Drywall dusting before painting
Ron
of the drywall dust from sanding before painting? The walls will be
sprayed and back rolled. As the walls stand now nothing has been cleaned
and the painters are coming in soon.
Just need the information to see if it is somthing we should bring to
the attention of the contractor again.
He has already stated that he never heard of cleaning or vacuuming the
walls before painting.
Your opinions would be appreciated.
marxbig
"Ron" <ron...@dejazzd.com> wrote in message
news:3E3867...@dejazzd.com...
Usually, the Painting Section (09900) of most specifications directs the
Painter to "remove all dirt, dust, grease, oil, mill scale, rust, etc. and
any other contaminants which may interfere with the adhesion or appearance
of the finish coatings from all items and surfaces. Insure scheduling of the
cleaning so it does not contaminate other items or surfaces" or some
variation of the above. My company sweeps drywall with a 3' wide floor broom
used only for this purpose. It has the softest bristles I can buy. I usually
do not vacuum because of the added cost.
Your builder is either an idiot, a novice, or a liar if he says he has never
heard of this before. It is taught to all first year students in a course
called "Contract Documents". Your Architect should have a copy of the specs
which he is responsible for inforcing. If you do not have an Architect or
specs, you have proceeded at your own risk. However, it can be argued that
this is an "Industry Standard" and you may get him to do it (or make the
painter do it). Go to an Architect and ask for a "boiler plate"
architectural section 09900 Painting spec. and find the above instructions
under the sub-section "09900 Execution" and show it to him. Here is a link
to a copy which has this and many other standard painting requirements:
http://www.emory.edu/FMD/web/emory-std/arch/09900.pdf see paragraph 3.3.
IMHO
Jimmy Glover
http://www.gloverpainting.com
Jim Fincher
surface. He of course has the right to not accept the surfaces as ready for
paint.
Your reference to such in depth specs is chiefly a commercial world scenario, or
an architecturally supervised residential project..... your experience and firm
is a cut above the average paint crew on new residential
construction...therefore you're used to the ideal, not the typical.
I would venture to guess that no such in depth specs exist for that project....
Jim
"marxbig" <mar...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:v3gvg7c...@corp.supernews.com...
marxbig
"Jim Fincher" <jfin...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Ve%Z9.2001$eU4....@news.bellsouth.net...
> I agree that usually it is the painter's responsibility to prep his paint
> surface.
Surface prep is the soul of a quality paint job. Dusting and cleaning are
simply good painting practice and will be done by any quality painting
contractor with or without specs.
>He of course has the right to not accept the surfaces as ready for
> paint.
As a matter of fact, we painters have been trying for twenty years to have
the responsibility of approving the surfaces prior to painting taken out of
our specs on the premise that we don't know what the Owner contracted for so
how can we determine when it is ready (other than expertise). See this link
for an alternate to inspection and approval which we are slowly but surely
getting into more specs: http://64.191.70.150/standards/standards/p4-94.pdf
> Your reference to such in depth specs is chiefly a commercial world
scenario, or
> an architecturally supervised residential project.....
I agree, but some form of specs must be determined prior to a construction
project. How else would the customer know what he was buying or the
contractor know what to bid? The specs I linked to were a bit broad (boiler
plate), but usually some form of stripped down version should be included in
any contract...and not just for painting but for all disciplines.
>your experience and firm
> is a cut above the average paint crew on new residential
> construction...therefore you're used to the ideal, not the typical.
Thank you for the compliment, however I would like to think that all quality
contractors strive to make the ideal, in fact, typical. No matter what the
type or level of construction.
> I would venture to guess that no such in depth specs exist for that
project....
I would tend to agree, else the question would not have come up. Maybe the
next person reading this thread will learn something and not have to depend
on the mercy of strangers (or friends for that matter) with a low bid to
give them quality work. Architects and complete contract documents are vital
to a successful project. Correctly written, they protect all parties
(particularly the Owner) and are well worth the money.
Jimmy Glover
http://www.gloverpainting.com
> "marxbig" <mar...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
> news:v3gvg7c...@corp.supernews.com...
> >
> > "Ron" <ron...@dejazzd.com> wrote in message
> > news:3E3867...@dejazzd.com...
> > > After a drywall job is completed...
<snipperoo>....................
Matthew S. Whiting
I can't say that I know that this is a must, but I can tell you that I
would wipe the walls down with a damp sponge after vacuuming. That is
what I did before I painted the walls in my house. However, I can't say
that not doing so will cause any great problem with the paint. It may not.
Matt
JsWalker LazenbyJr
prep his paint
> surface. He of course has the right to not accept the
surfaces as ready for
> paint.
>
> Your reference to such in depth specs is chiefly a
commercial world scenario, or
> an architecturally supervised residential project.....
your experience and firm
> is a cut above the average paint crew on new residential
> construction...therefore you're used to the ideal, not the
typical.
Are you speaking for yourself, Jim? Is your usual, average
construction environment the basis for your evaluation of
what is a cut above? I think most questions addressed to
this group are asking for opinions based on reasonable,
good, accepted practice. The spec quoted is certainly
representative of reasonable, good, accepted practice.
Sure, some at times offer less. Unfortunately, you are
offering advice here that is based on work in that lesser
environment.
