GAF Shingle "Mission Brown" color?

Has anyone seen GAF's "mission brown blend" color for their Timberline 30 comp shingles?
My general understanding is that "mission brown" is a dark brown and that, well, brown is brown! So these Timberline shingles go up and low and behold they are GRAY!!! Basically, a two tone look of a really light gray with a really dark (almost black) gray part. Has anyone seen this color on this shingle? Does it look like this? Has anyone ever heard of mission brown looking gray? And, yes the package DID say mission brown, so the wrong ones were not delivered.
TIA
--
John Ross


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Ross wrote:

Well, as posed, the answer to that question obviously has to be "yes"...including, apparently, you...

Well, one should never judge color on the basis of an "understanding" of what one thinks a name means. Did you follow the manufacturers' recommendation of obtaining a representative sample of full-size shingles to look at and make the color selection from these samples? Did you look at the small samples normally on the display at the yard or that the roofing contractors carry around with them? Did you even look at the images on the GAF web site?
If you didn't, do any of these, then you really get what you ask for. If you did any one of the above, especially the recommended alternative or even the GAF web color selector tool (I just went and played with it just to see what it provided), I think there should be little surprise that the color the named "mission brown" is a grayish overall shade with some brown tones in it. It appears from your description you may have wanted something more along the line of "weathered wood blend", but unless you got the samples and can show the installed are grossly different than those, the problem lies in the selection, not the shingle.
While it isn't totally impossible for a batch to get mislabeled, it certainly is quite rare, and once they're on, if they are what you ordered I think you'll just have to get used to them. Not good news, I know, but if you ever went and tried to pick out a paint from the name, you should understand the difficulty inherent in assuming anything about shades from names.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

should have a large sample up somewhere.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

Well, I knew it was a risk that instead of simply answering the question, I would get this kind of response. Actually, it's a real odd situation and I was hoping not to get into the whole thing--just if someone has seen this in person.
This is not my house, I was trying to help an elderly friend (who had a contractor from hell) during a time I could not really stay on top of things. Anyway, yes I looked at the website. And for your info, on my screen it is perfectly brown! You can't trust a monitor to portray color correctly; the "weatherwood" you mention is actually a light gray in the real world.
I did see a small sample and it was so confusing that I called GAF on the phone. The rep said because of all their "blending" you can't trust the small sample and indicated that it might be defective (as in grains had fallen off and I was seeing the "black background material." I point blank asked "is the overall impression going to be a DARK BROWN." Her response: "yes". She even gave a local address of someone who had the same roof (I think she said from 2005), which I gave to the friend, who confirmed it was a dark brown. I finally saw that house recently and indeed it is brown and looks nothing like the grayish whatever that was put on her house.
With all that reassurance from the actual company and an actual house, plus the fact that the name is mission brown, I really thought that was enough! Recently, I did see a full size shingle sample and it was the grayish look. So now I am wondering if they recently changed the color (which their rep sure didn't say) or if something else odd is going on--a defective lot(s) they are just shoving off until it is gone. Again, the house that GAF gave to look at was brown and nothing like this.
BTW, "mission brown" is a very old established color and is always referred to as dark brown. I agree with you that a paint or roof color like "sunset impressions" is not something you can assume anything about. However, there are certain basic color names (i.e. hunter green) that you can pretty much expect to be pretty similar for any brand.
So the reason I was asking if someone has SEEN this is I was trying to determine if it had changed recently or if someone got the "brown" version recently. The whole thing is just confusing and I feel bad, considering I thought I had done all I could for this friend.
--
John Ross


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Ross wrote:

<snip explanation ...>
Well, one can't expect a response to a situation not given...
Whether there has been a change or a product snafu is a different question than what was posed and with the above background I probably would have responded differently--with what was posted, the question sounded exactly like one of the many that show up that boil down to "wasn't what I wanted, but was what I asked for".
All I can suggest in the situation is to see if you can get a confirmed referral to the original house that you can document and then see if you could possibly get a GAF rep to compare this one to the other and get some recompense.
Where did the full-size shingle sample come from? If there were a mismatch or labeling problem and it came from the same distributor as the roof, it wouldn't be surprising to match. Perhaps you can find some other distrubtors relatively nearby if you're in a major metro area or even contact GAF.
Hope you can find a resolution, but suspect it won't be easy to get GAF to admit there's a problem unless you did have a set of full-sized samples in hand to demonstrate what you/your friend thought were getting (and even then, I suspect it wouldn't be easy but you might get some compensation). Without some sort of hard evidence I don't think a small claims or other action would have much chance of succeeding if a GAF area rep doesn't want to "make it right".
Oh, one last question/thought--does the sample at the GAF site now look different than it did when you looked previously on the same monitor w/ the same browser? It certainly is very subtle brown on mine at present. While it isn't going to be something GAF would stand behind, it would likely tell you there had been a change if the image on the web site appears different. How long a time span between the looking and the installation?
Who have you contacted so far?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

I was so disgusted with the contractor who did the roof that I had another one come out for an informal inspection just to make sure it was installed correctly (ironically, the color thing is the ONE thing I can't fault him for). Anyway, this contracor that agreed to do the "inspection" was really a nice guy and I asked him if he was familiar with the mission brown color. He said he doesn't like GAF, so he doesn't use it. But said he would stop at his supplier and pick up a sample to bring over to compare. So he was the one the brought the sample. BTW, this was not an actual shingle, it was one of those big boards with tiny samples on the top and then about a 12" shingle below of one of the colors--which was the mission brown. So I don't know if it came from the same supply place as the original contractor. However, it did look like the roof.
One interesting thing is the ridge shingles were from another company that match to different brands colors. And, they only list GAF as the match for mission brown (i.e. no one else has the color mission brown so it must be made exclusively to match GAF). I just noticed looking at the house that those do have a bit of brown in them.
Another interesting thing is if you look at roofer websites (I can post some URL's), most of the ones I looked at had it looking brown. But, there were a few that were more like what was put up. In fact, in some ways its not the color that is so objectionable, but the fact that there is an enormous contrast in the dark and light tiles--almost black gray and they really light gray, so the monitor kinda has a hard time showing that from a distance (but not the brown looking ones).
At this point, I really would like to just know if they changed it recently or if there is something wrong with the coloring. The problem is the elderly friend, is not the type who will make waves and the stress would not be good for them. So there is no really possibility of suits or battles here. I would like to call GAF and just ask if they changed it, but not sure how defensive they will get. Of course, if this was my house, I would definitely pursue it since I actually was given a real house to look at.
-- John Ross
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Does your friend have any of the packages? Contract that states "mission brown"? If so, he may have some recourse. It is possible the contractor got the "right" package, but that it was mislabeled.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Norminn wrote:

In addition and to what I asked/suggested before, does the installed color appear to more nearly match another color that would lend credence to simply a mislabeled batch/run?
Of course, if there were an actual production snafu, they could end up as anything and may just be missing the brown out of the mixture that was supposed to have been applied. The color in the demo on the web site looks so similar to what was described as going up, however, I am tempted to think there may well have been a change as there appears to be evidence of a more brown cast at least a year ago.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

I was also wondering if it is possible that the batch just didn't get the brown granules applied for some reason. Now if *that* is the case, is it possible the shingles could be defective (i.e. not just cosmetic, but not enough granules)? That would be a whole other situation. Again, though, I am in a delicate situation here since I can only pursue this so much without causing stress for this elderly friend. The whole thing was just a mess all the way around. -- John Ross
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Ross wrote:

The only way that such a gross error with a totally different color would get past the quality control inspectors would be to have several operations fail in succession. Call GAF with the lot number and ask them if they had a problem with it. Don't expect a yes answer.

It seems to me that it is already causing stress. From some of your earlier responses you seem to think that a picture on a monitor means something. If you look around the page every manufacturer says that the pictures are merely representations of the colors and they should not be relied on. If you didn't do that,well...
It's also a problem that you didn't stop the installation immediately upon seeing what you felt to be a problem.
I don't mean to be harsh on you, but from the viewpoint of a disinterested party it seems that the bulk of responsibility weighs on you and your actions and omissions.
R
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Norminn wrote:

No packages, but I just remembered I wrote down the lot number (I got out the binoculars and looked up on roof to make sure it said mission brown before they opened them and wrote down what I could make out.
Contract did say mission brown.
-- John Ross
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.