet or more under normal lighting conditions and from a normal viewing position.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

StefanC said:


> The mud, tape, drywall and/or framing? I don't know because I'm not there but from the pictures it looks like the seams themselves are the problem. Are the seams _at all_ raised or lowered from the level of the board? Or maybe the super smooth finish of the board accentuates the imperfections of the drywall work; as you know, painting a smoother surface will bring up more sheen.
> 
> I usually just shoot a good coat of PM 400 flat on smaller homes and it looks decent. I shot a slightly shinier flat( just a touch more sheen) and the drywall work looks like crap. Houses are next door to each other, same model home, same long kitchen ceiling etc, only difference is the little extra sheen and it looks absolutely awful.
> 
> I'm just trying to figure out how adding primer can make the drywall look worse. Have you tried anything to remedy the problem?


Framing is an issue by itself. No paint will fix that. My main thing in those photos were the mud areas showing thru 3 coats of product. There really is only a handful of finish paints that I am aware of that can be applied to bare drywall with better results than a primer in a single application. 

To answer your question "how adding primer can make the drywall look worse." because primer doesnt do what it should effectively. Mud and board needs sealer, not primer, plain and simple. Primer tries and fails at being two things, a sealer and a film and both these two primers failed to provide either.

We tried 1 coat of Duration Home Matte direct over bare board on this job, looks great in comparison, similar to the BEHR photo but less uniform. Tried Gardz plus 1 coat of flat, that looks finished.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

aaron61 said:


> "specifically states in the contract that the paint is to be inspected at various stages of the day including at night."
> 
> Why on God's Green Earth would you have that in your contract?


Its in the builders contract for the HO and not only that but it specifically states inspection with a 500w halogen light. You pay for that of course. Its Level 5! Thats a whole different ballgame


----------



## DeanV (Apr 18, 2007)

With a 500w halogen??? Depending on the nature of the client, you could be in for a work of hurt regardless of how well you do things on this one. A sane customer with a 500watt, fine. But the fact that they specified a 500watt build already answers the question of sanity.

I hope your final inspection for payment is when YOU call your work complete and BEFORE fixtures are installed.


----------



## Workaholic (Apr 17, 2007)

jack pauhl said:


> Its in the builders contract for the HO and not only that but it specifically states inspection with a 500w halogen light. You pay for that of course. Its Level 5! Thats a whole different ballgame


I have had some kooky customers over the years that I would not trust to walk around with a 200 watt bulb much less anything brighter. 

I imagine you will be alright since this is not your first rodeo.


----------



## Harry (Aug 4, 2008)

Schmidt & Co. said:


> I use the PDCA standard of a "properly painted surface" in my contract.......
> 
> The painting contractor will produce a “_properly painted surface_”. A “_properly painted surface_” is one that is uniform in color and sheen. It is free of foreign material, lumps, skins, sags, holidays, misses, strike-through, or insufficient coverage. It is a surface that is free of drips, splatters, spills, or over spray, which the contractor’s workforce causes. Compliance to meeting the criteria of a “_properly painted surface_” surface shall be determined when viewed without magnification at a distance of five feet or more under normal lighting conditions and from a normal viewing position.


Isn't is 39 inches?


----------



## Harry (Aug 4, 2008)

jack pauhl said:


> Its in the builders contract for the HO and not only that but it specifically states inspection with a 500w halogen light. You pay for that of course. Its Level 5! Thats a whole different ballgame


A ballgame that you may lose...whew.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

DeanV said:


> With a 500w halogen??? Depending on the nature of the client, you could be in for a work of hurt regardless of how well you do things on this one. A sane customer with a 500watt, fine. But the fact that they specified a 500watt build already answers the question of sanity.
> 
> I hope your final inspection for payment is when YOU call your work complete and BEFORE fixtures are installed.


Its not that bad really... its our norm, we do our prep, caulk and fill, sand with 500w lights on the floor pointing straight ahead for doors, jambs and walls. Boy that'll make ya think twice about your quality if you never tried it. I know the drywall guys also do their final with halogens so that helps.

The only real difference on this job is that fact its in writing this time.


----------



## DeanV (Apr 18, 2007)

We take 75-100 watt hand lights and hold it up to the trim from 12 inches for prep work on trim. 

Still won't get you perfect.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

DeanV said:


> We take 75-100 watt hand lights and hold it up to the trim from 12 inches for prep work on trim.
> 
> Still won't get you perfect.


