# Deck Over, Restore and other Deck Refinishing Products



## PressurePros

Since it is almost spring and many of you guys will be asking about this type of product, here is what happens to it. It doesn't matter how you prep. The only sure fire product is an oil based semi trans. Everything else peels.. eventually.

http://www.durabilityanddesign.com/news/?fuseaction=view&id=12801


----------



## Epoxy Pro

All the deck over type of products are junk.


----------



## Ric

PressurePros said:


> Since it is almost spring and many of you guys will be asking about this type of product, here is what happens to it. It doesn't matter how you prep. The only sure fire product is an oil based semi trans. Everything else peels.. eventually.
> 
> http://www.durabilityanddesign.com/news/?fuseaction=view&id=12801


There is no question that wood decks - especially pressure treated - are the bane of the entire industry. Typical, conventional surface coatings usually won't work...they can't handle the traffic, the ponding water, and especially the movement of the wood substrate. They crack, pop and peel from the surface, usually in a pretty short time - And, while they won't necessarily peel, oil-based semi-transparent stains generally won't provide any greater performance than an oil-based, or acrylic solid-cover stain will. In other words, there is no "sure fire product" when it comes to decks.

But don't take this article as proof of a defective product or design - or to say this system is guaranteed to fail - that's not the case at all. There are many, many actual applications that have lasted 5 years without peeling or significant signs of film breakdown....and preparation has everything to do with the probability of a successful app. 

It's unfortunate that because of what may actually become a nationwide, class action lawsuit, several manufacturers will discontinue this type of product as a viable "restoration" coating for weather damaged decks. This product can work as described. I always cringe when marketing types start hyping any coating with guarantees, warrantys and fabricated estimated life spans - those ridiculous statements opens the door for these types of lawsuits, by empowering novice diy-ers and even some professionals, to claim damages beyond what a manufacture should be accountable/responsible for in the event of product breakdown or failure.

...and in this industry, we know that product breakdown and failures are rarely caused by defects in manufacturing or design. Paint products are developed by very smart people of science, and products are tested extensively prior to being brought to the market - No manufacturer will bring a product to market if they have evidence the prodcut will not perform as designed and intended. 

So...what happened here? In this case, Rustoleum should shoulder some of the blame for making outlandish statements of performance - but in each case of failure, the bottom line remains that the surface was, most likely, not in a paintable condition at time of application, not prepared properly for the environment, applied improperly, or the structure could not support a topical system regardless of prep...

I'll stop here and get off my soap-box...if this discussion continues, in my next "tome" I may go into more detail as to why I defend these products and consider them to be innovative and viable for such a crazy-assed industry.


----------



## PressurePros

Twice I have written more explanatory posts and they didn't come through. I will just sum up that wood needs to breath (transmit vapor). Any film forming coating (via maintenance) will build up and shut that off. 100% of the time (just depends on how long it takes) it will fail and the coating will peel or the wood underneath will rot. I have been doing decks for 15 years with ten of that the work being my primary revenue. These coatings are all junk. 

Several years ago a customer insisted on Cabot's SPF. It looked fine for that year. Imagine my delight when I was named in a lawsuit with Cabots because the following season it was peeling everywhere. Cabot's of course cried "Prep" until I presented detailed photo documentation of each step we took. Chemical Strip. Low Pressure Wash. Fungicide application, pH balance and sanding..The deck had adequate ventilation. Short of getting a blessing from The Almighty, nothing else could have been done. The product was garbage as are all acrylics outside of a one-and-done looks-good-for-a-few-years. A semi trans oil, a real oil not some hybrid alkyd or Paint Store formula, is the only product that will last for the long haul because it will not build a top coat when maintenance coats are applied. 

There is no real innovation. These coatings in various forms have been around for decades. They are usually some type of industrial coating that some marketing genius decided could be labeled as a deck miracle cure. I and many in my industry have seen the same results over and over. If pros can't make them work, what hope does the targeted homeowner have?


----------



## DrakeB

We've already got a discussion about these going on here: http://www.painttalk.com/f2/peel-season-bad-one-37353/

These products really shouldn't be defended; even if they are applied correctly and you don't have adhesion problems right off the bat, it's still going to actually harm your substrate over time, versus other products that protect or at the very least don't hurt. I'd rather do a semisolid in acrylic or oil every couple years than put this product on. Like has been pointed out, even if the product stays secure, it's going to destroy the substrate and that's the opposite of what a protective coating should do.

I don't think this can be blamed on prep, either, because the marketing has lead people to believe they can put it on over any deck, regardless of condition or prep, and it will magically be perfect for 40(!) years. They deserve the lawsuit 100% for the marketing even if the product weren't garbage on top of that.


----------



## Ric

Hmm...doesn't seem to be much support here for my earlier comments here. I guess we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree and move on to the next topic...(sigh)...


----------



## DrakeB

It was explained why these are damaging to the substrate even when they don't have adhesion problems. Would you care to refute that Ric? If not, that's fine, I'm just curious why you're not interested in continuing the conversation if you really think this product is valuable.


----------



## MIZZOU

I seen another failed "deck over" at an interior bid yesterday. She was almost in tears talking about it. The real question is... Wth are we as contractors suppose to offer as far as solutions? Complete strip or deck rebuild I guess? Man there's gonna be some unhappy deck owners. The hundreds it was going to cost are now thousands


----------



## DrakeB

MIZZOU said:


> I seen another failed "deck over" at an interior bid yesterday. She was almost in tears talking about it. The real question is... Wth are we as contractors suppose to offer as far as solutions? Complete strip or deck rebuild I guess? Man there's gonna be some unhappy deck owners. The hundreds it was going to cost are now thousands


To be fair, it probably never should have been used in the first place. Just like you wouldn't use indoor primer to do the exterior of a house. Sure, it might be cheaper than buying paint, but unfortunately it just isn't the right tool for the job. Decks should be cared for just like they've always been.


----------



## Ric

Woodford said:


> It was explained why these are damaging to the substrate even when they don't have adhesion problems. Would you care to refute that Ric? If not, that's fine, I'm just curious why you're not interested in continuing the conversation if you really think this product is valuable.


Trust me, I understand the "need" for cut board to "breathe" (vapor transmission)...I understand that specific applications in certain conditions are capable of rotting wood from beneath a coating (with or without delamination of the coating itself)...but I also understand that I can impregnate, and wrap, a board in resin and preserve it for pretty much an eternity - with no degradation to the board over time. How can both these statements be true?

