# Flashing with a wet edge?



## WooPaint! (Mar 29, 2014)

Hey, all.

Anyone ever experience severe cut-in flashing even while maintaining a wet edge? I put SW Cashmere low luster in Lemongrass onto a customer's kitchen, and there is one area with bad flashing, and the real bummer is that it's on a small wall that I know I kept wet.

I cut in with a brush around a switch (plate removed), a thermostat, and a humidistat all within pretty close proximity to one another. Feathered it out a few inches and then immediately rolled over it with a mini (Arroworthy 9/16" micro, 4") as close as possible to stipple over the brush marks. While still wet, immediately rolled the whole wall (small, 5' x 8') with a 9" Arroworthy 9/16" micro, rolling as tight as possible to everything.

Looked fine wet -- everything blended, stipple matched between the 4" and the 9", no brush marks. When it dried, there is definite flashing visible when viewed down the wall, and it's exactly where the brushing was done even though it was rolled over while wet.

On a side note, Cashmere low luster seems to have quite a variance in perceived sheen between colors. I put SW L.L. onto a huge wall last week in a light tan and it looked dead flat. This yellow/green kitchen looks anywhere from eggshell to semi. depending on the light. Not what I was going for...

Thanks in advance...


----------



## futtyos (Aug 11, 2013)

*Surface that was painted*



WooPaint! said:


> Hey, all.
> 
> Anyone ever experience severe cut-in flashing even while maintaining a wet edge? I put SW Cashmere low luster in Lemongrass onto a customer's kitchen, and there is one area with bad flashing, and the real bummer is that it's on a small wall that I know I kept wet.
> 
> ...


Can you describe the surface you painted over and how it was prepped?

futtyos


----------



## WooPaint! (Mar 29, 2014)

futtyos said:


> Can you describe the surface you painted over and how it was prepped?
> 
> futtyos


A faux-finished (looked rag'd) yellow/brown in a relatively poorly-lit kitchen with little natural light only for brief periods of the day. Most of the finish was pretty flat (except for in a few areas that weren't noticed until AFTER the first coat), but the area in question was not one of them. Texture in the problem area wasn't much different than typical roller stipple.

Unsure of the existing paint but probably original to the house (early 90's) b/c I saw no evidence of an undercoat. Felt slightly eggshell to the touch, but a Mr. Clean eraser over a few dirty spots burnished more than I would have suspected, so not entirely sure.

As far as prep, most all repairs were nail hole or smaller, so spackled, sanded flush. Did not spot prime these small spots, but again, no repairs in the area in question. (FWIW, none of the un-primed repairs flashed). Other than the light spackling, went over the walls with a light sand just to scuff. Dusted down, vac'ed.

Nothing really atypical/special about the area in question. I didn't know if it was too much paint, or the combination of brush, mini roll, 9" roll, or what. I took the extra step of rolling over the cut-ins with a mini because this wall does get viewed down-wall from a hall -- but I was conscious about keeping everything wet. I have a hard time believing the paint set up at all between the brush and the rolling...


----------



## RH (Sep 7, 2010)

Perhaps an issue associated with any glaze used in the faux finish?


----------



## kdpaint (Aug 14, 2010)

I usually let my cut dry completely before rolling. Most paints these days seem to flash less this way.


----------



## WooPaint! (Mar 29, 2014)

RH said:


> Perhaps an issue associated with any glaze used in the faux finish?


Could the glaze still be an issue after 20 years on the walls? I was leaning more towards something I did wrong because it's literally this one spot...


----------



## WooPaint! (Mar 29, 2014)

kdpaint said:


> I usually let my cut dry completely before rolling. Most paints these days seem to flash less this way.


I usually do the same, but I thought I'd be safe on this size of wall (less than 5' wide). To be clear, you've had very wet cut-ins flash when rolled over? I've had this happen when rolling over stuff that's been on the wall for just the right (or wrong) amount of time, but never with a wet cut-in.


----------



## RH (Sep 7, 2010)

WooPaint! said:


> Could the glaze still be an issue after 20 years on the walls? I was leaning more towards something I did wrong because it's literally this one spot...


Well, I'm no expert on glazes but know I've had some goofy things occur when going over them. Maybe differences in glaze build affecting how paint is being absorbed and hence different dry rates. Just like any other type of contaminate can affect the top coat. Just a thought.


----------



## Exactoman (Mar 28, 2013)

WooPaint! said:


> Hey, all.
> 
> Anyone ever experience severe cut-in flashing even while maintaining a wet edge? I put SW Cashmere low luster in Lemongrass onto a customer's kitchen, and there is one area with bad flashing, and the real bummer is that it's on a small wall that I know I kept wet.
> 
> ...


Sherwin specs say you roll over their paint AFTER cut is dry. First off though, ALL sherwin products suck...but if you do use them...you will find much better performance if you cut, let dry then roll.
Freaking sherwin williams.


----------



## PACman (Oct 24, 2014)

Exactoman said:


> Sherwin specs say you roll over their paint AFTER cut is dry. First off though, ALL sherwin products suck...but if you do use them...you will find much better performance if you cut, let dry then roll.
> Freaking sherwin williams.


Shhhhh! You'll expose my secret!:whistling2::whistling2:


----------



## WooPaint! (Mar 29, 2014)

Exactoman said:


> Sherwin specs say you roll over their paint AFTER cut is dry. First off though, ALL sherwin products suck...but if you do use them...you will find much better performance if you cut, let dry then roll.
> Freaking sherwin williams.


I always thought Aura was the only one that explicitly indicated this. Guess next time I'll make a point of reading the label for more than just the dry/recoat time.

I think I'll just go this route from now on, modern paints being what they are.