This house is a bit different because it has real poplar wood, made local. But on the MDF houses we use light to make sure the holes are flush, if the hole protrudes (or is blown out) we palm sand that back to smooth, then fill them with the light on the floor. We place it on the floor pointing straight so it casts a shadow of light up the casings or whatever. Too much direct light say 4 or 5 feet up doesnt seem to work good for me. Too much light is a bad thing, dont want anything washed out with light. We really try to cast the light to expose the indents etc. so we can smooth them up with filler.

After the first coat of paint is applied we do a quick recheck with the light to get the areas we missed and things look different with a coat of finish on it.


----------



## Schmidt & Co. (Nov 6, 2008)

Harry said:


> Isn't is 39 inches?


Unless they modified it. Thats been in my proposals (unchanged) for about ten years now......


----------



## Metro M & L (Jul 21, 2009)

StefanC said:


> The mud, tape, drywall and/or framing? I don't know because I'm not there but from the pictures it looks like the seams themselves are the problem. Are the seams _at all_ raised or lowered from the level of the board? Or maybe the super smooth finish of the board accentuates the imperfections of the drywall work; as you know, painting a smoother surface will bring up more sheen.
> 
> I usually just shoot a good coat of PM 400 flat on smaller homes and it looks decent. I shot a slightly shinier flat( just a touch more sheen) and the drywall work looks like crap. Houses are next door to each other, same model home, same long kitchen ceiling etc, only difference is the little extra sheen and it looks absolutely awful.
> 
> I'm just trying to figure out how adding primer can make the drywall look worse. Have you tried anything to remedy the problem?


I've never had a problem with the 400 flat either. What was the higher sheen you used that failed? - just for the record


----------



## StefanC (Apr 29, 2009)

Coronado Superkote 5000.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

StefanC said:


> Coronado Superkote 5000.


One primer I recall years ago that would provide a super nice uniform base coat over bare drywall was KilzII. Maybe 7-8 years ago. I used it for awhile over bare drywall because it dried with a slight sheen that held gloss when painting with eggshell then all of a sudden it changed, no more sheen and could not obtain the uniform dried finish anymore. Its been at least 2 years since I used any KilzII so not sure what its like today.

Is Superkote just another repackaged BM product?


----------



## Masterpainter (Aug 14, 2010)

I have never worked with the level 5 board. However, my recipe for my ceilings and perfection is to have the drywallers skim coat everything, then I shoot one coat kilz II latex, then one coat of Benjamin moore SuperHide. That stuff is just absolutely awesome. I think it is a better ceiling paint than MasterHide. Just did ceilings in my 100 year old home where the drywall guys 1/4'' rocked over my plaster ceilings. Talk about ceiling structure not being perfect, and at all different times of day it looks perfect. The killz II is like the flat enamel for sheen. Which is why I like it on the ceilings, accommodates the flat paint well. Super hide is forever my go to ceiling paint. Have used very many with less than happy results, but always get a good one with this.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

Masterpainter said:


> I have never worked with the level 5 board. However, my recipe for my ceilings and perfection is to have the drywallers skim coat everything, then I shoot one coat kilz II latex, then one coat of Benjamin moore SuperHide. That stuff is just absolutely awesome. I think it is a better ceiling paint than MasterHide. Just did ceilings in my 100 year old home where the drywall guys 1/4'' rocked over my plaster ceilings. Talk about ceiling structure not being perfect, and at all different times of day it looks perfect. The killz II is like the flat enamel for sheen. Which is why I like it on the ceilings, accommodates the flat paint well. Super hide is forever my go to ceiling paint. Have used very many with less than happy results, but always get a good one with this.


Last time you used KilzII, was it dead flat (no sheen)? Curious. Do you remember? The more time I spend in this house looking at this awful ceiling really makes me laugh at the 3 coat results. Isn't white suppose to be the most forgiving of colors on a ceiling, typically requiring little to no effort to make look great?


----------



## Masterpainter (Aug 14, 2010)

It was definitely not a dead flat. Not like the super hide, however it would be related to Be** flat Enamel, which they describe as their scrubbable flat. Not dead, but not like an eggshell or satin. So much more flat than the bullseye 123.


----------



## vermontpainter (Dec 24, 2007)

Jack

I think what you are getting burned by is that the board system is not a true level 5. They are marketing it that way and you are expecting something of yourself that the substrate just won't allow.

Here's a link:

http://www.nationalgypsum.com/resources/techtalk/revisiting.aspx

Scroll down to level 5. The key phrase being "uniform surface." 

They haven't provided you with that. You have a smooth board and traditional taped joints, so two very different rates of absorption. The concept of level 5 is one surface: troweled mud, giving one rate of absorption.

