Replies

1. 
   CAGIV | Oct 25, 2006 06:36pm | #1

   I can't comment on the reason home builders do it but it does seem to be popular around here in new homes by home buyers.

   We get quite a few calls to "paint my old ugly stained trim"

    

   

1. 
   MSA1 | Oct 28, 2006 09:53pm | #13

   I think white painted trim is "retro" and I prefer it. We've done four flip homes and we only did stain trim in one. I've always felt that house looked like an apartment.

   I'm much happier with the look of the white trim. 

2. 
   YesMaam27577 | Oct 25, 2006 07:22pm | #2

   since that is what is desired by buyers ........

    

   Yeah, and evidently they want it to be installed by one of those "guest workers" who took the job that no American wanted.

    

    

   Unless you're the lead dog, the view just never changes.

3. 
   RickD | Oct 25, 2006 09:03pm | #3

   Most of the new home being thrown up around here are just that, thrown up - they are built only for profit by people interested in making top dollar, not top product.

   For most, having the expensive kitchen appliances, the multi-story entryway, and the multiple peaked roof are the only "details" that matter.  Nice woodwork, trim, finish, or details aren't even a thought.  Don't even get me started on how many condo conversions I have seen where the beautiful old wood trim now surrounds a white vinyl window.

   BUT there are some better builders particularly in the areas near the city (Cambridge, Brookline, Newton) that do mind the details and avoid vinyl.  

   But frankly, most people want vinyl windows as most people have no taste :)

    

4. 
   alrightythen | Oct 25, 2006 10:00pm | #4

   white vynal doors/windows are copied from what historically would have been wood painted white.

   I don't agree necessarily with what you were told as "what buyers want". stain grade trim will costs more, so yes I think affordabilty is a factor. But I don't think it means stained is better. the look is different, and it comes down to quailty.

   2 1/4" colonial trim and small base board will look cheap, compared to built up crown, wide casing, big base board, whether painted or stained.

   And then there is the clam shell casing/base that was oh so popular in the 70's. much of what I find is stained and couldn't be any uglier.

   So in my opinion it is not so much whether it is painted or stained but the make up of the actual product and the quality of the job.

   preference for my own home will always be paint. But i have seen some beautiful stained jobs and look forward to doing some oneday.

5. 
   Shep | Oct 26, 2006 02:32am | #5

   It seems to go in cycles.

   Stain grade was popular when I started out, some 30 years ago. At some point, people started wanting painted trim.

   In the late 70s, friends of mine had an older home with original chestnut trim. Someone painted over it in the 50s or 60s. They spent a lot of time and money restoring it to natural.

   I figure in another 10 years or so, stained trim will be "in" again.

6. 
   DougU | Oct 26, 2006 04:05am | #6

   I'm not picking on you or the other people that have mentioned it but why is it that you/others think that paint grade woodwork is cheaper then stain grade?

   I'm working on a house right now that has a combination of cherry and paint grade woodwork and I'm pretty sure the painted is going to come in very close to the stain grade by the time you figure all the labor to paint. Mind you this isnt some illegal runing around with a 4" paint brush and a bucket of paint.

   Theres quite a bit of prep work that goes into a quality paint job. I've seen some places that the painters bill was somewhere near $40,000, that was just interior paint work.

   I would guess that if you compared the cost of oak against a paint job the oak would be hands down much cheaper. Now those prices are for high quality work, not trac-home type work.

   As far as why so many houses have white woodwork instead of stain grade my guess is its fad, fashion, trend .......

   I personally prefer painted to stain grade but thats just my taste, just as yours is the opposite.

   Doug

    

1. 
   alrightythen | Oct 26, 2006 07:18am | #7

   if I price out a trim job, while I go to great lenghs to create tight joints and precise cuts, I still know that if something is slightly off it can still come out looking perfect with a nice caulking job and paint.

    if it's going to be stain grade I'd rather not use caulk, even though I see it done all the time with tinted calk. I'm definatly charging way more for the stain grade trim.

   maybe full time trim carps do it differently.