Jim
>
>
> I would venture to guess that no such in depth specs exist
for that project....
>
And, that would be a guess, Jim, not based on personal
knowledge or observation. What contribution does this guess
make?
Rico dJour
Be careful with the damp sponge, or avoid it entirely. It will raise the grain
of the paper facing on the drywall, making the taped seams telegraph more.
R
Jim Fincher
was in reference to the post that referred to a residential scenario as most
posts on this group are.
Are you saying that it is common for a painting spec to be included in all
residential construction today ? Sorry, I don't see that as the case.
Rather I point out that the GC is the one responsible for the finished
product........ not a spec that very few contracts include at that level of
construction.
Jim
"JsWalker LazenbyJr" <aajwl...@gbronline.com> wrote in message
news:QTudnZsaHLp...@gbronline.com...
Ron
>
> After a drywall job is completed is it necessary to remove some or all
> of the drywall dust from sanding before painting?
I have just read the preparation instructions from the paint
manufacturer. It reads the following.
"The surface to be painted must be clean and free of dirt, chalk, wax,
grease, rust, flaking paint or any other surface contaminate that could
affect product performance."
Since it says must be clean and free of chalk I assume it means any
chalk including chalky dust from drywall sanding.
Since the contractor doesn't think it is necessary and won't do it we
will just take the suggestion and sweep the walls and ceiling with a
good soft, clean shop broom then vacuum well.
Now watch me get into trouble with the contractor if something goes
wrong after the paint is applied. I hope he doesn't blame me for doing
something to the job that caused the problem.
Thank you for your replys.
Ron
Mark
> Ron wrote:
> I have just read the preparation instructions from the paint
> manufacturer. It reads the following.
> "The surface to be painted must be clean and free of dirt, chalk, wax,
> grease, rust, flaking paint or any other surface contaminate that could
> affect product performance."
> Since it says must be clean and free of chalk I assume it means any
> chalk including chalky dust from drywall sanding.
The key phrase in there is "could affect product performance". Emphasis
on could. While I would agree that the best practice is to clean the
walls unfortunately in many locales if you were to ask GC's and painting
crews off the record I would seriously doubt that many of them would say
they even come close to these specs on a regular basis. At least that
has been our experience. The real world is a far cry from This Old
House. Where we dont use drywall that often we dont have to deal with a
lot of dust but when we do we would wipe with a dry cloth while vac'ing
the walls. In extreme cases where lots of dust were present we would
wipe with a rag dampened with mineral spirits.
> Since the contractor doesn't think it is necessary and won't do it we
> will just take the suggestion and sweep the walls and ceiling with a
> good soft, clean shop broom then vacuum well.
> Now watch me get into trouble with the contractor if something goes
> wrong after the paint is applied. I hope he doesn't blame me for doing
> something to the job that caused the problem.
> Thank you for your replys.
>
> Ron
I can understand your concern about getting into a pissing contest with
your contractor. Some peoples tact would be, its his/her responsibility
and if the paint fails they will just have to redo it. I would disagree
however in that recovering from a disaster if it were to occur (I
seriously doubt it would) would be a real chore. I cant see how bringing
this to the attention of the contractor or painters for that matter
would cause such a rift if you were to clean the wall. That said your
contractor could be a real thin skinned guy. Your major issue is that
they are to spray/backroll the walls. I personally feel that if you are
going to have an issue with dust this would be it. If the walls were to
be rolled entirely I would feel it to be less of an issue. This is just
my personal opinion based on our experience.
Mark
Don Linsenbach
> That "guess" was an observation that there are many levels of
construction. It
> was in reference to the post that referred to a residential scenario as
most
> posts on this group are.
>
> Are you saying that it is common for a painting spec to be included in all
> residential construction today ? Sorry, I don't see that as the case.
>
> Rather I point out that the GC is the one responsible for the finished
> product........ not a spec that very few contracts include at that level
of
> construction.
That is probably true, and it is most likely why there are so many cheap
houses being built these days.
The buyer just doesn't know any better, I guess, til its too late.
I had been in my builders home several times and was somewhat impressed with
the quality of what I saw there.
In my house however he was going to go *builder grade* all the way.
I would have none of that.
I spec'd and bought the paint (after the fact unfortunately), and also all
the plumbing fixtures, countertops, tilework, electrical fixtures,
appliances, door hardware, floor coverings and trim supplies. I spent an
extra $30k but I believe it was in our best interest. Live and learn. On our
next house I will be better prepared for reality.
Jim Fincher
so high with the cost of worker's comp, insurance, materials and labor that the
builders cut what they can do most easily and that is the quality of the
material.
My projects basically specify all fixture items by mfg, model @ etc, flooring,
windows, doors, trim, etc.... if not specified then there is generally an
allowance item for them.
For my part, I always buy the better material as far as lumber, trim,
fasteners, etc.... I long ago learned that better materials usually translate
into a better job and in many cases are cheaper in the long run due to helping
to eliminate call-backs.
I do not have any canned specs that dictate who will clean the dust from the
drywall.... but it is done by someone for sure, and usually the painter .... I
don't pay the drywall contractor until he has cleaned up his general mess ...