To begin...boards don't "need" to breathe. These are not living objects. They breathe by absorbing, and passing moisture, drawn through the board by heat. Cut board doesn't do this for survival, it does so 'cause of the capillary make-up of the board. Matter-o-fact, it is this vapor transmission that ultimately will destroy the cut board's span of viability. Dry the board out - create a barrier from moisture penetration, then there is nothing to pass as the board heats up. Right? If that is true, in theory or reality, then the board will not expand and contract, which at least contributes to the film's inability to tightly adhere to the surface. If that is true (which it is), just about any coating would work significantly longer (in theory) than those products of today that really only have a limited lifespan on decks anyhow...

So...is that possible? Probably not. At least not economically possible. So hows about a compromise then? How 'bout (1) a barrier to prevent a portion of the ambient moisture from penetrating the board, (2) then creating an alternate route of escape for moisture that has penetrated, and (3) a surface coating that can allow for a safe release (transmission) of whatever makes it's way through the barrier and alternate escape routes (let's say a malleable, micro-porous acrylic resin, with a perm rating of 6+, that exhibits extraordinary adhesion, and penetration, but not necessarily deep penetration, to fibrous surfaces). Now we're talking about a new-fangled system that has potential.

In my earlier post, you didn't hear me unconditionally defending the absurd claims that sales and marketing types hype. Matter of fact, I said they deserve to be held accountable for damages because of their stupid claims. What I am saying is these products are very good and are capable of performing in the manner described - and that fact has been proven. But it is ridiculous to say this system will work in every existing situation...or without necessary, and possibly extensive, surface preparation. 

For the sake of keeping an argument short...let's just say these type of products are a first step in a necessary re-design of decking materials, coatings, and deck building practices. Nationwide, something like 30-35% of American homes have a deck. That means about 60-70 million homes are in a short-lived maintenance and repair cycle that will ultimately end in complete replacement. The oils of the past didn't work...the acrylics of the more recent past didn't work...conventional paints sure as hell don't work... I don't mean to pick on anyone, but to say these product types are "junk", or acrylic systems are incapable of providing necessary protection and longevity, or that there is any "sure-fire" product for deck applications is just flat out wrong...and, at least, manufacturer's are going out of their established confines to develop new products and ideas with the hope, and expectation, of a creating a longer cycle between total replacements. That's only a first step. It's not the coating - it's the deck, and decks, in their present state, is the bane of the industry.


----------



## PressurePros

Like I said, 15 years of real world experience plus consulting in lawsuits, being involved in a lawsuit, literally hundreds of thousands of square feet of wood stripped, pH balanced, sanded and re-stained.. along with 25 other pros with similar stats I can send you to.. I can safely and with confidence say.. acrylics and products like these are junk. They are not maintenance friendly. 

A semi trans oil penetrates the surface and does not form a film. That is the only type of coating that is long term friendly for a deck. I get what you are saying and maintain some solid stained decks, but on the whole, there is one type of product that works. If there was another, I would have used it. I don't take my craft lightly.


----------



## DrakeB

Thanks for the response Ric, good stuff. I appreciate you taking the time to do that.

The main issue I want to point out is that the idea of stain is not to stop vapor from traveling entirely- that's not possible, at least not without being substantially cost prohibitive. The idea is to slow it down as much as possible. You don't get damage just from the wood getting wet- as you know, you get damage from it getting wet and dry and expanding/contracting rapidly. Stain keeps it from being rapid and slows down the overall speed of it, while still not trapping moisture.

However, products like Restore are actually completely non-water permeable. This creates a problem- once the wood gets wet (and it will, since you aren't doing the bottom of the boards) it traps the moisture inside. Obviously some can get out the bottom, but when it's getting wet it acts like a sponge and soaks it right up to the top. Then it's stuck in between the product and the board, and doesn't necessarily have an easy escape. Stain doesn't do this for two reasons- first, because it's actually soaked into the wood, so there's no way for water to get "in between" and second because it's not completely non-permeable, so the moisture can escape anyways.

This causes both (some of) the adhesion problems and causes the wood to rot by trapping the water there on the top. That's why I have such a problem with it (aside from the marketing).

And yah, I know you think their marketing was wrong, too. I apologize if I didn't make that clear- I did understand your position.

I, too, agree that there's not necessarily a one-size-fits-all solution, and that our current solution isn't the best possible one. However, I strongly disagree that Restore (etc.) are the right direction to go.


In response to PressurePros: with respect to your experience, I'd like to know if you've given some of the newer formulated acrylics a chance (formulated in the last 3 years, I don't just mean whether or not you've tried one recently, but specifically a newly formulated acrylic stain). They've come a long way. You've got to remember, people felt just like you do know about the latex paints. Look how far they've come.


----------



## PressurePros

Drake, to be honest and fair, I have not ever used an acrylic (by choice). I have applied them per spec on some jobs but by nature, an acrylic film forms. By nature, it is very hard to remove. Either property makes them difficult to maintain. They provide no conditioning to wood, so the wood dries out. My primary experience with them is nightmare strip after nightmare strip removing failed acrylic finishes.


----------



## DrakeB

I've sold only oil based deck stains myself in the past, but as time goes on I get more and more (professionals) telling me they're liking the newer acrylics and asking for them. I haven't made the swap yet, but I'm strongly considering it due to the amount of demand. If you don't mind doing a two-coat system, the BM Arborcoat 638 (which is the semi, or the transparent as well) are actually absorbed into the wood and don't leave a film (somewhere less than 1 mil, or so negligible BM doesn't say it has any film at all on their TDS unlike the other stains). Of course, this is a hybrid product, but I do like the hybrids for stuff like this.


----------



## DeanV

We did a brand new cedar deck that was done with the first of the current generation of HiBuild coatings. Another painter did it one year and it failed. He did not sand the new wood. He did not put it on thick enough (100 sq. ft. per gallon is the product spec.). 

We sanded it all off to remove failing coating and apply 3 coats of new coating to hit the specified mil build. Impossible to apply one coat at that thickness. We did moisture meter and temp readings before applying for each step.

It still started to fail after the first winter. Second story deck.


----------



## DrakeB

Thanks for the info Dean. Is it possible that you still didn't get the mill glaze off when you sanded it? If you just sanded until you hit wood, you may not have removed the glaze that he also didn't remove, which could have caused problems. Just curious- I don't mean to cast doubt on your prep work. I'm not crazy about the high build stuff myself.

I'm more a fan of the new hybrid (there's some 3 parts now- urethane, alkyd, acrylics) styles that still absorb into the wood.