----------



## paintpimp (Jun 29, 2007)

Unprimed patch was ok? I would lean towards high film build in your trouble area. It could just need time to let all the extra water to evaporate.


----------



## WooPaint! (Mar 29, 2014)

paintpimp said:


> Unprimed patch was ok? I would lean towards high film build in your trouble area. It could just need time to let all the extra water to evaporate.


Yep, all of the unprimed patches looked perfect. High film build was what I was thinking initially. Brush + mini + 9" may have simply been too much...

That said, will re-rolling the wall completely help or hurt the situation?

As I'd said, the SW low luster looks pretty shiny in this particular kitchen. My fear was re-rolling would simply add to the film build and make matters worse, which is why I haven't gone back and re-rolled it yet (such a small wall, will be no issue if re-rolling is the fix).


----------



## futtyos (Aug 11, 2013)

*Dwell time*



WooPaint! said:


> A faux-finished (looked rag'd) yellow/brown in a relatively poorly-lit kitchen with little natural light only for brief periods of the day. Most of the finish was pretty flat (except for in a few areas that weren't noticed until AFTER the first coat), but the area in question was not one of them. Texture in the problem area wasn't much different than typical roller stipple.
> 
> Unsure of the existing paint but probably original to the house (early 90's) b/c I saw no evidence of an undercoat. Felt slightly eggshell to the touch, but a Mr. Clean eraser over a few dirty spots burnished more than I would have suspected, so not entirely sure.
> 
> ...


Since you say that you estimate the existing paint to be over 20 years old and of unknown brand or quality, as well as there being no undercoat, I am going to guess that it has become porous if it wasn't that already. If that is the case, the Low Lustre could be soaking into the wall immediately, especially if you have worked it on with a brush first. This soaking in could be happening so fast that there is no time to blend it with the roller coat. This soaking in is probably letting some of the paint act as a sealer so that there ends up being a difference in sheen between what you brushed on and what you then roll on.

A way that I can see solving this problem is to seal the wall first with some type of sealer. Then the water in the cut-in paint will stay in the paint and on top of the sealer and not immediately soak into the wall. This, in theory, should give the cut-in paint enough wet time to allow it to blend with the paint in the roller. When I do this type of cutting in, I try to use a very fine brush and get the paint as smooth and free of brush lines as I can, and I usually like to let the cut in paint dry before rolling, but if you are faster than I am (and anyone probably is) then you might be able to cut and roll while everything is still wet.

These types of walls (ones that show off imperfections from extreme angles) are a PITA, but I have found that sealing the wall first with Gardz or something similar can provide cheap insurance that the job will come out nicely. And unless I am certain that one coat will suffice, I usually put 2 coats on. The 2nd coat goes faster than the first.

I usually transfer my Gardz into a plastic gallon jug with a wider mouth if I can find it. This makes it both easier to pour into my red plastic deep well mini-roller pan as well as to pour the rest back into the jug when I am done. I put the mini-roller into a zip lock bag for the duration of the job and I'm all set. I also usually use a mini-roller with a plastic knob on the end so that I can basically cut in with it instead of using a brush. This makes me very happy. 

I guess the only way to find out whether this will work for you is to try it. If a sealer doesn't help, I would be really curious as to what the problem is! Good luck.

futtyos

P.S. Gardz


----------



## WooPaint! (Mar 29, 2014)

futtyos said:


> Since you say that you estimate the existing paint to be over 20 years old and of unknown brand or quality, as well as there being no undercoat, I am going to guess that it has become porous if it wasn't that already. If that is the case, the Low Lustre could be soaking into the wall immediately, especially if you have worked it on with a brush first. This soaking in could be happening so fast that there is no time to blend it with the roller coat. This soaking in is probably letting some of the paint act as a sealer so that there ends up being a difference in sheen between what you brushed on and what you then roll on.
> 
> A way that I can see solving this problem is to seal the wall first with some type of sealer. Then the water in the cut-in paint will stay in the paint and on top of the sealer and not immediately soak into the wall. This, in theory, should give the cut-in paint enough wet time to allow it to blend with the paint in the roller. When I do this type of cutting in, I try to use a very fine brush and get the paint as smooth and free of brush lines as I can, and I usually like to let the cut in paint dry before rolling, but if you are faster than I am (and anyone probably is) then you might be able to cut and roll while everything is still wet.
> 
> ...


Great post; thanks much for this. Never thought about the wall being so naturally porous over time, so the wall taking the brushed coat in and sealing up makes perfect sense.

I've seen other posts of yours, and I know you're a Gardz fan. I've used a lot of Gardz, but primarily for locking down residual wallpaper adhesive (never as "just a primer").

Before I Gardz the whole wall, do you think re-rolling tight, edge to edge will even out the sheen, or will I just be adding to the problem at this point?


----------



## futtyos (Aug 11, 2013)

WooPaint! said:


> Great post; thanks much for this. Never thought about the wall being so naturally porous over time, so the wall taking the brushed coat in and sealing up makes perfect sense.
> 
> I've seen other posts of yours, and I know you're a Gardz fan. I've used a lot of Gardz, but primarily for locking down residual wallpaper adhesive (never as "just a primer").
> 
> Before I Gardz the whole wall, do you think re-rolling tight, edge to edge will even out the sheen, or will I just be adding to the problem at this point?


