Called up a painter to discuss restoring my clapboard cedar siding. Was rather surprised to hear him say that paint doesn't last like it used to because wood is no longer from "old growth". He says 100 year old houses can have long lasting paint jobs but he doubts modern ones can for this reason.

This was the first time I hear such a thing and so I am wondering if there is any truth to it. The house was built in 1988.

 

Old growth wood is more stable. If a board twists or distorts more it will take whatever is on the surface (paint) and stress it. There are so many other materials being used though (plywood, hardiplank, stucco, eifs, brick, cement, etc.) its not all that big a deal. IF properly painted a wood house will still stay painted for many years and you can address any problem areas as they show up.

 

Old growth was stronger because of the natural slow growth plus a variety of good and bad years. It is generally more dense.
But that has little bearing on the longevity of today's paints. Todays paints are so much better than the paints of even 10 years ago. What has changed is the move from oil to latex.

 

Are you considering stripping off the existing paint that isn't peeling and then repainting. If so. I don't understand. If you are going to paint ---just paint over what is there. If you want a different look like a clear finish or some sort of stain then take off the paint and do that.

I think you may be looking for someone[contractor] to tell you something they don't want to. Like "my paint jobs last almost forever, abd I will come back anf fix it for free ". I don't think that is going to happen. You may be scaring these guys. I think you should be a little more realistic in your expectations. Your job will last no longer than anyone elses and maybe not as long given the enviromental factors. Whenever I get into a situation like this I usually price myself out of the picture.

 

Thanks for the information from all.

Joneq: you are probably right (though casual readers may be confused since I suspect that most of what you are responding to is in the other thread stain vs paint or succumb to vinyl) about my high (unreasonable) expectations. The bottom line from my perspective is that if my choices are a $5k paint job every 3 or 4 years or a $15k paint job (due to a large amount of surface prep) followed by $5k paint jobs on a 8-10 year time frame, I would choose the latter or vinyl. The previous owner chose the former and 1.5 years into his cycle the paint already looks like crap (4" by 3" sheets coming off) due to the "minimal prep" approach that I presume a $5k paint job gets you on a nominally 2200 sq ft of walls house. I have looked at the paint cans that were left behind and it was not cheap paint which is why I conclude it was surface prep and perhaps poor priming.

As I reread your reply and mine, perhaps I missed your point. Perhaps you are suggesting that one can do adequate surface prep without stripping all the paint off which perhaps provides a compromise to the above two extremes.

Thanks again.

 

Yea. Just paint over what you have. Nobody takes off paint that is perfectly good before repainting.If you Know for a fact that under your particular enviroment no paint job will last more than 4 or 5 years than don't paint at all.Nobody need that maintenance headache. Go with the vinyl. I would go with it anyway but that is me. Vinyl has come a long way and I see no real disadvantage it,aside from maybe having to build out the windows to have them look right. You get added insulation, a multitude of colors, and it comes in custom lengths so there are no seams[depending on brand and style]. If it is damaged it is replacableand best of all it comes with the warranty you long for.

If you were going to do all the stripping and stuff you are surely capable of painting your own house. Take your time and if it fails in 5 yrs then weigh your options and you are only out the price of the paint.