I would be interested to know how many people on this list have first hand
experience with the big three:  Jahn, Edison and Keim and on how many types
of substrate.
For me, all three and on brownstone, sandstone, precast cementicious panels
and terra cotta.
In general: all are sensitive to weather conditions, and in particular, the
sensitivity increases with variance to the point of failure.  All are
excellent products in the right hands.  All are different to the point of
having strengths and weaknesses for any given existing conditions.

    That being said I would like to add not just the why's of failure are
important, but also the "what do you want it to do when complete".  In this
regard I have to agree with Pat, the variables are too numerous to give
accurate responses without being "in the loop" of the project before during
and after and many years after.  My experience has been, that to bring an
outside manufacturer or consultant up to speed on a project, one needs
between one and four hours of discussion about the particulars to allow for
original or valuable input.

Have to go....

Best,
Leland

---- Original Message -----
From: Michael P. Edison <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, January 10, 2000 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: Poor Application of Product at Biltmore Estate


> Message text written by Pat Morrissey to "BP - \"Is this the list with all
> the ivy haters?\""
> >>Don't name rep names.  Just products.  What products were initially
> >installed? (Jahn, Ediso, Conproco)  How long were they up?(Several months
> >over a winter) How did they perform? (Cracking  , or delamination or lack
> >of color matching were apparent on two of the three) Were they the
> >appropriate products for the intended use(I sure hope so, at least the
> >conservators thought so)?  What was the "last minute
> >product"?(Legacy, a precast repair mortar) Was it properly installed?
> >(Don't know)  Was it an appropriate product?(Don't know)  How did
> >it fail?(Cracking and delamination)  Why do you think it failed?(Maybe
> >someday we will find out)
> ><
>
> Well, friends, I wasn't the one who started this thing with the naming of
> names again. While I disagreed with those who found some of the speech
here
> on BP too commercial and self-promoting, I have respected the
sensibilities
> of those who wished to maintain a more positive ambiance, and have until
> now declined to add fuel to this particular brushfire. So what do you have
> to say now, Ken?
>
> In view of Mr. Morrissey's comments, however, I will have to respond a
> little more directly.
>
> 1. I find at least one of Mr. Morrissey's answers candid and accurate: The
> one where he says he "don't know". That would have been a far more
accurate
> answer to some of the other questions as well, because there has been no
> scientific investigation or qualification of such things as material
> properties, installation methods or job conditions. His product wasn't
> used, and he would like us all to think that that's why there is a
problem,
> clean and simple. The reality is that even products represented by Mr.
> Morrissey have problems from time to time, which Mr. Riddle has
> acknowledged. Nobody has any magic or a monopoly on success in this
> business, nor do they have an immunity to things beyond their control
> causing problems.
>
> 2. There are more factors involved in this particular "test" situation
than
> we could possibly discuss fully here, including, among other things, the
> fact that sample patches were done at temperatures below the required
> minimum. The "2 out 3" comment is incorrect. ALL patches showed some
> discoloration, including the Jahn patches, some of which turned white. I
> would have attributed that to the untimely installation.
>
> 3. As for the Conproco, it HAS shown a general tendency to crack and
> delaminate, a complaint that I have heard from enough different unrelated
> credible sources, and which I have personally observed under enough
> different circumstances to find it indicative of an inherent problem. Our
> testing of this product in 1996 corroborated some key concerns. My
> assumption is that since these problems became apparent over 3 years ago
> and the product is still being sold today that somewhere along the line
> they worked out their worst formulation problems. But Mr. Morrissey is
> being less than forthcoming in trying to paint all of his competition with
> the same brush. Jahn, for example, has far greater shrinkage and lower
> tensile bond strength, which leads to a greater tendency to have problems
> with cracking and delamination than Edison does.
>
> 4. As for the Jahn product being specified exclusively for this project,
> this was an outcome which, according to some, was determined even before
> the testing began. I will maintain the position that specifying the
product
> exclusively was a bad idea, and I think the results bear that out. But
> consultants and contractors make the decisions they make for a variety of
> reasons: Technical, economic, logistical, political, emotional - not all
of
> them logical. Some specifiers specify Jahn only, some specify Edison only,
> some specify both.
>
> 5. As for Legacy, we have not tested it so I will not make any specific
> comments, other than the fact that it is relatively new and untried and
> therefore inherently riskier than products which have some history and
> refinement time behind them. Nobody can say for sure, however, based on
the
> reports given here, that the cause of this product's failure was an
> inherent defect in its formulation. What if Jahn was discounted this way
> the first few dozen times there were problems with cracking and
> delamination?
>
> Mike Edison
> Edison Coatings, Inc.
>