WooPaint, if you re-roll the wall and it works out, then you will be okay, but you won't have had the experience of Gardzing a wall first before trying to get an even sheen over the whole wall. If you re-roll tightly edge to edge and the sheen still does not come out right, you will be asking yourself why you didn't try out the Gardz first. Since this is a small wall, why not try the Gardz - even do 2 coats while you're at it - then see how even your topcoat come out. If the finished product is as I think it will be, then you have made a hands-on discovery about how well Gardz works. Don't you think it would be better to take the time to see how Gardz works on this tiny little wall rather than have to redo the 10' x 80' wall that abldwn has to do? (see "How do I prevent flashing???" thread by abldwn in this section). I guarantee that if you re-roll over 2 coats of Gardz, you will always want to use Gardz if there is any question about sheen uniformity. If you are like me, you will always want to roll paint over Gardz all the time if you could! 

futtyos

P.S. Gardz


----------



## WooPaint! (Mar 29, 2014)

futtyos said:


> WooPaint, if you re-roll the wall and it works out, then you will be okay, but you won't have had the experience of Gardzing a wall first before trying to get an even sheen over the whole wall. If you re-roll tightly edge to edge and the sheen still does not come out right, you will be asking yourself why you didn't try out the Gardz first. Since this is a small wall, why not try the Gardz - even do 2 coats while you're at it - then see how even your topcoat come out. If the finished product is as I think it will be, then you have made a hands-on discovery about how well Gardz works. Don't you think it would be better to take the time to see how Gardz works on this tiny little wall rather than have to redo the 10' x 80' wall that abldwn has to do? (see "How do I prevent flashing???" thread by abldwn in this section). I guarantee that if you re-roll over 2 coats of Gardz, you will always want to use Gardz if there is any question about sheen uniformity. If you are like me, you will always want to roll paint over Gardz all the time if you could!
> 
> futtyos
> 
> P.S. Gardz


LOL. I won't ask you if you have any stock in Gardz, but do you have any stock in Gardz? Point taken, however. I'll try Gardz'ing the wall, since it's small, and I'll see how it turns out.

I can't guarantee you that I'll make 2-coating with Gardz a part of my normal routine, but I'll keep it in mind as being for more than just wallpaper glue.

Thanks again.

PS: Gardz it is!


----------



## kdpaint (Aug 14, 2010)

Gardz is the shizz


----------



## lilpaintchic (Jul 9, 2014)

When you mini rolled, did you lay it off in the same direction as the rest or against it?


----------



## goga (Aug 6, 2015)

One coat of rolled paint is never enough. To have better results roll close to area to be cut then use brush then roll over it again. That way the brush has no need to be dipped so often, as there is paint on the wall already and cut area is smaller.

PS: most of the times I don't cut, I tape and use 6" 1/2 mini to do the "cutting". Saves time on two coats, looks better.


----------



## WooPaint! (Mar 29, 2014)

lilpaintchic said:


> When you mini rolled, did you lay it off in the same direction as the rest or against it?


Probably against it, but I followed up immediately with a 9" top-to-bottom over the whole area, so I would have thought it would all lay down.


----------



## WooPaint! (Mar 29, 2014)

goga said:


> One coat of rolled paint is never enough. To have better results roll close to area to be cut then use brush then roll over it again. That way the brush has no need to be dipped so often, as there is paint on the wall already and cut area is smaller.
> 
> PS: most of the times I don't cut, I tape and use 6" 1/2 mini to do the "cutting". Saves time on two coats, looks better.


This was rolled, cut, cut, rolled, so it did get two coats. It was the second cut/roll that brought the problem out.


----------



## WooPaint! (Mar 29, 2014)

Well, I have to go back to the job later this week because the H.O. called and said that at night with the kitchen lights off and the family room lights on, she could see six or seven of the green samples she put on the wall through two coats of the SW low-luster. Went over there ~8pm, and sure enough, half a dozen shiny boxes where SW samples were brushed on. Problem was not at all visible during the day.

I sanded all the walls prior to painting, so I didn't anticipate any problems with the samples. Kind of in a quandary as to what to try. That's one thing about painting that always gets to me... so many variables, it's often impossible to know the root cause of a problem.

I usually use 1/2" Superfabs, but I used a 9/16" Arroworthy micro. on this job for a better finish. Combine that with an extra white base going over a yellow(-ish) faux glazed wall painted with a bunch of sample greens, and who knows what happened here... FWIW, never had this problem with Regal Select (once covered 11 sample blues with a very light green in two coats without issue).

The problem wall (of course) is the biggest one; about 8'x30'. H.O. still has enough paint to re-roll, but I'm worried the samples will still flash through.

If I Gardz over just the flashing sample areas, will the sheen be uneven after I re-roll the entire wall?

Insight appreciated!


----------



## PACman (Oct 24, 2014)

:vs_music::vs_music::vs_music::wallbash::wallbash:"Ask Sherwin Williams!"


----------



## WooPaint! (Mar 29, 2014)

PACman said:


> :vs_music::vs_music::vs_music::wallbash::wallbash:"Ask Sherwin Williams!"


The manager at my local SW is about as old and experienced as the kid at the Depot selling paint, so that may not get me very far.


----------



## ptbopainter (Sep 10, 2013)

WooPaint! said:


> Well, I have to go back to the job later this week because the H.O. called and said that at night with the kitchen lights off and the family room lights on, she could see six or seven of the green samples she put on the wall through two coats of the SW low-luster. Went over there ~8pm, and sure enough, half a dozen shiny boxes where SW samples were brushed on. Problem was not at all visible during the day.
> 
> I sanded all the walls prior to painting, so I didn't anticipate any problems with the samples. Kind of in a quandary as to what to try. That's one thing about painting that always gets to me... so many variables, it's often impossible to know the root cause of a problem.
> 
> ...


Gardz the whole thing!!!!! Make the whole wall a level playing field


----------



## PACman (Oct 24, 2014)

WooPaint! said:


> The manager at my local SW is about as old and experienced as the kid at the Depot selling paint, so that may not get me very far.