Since I am in the remodeling end of the business, and typically work in occupied
structures then keeping on top of cleanliness is super important. Dust control
(see www.zipwall.com) is so important it is of major concern to me... I recently
found the zipwall product and invested in a couple of sets . My customers think
that it's the best thing since slice bread... and it saves clean-up money...
Bottom line is get a contractor that cares..... about the customer, the
customer's satisfaction, the product, his reputation......... and of course one
that does what they say when they say it....
Jim
"Don Linsenbach" <do...@no-spam-cognisurf.com> wrote in message
news:3e394...@binaries.vphos.net...
memimi
thoroughly dust and clean any surface to be painted. no matter what anyone
says,thats their job. bottom line is, if you want quality painting that will
hold up, make sure they do their job. if anyone gives you a hard time, THEN
just quote the manufactor specs on the label.
"Ron" <ron...@dejazzd.com> wrote in message
news:3E3867...@dejazzd.com...
Donald Lee Phillips, Jr., P.E.
> I agree that this is the norm today .... the pressure to actually make a
buck is
> so high with the cost of worker's comp, insurance, materials and labor
that the
> builders cut what they can do most easily and that is the quality of the
> material.
It works the other way too. Homeowners are so suspicious and sometimes so
picky it can be hard for someone to make money on some jobs. The industry
has such a bad reputation overall in the eyes of the general public. I
think contractors are second only to attorneys.
Sincerely,
Donald Lee Phillips, Jr., P.E.
Worthington Engineering, Inc.
145 Greenglade Avenue
Worthington, OH 43085-2264
dphi...@worthingtonNSengineering.com
(remove NS to use the address)
614.937.0463 voice
208.975.1011 fax
http://worthingtonengineering.com
Jim Fincher
the reputation of the corner cutting bunch interested only in the bottom line is
so bad that I like to think of myself more as a craftsman. My son calls me an
artist.... and I guess I like that a bit more...
Jim
"Donald Lee Phillips, Jr., P.E." <dphi...@worthingtonNSengineering.com> wrote
in message news:Fwh_9.142438$GF.36...@twister.columbus.rr.com...
Donald Lee Phillips, Jr., P.E.
news:6ig_9.97998$6G4.12400@sccrnsc02...
> nevermind the specs and all that other stuff. a good painting crew will
> thoroughly dust and clean any surface to be painted. no matter what anyone
> says,thats their job. bottom line is, if you want quality painting that
will
> hold up, make sure they do their job. if anyone gives you a hard time,
THEN
> just quote the manufactor specs on the label.
Without the specs, it is hard to prove who job it is in court.
memimi
"Donald Lee Phillips, Jr., P.E." <dphi...@worthingtonNSengineering.com>
> "memimi" <mcalla...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> news:6ig_9.97998$6G4.12400@sccrnsc02...
> > nevermind the specs and all that other stuff. a good painting crew will
> > thoroughly dust and clean any surface to be painted. no matter what
anyone
> > says,thats their job. bottom line is, if you want quality painting that
> will
> > hold up, make sure they do their job. if anyone gives you a hard time,
> THEN
> > just quote the manufactor specs on the label.
> Without the specs, it is hard to prove who job it is in court.
are you shittin me? any moron who has been around any job site knows who's
job it is. i can't believe this is an issue. the fucking painters are
responsible to wipe and clean any surface to be pianted, period. that's
their job! no wonder ya here so much negativity about tradesmen these days,
anything to cut corners,do it half ass'd, or put it on the other guy. Any
painter that has to have "cleaning and dusting" on a fuckin spec sheet is
either lazy, greedy, does'nt know his job, or all the above.
mike
Matthew S. Whiting
> "Donald Lee Phillips, Jr., P.E." <dphi...@worthingtonNSengineering.com>
> wrote in message news:WZW%9.156330$GF.41...@twister.columbus.rr.com...
>
>>"memimi" <mcalla...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>>news:6ig_9.97998$6G4.12400@sccrnsc02...
>>
>>>nevermind the specs and all that other stuff. a good painting crew will
>>>thoroughly dust and clean any surface to be painted. no matter what
>>
> anyone
>
>>>says,thats their job. bottom line is, if you want quality painting that
>>
>>will
>>
>>>hold up, make sure they do their job. if anyone gives you a hard time,
>>
>>THEN
>>
>>>just quote the manufactor specs on the label.
>>
>
>
>
>
>>Without the specs, it is hard to prove who job it is in court.
>
>
> are you shittin me? any moron who has been around any job site knows who's
> job it is. i can't believe this is an issue. the fucking painters are
> responsible to wipe and clean any surface to be pianted, period. that's
> their job! no wonder ya here so much negativity about tradesmen these days,
> anything to cut corners,do it half ass'd, or put it on the other guy. Any
> painter that has to have "cleaning and dusting" on a fuckin spec sheet is
> either lazy, greedy, does'nt know his job, or all the above.
No he's not. He's telling you what it is like in court. Don't confuse
a court room with a job site. The rules are MUCH different.
Judges don't often care much about convention, they care about contracts.
Matt
memimi
"Matthew S. Whiting" <whi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:3E4050D4...@epix.net...
i think your confused on my point.