I think you would be better off with paper faced board because paper is more porous than the smooth veneer on the board you are wrestling with. It's obvious that your finishes are building higher sheen on the board which is creating a low flash effect in the joints. You can prime and paint as many times as you want and you are building on each surface equally. It's compounded by the high windows telegraphing the angular sheen of everything you put on, no matter how flat, and further accentuating the dichotomy between wallboard and mud, as well as waves in the framing which all clear span ceilings have. 

This is not your fault. It's bad (deceptive?) marketing by the board manufacturer. It reminds me of the tuff hide marketing. Level 5 primer. No such thing. Level 5 is only achieved one way, and you haven't been provided that substrate. 

I say this having done numerous level 5s and traditional plaster jobs.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

Take the glossy Level 5 board out of the equation. The 3 coat system used still fails to seal and hide the mud. I expect 3 coats of anything to cover that mud.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

Scott, This regular drywall and mud wall (below) was primed with a wall primer. The orange markers point to mudded areas that are clearly visible through the wall primer like on this large ceiling job. Then Gardz was applied over the horizontal joint which you see absorbed almost entirely into the joint. You can even see the various coats and types of mud used on that joint through the dry photo.



In this next photo is a bare wall (regular drywall and mud) with Gardz applied direct to the horizontal joint and far right vertical joint (only) and then one coat of eggshell painted over it. This wall faces the top photo wall. Notice how the joint is taking longer to dry because the Gardz does such a good job at sealing the mud. The Gardz over the joint provides the opposite effect wall primer does. It doesn't allow any paint to be sucked up into the mud. This is what I would expect a primer to accomplish but it doesn't in my testing. 



In this next photo the wall was primed with promar 200 primer and 1 coat of Duration Matte applied over it. You can again see how the primer failed to seal the horizontal joint allowing the finish coat to absorb into the mud joint which is clearly visible when dry. 
This was performed by another paint contractor on his job. This was regular drywall and mud too.



I guess after using Gardz on new board for so long makes it difficult to trust a wall primer to do what a wall sealer does.


----------



## vermontpainter (Dec 24, 2007)

Jack

Good illustrations and I do see your point.

I can't get past the reality that it's not a primer issue. It's a substrate, angular sheen and framing broadcast issue. The answer to this one is that there is nothing other than a true level 5 skim that was going to make this situation visually correct.

You are fascinated with primers/sealers, which I think is great because most painters have no clue about one, the other, or the difference and they buy the cheapest one they can because it takes so damn many gallons. 

I'm intrigued by your situation because we had a similar one a couple of months ago. If I posted pics of it, you'd find it eery.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

vermontpainter said:


> Jack
> 
> Good illustrations and I do see your point.
> 
> ...


I believe ya... I work with so many different contractors on their jobs, I see this sort of thing all the time. Funny, I suggested Gardz in the beginning on this job. I have a little experience in the primer.sealer areas for both walls and trim. 

The Gardz used over the board and mud on this job does work if anyone wanted a solution to this train wreck. 1 coat of Gardz and 1 coat of flat looks awesome! as it should.

What was your resolution to getting it done or right? What did you use?

I'm throwing this bonus tip out there for Gardz... and this might sound rookie, silly, hackish or whatever but Gardz over MDF produces sheens you never experienced with your paint before. I'll try to get photos mon-wed next week as we pound out a house in 3 days before Tday.


----------



## ligboozer (Oct 13, 2009)

After reading this thread, I have to say I will be giving Gardz a try. I have always used Zinsser cover stain with great success for my oil base needs, hopefully the Gardz performs as well.


----------



## vermontpainter (Dec 24, 2007)

jack pauhl said:


> I believe ya... I work with so many different contractors on their jobs, I see this sort of thing all the time. Funny, I suggested Gardz in the beginning on this job. I have a little experience in the primer.sealer areas for both walls and trim.
> 
> The Gardz used over the board and mud on this job does work if anyone wanted a solution to this train wreck. 1 coat of Gardz and 1 coat of flat looks awesome! as it should.
> 
> ...


We initially sprayed and backrolled heavily with bm253 and then did the same process with 215 which betrayed everything. We tested a bunch of supposed dead flats in the space and chose 508 as the deadest. Unfortunately it's one of the faster kickers in the league, so we had to improvise a bit to dry roll it (spraying was no longer an option). That mellowed out a lot of issues. At that point I was comfortable letting the electrician install lights, which made it all good, it may help in your case as well.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

More info... for anyone not using Gardz but thinking about it. 

When I set out to do a full primer test round-up years ago I was seeking out the best primer to be used under paints with sheens like, cashmere lo-luster, satins and eggshell over new board. Our market went from all flat paint to paints with sheen. Some primers were better than others but they all fell short of providing a failsafe solution for all colors and bases of paints that I might come across.