2. 
   Ragnar17 | Oct 26, 2006 09:32am | #8

   why is it that you/others think that paint grade woodwork is cheaper then stain grade?

   Doug,

   Typically, MDF runs about 40% of the cost of finish lumber (at least that's my experience), so there's a big difference in material costs right off the bat. 

   MDF is straight and uniform and has no blemishes.  When installing it, you just grab a piece and go.  By contrast, when using finish lumber, I typically spend a bit of time looking the pieces over, and figuring out how to efficiently lay things out to cut out the defects, put the ugly side against the wall, etc.

   Before the finish lumber is installed, I spend a lot of time sanding it down to remove  remove any chatter marks or snipe from the mill.  Again, the MDF is good to go (it's even pre-primed!).

   As is obvious, with stain-grade work, your cuts have to be absolutely precise.  When I'm doing paint-grade work, I still try to get the cuts very close, but I don't sweat it, since a little caulk will make it look perfect.

   Finally, when it's time to start the finishing, I typically brush on and wipe off two coats of stain.  After that, I typically put on three coats of clear finish.  With paint-grade work, I have to put a coat of primer on whatever is NOT preprimed (typically a few door caps or other specialty items that aren't available in MDF).  Then there's two coats of paint.  So with stain-grade I have five separate coats, and with paint grade I have about 2-1/2.

   Edited 10/26/2006 2:35 am ET by Ragnar17

1. 
   DougU | Oct 26, 2006 02:20pm | #10

   I'm not going to debate this subject, its been done so many times on here and the results are the same each time.

   I've done paint grade jobs where the finish coat was white lac, every joint better be tight, caulk will not be a filler in these cases. The prep work before a drop of lac goes on will excede the cost of all the stain and finish that you mention.

   I make my paint grade joints just as tight as my stain grade, there arent any exceptions to that. Others do it different, not wrong, just different.

   I guess maybe some of the difference is the MDF, I dont use it(for base and case) that often so maybe it's that much cheaper and I'm not aware of it, and admittedly, some of the more expensive woods, cherry for example, can run considerably more then popular paint grade, but the cost of a professional painter doing all the prep work isnt cheap.

   Not you but I'm guessing that some people are equating paint grade with primed MDF nailed up and a guy with a brush comming along and sloping a top coat over that and calling it good. Well then of course paint grade is by far cheaper, and thank God I dont have to work on those places. Maybe I'm just very lucky in that regard and I'm not in tune enough to make a comment on this subject because of that.

   Doug

    

1. 
   Ragnar17 | Oct 28, 2006 09:47pm | #12

   I guess maybe some of the difference is the MDF, I dont use it(for base and case) that often so maybe it's that much cheaper....

   Doug,

   In my opinion, the biggest potential savings when doing paint grade work comes from using pre-primed MDF.  If you're using poplar or other softwoods for your paint-grade work, then obviously many of the cost savings I described in my previous post cancel out.

   Regards,

   Ragnar 

    

1. 
   DougU | Oct 29, 2006 05:01am | #14

   Ragnar

   I talked to the painters yesterday about the time involved in doing the house that I'm currently working on. Their bid for the paint both ex and interior was 1800 man hours, he felt that he would hit it pretty close. I think he gets somewhere around $40 per hr. so that means the paint job is going to run somewhere near $70,000.

   We're doing all the stain grade stuff so figuring that the paint grade equals roughly 1/2 the total woodwork inside I'd say even though we're using cherry the paint grade will come to more money then the stain grade. The caveat to this is that there is a mountain of paint grade architectual elements.

   When I mentioned this discussion to others it was unanimous, paint grade woodwork is always more money then stain grade. That said we all agreed that we were talking about a high quality paint job such as the one this particular house was getting.

   I think the big descrepancy comes with what kind of paint job your getting, what kind of woodwork(style), how much build up mouldings are involved..........

   If your just talking about simple base and case with no architecual elements then no argument on my part, the paint would be less because the prep is limited. Thats probably more likely the case with the original posters question.

