Browse Forums General Discussion 1 Dec 07, 2009 8:38 am I am building with Boutique and chose my colour for the interior walls only to be told a week later that if I want the colour Worn White (Haymes Paints) that I must pay thousands for an extra coat for this colour! Apparently it's normal practice for all builders to only spray paint the walls with 2 top coats yet the Australian Standard is 1 undercoat and 2 topcoats. After speaking to the Vic Painters Assoc they stated that all new builders cut corners and don't paint an undercoat to save money and are doing a less than standard paint job. They also stated that most home owners will have to re paint their whole house after 12 months!! They are pushing the Vic Gov't to make it law that builders do 3 coats but until then we all have to put up with a crappy paint job! Apparently if the plaster is not firstly painted with an undercoat, then the paint colour is absorbed into the plaster and creates alot of issues such as patchy colour, lighter colour than the paint sample, furry texture, terrible wear, etc. Has anyone else come across this issue with their builder and if so, what did you do to resolve it? Or if you know you only had 2 coats of paint on your walls, were you happy with the result? Re: I have to pay for my builder to use an undercoat!!! 2Dec 07, 2009 11:29 am We did our own painting so I have no experience with builders cutting or not cutting corners on painting but I can confirm that when you paint on plasterboard it does suck in a lot of paint. The first coat is easily the most time consuming. Re: I have to pay for my builder to use an undercoat!!! 3Dec 07, 2009 3:12 pm try to make sure you understand what you're talking about, An undercoat is a middle coat usually the 2nd coat to be applied, the sealer coat is the first coat to be applied, usually if a builder is useing a 2 coat system it is one coat of sealer then a coat of low sheen on walls, What oyu've got here is sounds to me like youve chosen a colour that has to be cut and rolled twice as opposed to the usual once, this can be caused if the colour is deep or the painters already sprayed. That will cost you abit in labour and material yes. Re: I have to pay for my builder to use an undercoat!!! 4Dec 08, 2009 6:53 pm An undercoat is the first coat that goes onto bare plaster. It is the same as a sealer as it protects the plaster from soaking up the actual paint. Then the 2 topcoats of colour are to be applied. Every professional painter I have spoken to has told me exactly that. So I certainly do understand what I am talking about. Also, if you had read my post correctly I stated that the colour I chose was simply white and not a deep colour as you suggested. We have paid the builder alot of money to build our house and I am not happy that they are cutting corners when an undercoat plus 2 top coats is standard all over Australia. I really am not asking for much! Anyone who has some constructive advice only can reply! Re: I have to pay for my builder to use an undercoat!!! 6Dec 08, 2009 7:56 pm Yeah, similar story. We wanted a pure (plain) white all over in the house (ie. no tint whatsoever). To my shock , they firstly said it can't be done, they never do it etc etc, and finally, if we really wanted it, they would need to use a 3-coat system (&charge us, but it wasn't in thousands). I could not believe it and still asked "my lady" if the 2-coat sys means 1 u/coat plus 2 coats of colour (therefore a 2-coat system ). Oh, no, it includes the undercoat !!! Geez ... Actually, now I feel better knowing that other builders are not much different in this regard. (We didn't take their kind offer for the 3rd coat, as we'll be painting different rooms in different colours ourselves later on anyway.) Mind you, every colour that is not in their standard range must be charged and applied as a 3 coat system. Wondering what does it mean !??!? Is the 2 coat system more durable because those specific combinations of colour drops in the standard tints are of such a good quality that they dont need a 3rd coat ... My signature is distracting people from my wise posts ... Re: I have to pay for my builder to use an undercoat!!! 7Dec 08, 2009 8:42 pm I'm curious to see how your pure white house turns out Lex. I have noticed in my paint researching that on the colour charts some paints are labelled as needing 3 coats and some are not. So it must be something to do with the strength of the tint as mentioned above Re: I have to pay for my builder to use an undercoat!!! 8Dec 08, 2009 9:58 pm EKT I'm curious to see how your pure white house turns out Lex. ... Oh, no, we didn't get it (we declined their "kind offer" for a 3-coat system ) as we'll probably paint most of the rooms eventually (but wet areas definitely very soon, mostly because of my clumsy tile selection ). We just selected what we thought was the most bearable for us, very light colour, warm shade, plain 2 coat Apart from plain white, we inquired on some other non-standard colours as well (because the paint company actually just released new colour palette, but our builder sticks to the old ones only). We were told that all non-standard colours must be a 3-coat, and they would all be the same upgrade cost. I actually doubt that there is any difference in the quality and durability between their standard colours and the non-standard range. So, I won't have a pure white house at all, and it's no biggie any more . My bigger colour problem is the main bathroom, which I changed last moment to beigeeeeeeeee My signature is distracting people from my wise posts ... Re: I have to pay for my builder to use an undercoat!!! 9Dec 10, 2009 12:15 am Cherryripe An undercoat is the first coat that goes onto bare plaster. It is the same as a sealer as it protects the plaster from soaking up the actual paint. Then the 2 topcoats of colour are to be applied. Every professional painter I have spoken to has told me exactly that. So I certainly do understand what I am talking about. Also, if you had read my post correctly I stated that the colour I chose was simply white and not a deep colour as you suggested. We have paid the builder alot of money to build our house and I am not happy that they are cutting corners when an undercoat plus 2 top coats is standard all over Australia. I really am not asking for much! Anyone who has some constructive advice only can reply! un·der·coat / ˈəndərˌkōt/ • n. 1. a layer of paint applied after the primer and before the topcoat. encylclopedia.com when your making a post regarding your builder not using an undercoat, would make sense to know what "undercoat" is. Theres your constructive advice Re: I have to pay for my builder to use an undercoat!!! 10Dec 10, 2009 7:47 pm You are seriously confused....a primer is for EXTERIOR WOOD. Not bare plaster. Here's a link to the Haymes Paint website that describes it's Acrylic Sealer Undercoat with directions to paint straight on bare plaster after sanding. Then it goes onto describe when painting on exterior wood to use a primer before the undercoat. http://www.haymespaint.com.au/haymes/main.php?c=380. Honestly you need to make sure you get your facts right if you are going to make a point, but why you have to do it in such an aggressive way to begin with is astonishing. Maybe you have way too much time on your hands, not sure what your problem is and I really couldn't care less anyway. BTW- I wouldn't suggest relying on an online American dictionary to prove a point. It's not the most reliable source now is it? Hi Mofflepop, I would recommend finding a building designer to prepare plans, they should design to your specified budget. The benefit is you can tender the project out… 9 20426 Hi All, I just wanted to close this topic out with an update. So we ended up agreeing to a number with the insurance company, and after an extensive amount of hand… 8 23405 That sucks! Hope it all works out. Good to move away from steel anyway for all your reasons, but it's also thermally poor. 16 17889 |