>
> Judges don't often care much about convention, they care about contracts.
thanks for your infinite words of wisdom.
> Matt
matt first off, it'd hair splitting, whiny shits like you, that are the
reason such ridiculous court cases exist. Second,the fucking instructions on
the can is enough to through such a bogus claim out the window. i just
checked the 20 some odd cans in my basement, and every single can has
SURFACE PREPARATION instructions on them. and i quote,"Surface to be pianted
MUST be clean,dry and free of wax,grease,dust, scaling piant and mildew."
who do you think thats directed at? the homeowner?the builder?the
plumber?NO,the fucking PAINTER applying the piant. it's a no brainer matt.
It's like saying the roofer's not responsible for putting the
shingles on upside down, becuase there's no spec sheet in the contract.
court? you have to be shittin me. so, next time i do a job, i can
apply,connect, and join any material any way i see fit because, there isn't
a spec sheet on every item listed in the contract? Hello?This is residential
construction, pianting no less.Isn't there such a thing as, "implied
competance",(for lack of a better term), isn't that the reason
i have to be registered and lisenced? (in my state anyway).this whole thread
is a perfect example of how pathetic the americain workforce and
construction industry as whole has become. people, do your fucking jobs!
matt, your blocked sender baby. every time i reply to a thread, you come on
with your wise ass, snide remarks as if your "superior wisdom" will clarify
my "lack of ".
mike
memimi
>.this whole thread
sorry, not true.
Rico dJour
Yeah, Mike. Please leave that crap at the door. I don't know why this thread
has hit such a nerve with you, but lighten up a little.
I've worked commercial, residential, remodeling, union and open - and there've
always been finger-pointing problems. Who should have done what and who's
paying for it.
A painter probably won't object to blowing the walls down, but I can think of
plenty of reasons that the painter wouldn't want to clean up someone else's
mess. In any event, all this stuff should be spelled out to make sure everyone
is on the same page as far as responsibilities. Less room for interpretation,
the less arguments. No one is holding a gun to someone's head to get them to
sign a contract. If they don't like the terms, they can walk.
Creating a set of specs isn't a huge endeavour, and there should be at least
some minimal set of specifications for every project over a few thousand
dollars. What's your beef with specs in general?
R
Matthew S. Whiting
Which makes it very suitable for someone like you with no brain and a
foul mouth.
Matt
memimi
"Rico dJour" <rico...@aol.computer> wrote in message
news:20030205010541...@mb-mu.aol.com...
> >From: "memimi" mcalla...@attbi.com
> >
> >>.this whole thread
> >
> >sorry, not true.
> >
> >> is a perfect example of how pathetic the americain workforce and
> >> construction industry as whole has become.
>
> Yeah, Mike. Please leave that crap at the door. I don't know why this
thread
> has hit such a nerve with you, but lighten up a little.
your right Rico, i apoligize to the group for the outburst. but the fact
that our industry takes such a"bad rap" these days as a result of a "total
disregard for ones rsponsibilities" strikes a huge nerve. it seems the days
of taking pride in "a job done right" are truly gone.
> I've worked commercial, residential, remodeling, union and open - and
there've
> always been finger-pointing problems. Who should have done what and who's
> paying for it.
me too, to all of the above, and your right, there has always been finger
pointing. but there was a time, when the bitchin was done, you did your job.
> A painter probably won't object to blowing the walls down, but I can think
of
> plenty of reasons that the painter wouldn't want to clean up someone
else's
> mess.
the first job i had in construction was as a painter. We used to bitch,
piss,and moan about such things all the time. but when it came down to the
resulting quality of our work, we did what it took to ensure that. in fact i
didn't pick up a brush the first year, because my boss at the time believed,
"if ya don't know how to prep, ya don't know how to piant".(and he was
right)
> In any event, all this stuff should be spelled out to make sure everyone
> is on the same page as far as responsibilities. Less room for
interpretation,
> the less arguments. No one is holding a gun to someone's head to get them
to
> sign a contract. If they don't like the terms, they can walk.
thats my point, stuff like this shouldn't have to be spelled out. it's like
having to tell the plumber, "solder that joint", or the roofer " asphalt
goes up", or the electician,"cap those wires". come on! pianter,"clean
those walls" you have to see my point on this. are we that lazy?
> Creating a set of specs isn't a huge endeavour, and there should be at
least
> some minimal set of specifications for every project over a few thousand
> dollars. What's your beef with specs in general?
>
> R
no, it's not a huge endeavour, and i don't have a "beef" with specs in
general. but a detail spelling out how to perform ones job? these are things
that go with ones trade, not extras.
mike
Matthew S. Whiting
> thats my point, stuff like this shouldn't have to be spelled out. it's like
> having to tell the plumber, "solder that joint", or the roofer " asphalt
> goes up", or the electician,"cap those wires". come on! pianter,"clean
> those walls" you have to see my point on this. are we that lazy?