   My problem(in this discussion) is that I never see simple base and case so the paint job is always a significant undertaking and the HO'ers are chosing the paint for looks not economics.

   Doug

    

2. 
   hvtrimguy | Oct 29, 2006 06:20am | #15

   I do a lot of trim for a couple builders in the area (hudson valley new york). Mostly it is paint grade. I've seen crap paint jobs and beutiful paint jobs so I don't always think it is a matter of cost. When I trim I charge more for stain (5% more) only because I select pieces of similar color and grain for a door or window. takes a little extra time. otherwise I put the same amount of effort into the joints. It is a little faster to install paint grade trim but not a significant factor in pricing. My vote goes for fad. first.. the builders tend to sell you what they want to sell versus what the owner really wants. mainly because the owner never is encouraged to explore the options and make a well thought out descision. Instead it's more like going to mcdonalds and being asked paint or stain? super size it?. besides, everyone wants what the joneses have (my last name is jones and most people have far surpassed what I've got, but anyhow). I find most stain jobs are associated with an architect on a higher end job with good design input from the owner. someone who appreciates natural beauty and stops to think about what they really want. most buyers are too busy to really think about it or don't really care."it aint the work I mind,
   It's the feeling of falling further behind."Bozini Latini

3. 
   Ragnar17 | Oct 30, 2006 02:13am | #17

   Doug,

   Their bid for the paint both ex and interior was 1800 man hours, he felt that he would hit it pretty close. I think he gets somewhere around $40 per hr. so that means the paint job is going to run somewhere near $70,000.

   Wow!  Sounds like they must be doing great work, and that there must be a lot of detail to the project.  Can you post any photos?

   So are you saying that for the exact same trim schedule, you think painting will nearly always cost at least as much (or even more) than staining and clearcoating?  I don't mean to beat a dead horse here, but could you elaborate a bit on that?   You've got me very curious now, because I've just always taken it for granted that the painting crew would spend more time (and money) on stain grade.

    

    

    

    

4. 
   DougU | Oct 30, 2006 04:29am | #18

   Ragnar

   We're doing all the stain grade in this particular house and when were done it feels like fine furniture.

   There is know way that were spending anywhere near the time to get a superb finish on the stain grade that the painters are spending to get there high quality finish on their paint grade.

   I was doing a den/office with coffered ceilings the other day and I would notice the painters preping the columns, these guys work diligently, unlike the rest of us :) and you would see one painter standing at a column for an hour or two. his process was to sand it, prime it(we send it out preprimes but when we fit something every joint is sanded), fill holes, caulk every joint, sand again, and then a final coat is sprayed on. When these guys are done doing the caulk its virtually imposible to see any of it. You dont see them run a bead and then lick their finger and wipe it down, they have a bucket of water there and wipe each joint down with a wet rag wraped around a putty knife. Every joint makes it look like it was an extruded/moulded piece of trim, when in fact there may be somewhere in the neighborhood of 60 pieces of wood to make up one square column.

   So are you saying that for the exact same trim schedule, you think painting will nearly always cost at least as much (or even more) than staining and clearcoating? 

   Yes, in the two house that I'm currently working on and several of the ones that I've done for this company that is correct! If you watched these painters you'd see what I mean. I dont mean to sound like we are the only ones that have good painters that do quality work, thats not the case at all.

   I forgot to turn off my blockers so I cant post any pix on this message, I'll turn them off and post a couple crude pix.

   Doug

5. 
   Ragnar17 | Oct 30, 2006 05:36am | #22

   Thanks for the pics, Doug.  That's some very nice work!  I especially like that large window group.

   I'm still not getting the WHY part of why so much more prep work is needed for a paint job compared to staining.  Correct me if any of my assumptions below are inaccurate:

   (1) In both cases, you have to fill nails holes and sand before you get started.

   (2) When painting, you have to put on a coat of primer; when staining you might put on a coat of sealant or prestain treatment.

