Boat painting options

[magictime]

Just looking around at boat painting prices/options and most painters' websites are very much focused on back-to-bare-metal jobs taking eight weeks or so, involving the application of nine or ten coats, and costing maybe £8-10k.

Clearly that's the 'gold standard', but why? Is there any reason why a rub-down and re-gloss, with primer and undercoat only on corroded patches, should give poorer results (if carried out by a conscientious professional with proper preparation etc.)? If so, would the difference to be mainly cosmetic, or would you be leaving your steelwork less protected? How much does this all depend on the condition of the current paint/steel?

Prices for a non-bare-metal repaint seem to start at more like the £2k mark, so this could easily have a bearing on which boats I regard as being in or out of my budget if I need/want to allow for the cost of repainting in the nearish future.

[alan_fincher]

From my observations one of the main issues seems to be that paint failures tend to start around window frames, portholes, mushroom vents, hatches, door frames, etc, and then work their way out under the existing paint from there.  Also around certain types of handrails.

It is not usually evident how bad things may be, even if 98% of paint on the remaining topsides look fine, other than maybe a few scratches, and some loss of glossiness.

There will inevitably be some corrosion under the items I talk about, and if you remove individual windows and ports, and go back to metal as far as far out from them rust has made its way under paint, you will then end up with obvious depressions in the paint, unless you can somehow put back as many layers as you have removed, in addition to anything you then add over the whole lot, (not that easy!)

None the less, we did this with much of our last boat, and it was fine right up until she was sold.  But you could never have passed the result off as looking like what you would have got with a full professional "back to metal" repaint.

[magictime]

1 minute ago, alan_fincher said:

From my observations one of the main issues seems to be that paint failures tend to start around window frames, portholes, mushroom vents, hatches, door frames, etc, and then work their way out under the existing paint from there.  Also around certain types of handrails.

It is not usually evident how bad things may be, even if 98% of paint on the remaining topsides look fine, other than maybe a few scratches, and some loss of glossiness.

There will inevitably be some corrosion under the items I talk about, and if you remove individual windows and ports, and go back to metal as far as far out from them rust has made its way under paint, you will then end up with obvious depressions in the paint, unless you can somehow put back as many layers as you have removed, in addition to anything you then add over the whole lot, (not that easy!)

None the less, we did this with much of our last boat, and it was fine right up until she was sold.  But you could never have passed the result off as looking like what you would have got with a full professional "back to metal" repaint.

So it might be that 2% of a back-to-bare-metal repaint (£200 worth) actually needs doing to protect the steel, and the other 98% (£9800 worth) is done to avoid the cosmetic defect of having depressions in the paint around windows etc.?

Hmm... OK, so far I'm leaning towards the non-bare-metal option!

[blackrose]

1 hour ago, magictime said:

So it might be that 2% of a back-to-bare-metal repaint (£200 worth) actually needs doing to protect the steel, and the other 98% (£9800 worth) is done to avoid the cosmetic defect of having depressions in the paint around windows etc.?

No, because if you've ever undertaken all the prep required to get paintwork from the 98% acceptable appearance that Alan referred to, back to 100%, you'd know that it involves a lot more work than the missing 2%! His percentage referred to appearance rather than effort.

[magictime]

Just now, blackrose said:

No, because if you've ever undertaken all the prep required to get paintwork from the 98% acceptable appearance that Alan referred to, back to 100%, you'd know that it involves a lot more work than the missing 2%! His percentage referred to appearance rather than effort.

I take your point (that prepping and painting a whole boat is going to take a long time even if the existing paintwork is almost flawless - hence the cost), but surely Alan was talking about a situation where 98% of the cabin surface looks acceptable (not itself in need of repainting) and 2% has actually started to show rust damage. A situation where the cabin as a whole looks 98% acceptable, but for some reason you want to get it back to 100%, doesn't seem like the same thing.

[David Mack]

If you are DIYing its up to you to decide how much work you want to put in to remove the 'step' between stripped and unstripped areas. A professional painter who makes that decision could so easily get an unhappy client. 

And how can a professional painter guarantee that the existing paint which looks well adhered is actually going to last the lifetime of a back-to-metal job?

I think its understandable why many pros will only put their name to a full repaint.

