| The original colour was a beige /tan . And yes .......3coats WITH a latex
| primer when I used Behr and Private Estates ( GP ). Aura is the only paint
| I'd trust if I needed to use white again ...and even then it would be 2
| coats ...not the ONE they advertise .
You said you'd used non-Aura, so I'm assuming
you have used Aura in the past. Were you running an
experiment this time? Why would you use 3 different
paints -- 2 of them cheap brands -- on one project?
And why would you put primer over a beige painted
wall to cover with white? Primer is for unpainted
surfaces, or as a covering flat coat when painting
a bright color that has low opacity. White paint has
high opacity. There's no point in using primer. (In fact,
the newer BM waterborne paints claim to be "self-priming"
even over plaster or joint compound.)
I tried Aura once and now avoid it. First, it's grossly
overpriced, yet the paint stores push it because they
had to buy new, expensive tinting equipment to make
the paints with "waterborne" tint. (Presumably BM is
also pushing it. Berkshire Hathway bought BM. Maybe
Aura is Warren Buffet's bright idea to greatly increase
profits with no real change to the business.)
The one time I used Aura was in a bathroom. Blue-
green over white. Flat paint. It covered very well in
2 coats, despite going on thin. But the bathroom wall
had a couple of glossy drip marks that I couldn't get off.
With normal paint that wouldn't have been an issue, but
the Aura was so thin, and settled so flat, that the gloss
showed through when the wall was viewed at an angle
with light from the window washing across it, even after
2 coats! (So the opacity of coverage was good, but the
sheen coverage was very poor.)
If I were doing something like a museum wall, with
new, perfect plaster and very demanding lighting, then
I might use Aura. For most other uses, the subtle
stipple texture left by normal paint hides a lot of
imperfections while not being noticeable.
With coverage, in general, I've never needed to do more
than 2 coats in recent memory. Nor have I seen anything
cover in 1 coat. So opacity of coverage is simply not a
factor I consider. I always do 2 coats and that's always
sufficient. (That's assuming decent paint is used. Not Behr,
Glidden, or store brands.)
I try to go for the BM "classic" line when possible.
It's a bit cheaper, but I don't care about a dollar
here or there. I like it because it's thicker and has
more dependable coverage in terms of sheen. But
I've been gradually trying to switch over to Sherwin
Williams. After about 30 years of using BM I'm fed up
with their gradual degradation of quality while also
misleading their customers. Some of it is related to EPA
requirements, but they just haven't had the best
product for a long time. They're also very aggressive
about pushing their client stores not to sell other products.
(The BM stores that sell Cabot now hide the Cabot in
A good example of BM's dishonesty and downgrading
I used to always use BM Satin Impervo oil on interior
trim. The product code for that was 235. With EPA regulations,
BM changed the formula without telling anyone. The new
code is C235, but the label is otherwise exactly the same.
C235 doesn't settle down properly and seems to be softer
than 235, which settled down with no discernible brush
marks. Then BM made yet another change when they
came up with a formula they could sell in all states in
gallons. The newest version is Z235. Still the exact same
label. Very different paint. Z235 is sort of like the old
exterior oil-base solid stain. It spatters easily due to lack
of cohesion, has almost no settling at all, and will peel
right off if used on a radiator. (It cost me a couple of
callbacks to find that out.)
Store clerks that I've dealt with for years were adamant
in telling me that 235, C235 and Z235 were not different
formulations. Awhile back I also ran into a BM salesman
at the local lumber yard. He also insisted there was
absolutely no difference and confronted me with a challenge
that if I didn't believe him then I must be calling him a liar.
Some salesman! Simply put, of course, he was lying. They
can't sell 235 or C235 in gallons due to EPA regulations, so
it's silly to claim that those products are the same as Z235.
But the salesman was really hoping I'd ignore my own
experience, despite that being bad for my business, and
believe his lie.
With wall paint there's not so much that they can
ruin, but they did manage to do it with Aura. (As I
said above, I thought Aura's opacity was good, but
since I still can't cover in 1 coat that does me no good,
and the sheen coverage is a problem.)
I recently did a job with Sherwin Williams wall paint.
(Duration matte.) I can't say that I thought it was
noticeably better than BM, but it was good.
For trim I still don't have a solution. I could drive to VT
and buy Pratt and Lambert Red Seal. That's the only
truly good trim paint I know of for interior that's still on
the market. But that's a bit farfetched. It would cost
about $100/gallon + gas and trip time.
I can use BM Advance, but it has poor coverage, it's
drippy and it ruins brushes. (The water cleanup isn't
really water cleanup.) Currently I'm using Sherwin
Williams Pro Classic waterborne alkyd for trim. It's not
bad and settles beautifully, but it's very thin; more like
a glaze than a paint... I'm afraid the paint technology is
just not keeping up with EPA requirements.