Robert Jones Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 I inspected a home today that was remodeled, to include a new roof installed, approximately 6 years ago. There is no tree coverage around the roof, ventilation was provided via continuous ridge vent and soffit vents. While I am familiar with the mid 90's Pabco issue, I am not aware of any other defective composition materials. Can anyone provide me with any feedback or information concerning defective composition shingle materials? This damage covered the entire south facing section of roof. The rest of the roof covering was in normal condition. Thanks, Click to View 125.97 KB Click to View 94.88 KB Click to View 113.03 KB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Whitmore Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 I usually see blisters like that (but in smaller areas) when there is very poor ventilation. The 3rd pic looks like pressure washer damage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Do you know the brand? I believe Certain Teed "shangles" had a history of issues like those shown in the photos. Bryan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWagar Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 I would echo Brandon's statement, I've seen blistering when there in insuficient ventilation and excess heat in the attic. Being only on the south side make me suspicious that heat may be the culprit. I don't see very many roof vents. Was there soffit ventilation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emalernee Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 bootsan, Does your area have hail storms and does the weather mostly come out of the south? We see south roof plane damage caused by hail in Ohio. Insurance will replace only the damaged side. What you show in the pictures could be old hail damage. I inspected a house last week that had the south side replaced with insurance money. Have to look at a roof next week for a homeowner that believes he should get a whole roof shingle replacement and not just the south plane, as the insurance company is allowing. Ezra Malernee Canton, Ohio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hausdok Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 I agree with Brandon; it looks almost like some wingnut got up there with a pressure washer. However, if it were that you'd expect to see it on both the north and south slopes. OT - OF!!! M. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Jones Posted January 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Thanks for the replies. It is strictly on the south side and there is a continuous ridge vent and soffit venting. However, the ceiling on the interior is vaulted and there is no viewable attic space. Supposedly they had a roofer take a look and he stated something about Elk shingles. It didn't make sense to me because I haven't read or heard anything about Elk(now GAF) shingles being defective. The first thing that came to mind was the pressure washing issue, but I think that would be evident in other areas of the roof if that were the case. This damage is very uniform, from the rake to the valley. It almost looks as if a giant sparkler was placed over that section, well without the burning effects/appearance. Just holes on every shingle. Here is another pic. Thanks again for your replies. Click to View 109.46 KB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeremy Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 To me it looks like a partial roof job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Bernhardt Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 I agree with Jeremy, those look every bit like old shingles. Are you sure they didn't just replace half of the roof? Chris, Oregon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Jones Posted January 15, 2009 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 I am not sure about complete replacement. The buyer was told, new roof 6 years ago. I told the buyer that no matter the cause, the damaged section needs to be replaced. For my own curiosity and knowledge, I just had to make sure I wasn't without knowledge of a recall or something of that nature. Here is a pic of the home from the front. It would just seem strange, not unheard of, but strange that they would just leave that section. For reference, it is the section facing you in the picture, on the left. Also a shot of the back side of the same roof. Thanks again for the replies. Click to View 77.18 KB Click to View 74.72 KB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Whitmore Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 That last pic does look like aged shingles well beyond their life expectancy, but I can't recall seeing arch. comp. shingles look like that, just very old 3 tab. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hausdok Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 The half roof is a possibility. I've found about a dozen homes over the years where the roofer only replaced the shingles on the north side - the side where moss and algae tear up roofs here and they wear out first. That's kind of a nice way to pad one's profit - replace only the north slope and perhaps clean the other slope and leave the homeowner thinking that it's an entirely new roof. It's not always the roofer, though; one a couple of those houses, the homeowner's actions subsequent to the discovery sort of tipped us off that the homeowner had 'sort of' left a small detail out of the disclosure statement. ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scottpat Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 It looks like an old roof. Look at the ridge cap and the vent. They look fairly new. I would bet that half of that roof was replaced 6 years ago and that the other half is around 15-20 years old. Cool looking house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neal Lewis Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Originally posted by hausdok ...moss and algae tear up roofs here and they wear out first. Mike The algae damages the shingles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hausdok Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Originally posted by Neal Lewis Originally posted by hausdok ...moss and algae tear up roofs here and they wear out first. Mike The algae damages the shingles? Sure does, Fungi produces oxalic acid to digest whatever it's growing on. Some types of fungi are worse than others; lichen for example. Lichen will usually grow wherever birds are crapping on the roof and when you remove it the protective granules come with it. Some types of alga eat limestone. Around here, a roof can look great except for areas that are shaded and covered with moss or alga. Leave it on too long and those areas will usually wear out far sooner than the rest of the roof. Where the south sides of a roof will wear out soonest in other parts of the country where there's a lot more sunlight; here, the opposite is true. You can have a roof that's 17 years old and the south side of the cover will look great and the north side will be covered with alga and look like it's stained with dirt or smoke and that side will look pretty bad. So, sometimes they'll only replace the north side. The problem with that is that eventually the south side will wear out and then the north side will look great and the south side is shot - like this one. Sometimes it's the roofer that does it without the owner realizing it,sometimes the owners know it and they just want to save money. Don't you get moss and alga where you are? ONE TEAM - ONE FIGHT!!! Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neal Lewis Posted January 15, 2009 Report Share Posted January 15, 2009 Mike, I guess I was thinking of the black, streaking type of algae growth. That's what we primarily get around here. I've never seen it cause wear. I've read this sort of explanation below several times. This is from the Certainteed site. "In certain moist areas, algae can grow on shingles. Although the algae has no proven effect on shingle life, it does stain or discolor the shingle. Commonly (and usually incorrectly) called fungus, this algae staining can be unattractive." . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.