That was kinda my point. Someone on here complained when I put "ba-zinga" after my sarcastic comments. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## futtyos (Aug 11, 2013)

*Level playing field*



ptbopainter said:


> Gardz the whole thing!!!!! Make the whole wall a level playing field


To add to this, the instructions on the Gardz can says: 

*"Properly sealed surfaces should have a uniform sheen. Reapply to areas that have been missed or lack sufficient coating."*

Here is the link to the whole TDS: 

https://www.rustoleum.com/~/media/D...GDZ-01_GARDZ_High_Performance_Sealer_TDS.ashx

Take it from me. I have applied 1 coat of Gardz that did not have an even sheen due to spots that had been spackled, then painted and the spots shown through (flashed). When I apply 2 coats of Gardz so that the finished sheen is uniform, I have no problem getting an even sheen with the finish coat.

You are painting over a surface that has been painted already and Gardz dries clear, so you will probably only need one coat of Gardz over the whole wall. If you see dull spots coming through, then you need a second coat. The only way to tell is to put the first coat on, let dry thoroughly, then shine some lights on it to check the sheen. As long as the wall ends up being uniformly shiny after Gardzing it, you should be good to go. If not, I would put a quick secong coat on for insurance.

As I mentioned in another post, I had 2 medium blue/gray walls in a basement that were painted with Behr PP Ultra eggshell. We took down a bunch of bookcases and spackled all the screw holes and the walls looked like they had white polka dots on them. I knew that I at least had to spot prime the spackling with Gardz, but I also put a thin coat of Gardz over both walls afterwards, so that the spackling had 2 coats of Gardz. I planned on painting 2 coats with new Behr paint to match, but after the 1st coat I could not see any sign of the spackled spots, so I left it at one coat.

You are going over the same color paint. The only thing you need to worry about is getting an even coat of Gardz on the whole wall. This can either be done by looking at it after the first coat of Gardz or by just putting on a second quick coat if there are any doubts.

As to rolling the finish coat on this small wall, I might cut in 1/2" with a small very fine brush to avoid brush marks, let dry thoroughly, and then roll the wall out with a 1/4"-3/8" nap 6 1/2" mini roller with a plastic knob on the end so that I can roll right up to and against adjascent walls and around objects that cannot be removed from the wall.

If I were also doing the 8' x 30' wall (after Gardzing, of course!), I would use at most a 9" Wooster 5/16" microfiber cover so that the stipple would be fine enough to not leave orange peel through which the old color (or paint samples) would show through. We just primed a whole house using the same roller cover in a 14" and I very much recommend this over the 9". The cover, Sherlock handle and 14" pan are available from Wooster. 

My advice is to use this experience (the small wall) to find out what painting over Gardz is like. As kdpaint said above, "Gardz is the shizz."

futtyos

P.S. Gardz


----------



## WooPaint! (Mar 29, 2014)

futtyos said:


> P.S. Gardz


Ok, I'll use Gardz on both walls and re-roll the Cashmere.

Humor me with one other question, if you would: If I had used a 1/2" Superfab vs the Arroworthy 9/16" microfiber, do you think this would have still been a problem? I'm trying to narrow down the root cause for my own peace of mind.

The microfiber left such a fine -- almost stipple-free -- finish, the original faux ragging is visible in some areas upon close scrutiny. I was wondering if had the roller left more of its own stipple behind initially would the samples still have flashed?

I'm trying to determine if this is an issue of additive sheen from the samples, a texture difference issue (low-stipple microfiber over brushwork), insufficient film thickness (unlikely?), the Cashmere not hiding properly, or what... Regal Select is labeled as paint+primer, so I'm wondering if the Cashmere simply isn't hiding as well as I'm used to (I usually spec R.S.)

Thanks again for all the details.


----------



## futtyos (Aug 11, 2013)

WooPaint! said:


> Ok, I'll use Gardz on both walls and re-roll the Cashmere.
> 
> Humor me with one other question, if you would: If I had used a 1/2" Superfab vs the Arroworthy 9/16" microfiber, do you think this would have still been a problem? I'm trying to narrow down the root cause for my own peace of mind.
> 
> ...


WooPaint, I might not make it to work today the way things are going! 

I think that flashing and texture showing through are 2 different things. Flashing has to do with the porosity of the surface whereas the faux texture has to do with the actual physical characteristics of the surface, i.e., smooth or bumpy.

What I normally like to do is to go over walls with a hand held orbital sander (80-120 grit) attached to a vacuum. This lets me get close to the surface and see little dings that need correcting (I usually try to put a little piece of tape above dings and holes and such.). The sanding also helps get the nubs off and also scuffs the surface. I can adjust the sanding for how much material I want to take off. In your case, it might help lessen the texture from the faux finish. Obviously, if the texture is too noticeable you might need to skim coat after sanding. This is a lot of work and you should discuss this with the customer beforehand as to whether they want to spend the extra money for this type of thing, but you already know that.

As to a thicker nap roller leaving more stipple and hiding more texture, I would imagine that this would be the case to a certain extent. If I am applying a paint with a sheen, I probably would not want a lot of stipple because it will show up visibly. It also might leave peaks and valleys that show the paint color underneath, but you are painting over the same color, so that should not be a problem.

As to the samples flashing because the stipple was too fine, I think that they would have shown up anyway. The Gardz is what will make the surface equal in porosity so that there will be no flashing, regardless of what nap roller cover you use IMO. You already know from where you cut in with the brush that the surface is porous and absorbing the water from the brushed paint before you can roll over it.

I guess you have to decide whether more stipple hiding faux ragging texture is going to look better than a finer finish with a shorter nap roller cover. I would ask the customer if they care about the faux ragging showing through. They are the ones responsible for it being there in the first place, so you shouldn't have to give away your labor to do whatever it takes to hide it. Better get all that ironed out (pun intended!) on the small wall before dealing with the 8 x 30 wall.

futtyos

P.S. Gardz
P.S.S. I read a post in DIY by Pro Wall Guy where he gave a thumbs down on the SW drywall conditioner vs Gardz, but that was from 2006, so the SWDC may have gotten better since then.


