What is the difference between a primer and an undercoat?
Looking to paint doors, skirting, and facings - all are now striped.
Was looking at
Plan it to finish with
"JoeJoe" wrote in news:42c1c11f$0$2060$ snipped-for-privacy@ptn-nntp-reader04.plus.net:
I think that paint is hard to find these days
mike
The primer is to give good adhesion to the material. Hence different ones for wood and metal, etc. Undercoat at one time was always near the same colour as the top coat but less expensive, so made the job slightly cheaper than using two or more coats of top to get the depth of colour. But things are a bit blurred these days. ;-)
?
I can find lots of it. How much and what type do you want?
Dave
What Dave said.
The need to achieve a good bond is still with us, but modern paints have such good covering power they make undercoat almost superfluous.
Dave
Traditional painting uses a three coat system: primer, to prepare an unpainted surface to receive paint; undercoat, to build up the colour; and top coat, to provide protection to the whole. Modern paints tend to be one coat paints, which achieve colour build and protection in the same paint.
If you want the paint job to last, buy Dulux.
Colin Bignell
different ones
slightly
Depends on what you are painting, some surfaces still require the use of a primer and then undercoat.
"nightjar .uk.com>"
colour; and
Err not IME, totally wrong about one coat paint, you still need to use undercoat (if not primer) were the surface has not been painted before or the paint has been removed, 'one coat' paint is for final top coat / *re-finishing*.
Don't think anyone is disputing you still need a primer on a bare surface. It's the undercoat which may be dispensable.
You're supposed to paint it on all over in one coat, not stripe it!
Primer is supposed to "stick" well to the timber (or whatever).
Undercoat covers and is very opaque.
Gloss is the final thin "shine".
I wouldn't buy cheap paint.
It's also a problem. Great thick coats of D-I-Y "one coat", "non- drip" and similar can give rise to problems.
Primer is there to stick to the ioriginal surface and seal it and possibly to create a smooth surface - i.e a good primer sticks well to teh (wood) is thick and can be sanded to give a toally grain free finish. The unedrcaot is there to basically provide MOST of tghe coulr - its teh bit that reflects most of te light.
The top coat is there to provide the corect surface finsih and be the main defense against damage - so it might be hard and glossy, but often has less pigment in it than the undercoat.
Primer doesn't give much build, it's the undercoat that you sand for a smooth finish.
You shouldn't "sand" primer at all.
I never said you should :-)
Really traditional paint is made of linseed oil and pigment. On bare wood you first put on a coat of linseed oil then three coats of paint. All the same stuff - no primer and undercoat. Buy Sweedish Allback linseed paint from Holkham Paints (Their website has lots of good information:
"The most expensive paint is cheap paint"
I didn't say that you said you should. Leave it there?
The statement that one coat achieves colour build and protection in the same paint means that it replaces both the undercoat and the top coat used in traditional systems. Primer will still be required if the base material is unpainted. You should not use undercoat as the base coat on an unpainted surface and you shouldn't need it over primer if you are using a one coat paint.
Colin Bignell
Biff wrote;
Ain't that the truth......
Dave
Depends. I use filler primer a LOT on stuff that has to have an immaculate finish. It is often the best place to fill grain.
Undercoat is only there for colour.
HomeOwnersHub website 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.