----------



## Boco

I did a few new decks last summer. The first was pressure treated and I went with Vermont naturals. The second was a trexx board that looks like its real wood. I went with a penetrating oil for that one. Conditions for both were ideal and prep was done according to product specs. I am really interested to see what the winter has done to them. Both are scheduled for a second coat coat this spring. Hopefully I can get 3-5 years out of them. The other deck I did was with deckover and it failed after 3 weeks. Wasn't my idea but HO purchased and I am a gambler. Anyway it pretty much all came off with a pressure washer and quick sand. Then I top coated with Deckscapes solid and have my fingers crossed.


----------



## DeanV

I sanded extra specifically for millglaze reasons.


----------



## PressurePros

DeanV said:


> We did a brand new cedar deck that was done with the first of the current generation of HiBuild coatings. Another painter did it one year and it failed. He did not sand the new wood. He did not put it on thick enough (100 sq. ft. per gallon is the product spec.).
> 
> We sanded it all off to remove failing coating and apply 3 coats of new coating to hit the specified mil build. Impossible to apply one coat at that thickness. We did moisture meter and temp readings before applying for each step.
> 
> It still started to fail after the first winter. Second story deck.


That's what I am saying. I am open to the fact that every single deck I have encountered or completed myself were all done incorrectly. But story after story from pros I trust tell the same tale. I reiterate.. if we can't make them work, what chance does a homeowner have?


----------



## bigchaz

In what some might consider a relatively short 7 years of doing nothing but deck restorations, even I have seen countless products come and go. They all have one thing in common: they sit on top of the wood and create a film. That film cracks, it allows moisture to penetrate and it begins to lift and ultimately peel. And once it does, any attempted maintenance simply becomes a case of what almost exponentially decreasing longevity. Sure lets say you go ahead and prep the wood to death, read moisture, apply in perfect conditions and it lasts 3 to 4 years (rare by the way). Time after time I hear how the second application maybe lasts 1 to 2 years and by the third coat it's peeling after one season. And these "deck over" and "restore" products are simply more proof that the thickness of coating means nothing when it comes to a substrate that expands and contracts as much as wood decking. 

Counter that to quality (true) oil based semi transparent stains. I've never seen one peel and never seen one crack, flake, etc. And opposite of film formers and acrylics, continued maintenance with oil based finishes actually INCREASES longevity with future applications. And a true penetrating oil does what no acrylic can ever do, and that is to condition the wood itself. Which is exactly why a properly maintained penetrating oil finish takes less and less material with each subsequent application.

In terms of the latest and greatest of hybrids and new acrylics and urethanes, the question becomes are you willing to use customers as the guinea pigs for testing. Demand was extremely strong for this Deck Over and Restore finishes when they first came out. Customers see a commercial and buy into every single marketing claim. As a business owner, I'm not willing to stage my reputation and future on a product that has not been used in my climate for at least 3-5 years. And I'm glad I did, because we are seeing the results now after less than 2 years. Another miserable failure just like Behr Premium.


First photo is credit of a company in the suburbs of Chicago. Restore coating peeling off like paper. Second photo is a customer of mine who applied Deck Over to his own deck. The new wood we installed to replace all the boards that had rotted out from moisture being trapped and baked under that thick stain.


----------



## MIZZOU

So what's everyone approach going to be with these colossal failures (besides sprinting back to the truck)? PW, scrape, power sand?


----------



## Rbriggs82

I'm going to print back to the truck and find easier money. :yes:


----------



## DrakeB

I'm willing to cede that, at the very least, pure acrylic coatings don't hold up quite as well as they should (yet).

Regarding the hybrids, though, those soak into the wood like true oils. They aren't film forming. If you don't want to use your customers as guinea pigs, that's fine, and I respect that. All I'm saying is, don't knock it until you've tried it.


----------



## JCW

PressurePros & Drake are on the right track w/ regard to using a non film-forming coating. Sikkens has for years touted their product as semi-permeable and while I've had decades of success on vertical surfaces w/ Sikkens the horizontals are a different story. My experience w/ deck adhering issues is the old grey fibers needing removed to get back to the stable wood fibers. Of course sealing undersides and edges of decking boards whenever possible is a must. But one thing that hasn't been mentioned earlier about how damage occurs is when the deck boards do crack in regions of the country where freezing occurs. Any water in those cracks will freeze and cause expansion, then when they thaw the crack is larger, re-freeze & re-thaw, repeat until the water has found its way deep into the wood. 
While the non film-forming oils do have their benefits, that is only one look. Many customers want that furniture look that a Sikkens can give or a solid color that accents their home or surrounds. 
For the record, I used the Restore product once last fall on a good clients deck that is on its last leg. He just wanted to stretch the life out of the deck before replacing it. He knew it wasn't a panacea and I didn't sell him on it either. Low expectations and if in a year or two it starts to pop, no harm as it was in rough shape before. Funny thing about it was when in the HD store purchasing it a HD person at the front door was hassling me about why I didn't buy the HD brand. I finally told him this is what I wanted to buy and left the store..... Gotta love "Big-Box."


----------



## jennifertemple

Ric said:


> ...and in this industry, we know that product breakdown and failures are rarely caused by defects in manufacturing or design. Paint products are developed by very smart people of science, and products are tested extensively prior to being brought to the market - No manufacturer will bring a product to market if they have evidence the prodcut will not perform as designed and intended.


I beg to differ! I stick with top of the line, top brands because I have used paints that still looked uneven and in need of an other coat after FOUR!! coats. In my 30 years of painting that has happened twice and only when I gambled on a new brand. I use BM & Para exclusively for paint and for priming I go with INSUL-X more often than not. In both cases I was morbidly astonished and wondered, "Don't these guys know their competition?"


----------



## DrakeB

Just saw this on Facebook.


----------



## pacific paint

no question or debate these type of products are a failure waiting to happen restore the orig. before rustoleum took over clearly stated on the can this is an alternate to deck replacement no waranty implied or expressed Rustoleum now has a primer and sanding is required but guess what it is going to fail you cant coat wood on a deck it will fail its not rocket sience wood gets wet swells then shrinks and whamo product comes off


----------



## woodcoyote

Just glad we don't have a lot of decks around here. I could just imagine all the crooks getting in on the film building and bill of goods selling. 

Looks like deck stripping might be a good business for you all in the next year or two. Get the money to prep and run, let the painters worry about warranty stuff lol.

PressurePro, you refer to a penetrating semi-trans oil. Off the bat, what brand do you find works well for you? 