----------



## lilpaintchic (Jul 9, 2014)

I think gardz is pointless here. I'd just put another coat on with a 1/2 white dove and be done with it. Check those sample spots (especially if done by the ho) for a different texture from whatever tool was used to apply the samples....anything yellowish usually requires 2 coats ime for peace of mind if for no other reason. Not sure if you were trying to get in in 1 coat or not? At any rate, what's already been done is done and sealed. Why anybody would "seal"it again is beyond me. Your 1st coat shoulda done that already. Sand what needs to be sanded (pay special attention to those samples) and just paint it....no need to over think it.... 
Unless those samples are deep/dark colors. If that's the case, 123 is the solution. Cheaper, easier to work with (not nearly as thin) and does the job. Just tint it to 50% and keep paintin!


----------



## WooPaint! (Mar 29, 2014)

lilpaintchic said:


> I think gardz is pointless here. I'd just put another coat on with a 1/2 white dove and be done with it. Check those sample spots (especially if done by the ho) for a different texture from whatever tool was used to apply the samples....anything yellowish usually requires 2 coats ime for peace of mind if for no other reason. Not sure if you were trying to get in in 1 coat or not? At any rate, what's already been done is done and sealed. Why anybody would "seal"it again is beyond me. Your 1st coat shoulda done that already. Sand what needs to be sanded (pay special attention to those samples) and just paint it....no need to over think it....
> Unless those samples are deep/dark colors. If that's the case, 123 is the solution. Cheaper, easier to work with (not nearly as thin) and does the job. Just tint it to 50% and keep paintin!


Went back to the job this afternoon, and I'm thinking you may be right on this. With my face basically pressed into the wall at a 90, I was able to see the outlines and some slight variation in texture where the samples were painted with a brush. They weren't excessively heavy, but they definitely weren't feathered out, either.

I think what the H.O. is seeing at night may be texture related vs. true flashing, which is why I couldn't see it in the day under any natural or artificial light.

FYI, the walls were all two-coated. Going to sand the sample paint areas and re-roll the entire wall. If this fails, I'll break out the Gardz, but I'm thinking that may not be needed.

Thanks again.


----------



## HollisPainting (Oct 15, 2013)

It's possible the SW just didn't hide very well. Last week it took 4 coats of SW Duration to hide. Base was the same color I was repainting (God awful burnt pumpkin color) Everywhere I sanded through to the original beige need 4 coats to cover. Possibly due to the color (I miss lead in my red) but I think it's just crappy covering paint. 
I couldn't blend roller passes with that stuff either. It was a satin sheen. No matter what I did it looked like an infield mowed in opposite directions. 
Customer was happy and paid me but I wouldn't have.


----------



## Toolnut (Nov 23, 2012)

Since this is a kitchen and areas that sound like they get a lot of use like around a light switch, could the areas have a build up of oil from years of use with cooking oil and the like on the fingers.


----------



## Exactoman (Mar 28, 2013)

HollisPainting said:


> It's possible the SW just didn't hide very well. Last week it took 4 coats of SW Duration to hide. Base was the same color I was repainting (God awful burnt pumpkin color) Everywhere I sanded through to the original beige need 4 coats to cover. Possibly due to the color (I miss lead in my red) but I think it's just crappy covering paint.
> I couldn't blend roller passes with that stuff either. It was a satin sheen. No matter what I did it looked like an infield mowed in opposite directions.
> Customer was happy and paid me but I wouldn't have.


defintely crap paint. but like some others have said, its best at all times to let cut dry and then tight roll.


----------



## MikeCalifornia (Aug 26, 2012)

WooPaint! said:


> Well, I have to go back to the job later this week because the H.O. called and said that at night with the kitchen lights off and the family room lights on, she could see six or seven of the green samples she put on the wall through two coats of the SW low-luster. Went over there ~8pm, and sure enough, half a dozen shiny boxes where SW samples were brushed on. Problem was not at all visible during the day.
> 
> I sanded all the walls prior to painting, so I didn't anticipate any problems with the samples. Kind of in a quandary as to what to try. That's one thing about painting that always gets to me... so many variables, it's often impossible to know the root cause of a problem.
> 
> ...


I had that problem once with behr samples that shown through three coats of DE flat. Had to use an alkyd/water primer tinted to finish color, rolled corner to corner, then one coat of finish paint. Worked great. 

That is the problem with putting samples on the actual wall, and I tell customers not to do it, I advise them to paint on paint shields then they can take them around the house. By putting a small square of paint, you are increasing the build and the holdout of your finish coat. With LL most likely it is slightly shinier than the rest of the wall. Make it a habit to sand then a quick prime.


----------



## PACman (Oct 24, 2014)

HollisPainting said:


> It's possible the SW just didn't hide very well. Last week it took 4 coats of SW Duration to hide. Base was the same color I was repainting (God awful burnt pumpkin color) Everywhere I sanded through to the original beige need 4 coats to cover. Possibly due to the color (I miss lead in my red) but I think it's just crappy covering paint.
> I couldn't blend roller passes with that stuff either. It was a satin sheen. No matter what I did it looked like an infield mowed in opposite directions.
> Customer was happy and paid me but I wouldn't have.


Naaw! You're kidding right?:whistling2::whistling2:


----------



## PACman (Oct 24, 2014)

Those little paint samples are the dumbest thing that's been foisted on the paint stores in years. They almost always create a flashing issue or with some of them a peeling issue. Just another way for stores without properly trained salespeople to move paint i'm afraid.