   (3) When staining, you'll put on one or two coats of stain, and typically wipe off after a determined period of time elapses.  I typically brush on and then wipe down with a cloth.  I don't know whether professionals can simply spray the stain on and walk away.

   (4) When painting, you'll put on two (maybe three) topcoats, with light sandings in between.  When staining, you'll similarly put on two (or three) topcoats with light sandings in between.

    

   It seems from the above that the scope of work is pretty similar.  This is why I'm having a hard time imagining why the paint crew is spending so much more time than the stain crew.

   One thing I've noticed is that white trim looks better if you put a micro bead of caulk in all the inside corners.  Doing a good job requires that you pull these beads very tight (especially where three planes come together) using a damp cloth wrapped around a knife blade (as you described these guys doing). 

   On the other hand, these joints look better (IMO) without the filler/radiused inside corners when staining.  When dark stains are used, the small gaps tend to disappear in the shadows.

   This may be one source of additional work for the painters.  Is there anything else I'm missing?  Is it just easier to spray clear coats than it is to spray paints?

   Thanks again for your input on this.  I'm definitely learning something new today.

   Ragnar

6. 
   DougU | Oct 30, 2006 06:08am | #24

   Ragnar

   We do the stain grade work in the paint booth in the shop so there is a bit of a time saver there but not real substantial time.

   I think the caulking probably adds the most time. If you think about it regarding the pictures that I posted then its obvious that there is going to be some hours wraped up in that proceedure alone.

   Most of our stain is sprayed on, followed by a good wipe down so thats not going to save any time.

   I dont know where the significant time difference is other then the caulking. I see some time difference in the sanding between coats, plus the vacuuming of the residue that doesnt have to be done with lac based finish, well it does but not to the same degree. I think paint is tougher to sand then clear coat but that doesnt seam to add up to large lots of time.

   I dont know that I can really put my finger on the numbers, maybe its all the little things that add up to one big difference.

   I know that we are doing all the stain grade (which is 1/2 the total woodwork)and we will not be anywhere near the hours that the painters are.

   Sorry I cant be more specific but I just hear the numbers, I dont have to deal with any of it first hand so I cant provide the details. I know that talking to the HO'ers they even mention the extra cost in the paint grade vs stain grade but thats what they want so......

   Now all these numbers would change if you were talking about basic mdf trim vs basic cherry trim.

   Doug

7. 
   DougU | Oct 30, 2006 04:41am | #19

   Here's a couple pix, one is the great room window and the other is just a few of the columns that are scatered about the house, these two lead to the kitchen.

   I threw one pic of an entertainment center in to show the stain grade work that were doing, this piece is going to get a final coat of finish sprayed on it in place because of all the scuffing and such that happens durring installation. Right now its sitting there sanded ready for spraying, so it looks a little "rough".

   Doug

   
3. 
   Geoffrey | Oct 29, 2006 06:55am | #16

   The reason stain grade is cosidered better quality is because you can see the quality and fit of the carpentry, as opposed to paint grade where a miter joint can be made to "look great" w/a tube of caulking.

   I think it's as much what the buyers are told by the builder or realtor as to what is "in" that determines what the buyer "looks" for in a new home. Builders put in MDF trim cause it's cheaper, period, then they "sell" the "nice clean look of painted trim". If a buyer really wants stain grade then of course "we can up-grade for a charge"

                                                                                                    Geoff

7. 
   Ragnar17 | Oct 26, 2006 10:08am | #9

   Porsche,

   I completely agree that paint-grade work is undertaken to cut costs.

   As to "what homebuyers want", I think it's a bit of a chicken and egg thing.   With *very* few exceptions, all the major builders produce the exact same product.  So even if the average homebuyer *didn't* want painted trim, what could they do?   A new but "traditional" house like those of 100 years ago is simply not on the market these days, so it's difficult to tell what the demand is for that style.

   What I *can* say (based on my personal experience) is that "older" homes from, say, the 1880-1930 time period always sell quickly and at top dollar *if* they have retained their original charm.  Homes from the 1970s thorugh 90s do not seem to fetch as high a price, and the only difference I can see is the lack of charm.

