Ripped off at Sherwin WIlliams

Page 6 of 6  


Not true. Ed's explanation is correct; the amount of shrinkage is measurable, but _nowhere_near_ the 25% that would be required to turn two inches into one and a half.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Partly true. It will shrink a bit as it dries, but then it is planed to a consistent size. It may be possible that some 2 x 4 can be made to 1 5/8 or 1 11/6, but then that would drive everyone crazy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

Actually, like the paint or coffee, they did <used> to be... :)
Somewhere along about in the 60s, they went to the "standard" sub-1/2" dimensions. I figured at the time it was a combination of making a convienient standard at the "even" fraction plus better sawmill control to shave a few extra tuba-ex's from a log, just like getting a few extra sheets of ply by going from full dimension to sub-32'nds--over enough sheets, that extra 32-nd of material adds up to quite a bit of raw material saved.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote in message

Those bastards!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
you werent ripped off if the lable was marked properly, but i know how you feel, bought a pound of bacon that i realized was 12 oz when i got home.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chris wrote:

Well, you'll be pleased to learn this is as it has always been w/ base for tint--there's room left to make the full gallon w/ the tint.
To be sure, I just checked on several really, really old (some as much as approaching 25-30 yrs) from several manufacturers including S-W. <All> tint bases were from 126 to 128 oz. A couple of cans of finish exterior white which were <not> a tint base were full gallons. One of those was also S-W, btw...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Well you'll be sorry to learn this. The tint base was 3 11/16 quarts but the ready mixed colors are 3 27/32. Yes, they are shorting what was formerly known as a "gallon" of paint. This was on the line in question. Some others were still a full gallon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

I don't think that necessarily shows it's any different than previous, however, does it?
Were any that were "full" gallons marked a tint base? I'd suspect not.
In most instances, starting from 126 oz, say, the net would still be somewhat under 132 even after tinting. So, if they've "pre-tinted" from the tint base quantity, it's still likely to be what you would always have gotten starting from the tint base and custom tinting.
IOW, a "gallon" hasn't always been a gallon and the amount "short" in the OP's note is the same amount short as has been shown for an extended period of time.
I suppose it is possible a pre-tinted before (other than the basic white) <may> have been marketed in 132 oz gal, but I have no old examples of that to compare with. My suspicion is that they don't make any distinction in manufacturing and use the tint base volumes in order to achieve simplicity of manufacture of consistency of color.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Duane Bozarth wrote:

Actually, after I posted before, I realized the numbers here <are> grossly larger than the historical values so I do agree this is "shorting" and is to be regretted that S-W has chosen to mask their cost increases in such a manner... :(
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Duane Bozarth wrote:

Man, I'm full of wonders on this... :(
27/32 is on the <quart> not the full gallon! So 27/32*32 + 3*32 == 123 oz.
Ergo, if this is a change it is very small and would assume it was for a deep tint.
I'm convinced the OP got the "full gallon" and there is no volume reduction at all...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In alt.home.repair on Sat, 30 Jul 2005 18:42:40 -0500 Duane Bozarth

128 oz. *is* a full gallon. So you are saying that even base came in full gallons back then, and the most any of yours allowed for tint was 2 oz.

Meirman -- If emailing, please let me know whether or not you are posting the same letter. Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
meirman wrote:

Sorry, there was a typo and a mental faux pas going on in tandem there...I for some reason was thinking 132 oz/gal and wrote too quickly...the actual numbers for tint base were from 12<3> to 125, the non-tint-white was the full gallon...
The 123 would be in the range observed for a heavy tint but that isn't consistent w/ 27/32 qt -- 123/128*32 ==> 31 (approx). 27/32*128 ==> 108 oz which is a considerable shortage.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Duane Bozarth wrote:

Man, I'm full of wonders on this... :(
27/32 is on the <quart> not the full gallon! So 27/32*32 + 3*32 == 123 oz.
Ergo, if this is a change it is very small and would assume it was for a deep tint.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In alt.home.repair on Mon, 01 Aug 2005 12:07:54 -0500 Duane Bozarth

Oops, you're right. Congratulations. We all fell for this.

Right, there was never a problme to begin with. 114 posts for nothing. :) Ugh.
Meirman -- If emailing, please let me know whether or not you are posting the same letter. Change domain to erols.com, if necessary.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
meirman wrote: ....

Hey, it's usenet....that's what we're here for, right? :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I had fun with Mr. Miller, as always. Not sure if he's returned his comment card yet, though.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
posted:

I've been busy for 30 years, so I never checked with a measuring cup but, maybe they *did* come in a full gallon, but the cans were larger to allow for the tint? I dunno.....
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Chris wrote:

FWIW, I have 2 gallons of Classic 99 paint by Sherwin Williams-regular(old) style can, both say 124 fl oz., 3 7/8 US quarts, underneath that, in smaller but easily readable print, the can says Before Colorant Added.
I also have 3 gallons of their primer Preprite, which are labeled 1 US gallon. Both were purchased in the past month.
I wonder if they just forgot to put on the "before colorant added" part on the label of the new style container?
Melissa
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They forgot nothing. (Their lawyers approved the label) Both the base for color and the pre-mixed color are shy of a gallon. The base was actually slightly more. I'm guessing they did that so the colors would be mixed properly as the same mixing formula are used for many different paints. Base 33 11/16 premixed 3 27/32
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.