----------



## WooPaint! (Mar 29, 2014)

MikeCalifornia said:


> I had that problem once with behr samples that shown through three coats of DE flat. Had to use an alkyd/water primer tinted to finish color, rolled corner to corner, then one coat of finish paint. Worked great.
> 
> That is the problem with putting samples on the actual wall, and I tell customers not to do it, I advise them to paint on paint shields then they can take them around the house. By putting a small square of paint, you are increasing the build and the holdout of your finish coat. With LL most likely it is slightly shinier than the rest of the wall. Make it a habit to sand then a quick prime.


Yeah, will do in the future (prime, that is; I def. sanded the samples down, albeit not enough apparently). That said, I've gone over tons of on-wall painted samples with Regal & Aura without priming w/o any issues in the past.

I'll take 51% of the blame, and put the other 49% on the Cashmere... :jester:


----------



## futtyos (Aug 11, 2013)

*Flashing or texture?*



WooPaint! said:


> Went back to the job this afternoon, and I'm thinking you may be right on this. With my face basically pressed into the wall at a 90, I was able to see the outlines and some slight variation in texture where the samples were painted with a brush. They weren't excessively heavy, but they definitely weren't feathered out, either.
> 
> I think what the H.O. is seeing at night may be texture related vs. true flashing, which is why I couldn't see it in the day under any natural or artificial light.
> 
> ...


WooPaint, at this point I am unclear as to whether your problem is with flashing or texture. Gardz will obviously not help get rid of the texture.

If there is a similar faux ragging texture or more paint samples on the big wall and the woman doesn't want that texture showing through, you might want to get all of that resolved before proceeding further, but you knew that anyway. Let us know what happens.

futtyos


----------



## PACman (Oct 24, 2014)

While i was sitting on the toi.....oh that's probably to much info isn't it? Well anyway I realized that you might be experiencing what's called shadowing, which is caused by different thicknesses or depths of the paint coats that are already on the wall. It can be caused by different paint thicknesses or insufficient sanding of the tape/drywall compound. Even bowing or bending of the drywall itself.

Think of a table mountain or a plateau in the southwest (american), if you were to look down on it from above with even lighting all around it, you would never see the difference in elevation or depth. As soon as you start to come down a bit, and with a light source that is on one side, you start to see the outline on the mountain. As you come farther down, and with a light source at an extreme angle, you see the shadow of the elevation or depth difference. Any sheen at all is going to show this shadowing. When the wall is painted dead flat, there is no light reflected so the effect is minimized. It kind of hard to explain, but on painted walls it is a combination of the varying thicknesses or different textures causing a very slight shadow when viewed with a low angled light source. That's why it shows up more when the sun hits it at certain times of the day.

The fix? Sand the "high" points down or skim coat the whole wall. Then prime or Gardz it and paint it with a dead flat paint. No paint and primers or flat enamels. No scrubbable flat either. They all show side sheen to some degree. If it's a wall that gets a lot of abuse? That's a tough one. The drywall and/or sanding would have to be perfect before a scrubbable flat would not show the shadowing.


----------



## CApainter (Jun 29, 2007)

PACman said:


> While i was sitting on the toi.....oh that's probably to much info isn't it? Well anyway I realized that you might be experiencing what's called shadowing, which is caused by different thicknesses or depths of the paint coats that are already on the wall. It can be caused by different paint thicknesses or insufficient sanding of the tape/drywall compound. Even bowing or bending of the drywall itself.
> 
> Think of a table mountain or a plateau in the southwest (american), if you were to look down on it from above with even lighting all around it, you would never see the difference in elevation or depth. As soon as you start to come down a bit, and with a light source that is on one side, you start to see the outline on the mountain. As you come farther down, and with a light source at an extreme angle, you see the shadow of the elevation or depth difference. Any sheen at all is going to show this shadowing. When the wall is painted dead flat, there is no light reflected so the effect is minimized. It kind of hard to explain, but on painted walls it is a combination of the varying thicknesses or different textures causing a very slight shadow when viewed with a low angled light source. That's why it shows up more when the sun hits it at certain times of the day.
> 
> The fix? Sand the "high" points down or skim coat the whole wall. Then prime or Gardz it and paint it with a dead flat paint. No paint and primers or flat enamels. No scrubbable flat either. They all show side sheen to some degree. If it's a wall that gets a lot of abuse? That's a tough one. The drywall and/or sanding would have to be perfect before a scrubbable flat would not show the shadowing.


Once the homeowners hangs a picture, or a couple of large wooden spoons and fork from Pier One Imports, no more problemo.

Case solved.


----------



## PACman (Oct 24, 2014)

CApainter said:


> Once the homeowners hangs a picture, or a couple of large wooden spoons and fork from Pier One Imports, no more problemo.
> 
> Case solved.


Yup! Anything to distract the eye. The shinier the better!


----------



## CApainter (Jun 29, 2007)

PACman said:


> Yup! Anything to distract the eye. The shinier the better!


That's my genius in action.:whistling2:


----------



## WooPaint! (Mar 29, 2014)

PACman said:


> While i was sitting on the toi.....oh that's probably to much info isn't it? Well anyway I realized that you might be experiencing what's called shadowing, which is caused by different thicknesses or depths of the paint coats that are already on the wall. It can be caused by different paint thicknesses or insufficient sanding of the tape/drywall compound. Even bowing or bending of the drywall itself.
> 
> Think of a table mountain or a plateau in the southwest (american), if you were to look down on it from above with even lighting all around it, you would never see the difference in elevation or depth. As soon as you start to come down a bit, and with a light source that is on one side, you start to see the outline on the mountain. As you come farther down, and with a light source at an extreme angle, you see the shadow of the elevation or depth difference. Any sheen at all is going to show this shadowing. When the wall is painted dead flat, there is no light reflected so the effect is minimized. It kind of hard to explain, but on painted walls it is a combination of the varying thicknesses or different textures causing a very slight shadow when viewed with a low angled light source. That's why it shows up more when the sun hits it at certain times of the day.
> 
> The fix? Sand the "high" points down or skim coat the whole wall. Then prime or Gardz it and paint it with a dead flat paint. No paint and primers or flat enamels. No scrubbable flat either. They all show side sheen to some degree. If it's a wall that gets a lot of abuse? That's a tough one. The drywall and/or sanding would have to be perfect before a scrubbable flat would not show the shadowing.