Reading this I saw ArborCoat and Sikkens thrown out there as possible contenders.


----------



## daArch

woodcoyote said:


> Just glad we don't have a lot of decks around here. I could just imagine all the crooks getting in on the film building and bill of goods selling.
> 
> Looks like deck stripping might be a good business for you all in the next year or two. Get the money to prep and run, let the painters worry about warranty stuff lol.
> 
> PressurePro, you refer to a penetrating semi-trans oil. Off the bat, what brand do you find works well for you?
> 
> Reading this I saw ArborCoat and Sikkens thrown out there as possible contenders.



Looks like we will looking for that service.

New house has approx 600 s.f. of PAINTED deck. Future fun :no:  :no:


----------



## I paint paint

daArch said:


> Looks like we will looking for that service.
> 
> New house has approx 600 s.f. of PAINTED deck. Future fun :no:  :no:


If you don't like the way it looks, why don't you just repaint it? Or replace it?

The middle ground of stripping and staining seems the worst of both worlds, IMO.


----------



## daArch

I paint paint said:


> If you don't like the way it looks, why don't you just repaint it? Or replace it?
> 
> The middle ground of stripping and staining seems the worst of both worlds, IMO.



Painted decks don't have longevity. Prolly will re-plank as needed.


----------



## chrisn

daArch said:


> Painted decks don't have longevity. Prolly will re-plank as needed.


http://www.popularmechanics.com/home/how-to-plans/how-to/a3490/4275113/


----------



## PressurePros

woodcoyote said:


> Just glad we don't have a lot of decks around here. I could just imagine all the crooks getting in on the film building and bill of goods selling.
> 
> Looks like deck stripping might be a good business for you all in the next year or two. Get the money to prep and run, let the painters worry about warranty stuff lol.
> 
> PressurePro, you refer to a penetrating semi-trans oil. Off the bat, what brand do you find works well for you?
> 
> Reading this I saw ArborCoat and Sikkens thrown out there as possible contenders.


I've worked with both of those and neither is any good, imo. I only use true oils. Baker's Grey Away, Armstrong Clark or TWP. TWP you may be able to get locally.


----------



## Jmayspaint

PressurePros said:


> I've worked with both of those and neither is any good, imo. I only use true oils. Baker's Grey Away, Armstrong Clark or TWP. TWP you may be able to get locally.



Would you mind to explain the difference in a "true oil" again? I remember reading a post of your on the subject before, but don't know how to find it. 
Doesn't it have something to do with drying vs non drying oils? 
Is it true that TWP never needs to be stripped?


----------



## PressurePros

Jmayspaint said:


> Would you mind to explain the difference in a "true oil" again? I remember reading a post of your on the subject before, but don't know how to find it.
> Doesn't it have something to do with drying vs non drying oils?
> Is it true that TWP never needs to be stripped?


No true oil needs to be stripped if it is cleaned and recoated properly. A true oil in my definition is not an alkyd but either a single non-drying or a combination of drying and non-drying oil. Ready Seal is an example of a pure non drying parafinic oil (parafinic oil and parafin, like in Thompson's, are two different things). 

Anything you get from a paint store is going to be a hybrid alkyd.. part waterborne, part oil. They look okay after a good prep and first coat but they don't maintain well and they don't condition the wood like an oil.


----------



## PACman

PressurePros said:


> No true oil needs to be stripped if it is cleaned and recoated properly. A true oil in my definition is not an alkyd but either a single non-drying or a combination of drying and non-drying oil. Ready Seal is an example of a pure non drying parafinic oil (parafinic oil and parafin, like in Thompson's, are two different things).
> 
> Anything you get from a paint store is going to be a hybrid alkyd.. part waterborne, part oil. They look okay after a good prep and first coat but they don't maintain well and they don't condition the wood like an oil.


uh, I sell a true alkyd, non-hybrid semi-transparent stain. And I'm a paint store. A real paint store I might add. That has a true alkyd stain that is voc compliant at that. 

Why? Because we care.


----------



## fredo

I preface this by saying I haven't read this entire post, but we are having extremely good luck with Deck and Dock form Deckback. It's an acrylic elastomeric coating. Easy to use and seems to hold up well if used as directed. And customers love it.

http://dqpainting.com/


----------



## ElTacoPaco

cdpainting said:


> All the deck over type of products are junk.


What about that new super deck by ducksback


----------



## DrakeB

ElTacoPaco said:


> What about that new super deck by ducksback


The best way to determine if this type of product will work or not is to ask the company how water permeable the coating is. If they say "none" or "very little" and it's heavy film forming, chances are it's going to peel or rot the wood under it.


----------



## PACman

ElTacoPaco said:


> What about that new super deck by ducksback


nope. My P&L rep is pushing that on me like crazy. I told him I need some kind of written guarantee that they will take on all liability for it's performance. Still waiting. And fyi, the judge over the civil suit against several of these products has ruled that the store selling the product, which is the store "servicing" the product, is just as liable as the manufacturer. Unless that manufacturer gives the servicing store or company a written acceptance of all liability.

Sw stores don't have to worry about it because they are part of the same company as the manufacturer. An independent store such as myself isn't. So, you can become a defendant in any lawsuit against the manufacturer for any claims against the product, including remediation of the product failure. (For example ripping up a deck and replacing it including labor and materials. Sw would have to pay half in the case of the Duckback products, but you would get the pleasure of paying the other half. not worth it in my book.)


----------



## PACman

DrakeB said:


> The best way to determine if this type of product will work or not is to ask the company how water permeable the coating is. If they say "none" or "very little" and it's film forming, chances are it's going to peel or rot the wood under it.


This is the root cause for ALL of these product failures. Even worse, the manufacturers KNOW that and continue to manufacturer and sell them. It's a cost analysis thing. If they get enough markup on the product against how much they could potentially pay out in settlements. Think Ford Pinto.


----------



## DrakeB

PACman said:


> nope. My P&L rep is pushing that on me like crazy. I told him I need some kind of written guarantee that they will take on all liability for it's performance. Still waiting. And fyi, the judge over the civil suit against several of these products has ruled that the store selling the product, which is the store "servicing" the product, is just as liable as the manufacturer. Unless that manufacturer gives the servicing store or company a written acceptance of all liability.
> 
> Sw stores don't have to worry about it because they are part of the same company as the manufacturer. An independent store such as myself isn't. So, you can become a defendant in any lawsuit against the manufacturer for any claims against the product, including remediation of the product failure. (For example ripping up a deck and replacing it including labor and materials. Sw would have to pay half in the case of the Duckback products, but you would get the pleasure of paying the other half. not worth it in my book.)