True, you shouldn't have to spell out the basics of the job, but the
issue is what defines the basics? I think there is also an assumption
that each trade will do some amount of clean-up after themselves, unless
the GC has taken on that responsibility (I did this when I build my
house to save a few bucks). I would expect that the drywall folks would
do a course clean-up after their work. At least vacuum up the dust on
the floor, if not the walls themselves. Likewise, I expect the
carpenters, plumbers and HVAC folks to pick up their scraps of wood,
pipe and ductwork. Should the folks laying the floors have to clean up
all of the cut-offs from the carpenters, plumbers and electricians so
that they can place the carpet or hardwood? I don't think that would be
a reasonable expectation. Nor do I think it reasonable that the
painters be expected to do a complete clean-up after the drywallers.
Matt
jeffc
"Rico dJour" <rico...@aol.computer> wrote in message
> Be careful with the damp sponge, or avoid it entirely. It will raise the
grain
> of the paper facing on the drywall, making the taped seams telegraph more.
But of course, there shouldn't be bare paper facing if the wall was primed
correctly. When you take into account the fact that paint has water in it,
a damp (not dripping) sponge can't be too wrong.
jeffc
Well that's silly. I'm constantly amazed at what some of these contractors
"have never heard of". If the dust is light, it's one of those things that
won't kill you (at least not with flat paint), but as you paint you can see
(especially when cutting in with a brush) when the paint picks up some dust
and starts to form globs. Anyway, it's not life or death, but of course the
walls should be wiped down.
jeffc
>
> matt, your blocked sender baby. every time i reply to a thread, you come
on
> with your wise ass, snide remarks as if your "superior wisdom" will
clarify
> my "lack of ".
When I can figure out "your blocked sender baby" I'll let you know. In the
meantime, don't be surprised that you sound like a dickhead.
jeffc
> your right Rico, i apoligize to the group for the outburst. but the fact
> that our industry takes such a"bad rap" these days as a result of a "total
> disregard for ones rsponsibilities" strikes a huge nerve. it seems the
days
> of taking pride in "a job done right" are truly gone.
I will agree with you there.
> thats my point, stuff like this shouldn't have to be spelled out. it's
like
> having to tell the plumber, "solder that joint", or the roofer " asphalt
> goes up", or the electician,"cap those wires". come on! pianter,"clean
> those walls" you have to see my point on this. are we that lazy?
I don't think it's laziness. It's about getting paid correctly for work.
If I have to pick up behind the drywaller (take all his old sheetrock to the
dump, scrape and sand and clean the walls after him, etc etc), then why
would I expect to paid no more than the guy who goes in to a perfectly clean
room ready to paint? I'll do the job right, but we need to agree on what
exactly the job is and how much it is worth. If there was a smoker in the
house, perhaps the walls need a TSP wash. Do you think that should be
included in the price as if you didn't do it? In that case, you either
ripped off the person for whom you charged the same amount but didn't have
to wash the walls, or you're doing a lot of work for free.
jeffc
>
> are you shittin me? any moron who has been around any job site knows who's
> job it is. i can't believe this is an issue. the fucking painters are
> responsible to wipe and clean any surface to be pianted, period. that's
> their job!
Wrong. Would you expect them to correctly prep a wall that was dog poop on
top of rotting drywall? No. They don't have to correctly prep any surface.
It depends on the condition of the surface and the extent to which they are
explicitly contracted to do extra work.
memimi
"jeffc" <f...@chance.com> wrote in message
news:kUD0a.7807$P46.6...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
Rico dJour
>"Rico dJour" <rico...@aol.computer> wrote in message
>
>grain
>> of the paper facing on the drywall, making the taped seams telegraph more.
>
>But of course, there shouldn't be bare paper facing if the wall was primed
>correctly. When you take into account the fact that paint has water in it,
>a damp (not dripping) sponge can't be too wrong.
Ummm...read the subject line of this thread. It's about drywall dust _before_
painting. Why would anyone be cleaning up the dust after it was primed? A
little late at that point, dontchya think...?
R
jeffc
> JEFF, your idiot. and you sound a little "light in the loafers".
What's that? My idiot or your idiot? That's just too funny. Clueless -
totally clueless.
jeffc
"Rico dJour" <rico...@aol.computer> wrote in message
Yeah, an oversight. But the point remains the same. Why would a damp
sponge be a problem? If that "raised the grain" of the paper facing, then
how come painting drywall (which gets it pretty wet) doesn't cause any
problem? Telegraphing of the taped seams is going to happen through the
joint compound and then through the paint. Even if the grain of the paper
was raised, it wouldn't affect the taped seams since the paper isn't on the
surface there.
Rico dJour
>Yeah, an oversight. But the point remains the same. Why would a damp
>sponge be a problem? If that "raised the grain" of the paper facing, then
>how come painting drywall (which gets it pretty wet) doesn't cause any
>problem? Telegraphing of the taped seams is going to happen through the
>joint compound and then through the paint. Even if the grain of the paper
>was raised, it wouldn't affect the taped seams since the paper isn't on the
>surface there.
I'm guessing you're using some sort of logic, and haven't actually worked with
wet sanding. It's the same with wood. If you wipe the wood (or drywall paper
- it is wood fiber, no?) with a sponge it will "raise the grain". If it's
wood, you then sand and it cuts off the raised fibers. You can't sand drywall
facing paper.
Anything that changes the texture or absorbtion rate of any area of the
_entire_ wall to be painted will cause telegraphing. In the case of a wet
sponge, raising the paper grain will cause the smoother taped seams to stand
out more.