That's what it was. The H.O. had painted nine sample greens (one of which was the final topcoat color) on the wall, five or six of which she had two-coated to make sure the original yellow wasn't bleeding through.

The paint was brushed on and while it was done neatly, it wasn't feathered out, so there was definitely a build as well as a few mil difference in "elevation" on the wall. At one angle in the daylight, you could almost see a tiny (tiny to the point of possibly being my imagination!) little "hump" where the sample was, despite no real difference in texture or sheen in that light.

After scrutinizing the wall at various angles, I sanded the samples down to no sheen and no visible texture difference, taking the sanding out a few inches past the samples, softening as I went out.

Re-rolled the same green (dead flat wasn't an option for her), and the samples aren't visible in any light at this point, including at night.

I also re-rolled the small 5x8 wall (no Gardz, sorry futtyos) tight, and the issue (flashing, shadowing, reverse stipple, whatever it happened to be...) evened out.

She's happy, I'm happy. FWIW, she didn't about the flashing on the small wall, but the samples drove her nuts.


----------



## futtyos (Aug 11, 2013)

WooPaint! said:


> That's what it was. The H.O. had painted nine sample greens (one of which was the final topcoat color) on the wall, five or six of which she had two-coated to make sure the original yellow wasn't bleeding through.
> 
> The paint was brushed on and while it was done neatly, it wasn't feathered out, so there was definitely a build as well as a few mil difference in "elevation" on the wall. At one angle in the daylight, you could almost see a tiny (tiny to the point of possibly being my imagination!) little "hump" where the sample was, despite no real difference in texture or sheen in that light.
> 
> ...


WooPaint, glad you were able to fix it and make the customer happy. It's amazing how a little thing like brushing a sample color on a wall will stand out like a sore thumb sometimes. I think that painting samples on some kind of posterboard or other paintable falt surface is the way to go, rather than mess up the canvas that is actually going to get painted.

No worries about the Gardz, either. It has its place, but it is also best to get the job done with minimum fuss as you just did. 

futtyos


----------



## goga (Aug 6, 2015)

WooPaint! said:


> Well, I have to go back to the job later this week because the H.O. called and said that at night with the kitchen lights off and the family room lights on, she could see six or seven of the green samples she put on the wall through two coats of the SW low-luster. Went over there ~8pm, and sure enough, half a dozen shiny boxes where SW samples were brushed on. Problem was not at all visible during the day.
> 
> I sanded all the walls prior to painting, so I didn't anticipate any problems with the samples. Kind of in a quandary as to what to try. That's one thing about painting that always gets to me... so many variables, it's often impossible to know the root cause of a problem.
> 
> ...


That is a different thing then. The "samples" will show no matter what, it's a different "build" on texture itself. It is more flat, washed out than surrounding area. especially if brush was used and.. will be seeing at an angle no matter how many coats will be put on, it will just keep same structure unless it is sanded to the paper and redone from the scratch. Same applies to cut and roll, cut area will have two coats on and will be "raised" from the rest.

That's why like was mentioned before, roll on close, cut in as it goes, roll off and move on. Yeah, and tell lady HO that she should of used painted paper sheets to put on samples on the wall in order not to smudge the texture. She'll have to live with it.

PS: did not read the previous posts, you got it done already. Good luck in the future.. in case you see the samples again, explain at once there will be some more work to be done.. and do from scratch.


----------



## MikeCalifornia (Aug 26, 2012)

Ok so I just wanted to update this thread and why you should prime over samples. We pole sanded the walls then I sanded the samples by hand to knock down the edges. Did I take my own advice? Hell no. I just painted right over with Superpaint flat. The wall is dry but we will see what it looks like in the morning, the samples areas were dry to the touch but colder than the rest of the wall. I think it has everything to do with these new formulations which are all acrylic or nearly all. I'm sure if I used PM400 it would have been fine, cheaper paints are flatter and less of a tight film.


----------



## MikeCalifornia (Aug 26, 2012)

Ok, so I said screw it and tried a coat of guardz over this wall of flashing patches. I thought since it was clear it would be better than white primer or some sort of grey tinted primer. It worked awesome as you can see. I'm a believer now!!


----------



## futtyos (Aug 11, 2013)

*You say Gardz worked for flashing?*



MikeCalifornia said:


> Ok, so I said screw it and tried a coat of guardz over this wall of flashing patches. I thought since it was clear it would be better than white primer or some sort of grey tinted primer. It worked awesome as you can see. I'm a believer now!!


Imagine that. I wonder if others will believe you. :mellow:

futtyos

P.S. Nice job!


----------



## WooPaint! (Mar 29, 2014)

MikeCalifornia said:


> Ok, so I said screw it and tried a coat of guardz over this wall of flashing patches. I thought since it was clear it would be better than white primer or some sort of grey tinted primer. It worked awesome as you can see. I'm a believer now!!


What a great example. Thanks for updating and for the photos. I'm (masochistically?) looking forward to the next wall of painted samples I come across. Will try Gardz and see how it goes...