There's an act in the works that would protect retailers from this liability. Something like the Seller Fairness Act or some such. As much as I believe retailers should do their damndest to be responsible for what they sell, retailers also shouldn't be terrified of being early adopters of new technologies because they could lose their businesses for it. Companies should be terrified of producing terrible products instead.


----------



## PressurePros

DrakeB said:


> There's an act in the works that would protect retailers from this liability. Something like the Seller Fairness Act or some such. As much as I believe retailers should do their damndest to be responsible for what they sell, retailers also shouldn't be terrified of being early adopters of new technologies because they could lose their businesses for it. Companies should be terrified of producing terrible products instead.


I learned several hard lessons about early adopting. Now I stick with what is proven.


----------



## DrakeB

PressurePros said:


> I learned several hard lessons about early adopting. Now I stick with what is proven.


There was a time when early adopting could put you ahead of the curve, and give you a competitive advantage. In some ways that's still true, but unfortunately with the modern focus on marketing over quality and actual product trials before things hit the market, it's a much riskier proposition. I'm still willing to try new things, but I'm _much_ more cautious about it and I usually talk to my customers about the risks before selling them anything I don't know is proven.

I do this across everything in my store- down to the simplest things like brushes and rollers. I wanted some new microfibers in, but I wasn't just gonna place an order and start selling them. Bought a case just to give out as samples, gave them away to a couple of my painters, and let them know that they were a new product for me and I had no idea how they'd perform. They used them out on a few closets and smaller jobs. Turns out they like 'em, so I'll probably place a real order now. But that's the right way to do new products, not just toss them at customers or clients and cross your fingers. I still feel dirty for selling Restore when I worked at the box store and didn't know any better.


----------



## PACman

DrakeB said:


> There was a time when early adopting could put you ahead of the curve, and give you a competitive advantage. In some ways that's still true, but unfortunately with the modern focus on marketing over quality and actual product trials before things hit the market, it's a much riskier proposition. I'm still willing to try new things, but I'm _much_ more cautious about it and I usually talk to my customers about the risks before selling them anything I don't know is proven.
> 
> I do this across everything in my store- down to the simplest things like brushes and rollers. I wanted some new microfibers in, but I wasn't just gonna place an order and start selling them. Bought a case just to give out as samples, gave them away to a couple of my painters, and let them know that they were a new product for me and I had no idea how they'd perform. They used them out on a few closets and smaller jobs. Turns out they like 'em, so I'll probably place a real order now. But that's the right way to do new products, not just toss them at customers or clients and cross your fingers. I still feel dirty for selling Restore when I worked at the box store and didn't know any better.



You could have been a male stripper and walked away with more dignity! I know how you feel. Because I sold restore at one point not because of my stripping days.


----------



## DrakeB

PACman said:


> Because I sold restore at one point not because of my stripping days.


Where's the emoticon for pretending we believe you?


----------



## pacific paint

The manufactures warranty is clearly printed on the labels.........It always reads no warranty expressed or implied. Manufactures will replace or refund the product as stated on the label. This will hold up in a court of law as it has for years. You are not going to get a new deck. All we can do is not recommend products that do not perform and over time they will go away.


----------



## PACman

pacific paint said:


> The manufactures warranty is clearly printed on the labels.........It always reads no warranty expressed or implied. Manufactures will replace or refund the product as stated on the label. This will hold up in a court of law as it has for years. You are not going to get a new deck. All we can do is not recommend products that do not perform and over time they will go away.


Nope. Do a little research on the restore/deck over/ etc. class action lawsuit. There has been a ruling that the substrate failed under these coatings, and the failure was caused by the coatings, therefore the manufacturer and the companies providing "service" for the manufacturer are liable for the repairs and/or replacement of the damaged substrate. It takes a lawsuit, but the manufacturers CAN be held liable for substrate or structural damage. The warranties are worthless if a product is found to be at fault in the damage of something other then the product that is warranted. And when they manufacturers require the end user to surrender their warranty when they get replacement product, as they have been, and the product fails again?

And the manufacturers are found by the court to have continued manufacturing a product that very clearly didn't live up to those warranties and marketing claims?

And they were found by the courts to have made attempts to cover up the product claims by updating labels in a deceiving way?

It doesn't look good for the manufacturers right now. But, paint failures don't kill anybody or harm the environment so they don't make the evening news like automobile failures do. So no one outside the paint industry hears a thing about it.


----------



## PACman

DrakeB said:


> Where's the emoticon for pretending we believe you?


:vs_smirk:


----------



## pacific paint

Thanks for the info PACman I love reading your posts. I would love to follow the lawsuit for entertainment, who or where is this lawsuit. They will not win it. Why don't the lawyers go for the lumber company they have deeper pockets ? What is the warranty for wood? Don't take this wrong we all know the products are bad, but you sell aura lifetime warranty self priming super paint. The label does not exclude decks maybe this would work with 2 coats. The BM label reads exactly the same as all of the others no warranty only replacement costs. Self priming? Read the label. BM is just as guilty as all the other company's claims. If you want a nice deck pour cement but it might crack just sue the cement company for a new one.


----------



## pacific paint

Hey why don't the auto company's who makes the news give you a new car ?????? Because they don't have to. Decks, cars It's all the same.


----------



## DrakeB

pacific paint said:


> Thanks for the info PACman I love reading your posts. I would love to follow the lawsuit for entertainment, who or where is this lawsuit. They will not win it. Why don't the lawyers go for the lumber company they have deeper pockets ? What is the warranty for wood? Don't take this wrong we all know the products are bad, but you sell aura lifetime warranty self priming super paint. The label does not exclude decks maybe this would work with 2 coats. The BM label reads exactly the same as all of the others no warranty only replacement costs. Self priming? Read the label. BM is just as guilty as all the other company's claims. If you want a nice deck pour cement but it might crack just sue the cement company for a new one.


Companies with deeper pockets deserve to be sued just for that fact? I hope you're kidding. Lumber products are working fine. Rustoleum's products aren't. No amount of finger pointing at other companies changes that. So many red herrings in that post, though. 

Aura's label and TDS is quite clear about what substrates it's self-priming on, and does an admirable job at that. Even if you follow the Restore TDS, it will still either fail or ruin your deck. You're making very apples to oranges comparisons here.


