# Shingles butted too close together?



## itwerx2 (Apr 3, 2007)

This is a continuation of another thread with the same title in the roofing section at contractorttalk.com. 

There are some pictures posted over there already but here are a few more. (You can click on them to enlarge them for a better look).

In addition to what was talked about at ct.com, I'm still wondering what type of installation error would account for shingles being buckled like this.

Thanks.


----------



## handy man88 (Jan 23, 2007)

Are you sure these are not asphalt shingles made to look like genuine cedar shingles?


----------



## Ed the Roofer (Jan 27, 2007)

On these 2 newest photos, I do not see any "buckling" as you stated. The textured look and the raised portions of the shingles are how the "architectural" shingles are designed to look.

If you are misperceiving the end resultant aesthetics of the roof, you should get a list of the same brand of shingles and preferably the the same color and a similar slope to make sure you have a valid complaint.

If you have a specific shingle or section on these photos, please resubmit them with the exact are circled to point out which area you are questioning.

Ed


----------



## itwerx2 (Apr 3, 2007)

Hi Ed: The buckling, bulging, not laying flat, is clear in the upper 3 or 4 rows of shingles in the close-up shot. Yes, the shingles lower down look better. The open bulges/fishmouths are as much as 2 inches high. Can stick your fingers into them. If you click on the picture to enlarge it, I don't think you can miss this.

In the picture from farther back, I was trying to show the buckling/gap area near the lower right hand corner of the roof. Probably should have taken that shot closer in.

The original pictures I posted at ct.com are some better pictures of the buckled areas such as this one (again click to enlarge for a better look):


----------



## itwerx2 (Apr 3, 2007)

Ed- concerning your other thought, yes, of course, I have looked at many, many other new roofs with similar materials and construction. I probably now have a deformed neck from spending so much time bent and looking up. Before this reroofing was done, that was how I got the idea to use the Tamko Heritage 30 Yr. shingles.

In fact, in selecting these shingles I told the roofer about some houses I liked and he drove by and looked and told me what the shingles were. That's what we got. Except that other job (5 houses in a small PUD, done by a different roofer ) all look great. 

There's another pretty good size development full of this style of shingles, in many different colors, near here. I think I've looked at most of them. I can tell you there is nothing that looks anything like what we have here in terms of "end result aesthetics."

Your comment that "this is how the shingles are designed to look" amazes me a little. Even the roofer that did the work has acknowledged the problems. Were just not in agreement as to how the problems should be remedied. Maybe my photographic skills need to be upgraded.

And as of just this Monday, the roof failed the city inspection for the second time (the first was in Dec.) with "unsealed shingles " being one of the defects cited.

Thanks .


----------



## Ed the Roofer (Jan 27, 2007)

Okay, I expanded the image and see the top 4 rows way distorted.

The most recent photo you added looks like crap too. 

It almost looks like they installed excessively short exposure on the photo depicting the distorted top 4 rows. That may be an illusion due to the angle of the photo, but you might want to measure the exposure of the courses of the shingles to see if they are what the manufacturer recomended in their specifications. If they are shortened rows, that may account for the adhesive not being located in the correct position and therefor being unable to seal correctly. What were the temperatures during the installation time period?

Did you save one bundle or wrapper from the original installation to verify the company actually was the Tamko, Heritage line of shingles? That would also further document your case against the installer.

Ed


----------



## itwerx2 (Apr 3, 2007)

Ed - The exposure of the shingles is OK but the consensus of everyone who has been here and looked at the buckled shingles is, as you raised in your post, partially temperature/stiffness related. 

The shingles were stored on the ridge of the roof for a week with the nights getting below freezing before work began. The days warmed up somewhat but was still pretty cold in the mornings. People here are saying a combination of the shingles being applied too cold and too close together is the cause of a lot of the buckling . They also say anything still there now 5 months after the install is not going away.

I say the "too cold/too close" explanation is "partial" because just this weekend some other factors became known. A roofer was here to give me an estimate and did a pretty thorough inspection. He pulled up one of the badly buckled shingles (different area from these pictures) and found a nail from the old roof sticking up causing that particular buckle. So that now gets on the list as another cause of whats going on here.

Then in other buckled areas he could feel/see that the deck had not been properly cleaned. He said there was "trash"underneath and that was causing the buckling there. He also said some of the gaps and buckling at the rakes was due to "trash under there" too. The rest was nails sticking up at the top of the fascia. 

He also looked at the shingles I noted in the lower right corner of the "farther back" of the two pictures posted in this thread. He said they were damaged and should have been tossed, not installed.

The shingles are Tamko. I had the local Tamko rep here to look at them a few days after the installation was done to see if the material was good. He said it was. He was hesitant to comment on the workmanship per se for understandable reasons but did say, "Everybody has a bad day." 

So I think I pretty much have the buckled shingle problem nailed down (no pun intended.)


----------



## parkerfairfield (Apr 28, 2007)

what state are you in?

what's the license # of the roofer?

tell him you're going to go to the licensing board and have his license revoked if he doesn't fix it...

if he says he won't tell him that you'll get a 3rd party company with video camera to video the Tear Off ... and when there are old nails, debris, etc... and you show it to the licensing board, at a minimum he'll get seriously spanked.

Buy a URL with <roofername>sucks.com and show the pics on it... and call him up (this will cost you $15, and some time with front page). Tell him that you're going to pay Google Adwords $15/month for roofer in his area unless he fixes it for free.

Tell him you'll pay a flier company in your neighborhood to pass out pics of his work and your website about how he sucks unless ...

Tell him you'll go to Service Magic, BBB and ANGIES LIST and complain --> pointing to your URL. 

Run a background check on him (about $100) and find anyone else who has had a bad experience and get them to join you.

Next time, don't buy on price. Buy from a CERTIFIED roofer. go to www.Certainteed.com and buy from a SELECT roofer - if you had done that Certainteed would be OBLIGATED to pay for worker install error (had you bought the 5star warrantee)


----------



## parkerfairfield (Apr 28, 2007)

ED, IMO this is cold cold shingles going on by a moron butted as tight as possible. 

not to mention a tamale or two underneath


----------