----------



## radio11 (Aug 14, 2015)

I used 2 coats of Gardz this past week in in post wallpaper strip bathroom and worked well as usual. Seems several of us are on a recent Gardz high. Apparently no one has used the SW knock off (SW Paint Conditioner) or they haven't read this and commented as yet. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## jr.sr. painting (Dec 6, 2013)

radio11 said:


> I used 2 coats of Gardz this past week in in post wallpaper strip bathroom and worked well as usual. Seems several of us are on a recent Gardz high. Apparently no one has used the SW knock off (SW Paint Conditioner) or they haven't read this and commented as yet. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


 I don't think sw carries their version of drywall conditioner anymore. They do carry Roman rx35 and I have recently used it on fresh drywall ceilings and painted walls and I must admit that everyone that sings the praises of a clear primer is 100% right. It's seals much more uniformly and really slows the dry time of the topcoat


----------



## four2knapp (Jun 19, 2011)

jr.sr. painting said:


> I don't think sw carries their version of drywall conditioner anymore. They do carry Roman rx35


My SW carries Drawtite-which work very well.


----------



## futtyos (Aug 11, 2013)

*Roman rx35 vs Gardz*



jr.sr. painting said:


> I don't think sw carries their version of drywall conditioner anymore. They do carry Roman rx35 and I have recently used it on fresh drywall ceilings and painted walls and I must admit that everyone that sings the praises of a clear primer is 100% right. It's seals much more uniformly and really slows the dry time of the topcoat


jr.sr., any thoughts on Roman rx35 vs Gardz?

futtyos


----------



## futtyos (Aug 11, 2013)

*Draw-Tite vs Gardz*



four2knapp said:


> My SW carries Drawtite-which work very well.


four2knapp, De Arch has posted here in the past that he prefers Draw-Tite over Gardz. Have you ever used Gardz and, if so, have you noticed any difference between the two?

futtyos


----------



## radio11 (Aug 14, 2015)

My SW rep just recently emailed to me the specs and a price quote for SW Drywall Conditioner. Apparently, they still make/carry the product and I was quoted a much better price than I can get Gardz. I've never used Drawtite. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## futtyos (Aug 11, 2013)

*SW drywall conditioner*



radio11 said:


> My SW rep just recently emailed to me the specs and a price quote for SW Drywall Conditioner. Apparently, they still make/carry the product and I was quoted a much better price than I can get Gardz. I've never used Drawtite.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Radio11, here is a link from 2006 that talks about SW drywall conditioner. I wonder if they have improved the product since then.

http://www.contractortalk.com/f8/wallpaper-removal-9048/

Read thru for the comments on Gardz vs SW drywall conditioner.

I get Gardz at a local box store near Chicago called Menards for 21.97 + tax. My local BM dealer sells it retail for 24.99.

How much is the SW going to cost you? Let us know how it works.

futtyos


----------



## AngieM (Apr 13, 2016)

Is PVA primer like guardz? I know it's purpose is a sealer like guardz but costs around $8 a gallon.


----------



## slinger58 (Feb 11, 2013)

AngieM said:


> Is PVA primer like guardz? I know it's purpose is a sealer like guardz but costs around $8 a gallon.


Uh oh!

Pacman will be here momentarily. Lol


----------



## four2knapp (Jun 19, 2011)

futtyos said:


> four2knapp, De Arch has posted here in the past that he prefers Draw-Tite over Gardz. Have you ever used Gardz and, if so, have you noticed any difference between the two? futtyos


I have used Gardz, Draw-tite, Roman Rx35 and SW drywall conditioner to seal in wallpaper glue/paste residue. All did the job of sealing the residual prior to painting. The gardz and the draw-tite worked equally well. I prefer them over the other 2 for ease of use....less runny. 

I've only used Gardz for sealing an unevenly finished/sheen wall as described in the OP's situation. With good results. I do not use gardz/drawtite regularly as it seems like a huge added step (some of my clients want me to stop at 1 coat and do not see the value in 2 coats). And yes, there are times when I wished I'd had done so. Thankfully, my clients do not always see the imperfections as I do. Or look down a wall with their eye glued to the wall


----------



## AngieM (Apr 13, 2016)

slinger58 said:


> Uh oh!
> 
> Pacman will be here momentarily. Lol


Now I'm intrigued...


----------



## kdpaint (Aug 14, 2010)

PVA is pretty much junk. Gardz is almost like a thin, acrylic poly. It seals amazingly well. Painting over Gardz is a really cool thing. The finish is really nice, no flashing, totally even coat, even with weird lighting.


----------



## radio11 (Aug 14, 2015)

futtyos said:


> Radio11, here is a link from 2006 that talks about SW drywall conditioner. I wonder if they have improved the product since then.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




$18 per gallon

Gotta contact the big boxes nearby to see if they carry Gardz. The local BM dealers are way out of line on their pricing.


----------



## futtyos (Aug 11, 2013)

kdpaint said:


> PVA is pretty much junk. Gardz is almost like a thin, acrylic poly. It seals amazingly well. Painting over Gardz is a really cool thing. The finish is really nice, no flashing, totally even coat, even with weird lighting.


Amen, brother! :thumbup:

futtyos


----------



## MikeCalifornia (Aug 26, 2012)

AngieM said:


> Is PVA primer like guardz? I know it's purpose is a sealer like guardz but costs around $8 a gallon.


Um no

PVA is not what PVA was back when first invented. It really is just the thinnest primer you can get for drywall now. Low cost sealer for flat paints mostly sometimes eggshells. Guardz is a clear binding primer to lock down drywall fibers after pulling wallpaper, so you can mud over without getting bubbles that are inherent with mud over raw gypsum. BUT..other great uses have been discovered like my picture on page 3. I dig it.


----------