Edit: But even if everyone else's products _were_ lies and terrible as well, that doesn't change the fact that these deck coatings are as well. Neither morality nor culpability are relative, and other companies' wrong-doings don't absolve these companies.


----------



## pacific paint

If lumber is working fine why would you coat it ? what is the lumber warranty? and why do BM people think so high like there better than every one? Aura then should work on a deck with 2 coats as the label states. They are very clear about every thing, then why didn't they exclude decks?


----------



## pacific paint

What exactly is a red herring ?


----------



## PACman

pacific paint said:


> Thanks for the info PACman I love reading your posts. I would love to follow the lawsuit for entertainment, who or where is this lawsuit. They will not win it. Why don't the lawyers go for the lumber company they have deeper pockets ? What is the warranty for wood? Don't take this wrong we all know the products are bad, but you sell aura lifetime warranty self priming super paint. The label does not exclude decks maybe this would work with 2 coats. The BM label reads exactly the same as all of the others no warranty only replacement costs. Self priming? Read the label. BM is just as guilty as all the other company's claims. If you want a nice deck pour cement but it might crack just sue the cement company for a new one.


Actually the lawsuit is a class action suit filed initially by the state of Illinois if I remember correctly. It was started earlier this year and several other states have joined in. Google "restore lawsuit" and you will find it.


----------



## DrakeB

pacific paint said:


> If lumber is working fine why would you coat it ? what is the lumber warranty? and why do BM people think so high like there better than every one? Aura then should work on a deck with 2 coats as the label states. They are very clear about every thing, then why didn't they exclude decks?


Because lumber is an organic product that's meant to be coated for durability. If you're just going to question reality maybe you should be on a philosophy site instead of a paint site.

I don't know why you think BM people "think so high" but I can assure you I'm no different from anyone else. BM products aren't perfect.

Why doesn't Aura exclude decks? It also doesn't exclude space ship hulls. It's a house paint, not a deck stain. You don't exclude every possible use of a product. Pencils don't say not to jam them in your ear, either, but they shouldn't be used for that.

I'll try to make it as simple as I can:

Restore is meant for decks. It doesn't work for decks.

Aura isn't meant for decks. It doesn't work for decks.


----------



## PACman

DrakeB said:


> Companies with deeper pockets deserve to be sued just for that fact? I hope you're kidding. Lumber products are working fine. Rustoleum's products aren't. No amount of finger pointing at other companies changes that. So many red herrings in that post, though.
> 
> Aura's label and TDS is quite clear about what substrates it's self-priming on, and does an admirable job at that. Even if you follow the Restore TDS, it will still either fail or ruin your deck. You're making very apples to oranges comparisons here.
> 
> 
> Edit: But even if everyone else's products _were_ lies and terrible as well, that doesn't change the fact that these deck coatings are as well. Neither morality nor culpability are relative, and other companies' wrong-doings don't absolve these companies.


I have 31 years of reading label directions on paint products under my belt, so I'm pretty confident that when I applied Restore on a walking bridge at my last place of employment that is was applied correctly. When it wrinkled and peeled off the following spring, the Synta technical service helped walk me through the second application. Step by step. And when I gave them info on what I was putting it on, a bridge 9 feet above any water, they were quite confident that it was going to work great. They sent me replacement product free of charge. Oddly enough they sent me 15 gallons to do a bridge that according to their label and data sheet should only take 8. (we used 9 gallons the first time). So i re-prepped and re-coated according to all directions and their friendly tech service lines directions and guess what? It did the same thing that following spring!

Of course I called the 800 number again and lo and behold! It was out of service! Went to their website, pretty much shut down. Except for the Restore link. It took me to Rustoleum's new Restore site. A week later Rustoleum was pushing the old Synta Restore product on nationwide Television and print adds. Without ever doing anything to change the product.

That summer, against my advice, my girlfriend at the times parents did their deck with it. 6 months. It was peeling of and sticking to their shoes.

There are several paint companies that make these types of coatings for horizontal surfaces, California being one of them. In fact they are one of the major manufacturers of tennis court coatings. These are basically the same type of products as the deck "restore" type products. The ONLY difference? California knew 20 years ago that these types of products could not be used on wood. Their labeling very specifically mentions this. They could have made millions selling their product for decks, but chose not to fleece the public like a lot of companies have. Ben Moore is quite capable of making these types of products, and they to could have made millions off of them and chose not to.

There are just too many variables when coating exterior horizontal wood to put a non-permeable coating on it and have it work successfully in every application. These types of products actually work quite well on vertical applications, because any moisture trapped under the coating can migrate down ward instead of trying to evaporate through what is essentially shrink wrap in a liquid form. In fact, tape a piece of food wrap to a deck sometime and see what happens. It isn't rocket surgery.


----------



## PACman

Oh another thing. I have since found out that the two principles of Synta Manufacturing basically threw their company at the alter of Rustoleum to avoid any lawsuits from product failure. This has been presented as evidence in the lawsuit. It may take several years, but they will pay the price.


----------



## DeanV

The original coating like this by Gaco is no longer made either. The resin is "unavailable" supposedly. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pacific paint

I must have struck a nerve Drake you seem a little upset. Its not philosophy Its reality, wood products on a exterior do not hold up outside unless all six sides are coated. I haven't seen a lot of wood siding being put up lately, even trim is going cement. The only good deck is a covered deck. Space ship hulls? now that's out there, pencils in your ears? Thanks for making it so simple That's exactly what a judge is going to do ask where they saw a warranty. Its called buyer beware! now what is a red herring?


----------



## Wildbill7145

pacific paint said:


> now what is a red herring?


noun 1. a smoked herring. 

2. something intended to divert attention from the real problem or matter at hand; a misleading clue.


----------



## DrakeB

pacific paint said:


> I must have struck a nerve Drake you seem a little upset.


Upset? No. That'd be silly. Annoyed? Sure, a bit. You're arguing dishonestly and felt the need to throw personal insults at me rather than discuss the topic at hand. Now, would you like to discuss the topic some or just keep trying to bait me? I feel like there's a reasonable discussion to be had here, but I can just go if you can't move on.


----------



## pacific paint

DrakeB said:


> Upset? No. That'd be silly. Annoyed? Sure, a bit. You're arguing dishonestly and felt the need to throw personal insults at me rather than discuss the topic at hand. Now, would you like to discuss the topic some or just keep trying to bait me? I feel like there's a reasonable discussion to be had here, but I can just go if you can't move on.