I was really against facing the fact that I had to use a clear water-like sealer on new board to get that failsafe solution and I went from using Gardz to trying more primers then back to Gardz and finally stuck with it.

There are way too many variables from job to job like board brand or type and a whole slew of muds used. Its not uncommon around here to see 4 types of mud on a job. Some primer works better over some mud than others but the goal was to eliminate any area of possible failure.

I suppose now facing a 3 coat system that will replace my 2 coat flat system was also a discouragement. But ultimately my nicest finishes are produce with Gardz under the paint on new board.

Gardz is not the easiest product to spread, well its easy but can be messy. Heavier nap microfiber covers or Colossus type tend to hold more sealer and keep it on the wall better than traditional covers that almost squeeze out the gardz the minute you place the cover on the wall. Just have to remember to place the roller on the wall with your pass upward first. It can be discouraging at first but the trick to doing it efficiently is in the cover. There really is no need to make it look like anything special. Just get it on the wall. The minute it soaks into the mud and board, its already done its job and time to move down the wall.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

ligboozer said:


> After reading this thread, I have to say I will be giving Gardz a try. I have always used Zinsser cover stain with great success for my oil base needs, hopefully the Gardz performs as well.


I think we shot about 40 gallons of Zinsser Cover Stain oil on this job so far over bare poplar and you can imagine what the house smells like. I can smell it on me sitting here typing. The drywall guys packed up and left and even asked to see the data sheet.  

Look, there are tons of other product we could have used on all that bare poplar with decent results but Cover Stain is not a product to substitute when you dont have to. It just works without hassle and thats what I also like about Gardz.


----------



## DeanV (Apr 18, 2007)

GardZ on trim? From what I recall, that probably isnot the best sanding primer??


----------



## ligboozer (Oct 13, 2009)

jack pauhl said:


> More info... for anyone not using Gardz but thinking about it.
> 
> When I set out to do a full primer test round-up years ago I was seeking out the best primer to be used under paints with sheens like, cashmere lo-luster, satins and eggshell over new board. Our market went from all flat paint to paints with sheen. Some primers were better than others but they all fell short of providing a failsafe solution for all colors and bases of paints that I might come across.
> 
> ...


So this is what a wall primed with Gardz looks like? 

How many times have you been asked if you put anything on?


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

DeanV said:


> GardZ on trim? From what I recall, that probably isnot the best sanding primer??


Its applied after trim is prepped and sanded so it covers the filler and any bare areas we burned out with the sander. We've been using DAP Fast N Final or Elmers Multipurpose. SW Shrink-free is very similar to DAP Fast N Final but DAP stays wetter longer filling over pre-primed MDF especially with a flex knife. I know you do NC so I'll keep best tabs on the whole procedure next week. Its still too new to call it failsafe but preliminary results under 2 different paints were amazing! 

On a side note... The Elmers is a light cream/tan color vs white which addresses the need for tinting CrackShot type fillers so you can see them better filling pre-primed MDF. Elmers is similar to CrackShot types. Sands easy.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

ligboozer said:


> So this is what a wall primed with Gardz looks like?
> 
> How many times have you been asked if you put anything on?


Yes, 1 coat of Gardz. Just because Gardz will look like the photo below at times does not mean it needs another coat. Believe me, that joint is sealed! This stuff is like injecting glue into the surface, when it dries its sealed. The other photo a few posts back that showed Gardz drying on the tan wall looked just like this joint.

No ones asked, its explained up front. We've seen frowns before tho... but its like... trust me, we know what we are doing folks, this aint our first rodeo.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

Dean, so many of the MDF trim types sand smooth fairly easy so its best to get the MDF smooth first from what I've concluded so far.


----------



## DeanV (Apr 18, 2007)

My though, that dark gray does not look like an easy cover with lighter pastels (thinking any light yellow in particular).


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

DeanV said:


> My though, that dark gray does not look like an easy cover with lighter pastels (thinking any light yellow in particular).


What you brought up is the first thing that went through my mind when I saw the grey color first time I used Gardz.

I did two lighter pastel-like colors (yellows) but I used a dirty white mix (typically something from the neutrals pallet) as the first coat and one of the actual color but I used BEHR ULTRA for that, so that helps a bit too. 

But before BEHR I would use 2 coats of Glidden Ultra-Hide semi-matte and only once did I have to 3 coat a light pink color. It was soooo close in 2.

I suppose the grey can be an issue so I wouldn't rule out that possibility, there are different shades of board. You could always opt to simply 3 coat a questionable color rather than take the risk. You'll be at 3 coats regardless. I would probably base that decision on the size of the job, color of the board and best judgement.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

Follow-up for Post #117

The drywall with Gardz in post 117 looked like the darker in the photo below.


----------