   If you look at homes from the Victorian period up to the present, there's clearly a slow but steady degradation in the level of detail and the level of craftsmanship.  The important thing to notice is that it didn't just happen overnight.  Decade by decade, it seems that details were streamlined, minimized, and eventually omitted altogether.  Where there were once 8" baseboards, wide casings, and richly detailed door and window heads, there are now homes where the doors and windows are "finished" with sheet rock and mud!

   I can only assume that these changes were undertaken to cut costs and competitively place new houses on the market.  Omitting a few nice details may only reduce the price of a house by a few percentage points, but it all adds up to a mountain of money when a large developer is building homes by the hundreds.

   Sadly, many people these days have never seen an "old" house the way it is *supposed* to look -- that is, the way it looked when it was new, and before it was neglected and abused for decades.  Because of this, I think many people these days don't have as much appreciation as they should for the old houses, and simply don't know what they're missing when they buy new construction.

    

    

8. 
   smslaw | Oct 26, 2006 03:31pm | #11

   We just had an addition built and we used painted poplar trim. The downstairs is a big open space with a cherry kitchen, soapstone counters and slate floors.  We thought white painted trim would look better with the dark cabinets, counters and floor.  It looks great.  I don't know what the cost difference would have been had we opted for unpainted trim. I agree with the general point I think you make which is that lots of buyers are getting crappy windows/doors etc. I think most people are unfamiliar with quality building materials and only look at square footage and granite.

9. 
   maverick | Oct 30, 2006 05:10am | #20

   Its true there's a significant savings when using paint grade material. the installer can take some liberty's if need be.

   vinyl and fiberglas exterior doors translate into "maintenance free". Its not for the traditionalist

   I've seen way too many houses with beautifully stained oak, cherry or whatever get primed and painted to suit new owners. its shameful IMO but I'm not losing sleep over it. I give the customer what they want

   I've also been asked what it would take to strip the paint and stain the woodwork. if the millwork is the modern day builder grade variety the answer is usually "load the painted stuff into a dumpster..."

10. 
    Donahrens | Oct 30, 2006 05:18am | #21

    My experience with home buying and 'looking' at homes of friends and neighbors is the same as what you have posted. I too live in New England and up in VT I had a beautiful colonial with stained wood trim that looked fantastic. When we had a few realtors in to interview before listing, a couple suggested to paint all the trim white. I found that very disturbing. It is TOTALLY subjective, and lends a great feel to a home if done well. Not to mention that a lot of white trim turns yellowish after a short time. Needless to say, I listed and sold the home on my own. We now live in a great cape in MA and have white trim, but I sure do miss that beautiful stained trim sometimes!

    MDF sure is easy, but looks fake to me on trim work!

     

11. 
    DDay | Oct 30, 2006 05:39am | #23

    The trim choice is for cost savings with the builders that don't care but the best builders, designers and architects still use painted trim for the look they want to achieve. Many of the best builders in the state build quite a bit in Weston and you'll see exceptional $5m, $10m, and up houses that have mostly painted trim and several rooms with cherry, mahogany or qtr sawn white oak, etc. People just like painted trim, whether they are buying a house or building it custom.

    Here's a link to many of the states best builders. Vona for one is right there at the top of the list, truly outstanding work. He's building a custom house for an owner in Weston now for $25m and most of the trim is painted. That house is 33,000 sq feet, slate roof, field stone exterior, copper roofs, you name it. The owner is worth $300m plus so money is no object but they like painted trim and that what is being built.

    http://www.bostondesignguide.com/interior/builder.html

12. 
    IdahoDon | Oct 30, 2006 06:27am | #25

    I personally find this a troubling trend.

    It probably is true with most new construction, although with higher end custom homes it's still common to hang stain-grade trim.

    It's probably something that will come back into style and fade, just as all trends do.

     

    Beer was created so carpenters wouldn't rule the world.