Arguing dishonestly? are you calling me dishonest? You need to tell me what was dishonest. What personal insult ? Bait you ? you need to chill out


----------



## DrakeB

pacific paint said:


> Arguing dishonestly? are you calling me dishonest? You need to tell me what was dishonest. What personal insult ? Bait you ? you need to chill out


Sure thing, go ahead and PM me. I'd be happy to lay it all out for you. No need to do it in public, right? You should chill out :thumbup:


----------



## PACman

pacific paint said:


> I must have struck a nerve Drake you seem a little upset. Its not philosophy Its reality, wood products on a exterior do not hold up outside unless all six sides are coated. I haven't seen a lot of wood siding being put up lately, even trim is going cement. The only good deck is a covered deck. Space ship hulls? now that's out there, pencils in your ears? Thanks for making it so simple That's exactly what a judge is going to do ask where they saw a warranty. Its called buyer beware! now what is a red herring?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

and the main reason we get kinda upset about deck "restore" coatings is WE are the ones that have to tell consumers they got scammed, and WE are the ones who get to tell them how to fix it. Behr recommends a coat of 100% acrylic deck stain over top of peeling Deckover to "fix" it. That's direct from their tech services line. That isn't going to do anything to stop the peeling or fix it, but that is what they told myself AND my contractor customer this summer.


----------



## PACman

DeanV said:


> The original coating like this by Gaco is no longer made either. The resin is "unavailable" supposedly.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


It's also interesting to note that the original Gracodeck product was intended for flat roof decks, not porch type decks.


----------



## PACman

pacific paint said:


> Hey why don't the auto company's who makes the news give you a new car ?????? Because they don't have to. Decks, cars It's all the same.


Volkswagon may be doing just that!


----------



## PACman

PACman said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
> 
> and the main reason we get kinda upset about deck "restore" coatings is WE are the ones that have to tell consumers they got scammed, and WE are the ones who get to tell them how to fix it. Behr recommends a coat of 100% acrylic deck stain over top of peeling Deckover to "fix" it. That's direct from their tech services line. That isn't going to do anything to stop the peeling or fix it, but that is what they told myself AND my contractor customer this summer.


And when we have to deal with this crap because the companies that sold them the product won't do crap to help them, and then have people tell us WE are full of crap we tend to get a little uptight about it.


----------



## pacific paint

Let me clear the air, I sell paint also, 38 years to be exact I deal with the same issues all day long. I knew that these deck coatings were going to fail before they failed. And I think they are all bad I do not recommend them, I go out of my way to talk people out of them. Even solid stains that we all sell are going to fail but we still sell them, what other option is there to a ugly wood deck that the customer will not sand and use a semi transparent stain.


----------



## DrakeB

pacific paint said:


> Let me clear the air, I sell paint also, 38 years to be exact I deal with the same issues all day long. I knew that these deck coatings were going to fail before they failed. And I think they are all bad I do not recommend them, I go out of my way to talk people out of them. Even solid stains that we all sell are going to fail but we still sell them, what other option is there to a ugly wood deck that the customer will not sand and use a semi transparent stain.


I'm not crazy about solid stain myself, but people want it even knowing it will fail within a season or two tops, depending on market. The only upside is that at least the solid stain doesn't actively damage the wood like Restore-esque products do.

I sell Penofin even though I'm a BM dealer; I find it relatively easy to apply and incredibly easy to maintain and recoat. I wish people would swap to those kind of systems. It'd probably also take the price down if our painters/deck guys knew what they were applying would be a relatively in-and-out process, since that's clearly not the case today.

Luckily I operate out of a lumber yard, so I can also just sell someone a composite deck. First generation of those was a farce as well, but the newer products seem to be holding up much better.

Out of curiosity, may I ask whose paint you sell? As you know, I'm (mostly) a BM dealer and PacMan is California and a few other lines.


----------



## PACman

pacific paint said:


> Let me clear the air, I sell paint also, 38 years to be exact I deal with the same issues all day long. I knew that these deck coatings were going to fail before they failed. And I think they are all bad I do not recommend them, I go out of my way to talk people out of them. Even solid stains that we all sell are going to fail but we still sell them, what other option is there to a ugly wood deck that the customer will not sand and use a semi transparent stain.


aw, San Antonio! I assume you don't have many decks covered with snow for 4-5 months out of the year. That's one of the big problems with deck restorative coatings up here on the frozen tundra. As the snow melts the water gets to seep into the wood and set there for a few weeks/months. When the spring sun hits the wood, and the trapped moisture in the wood tries to evaporate, poof goes the coating. 

Unfortunately there is no good way to try to get people to maintain there wood decks properly. Most of the lumber retailers pretty much don't do a good job of explaining the importance of properly maintaining the wood they want to sell. The more it fails the more the get to sell. They blame the coating, and the coating manufacturers blame the lumber companies. Meanwhile the deck owners are stuck! It's a circle that just gets worse and worse.

And being a small company like me, it's hard to get the word out to people about what to do with their decks because all of the marketing the big boys put in to selling these faulty coatings. Until they get completely fed up, most people are just going to keep playing the game bouncing between HD,Lowe's, and yes, Sherwin Williams. But very rarely will they get the true answer from them. They have an agenda, and that is to sell enough product to cover any expense related to replacing the product. Not help a customer get to the bottom of what has become a pretty big problem in the last five years or so.

FYI, my last employer sanded and scraped all of the restore off, replaced about 1/4 of the boards, (about the same amount that got ruined the previous year!) and re-coated the bare sanded wood with BM's old alkyd based Semi trans deck stain. (I had ordered some before the voc cut off date in Ohio). It's been 4 years, and it got a coat this spring, and it looks great.


----------



## pacific paint

DrakeB said:


> Sure thing, go ahead and PM me. I'd be happy to lay it all out for you. No need to do it in public, right? You should chill out :thumbup:


 peace :thumbup:


----------



## PACman

Also, and there are a few painters on this forum that have used the product line and will back me up on this, but the Storm System solid deck acrylic holds up quite well when surface prep is done correctly. They also have a permeable alkyd primer for troublesome decks. I have seen a company video were they interview a painter from Long Island (I think) about the product line. He says he has primed and stained decks on the beaches on Long Beach and has gotten as much as 5-6 years out of them before needing to re-stain them.