[magictime]

39 minutes ago, David Mack said:

And how can a professional painter guarantee that the existing paint which looks well adhered is actually going to last the lifetime of a back-to-metal job?

Ah... in my ignorance I suppose I was looking at it more in terms of protecting steel from the outside (rain etc.). You're talking about the risk that if the existing paintwork isn't up to scratch, it might start bubbling up or whatever in spite of a couple of new coats of gloss sitting between it and the elements, presumably with the risk that it comes off taking the new paint with it - is that right? In which case, might it still make sense consider the 'rub down and re-gloss' option if you have reason to think the existing paintwork is of a good standard, e.g. because after a number of years it's maybe a bit faded, scuffed etc. but not peeling/bubbling/flaking?

I'm starting to get a sense of why bare metal is the 'gold standard' option, but for an extra £5000+ I still have the sense that it might be overkill if you're just addressing 'normal wear and tear' to decent quality paintwork, or maybe wanting to change a boat's colour scheme.

I dunno... I don't want to kid myself, but I'm probably looking at buying a boat in the 15-20 year old bracket and as such can expect some of the boats I view to look a bit tired in terms of paintwork, and/or to have colour schemes, signwriting, names etc. that I'd like to change. It would be very nice to think that in such cases, a budget of £2-3k would suffice to feel that the cabin was adequately protected and looking if not perfect, then good enough.

Edited August 27, 2017 by magictime

[WotEver]

27 minutes ago, magictime said:

I'm probably looking at buying a boat in the 15-20 year old bracket

Any boat of that age that hasn't had a back to metal repaint will need one. It will have rust patches in all the usual areas. 

[jddevel]

I`m due to have my sailaway "back to bare metal " painted in a few weeks initially due to modifications made (side hatch for example). However when we were pressure washing the hull with a "diy" type pressure washer prior to additional blacking over the intertuf16  (sprayed on as a basic primer coat)  we were, I must admit, surprise that some of the Selemix epoxy primer sprayed on the cabin flaked off in some places where the washer hit. It was applied approximately one year ago. So the decision to bare metal paint was only natural. However what would the forums members views be if the paint design planned included raised paint boarders some how around such things as windows/portholes and mushrooms. This would allow for specific treatment in years to come in areas more prone to others in rusting. 

[magictime]

43 minutes ago, WotEver said:

Any boat of that age that hasn't had a back to metal repaint will need one. It will have rust patches in all the usual areas. 

Hmm. OK, well I guess I should be looking for on-paper evidence of a 'proper' repaint then!

I don't understand why people don't make a bigger deal of painting if this is the case, though. I mean, anyone browsing the forum will soon get the message that a boat needing, say, a new baseplate, or a new engine and gearbox, is a boat you should run away from with all speed before you find yourself £10k out of pocket. But I've never known anyone to sound the alarm about the possibility that a second-hand boat in good condition might need a repaint in order to keep it that way.

Edited August 27, 2017 by magictime

[blackrose]

4 hours ago, magictime said:

I take your point (that prepping and painting a whole boat is going to take a long time even if the existing paintwork is almost flawless - hence the cost), but surely Alan was talking about a situation where 98% of the cabin surface looks acceptable (not itself in need of repainting) and 2% has actually started to show rust damage. A situation where the cabin as a whole looks 98% acceptable, but for some reason you want to get it back to 100%, doesn't seem like the same thing.

Well if the paintwork was 98% perfect then I probably wouldn't bother doing anything.

[blackrose]

1 hour ago, WotEver said:

Any boat of that age that hasn't had a back to metal repaint will need one. It will have rust patches in all the usual areas. 

I have to disagree with that. I've worked on boats that are over 100 years old and from what I could gather they never had a full back to metal repaint. We used to repaint them on a regular basis but only the parts that needed it were ever taken back to metal. Of course it's possible that over the long lives of these boats every single part had been taken back to metal, but it's also possible that beneath the glossy topsides lay primers of 20, 30, 40 years old, or even older.

1 hour ago, magictime said:

Hmm. OK, well I guess I should be looking for on-paper evidence of a 'proper' repaint then!

