Paint comparison guide

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1060 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - 04:27 pm:    Does anyone have a paint comparison guide that was put together by a CSI chapter about 10-15 years ago? I'm thinking that it was Atlanta but could be wrong. Currently the Puget Sound Chapter is creating a cross reference chart between manufacturers products. They are almost done but the chair (Brian Keil) would like to see an old copy of what someone else has done. I threw my copy out a while back due to outdated information. When the guide gets posted to the web, I will let you know. Thanks. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 356 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - 04:49 pm:    David, I think the Orange County, CA Chapter did one too, but it was before I moved here. Maybe one of the other members still has a copy. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS Senior Member Username: wpegues Post Number: 803 Registered: 10-2002 Posted on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - 05:14 pm:    It was Orange County, as mentioned in the 2005 discussion of a similar concern here... http://discus.4specs.com/discus/messages/2196/1577.html The search tool here is pretty good, just enter 'paint comparison' Even then (4 years ago) it was talked about as being unused due to being outdated. There was also something that was produced in the SE region as noted, not sure the chapter, that predated the Orange County effort. No idea if either were ever revised. William C. Pegues, FCSI, CCS, SCIP Affiliate WDG Architecture, Washington, DC | Dallas, TX John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 452 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - 06:13 pm:    STOP!! DON'T DO IT! DO NOT PASS GO. DO NOT COLLECT $200. The history I believe is that it was tried in Atlanta. A conflict occured after publication of the Atlanta list concerning what was "equal" for interior latex flat paints. Also, there was misrepresentation that CSI had "approved" the equivalence of paint products. "My paint is as good as their paint 'cause CSI said so." Unaware of the Atlanta experience, the specifiers of Orange County (CA) CSI naively tried to put together a consensus listing of manufacturers and paint products. It was supposed to make it easier to review submittals. A cover page, which gets conveniently omitted, states that the list is not intended for writing construction specifications. Once again, the list was used to make an untrue claim that CSI had approved the equivalence of products. I say "naively" because we did not realize the energy behind selling paint (or whatever highly competitive building product). There are some product peddlars who will do almost anything to make a sale. Their actions denigrate those valued and respected product representatives who are trustworthy. Most of the participants from paint manufacturers played it straight in developing the Orange County CS paint list. One or two did not and they made the "CSI approved our product as equal" misrepresentation. It became a nightmare. And the nightmare grew as the listing got out of the southern California region. Every once in a while, the listing comes back to life like a zombie. It is way, way out of date. The products do not meet current regional air quality regulations nor are they suitable for LEED projects. If someone finds the list, please drive a stake through its heart so it never gets used again. David Axt, AIA, CCS, CSI Senior Member Username: david_axt Post Number: 1061 Registered: 03-2002 Posted on Wednesday, November 11, 2009 - 08:58 pm:    John I understand your concerns but it is too late. It's already done. Just the finishing touches need to be put on it. Monday, I attended a meeting, headed up by John Jeffcott, where about 15 specifiers (employed and independent) and 5 paint reps. Everyone got a chance to voice their concerns about the document. The biggest concerns were that architects wanted to see testing or some sort of ingredients list while manufacturers did not want to give out their secret recipes. The document is broken down into Sears Roebuck Good Better and Best categories. Good is for production paint for strip malls and condos where price is a concern. Better is for professional contractors and for most commercial and institutional work. Better is premium products for homeowners and high end housing. The manufacturers that participated in the creation of the document are Benjamin Moore, Coronado, ICI Dulux, Kelly-Moore, Miller, Parker, Rodda / Cloverdale, and Sherwin Williams. Tomorrow is the final committee meeting then it is up on the website. I will pass along to Brian about a disclaimer saying that CSI in no way shape or form condones or approves of these products. Use at your own risk with the help from a design professional. Lisa Goodwin Robbins, RA, CCS, LEED ap Senior Member Username: lgoodrob Post Number: 44 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Thursday, November 12, 2009 - 09:34 am:    The Atlanta chapter did create a paint comparison when I lived there in 1995-1996. It was very helpful then, but you know how fast paint products change. It was an immense amount of work for the specifier who developed it; wish I could remember his name. I'm sure I don't still have my copy. I believe all the major manufacturers were included, except for Sherwin Williams, who were completely obstructionist. They insisted that S-W products were better than everyone else's and could not be compared. Sound familiar? Randall A Chapple, AIA, SE, CCS, LEED AP Senior Member Username: rachapple Post Number: 31 Registered: 12-2005 Posted on Friday, November 13, 2009 - 12:36 pm:    I almost hate to mention it but there is also MPI. Robin E. Snyder Senior Member Username: robin Post Number: 281 Registered: 08-2004 Posted on Friday, November 13, 2009 - 04:29 pm:    David: I would be curious to see what you come up with, if you don't mind posting a link once it is up. I have my own chart I use in my spec based on the local paint manufacturer's and brands. Mine is pretty much a "best" commercial spec, but I have some categories for "production grade" that I use on some multi-family housing. BTW, I have NEVER had a problem w/ S-W. I find their reps incredibly easy to deal with. Wayne Yancey Senior Member Username: wayne_yancey Post Number: 287 Registered: 01-2008 Posted on Friday, November 13, 2009 - 05:57 pm:    I attended the same luncheon with David. This is a noble effort by the paint reps in my area but I am skeptical that it will be updated regularly as the sustainable rules evolve and paint technology evolves. One glaring obstacle (to me) was the differnce in my requirements as a specifier versus a paint manufacturer when selecing good, better, best for a particular project. My good, better, best judgement may focus on scrubability and number of coats versus the paint companies version of good, better, best. As the major national brand rep sitting across from me stated, his employer's good, beter, best focues on the ease of application for the homeowner in the fewest number of coats. My apple is not equivalent to his apple. There does not seem to be an overiding attribute common to all brands to ascertain good/better/best. Percent of solids combined with $$. At the present time, my methodology is to select paint products and systems from one manufacturer as my basis-of-design, S-W for example. Comparable products and systems are invited from the other listed manufacturers (BM, ICI, and PPG with Valspar and Tnemec where appropriate.) I stick with national brands with good R&D. It may appear as if I am specifying proprietarily, but there is competitive bidding between painters all using the same systems from the same manufacturer. John Regener, AIA, CCS, CCCA, CSI, SCIP Senior Member Username: john_regener Post Number: 453 Registered: 04-2002 Posted on Friday, November 13, 2009 - 06:50 pm:    Regarding "good, better and best," during the haggling to produce Orange County CSI's parallel paint list, it was determined that a manufacturer's "best" interior paint product may be the consumer line of paint when durability and maintainability are considered (i.e., scrubbability is better with the consumer line). Performance of "Architectural" quality paint may be skewed for more ease of application but less durability than "consumer" paint. It becomes even more confusing when there are multiple grades of "commercial" paint and "consumer" paint in a manufacturers' product line. This is particularly true when there is no test data such as with MPI. By the way, my recollection is that it was Montgomery Ward that had the three quality levels for their merchandise: Good, Better and Best. Specifying using the proprietary method is valid even on public contracts. There are "closed proprietary" specs where the products used must be produced by one manufacturer from a limited list of named manufacturers; this is restrictive specifying and is generally not allowed on public projects. There are "open proprietary" specs where either the products produced by the named manufacturers shall be used or the equivalent ("or equal") products of an un-named manufacturer may be provided in addition to the "basis of design" or specified manufacturer. The exercise of producing the OC CSI parallel paint list proved that, with rare exceptions, there are no exactly equal products in the construction industry.