In a message dated 98-07-28 09:47:19 EDT, Leland wrote:

<< We just finished a (paid for) scope of work, spec. and existing condition
 report - in that order since that's the way Yale likes it on a mini mansion.
 Existing: Asphalt atop slate atop cedar shingles.  The exposed sheathing was
 fastened mostly to the slate.  We bid out and got a rip and new slate and
 repaired copper gutter for a price of $54,000 they re-bid it and got the job
 they opted for: asphalt, lapped valleys, GS ice and water no valley flashing
 and no gutters and no chimney work, no flashing or crickets and they  are
 saving 20K -  Go Yale!  Boola Boola.
  >>

So lets see:

If we assume low grade slate and poor maintenance equals 100 years of service
life, the slate would have cost $540/ service year. If we assume the shingles
actually lasted the 35 year warrantee period they would cost $971/ service
year.

Looks like the shingles cost at least 80% more to install, unless we ammortize
the cost over the expected service life of the bean counter which would show a
net savings of nearly 40% on his register.

Of course this isn't an argument for the old way of thinking since the
shingles are obviously the new and better way of doing things, which makes
them the obvious choice.

Bean counters 1
Earth (beauty)  0

Rudy

I think the word righteous was supposed to be in there somewhere.