----------



## pacific paint

I moved here to san Antonio 4 years ago from Seattle. You would think the decks would do good here ,but to my surprise decks are lucky to get 2-3 years service. The summers are brutal the sun and rain is shocking. Wood just rots out here even primed and painted cedar trim is done at about 6 years just turns to mush. Restore type products come off in large sheets it just wont stay down. Drake now don't think bad of me,my wife is the bread winner she is a computer software developer for united health care. We relocated here for her. I thought it would not be a problem getting a job with a paint company but to my surprise there is only 2 players in town SW and PPG. There were many open positions but I could not get an interview I could not figure why. I tracked down the hiring mgr at PPG and asked why he would not interview me . He told me that I don't speak Spanish. San Antonio has a 63% documented Spanish population. So I took a job at Lowes as a paint pro M-F (there is 12 lowes stores in the city limits) I live with it . It was hard to adjust It not working around real paint people. after 3 years our dept is #1 in the area #3 in the south and #12 nation wide 2100+ stores. sorry for the long post


----------



## DrakeB

pacific paint said:


> I moved here to san Antonio 4 years ago from Seattle. You would think the decks would do good here ,but to my surprise decks are lucky to get 2-3 years service. The summers are brutal the sun and rain is shocking. Wood just rots out here even primed and painted cedar trim is done at about 6 years just turns to mush.


Wonder if the hardwood decks (teak, Kayu Batu, fake-mahogany) do okay there? Had any experience yet with them? Climate up my way is pretty rough on them, but I think they handle the sun a bit better than the cedar will. They're easier to take care of if you buy the right products, too.



pacific paint said:


> Drake now don't think bad of me,my wife is the bread winner she is a computer software developer for united health care. We relocated here for her. I thought it would not be a problem getting a job with a paint company but to my surprise there is only 2 players in town SW and PPG. There were many open positions but I could not get an interview I could not figure why. I tracked down the hiring mgr at PPG and asked why he would not interview me . He told me that I don't speak Spanish. San Antonio has a 63% documented Spanish population. So I took a job at Lowes as a paint pro M-F (there is 12 lowes stores in the city limits) I live with it . It was hard to adjust It not working around real paint people. after 3 years our dept is #1 in the area #3 in the south and #12 nation wide 2100+ stores. sorry for the long post



Wouldn't think bad of you for that. I worked at the local big box for three years myself. We're all just doing what we have to do to get by. You're already more dedicated to your job than most people who work at the box stores just by being a member here.

Ever consider starting your own shop? It's definitely not for everyone (I fall into the "not" pile myself), but if there's only PPG and SW in your market that definitely means there's an opening. BM is pretty generous to people opening new stores


----------



## PACman

DrakeB said:


> Wonder if the hardwood decks (teak, Kayu Batu, fake-mahogany) do okay there? Had any experience yet with them? Climate up my way is pretty rough on them, but I think they handle the sun a bit better than the cedar will. They're easier to take care of if you buy the right products, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't think bad of you for that. I worked at the local big box for three years myself. We're all just doing what we have to do to get by. You're already more dedicated to your job than most people who work at the box stores just by being a member here.
> 
> Ever consider starting your own shop? It's definitely not for everyone (I fall into the "not" pile myself), but if there's only PPG and SW in your market that definitely means there's an opening. BM is pretty generous to people opening new stores


Minimum buy in is pretty high though. They do pretty well with marketing and advertising comps though. But so does P&L. I think the current minimum opening order is $30k but i'm not sure. It may have changed since I quit selling them but my BM sales rep has mentioned the high buy in. The other thing is that BM requires a certain amount of available capitol to become a dealer. At one time it was $120k before they would let someone become a dealer.

One of my current brands has "loaned" me the use of a $12,000.00 Accutinter, which BM never does! At best they will give you $3-4k towards a tint machine, and with the Gennex as you know a tint machine is a necessity. The cheapest one that is Gennex approved was a Harbil that was $6995.00.


----------



## PACman

DrakeB said:


> Wonder if the hardwood decks (teak, Kayu Batu, fake-mahogany) do okay there? Had any experience yet with them? Climate up my way is pretty rough on them, but I think they handle the sun a bit better than the cedar will. They're easier to take care of if you buy the right products, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't think bad of you for that. I worked at the local big box for three years myself. We're all just doing what we have to do to get by. You're already more dedicated to your job than most people who work at the box stores just by being a member here.
> 
> Ever consider starting your own shop? It's definitely not for everyone (I fall into the "not" pile myself), but if there's only PPG and SW in your market that definitely means there's an opening. BM is pretty generous to people opening new stores


Oh and CHICKEN!:tt2:


----------



## DrakeB

PACman said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> Minimum buy in is pretty high though. They do pretty well with marketing and advertising comps though. But so does P&L. I think the current minimum opening order is $30k but i'm not sure. It may have changed since I quit selling them but my BM sales rep has mentioned the high buy in. The other thing is that BM requires a certain amount of available capitol to become a dealer. At one time it was $120k before they would let someone become a dealer.
> 
> One of my current brands has "loaned" me the use of a $12,000.00 Accutinter, which BM never does! At best they will give you $3-4k towards a tint machine, and with the Gennex as you know a tint machine is a necessity. The cheapest one that is Gennex approved was a Harbil that was $6995.00.


I have heard (can't confirm this) that BM offers a pretty generous loan for new stores, and considerably better programs for getting started than they offer for existing stores to get new equipment. I haven't been in that position myself (thankfully  ) so I can't say for sure, but I've heard from a few people who seemed to find the experience a relatively painless one. They want people opening stores, after all- they've already _got_ the existing stores.


----------



## ElTacoPaco

DrakeB said:


> I'm willing to cede that, at the very least, pure acrylic coatings don't hold up quite as well as they should (yet).
> 
> Regarding the hybrids, though, those soak into the wood like true oils. They aren't film forming. If you don't want to use your customers as guinea pigs, that's fine, and I respect that. All I'm saying is, don't knock it until you've tried it.


What product are you recommeding as the best from your experience? Can you name some hybrid products?


----------



## ElTacoPaco

PACman said:


> uh, I sell a true alkyd, non-hybrid semi-transparent stain. And I'm a paint store. A real paint store I might add. That has a true alkyd stain that is voc compliant at that.
> 
> Why? Because we care.


What is your secret pac?


----------



## PACman

ElTacoPaco said:


> What is your secret pac?


I'm a California dealer.


----------



## PressurePros

Just a reminder to anyone thinking of using these products.. please don't. 

http://www.durabilityanddesign.com/news/?fuseaction=view&id=12801


----------



## PACman

PressurePros said:


> Just a reminder to anyone thinking of using these products.. please don't.
> 
> http://www.durabilityanddesign.com/news/?fuseaction=view&id=12801


I think that is one thing we can all agree on. There are just way too many better products out there.


----------