Your point about paint/primer having water is not analogous to what happens
with a wet sponge. The paint is applied to the entire surface and has binders
and pigments and dries more or less uniformly over the entire wall. That's why
you don't stop in the middle of a wall.
R
memimi
throwing around opinions about a subject that you have a glaring lack a
knowledge about.
the subject was "drywall dusting Before pianting" ,and nothing else, and
my opinions were about nothing else. not "poop",(as you so delicately put
it), not "rotting drywall"(??), and not about the contractors doing any
extras. Which was my whole point, drywall dusting's not an extra, it's a
requirement.
So, "twinkle toes", maybe you should read an entire thread before you
recklessly "jump in" with your idiotic statements and show how clueless YOU
are.
mike
Matthew S. Whiting
Careful, Jeff, big bad Mikey will kill file you. :-)
Matt
jeffc
>
> "jeffc" <f...@chance.com> wrote in message
> news:bZE1a.25613$ZK1.1...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> >
> > "memimi" <mcalla...@attbi.com> wrote in message
> > news:VhH0a.17007$be.10985@rwcrnsc53...
> > > JEFF, your idiot. and you sound a little "light in the loafers".
> >
> > What's that? My idiot or your idiot? That's just too funny.
Clueless -
> > totally clueless.
> >
> >
> jeff, your are AN idiot.
Still hilarious. You're AN moron.
> the subject was "drywall dusting Before pianting" ,and nothing else,
and
> my opinions were about nothing else.
Then why don't you explain why you wrote in this thread "i apoligize to the
group for the outburst"
jeffc
"Rico dJour" <rico...@aol.computer> wrote in message
> >From: "jeffc" f...@chance.com
> >
> >Yeah, an oversight. But the point remains the same. Why would a damp
> >sponge be a problem? If that "raised the grain" of the paper facing,
then
> >how come painting drywall (which gets it pretty wet) doesn't cause any
> >problem? Telegraphing of the taped seams is going to happen through the
> >joint compound and then through the paint. Even if the grain of the
paper
> >was raised, it wouldn't affect the taped seams since the paper isn't on
the
> >surface there.
>
> I'm guessing you're using some sort of logic, and haven't actually worked
with
> wet sanding.
What difference does it make if you're wet sanding or dusting the walls with
a wet rag? The result is the same - the paper is going to get wet.
> Anything that changes the texture or absorbtion rate of any area of the
> _entire_ wall to be painted will cause telegraphing. In the case of a wet
> sponge, raising the paper grain will cause the smoother taped seams to
stand
> out more.
I still don't understand what you're talking about. Are you saying that
water is going to go through the dry joint compound, raise the grain of the
paper tape, and this is going show through both the joint compound and
through the paint? But the same problem with not occur on the paper facing
of the drywall after wiping with a damp sponge or rag?
I don't know what you call telegraphing, but it must not be what everyone
calls it. Telegraphing is caused by the drywall paper and the joint
compound not absorbing paint in the same way. Maybe "raising the grain" of
the paper has something to do with it, but it's *not* related to the joint
paper tape. At least it shouldn't be, since there shouldn't be any exposed
joint tape.
Rico dJour
>"Rico dJour" <rico...@aol.computer> wrote in message
>
>> >
>> >Yeah, an oversight. But the point remains the same. Why would a damp
>> >sponge be a problem? If that "raised the grain" of the paper facing,
>then
>> >how come painting drywall (which gets it pretty wet) doesn't cause any
>> >problem? Telegraphing of the taped seams is going to happen through the
>> >joint compound and then through the paint. Even if the grain of the
>paper
>> >was raised, it wouldn't affect the taped seams since the paper isn't on
>the
>> >surface there.
>>
>> I'm guessing you're using some sort of logic, and haven't actually worked
>with
>> wet sanding.
>
>What difference does it make if you're wet sanding or dusting the walls with
>a wet rag? The result is the same - the paper is going to get wet.
The object is to keep the drywall face paper from getting wet. There is no
such thing as "dusting" with a wet rag. If it's a little dust, a vacuum is all
that is needed. If you need to smooth out a small amount of dried compound,
wet (damp) sanding eliminates any dust.
>> Anything that changes the texture or absorbtion rate of any area of the
>> _entire_ wall to be painted will cause telegraphing. In the case of a wet
>> sponge, raising the paper grain will cause the smoother taped seams to
>stand
>> out more.
>
>I still don't understand what you're talking about. Are you saying that
>water is going to go through the dry joint compound, raise the grain of the
>paper tape, and this is going show through both the joint compound and
>through the paint? But the same problem with not occur on the paper facing
>of the drywall after wiping with a damp sponge or rag?
No one mentioned the paper tape - I personally don't use it anymore with rare
exceptions.
>I don't know what you call telegraphing, but it must not be what everyone
>calls it. Telegraphing is caused by the drywall paper and the joint
>compound not absorbing paint in the same way. Maybe "raising the grain" of
>the paper has something to do with it, but it's *not* related to the joint
>paper tape. At least it shouldn't be, since there shouldn't be any exposed
>joint tape.
Got a bit of obsession with that joint tape, huh? Please read before you post.