I don't understand why people don't make a bigger deal of painting if this is the case, though. I mean, anyone browsing the forum will soon get the message that a boat needing, say, a new baseplate, or a new engine and gearbox, is a boat you should run away from with all speed before you find yourself £10k out of pocket. But I've never known anyone to sound the alarm about the possibility that a second-hand boat in good condition might need a repaint in order to keep it that way.

Basically most ditch crawlers just aren't that precious about their paintwork. It's just a sewer tube after all.

[Richard10002]

2 minutes ago, blackrose said:

I have to disagree with that. I've worked on boats that are over 100 years old and from what I could gather they never had a full back to metal repaint. We used to repaint them on a regular basis but only the parts that needed it were ever taken back to metal. Of course it's possible that over the long lives of these boats every single part had been taken back to metal, but it's also possible that beneath the glossy topsides lay primers of 20, 30, 40 years old, or even older.

I agree.. my boat is 16 years old and, whilst I've painted the roof and handrails, (not back to bare metal), and it could do with some touching up, it doesnt need a back to metal repaint.

[magictime]

54 minutes ago, blackrose said:

Well if the paintwork was 98% perfect then I probably wouldn't bother doing anything.

Quite!

42 minutes ago, blackrose said:

I have to disagree with that. I've worked on boats that are over 100 years old and from what I could gather they never had a full back to metal repaint. We used to repaint them on a regular basis but only the parts that needed it were ever taken back to metal. Of course it's possible that over the long lives of these boats every single part had been taken back to metal, but it's also possible that beneath the glossy topsides lay primers of 20, 30, 40 years old, or even older.

OK, that's encouraging!

43 minutes ago, blackrose said:

Basically most ditch crawlers just aren't that precious about their paintwork. It's just a sewer tube after all.

...and if the only reason to go back to bare metal is that one is 'precious' about owning a perfectly smooth and shiny boat, I'm definitely not interested in spending the sort of money involved. It's if there's some significant benefit in terms of protecting the steel and ultimately the interior that I might think differently. It sounds like that's not the case, in your experience, but WotEver clearly has a very different opinion!

[WotEver]

1 hour ago, magictime said:

WotEver clearly has a very different opinion!

Not if all you want to do is to stop rust I don't. If you want a shiny boat then I do. Horses for courses. 

2 hours ago, blackrose said:

I have to disagree with that. I've worked on boats that are over 100 years old and from what I could gather they never had a full back to metal repaint. We used to repaint them on a regular basis but only the parts that needed it were ever taken back to metal. Of course it's possible that over the long lives of these boats every single part had been taken back to metal, but it's also possible that beneath the glossy topsides lay primers of 20, 30, 40 years old, or even older.

Fair enough, but those 100 year old boats suit the 'overpainted with various thicknesses of paint' look

A modern boat might not. 

It's personal choice after all. 

[MtB]

One of my boats is 27 years old and the paintwork is fine. 

No rust in any of the 'usual places'. 

[rusty69]

2 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

One of my boats is 27 years old and the paintwork is fine. 

No rust in any of the 'usual places'. 

Any in the unusual places? 

[magictime]

8 minutes ago, WotEver said:

Not if all you want to do is to stop rust I don't. If you want a shiny boat then I do. Horses for courses. 

Ah, OK. Thanks for the clarification. It was the bit about boats 'needing' a repaint that threw me.

[WotEver]

By way of example I was at a car meet a few weeks back. There were two identical models from 1952. One was completely untouched from new. It has only ever had one owner and he'd regularly serviced it but never had it repainted or re-upholstered. The paintwork was flat and almost see-through in places. Parked next to it was a car that had recently been fully restored from the chassis up. It was absolutely immaculate and looked as if it had just left the showroom. 

I admired the honesty of the original car and respect the owner's approach. However I MUCH preferred the restored one. Opinions of those I spoke to were mixed. Some preferred one while others the other way around.

5 minutes ago, Mike the Boilerman said:

One of my boats is 27 years old and the paintwork is fine. 

No rust in any of the 'usual places'. 

Bet I could find some

[magictime]

1 minute ago, WotEver said:

By way of example I was at a car meet a few weeks back. There were two identical models from 1952. One was completely untouched from new. It has only ever had one owner and he'd regularly serviced it but never had it repainted or re-upholstered. The paintwork was flat and almost see-through in places. Parked next to it was a car that had recently been fully restored from the chassis up. It was absolutely immaculate and looked as if it had just left the showroom. 

