Hey Ralph! I'm doing great... lurking around BP as usual.

My sources on the roofing information were correct, and they were the 
real deal... the one guy specialized in hand rolled metal roofing, 
crimping and rolling by hand, that sort of thing. Worked on a lot of 
the older buildings at Princeton... he knew his business. He didn't 
have time to do the job, but he helped me put together the specs, so 
that when we got our bids we were comparing apples to apples.

On the house I used to work in, when they put the original roof on, 
they had a dude (*not* a roofing contractor) give them a low bid (like 
you mentioned... historic society doing it on a shoestring) and he was 
able to do the low bid because he didn't put enough shingles on the 
roof. From what I remember the "dude" basically lapped the shingles so 
they were essentially 2-plys of shingles on the house, and really the 
reveal should have been a bit shorter, and the shingles lapped so you 
get about a 3-layer depth. My maths may be off on the exact percentage 
of shingles, but I think you get my drift. And the roof was pretty 
catastrophic... we'd have daylight showing through the roof on hot 
days. (It was kind of neat though... when it rained, the shingles would 
absorb water and expand, and the whole thing would seal up tight. But 
nonetheless... ) it was shorted on shingles, and we'd get catastrophic 
holes with depressing regularity.

All the roofers I talked to said that they had seen variations on the 
same issue over the years (whether intentionally or unintentially) on 
shake roofs where the shingles were applied with a long reveal, and it 
saved on materials costs since you didn't need  as many shingles to 
finish the job. I've looked at enough shingle roofs in my life now to 
know that the roofers I consulted were correct, and the original roof 
was a bit thin on shingles. It was a testament to the materials that 
they survived as long as they did.

When we re-shingled the roof, it was done correctly, with the proper 
percentage of shingles, and it was better.

Ruth-- I had my slate roof re-done on my house a few years ago, so I've 
dealt with slate a bit. Most of the slate roofs we have here in 
Columbus aren't as nice as Vermont slate (lesser quality of PA slate 
mostly used here) so we've had a lot of slate failure going on... not 
that most of these roofs aren't 100 years old, and well, it's just time 
to say when.

What exactly is the problem with the roof?



-----Original Message-----
From: RLWALTR <[log in to unmask]>
To: BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Mon, Jun 13, 2011 8:18 pm
Subject: Re: [BP] New tread/old threads


 
 

In a message dated 6/13/2011 2:16:00 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
[log in to unmask] writes:
Ralph-
When I was still in NJ, we replaced the shake roof on the c. 1740
building that I worked in. I consulted with a bunch of very
knowledgable roofers at the time. Our roof was 20 years old, and
failing. A number of the roofers said that you could expect a shake
roof to last for 50 years with decent maintenance that sounds very 
optimistic to me, but MAYBE if you had people working from cherry 
pickers cleaning it weekly with toothbrushes...-- ours failed so 
quickly because they had only installed about 1/2 the number of shingle
per square foot than should have been installed. I nevah hoid a 
installing half the number of necessary shingles, and don't understand 
how that could happen without  causing immediate and catastrophic 
failure, all of which makes me suspicious of your sources. A cautionary 
tale indeed.

In any case... the roofing brain trust that I consulted gave pretty
much the same advice that Ken did for moss growth: Use a solution of
what was essentially Round-up or bleach to kill the growth, and wash
with water. May need to repeat for maintenanceif the moss is heavy, but
probably worth it since the roof could potentially have another 25
years of life-span. This roof doesn't look good to me, from grade 
level, at least: losses of shingles, cupping and moss. 

my .02 Thank you for it, and I hope this finds you well.

-Heidi  Ralph


-----Original Message-----
From: RLWALTR <[log in to unmask]>
To: BULLAMANKA-PINHEADS <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thu, Jun 9, 2011 4:22 pm
Subject: [BP] New tread/old threads


I have a marginally legitimate question again. 
 
 Our local historical society's HQ is in a 1740s farm house with a sawn
cedar shake roof, which as I remember is about 23 years old (I used to
be on the board, but haven't been in decades).  I am told by a friend
now on the board that they are thinking about power washing the roof to
get rid of whatever growies are growing in it, which makes me uneasy.
 
 What is the current state of the art Histo Presto thinking on
maintenance of such a roof, and am I correct in worrying that pressure
washing will drive moisture further into the shakes?  Are there
chemicals they should use or avoid in power washing?
 
Thanks,
Ralph (9 days prostate-free)

--
**Please remember to trim posts, as requested in the Terms of Service**

To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html

--
**Please remember to trim posts, as requested in the Terms of Service**

To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the 
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>;

--
**Please remember to trim posts, as requested in the Terms of Service**

To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the 
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to: 
http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html

--
**Please remember to trim posts, as requested in the Terms of Service**

To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://listserv.icors.org/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>