I never mentioned paper tape. I already defined my take on telegraphing and
you repeated the _exact_ same thing in different words. Then you say you don't
understand what I mean. Sheesh.
R
memimi
"nothing else" in regards to the subject. dusting the walls is required, not
"poop", not drywall scraps, not anything else.
i apoligized for the the foul language, and loosing my temper, (for it's
worth),they're right, it should be "left at the door".
mike
jeffc
"Rico dJour" <rico...@aol.computer> wrote in message
> Got a bit of obsession with that joint tape, huh? Please read before you
post.
> I never mentioned paper tape. I already defined my take on telegraphing
and
> you repeated the _exact_ same thing in different words. Then you say you
don't
> understand what I mean. Sheesh.
Alright - I see the problem. You're not saying that the grain is raised on
the paper tape - you're saying raising the grain on the drywall surface
paper accentuates the difference in texture between the drywall paper and
the joints. I agree.
You pointed out that I missed the topic of this thread - you must think that
"drywall dusting before painting" has to mean *immediately* before painting.
I would always prime bare drywall in between dusting and painting. I still
see that as dusting before painting - you just primed in between.
If you prime the wall correctly, using a damp sponge for dusting should not
be a problem and you should not get any telegraphing. At least I never do.
(Photographing is another term for it, or another manifestation of the same
problem.) While I agree that wetting the surface can raise the grain and
make the problem worse, I just think it's a moot point because the porosity
and texture of the drywall paper surface and the joint compound are already
different, and priming is required. IMO dusting with a damp cloth or sponge
is often a good idea because it cuts down on floating dust.
Rico dJour
>Alright - I see the problem. You're not saying that the grain is raised on
>the paper tape - you're saying raising the grain on the drywall surface
>paper accentuates the difference in texture between the drywall paper and
>the joints. I agree.
Finally! At no point in this thread did anyone mention paper tape. You really
complicate matters when you don't read a post and start arguing from an
assumption.
>You pointed out that I missed the topic of this thread - you must think that
>"drywall dusting before painting" has to mean *immediately* before painting.
>I would always prime bare drywall in between dusting and painting. I still
>see that as dusting before painting - you just primed in between.
You're a pip. If you don't consider using a primer to be painting, what is it?
What tools are used to apply primer? What trade applies primer?
And why would you need to dust between priming and painting? Shouldn't all of
the drywall dust been cleaned up before any sort of paint went on the wall? I
thought that was your position - it is mine.
R
jeffc
"Rico dJour" <rico...@aol.computer> wrote in message
> >You pointed out that I missed the topic of this thread - you must think
that
> >"drywall dusting before painting" has to mean *immediately* before
painting.
> >I would always prime bare drywall in between dusting and painting. I
still
> >see that as dusting before painting - you just primed in between.
>
> You're a pip. If you don't consider using a primer to be painting, what
is it?
> What tools are used to apply primer? What trade applies primer?
Silly semantics. In context, everyone knows the difference between primer
and paint. To say you're going to prime before painting makes perfect
sense, and now it's obvious you're just being argumentative. I admitted I
misunderstood you, you're just drawing it out for no good reason. Knock
yourself out.
> And why would you need to dust between priming and painting?
You wouldn't.
> Shouldn't all of
> the drywall dust been cleaned up before any sort of paint went on the
wall? I
> thought that was your position - it is mine.
Obviously. The point was - if *you* had read what *I* wrote, was that is
doesn't matter if you use a wet sponge to clean the dust off, because if you
prime before painting there will be no issues with "raising the grain", etc.
Rico dJour
>"Rico dJour" <rico...@aol.computer> wrote in message
>
>that
>> >"drywall dusting before painting" has to mean *immediately* before
>painting.
>> >I would always prime bare drywall in between dusting and painting. I
>still
>> >see that as dusting before painting - you just primed in between.
>>
>> You're a pip. If you don't consider using a primer to be painting, what
>is it?
>> What tools are used to apply primer? What trade applies primer?
>
>Silly semantics. In context, everyone knows the difference between primer
>and paint. To say you're going to prime before painting makes perfect
>sense, and now it's obvious you're just being argumentative. I admitted I
>misunderstood you, you're just drawing it out for no good reason. Knock
>yourself out.
Jeff, priming IS painting. It is part of the painting job. It is put on the
wall by painters. And I can't believe that I have to explain this to you.
There's no semantics involved. I'm trying to point out that _you_ have a very
singular viewpoint that primer PAINT and finish PAINT are not part of
"painting". I don't think anyone else shares your viewpoint, but you are
entitled to hold on to your erroneous belief.
>> And why would you need to dust between priming and painting?
>
>You wouldn't.
So why the Sam Hill did you even mention dusting between priming and applying a
finish coat....?
On second thought, nevermind, I don't really care.
R
jeffc
"Rico dJour" <rico...@aol.computer> wrote in message
>
> Jeff, priming IS painting. It is part of the painting job. It is put on
the
> wall by painters. And I can't believe that I have to explain this to you.
And priming is different from painting. That's why you used 2 different
words. Why do I have to explain that to you?
>> So why the Sam Hill did you even mention dusting between priming and
applying a
> finish coat....?