I admired the honesty of the original car and respect the owner's approach. However I MUCH preferred the restored one. Opinions of those I spoke to were mixed. Some preferred one while others the other way around.

I can see that. Still, IMHO you'd need to have a pretty strong preference for that shiny finish in order to accept an additional maintenance cost of £7k every 10 years (or whatever) compared to the non-shiny option. 

[WotEver]

5 minutes ago, magictime said:

I can see that. Still, IMHO you'd need to have a pretty strong preference for that shiny finish in order to accept an additional maintenance cost of £7k every 10 years (or whatever) compared to the non-shiny option. 

Agreed.

[cuthound]

When we had shared ownership boats,  they were simply flatted off and a new top coat or two added every year. Mainly because of scratches caused by boating in windy weather.

They still looked reasonably good after a repaint, but as it was always done in February/March, and the paint not left long enough to harden properly.

I would only go for a back to the metal repaint if rust was beginning to show around the windows down frames, and the rest of the paint was beginning to fail. 

My understanding is that most hire boats are painted in the same way as shared ownership boats.

[David Schweizer]

It is entirely up to you whether you go for an overpaint job, or a back to metal job, but I would encourage you to take a vey good look at all the places where exterior fittings are screwed to the cabin sides or roof, that is where any tell tale sides of possible future problems might arise. If there is any sign of pipmling or flaking, a paint over will not last much longer than the original paint would have done.

When I first aquired our boat, I wanted to paint over the original back cabin signwork and old name, I decided to sand back and re-paint, which actually took a lot longer than I thought it would. I carefully cleaned round the portholes and discovered that for every millimeter of rust broken surface, there was more than a centimetre of rust under the paint. I cleared all of this and applied a good propriety rust inhibiting paint before repainting. It looked fine for a couple of years, but then the rust started to re-appear, so when i decided to have the boat completely re-painted i went for a back to bare metal job, five years on there was still no sign of any paint deterioration around the portholes or any other places where rust was found by the painter.

As I said, it is your decision, but i would be interested to learn where you got your repaint quotes from, they seem a tad high to me. Although It was five years ago, since our boat was repainted. costs have not risen that much and I payed £100 a foot, including signwriting and decoration. I would suggest that you look around a bit more for a more competive price., we took our boat a long way from our mooring for a good job, but it was worth the two weeks each way. Of course you may have to wait up to a year for a good painter, someone who can do it in a few weeks time, is either charging too much, or has not got a very good repuation (cancelled slots notwithstanding)

Edited August 28, 2017 by David Schweizer

[Dr Bob]

59 minutes ago, David Schweizer said:

When I first aquired our boat, I wanted to paint over the original back cabin signwork and old name, I decided to sand back and re-paint, which actually took a lot longer than I thought it would. I carefully cleaned round the portholes and discovered that for every millimeter of rust broken surface, there was more than a centimetre of rust under the paint. I cleared all of this and applied a good propriety rust inhibiting paint before repainting. It looked fine for a couple of years, but then the rust started to re-appear, so when i decided to have the boat completely re-painted i went for a back to bare metal job, five years on there was still no sign of any paint deterioration around the portholes or any other places where rust was found by the painter.

 

I think this is typical of performance with current coatings.

We have recently bought a 15year old boat which has never been 'back to metal' coated since new. I have spent many days in the last few months scraping back around windows etc applying fertan, primer and 2 top coats (acrylic) but I know it is only a fix for a few years. The rest of the boat (95% in our case) is reasonably sound but the gloss has gone and looks flat - and the new paint is not the same as the original (same colour but the original has weathered). It is protecting the steel which will now not corrode too fast but at some stage will need a back to metal repaint as it will be very difficult to get a good defect free finish painting over all the patched areas.

Anyone talking about boats over 40 years old and paint performance - cant compare to present day boat performance. In those days we had red lead paint. Now we dont. Nothing performs as well in this environment without blasting and epoxy 2pack.

We've been quoted £6K for our 63ft boat for a back to metal but not sure we want a glossy painted boat!!

[MtB]

You don't have to have shiny new paint. International do a flattening additive to make new gloss paint Matt.