I never did.
jeffc
"Rico dJour" <rico...@aol.computer> wrote in message
>
> There's no semantics involved. I'm trying to point out that _you_ have a
very
> singular viewpoint that primer PAINT and finish PAINT are not part of
> "painting". I don't think anyone else shares your viewpoint, but you are
> entitled to hold on to your erroneous belief.
Is that a fact? Here's a quick Google search on "prime before you paint"
http://www.hgtv.com/hgtv/remodeling/article/0,1797,HGTV_3659_1502507,00.html
http://www.kitcarsonpaint.com/paint.html
http://nc.essortment.com/interiorpaintin_rxga.htm
http://www.americanchemistry.com/chemmag.nsf/WebMagazineArticle?ReadForm&mfp
k-524nku
http://www.geocities.com/sanchezm1ca/interiortips.html
http://www.klenoskypaint.com/paintingtips/
among many others
memimi
> > And why would you need to dust between priming and painting?
>
> You wouldn't.
>
actually you would because, "a good pianter", sands between coats, creating
dust, therefore REQUIRING that you...........the primer coat at least,
because primer produces a "heavier" dust than the finish piant. sanding also
helps smooth out any paper thats been raised by using poor techniques, such
as wet sponge,etc.
mike
Rico dJour
Maybe I misunderstand you - are you saying that you think that a "good" painter
always sands between coats?
Sanding between coats is common for furniture finishing, it is not common for
painting drywall. Picking off the odd piece of crud, and doing some minor
touch-ups with an essentially no-sand product like RediPatch is common. Why
would a painter want to create more dust?
Maybe we're coming at this from different directions. I view lots of sanding
of drywall compound as a failure in the application. There shouldn't have been
that much compound put on the wall in the first place.
This thread started with the question of who is responsible for cleaning the
drywall off the walls prior to painting. Regardless of who you think is
responsible, everyone should agree that the dust should be cleaned up before
any sort of paint goes on the wall.
R
memimi
"
>
> Maybe I misunderstand you - are you saying that you think that a "good"
painter
> always sands between coats?
yes.
> Sanding between coats is common for furniture finishing, it is not common
for
> painting drywall.
it's very common in drywall. you must not have ever seen or done quality
painting. as i stated before, when i first entered the trades, i stared as a
pianter. every coat that we ever applied was sanded to one degree or
another. for the same reasons one would "screen" piant, use tack
clothes,etc. A quality painter ensures the finished surface is as smooth as
possile, be it drywall, trim or what have you.
>Picking off the odd piece of crud, and doing some minor
> touch-ups with an essentially no-sand product like RediPatch is common.
Why
> would a painter want to create more dust?
painters don't want to create dust. unfortunitly it's part of the
process,(at least the correct process), which is why dusting should be done
on any surface prior to painting. obviously common sense will dictate the
extent of the amount dusting required.
unfortunetly, these practices are slowly fading away, good techniques and
the "little things",(in all trades) aren't being taught as much anymore and
a lot of this generation and next generation tradesman simply don't, and
won't, "know any better". The dollar rules the day. "if your not being paid
for it, don't do it" is rule of thumb now.
Now before i get flamed for the last comment, please use common sense and
realize, i'm talking about little things,(like dusting), that i myself am
happy to do, because they "compliment" my work and give me self
satisfaction, as well as a pay check.
my work is not just my income.
> This thread started with the question of who is responsible for cleaning
the
> drywall off the walls prior to painting. Regardless of who you think is
> responsible, everyone should agree that the dust should be cleaned up
before
> any sort of paint goes on the wall.
absolutly.
> R
mike
jeffc
>
> > > And why would you need to dust between priming and painting?
> >
> > You wouldn't.
> >
>
> actually you would because, "a good pianter", sands between coats,
creating
> dust, therefore REQUIRING that you...........the primer coat at least,
> because primer produces a "heavier" dust than the finish piant.
I would not sand between coats of a flat finish - only a finish with some
gloss. How many sand flat finishes?
> sanding also
> helps smooth out any paper thats been raised by using poor techniques,
such
> as wet sponge,etc.
In my experience, sanding raises paper, not smooths it.
jeffc
>
> unfortunetly, these practices are slowly fading away, good techniques and
> the "little things",(in all trades) aren't being taught as much anymore
and
> a lot of this generation and next generation tradesman simply don't, and
> won't, "know any better".
I see your point, but on the other hand, let's be honest - technology and
techniques have changed since the "old days". Oil and enamel finishes were
popular. Now flat latex is the most popular. It has different
characteristics. I honestly can't imagine sanding fresh flat paint. I
can't think of any advantage, and if anything it's going to take you longer
and make the customer's house more dusty, neither of which the customer
want. I agree with you about "doing it right", but I also think we should
always reevaluate dogma.
memimi
"nice")............................... Nothing personal anymore, O.K? But,
in my opinion, your not putting a lot of thought into first, the posts your
replying to, second, your response. Third, you obviously havn't been taught
what i'm talking about. Fourth, you obviously don't want to be. and finally,
Fifth, i'm done with this conversation.
mike
"jeffc" <f...@chance.com> wrote in message
news:iqD2a.35629$ZK1.1...@twister.southeast.rr.com...