The product listings are regularly updated with specific products being added or deleted with each update. Some of these changes are the result of manufacturers playing around with their formulations.
Although this does give me some confidence, it is also somewhat disheartening to have a familiar product disappear.
Sorry, but I refuse to use MPI unless specifically required by clients. It is not a useful tool, manufacturers are being held hostage and we are not receiving useful information. For example: Who cares about abrasion resistance of a primer; if it’s not going to receive a top coat, it probably won’t be abraded. Still any manufacturer who wants to be listed must pay a monopoly to test a product. My understanding is that many manufacturers have had their MPI failed products tested at independent testing labs with passing grades. The entire process is suspect. Folks, take the time to learn your project, determine the products that best suit your needs, and support the manufacturers who provide you with good product and good service. Then start leaning on the industry to develop a real, quantifiable set of standards. That’s the only thing that works in other parts of our industry.
I strongly agree with Ken on some points, strongly disagree on others.
As to the MPI system in general, Ken expresses my opinion entirely. Seriously, its about as time consuming to go through understanding their system in its entirety (which you must do to do any good for yourself) as it is to simply sit down with the major paint manufacturers in your region of practice and go through comparisons with them (where you make them compare and accept each others paints in the same generic type).
My head starts to hurt with the former, only my voice may hurt with the latter.
Indeed, we must be responsible and know the products and know the project. But leaning on the manufacturers to make something happen? Doing this with paints since 1976 and knowing I am not doing it alone, and knowing exactly what other and how many other really major architectural firms have done this has not produced anything. Not in this particular industry nitch anyway (paints).
In some industries, especially smaller industries and more importantly those that are closly involved with the architectural process that this can work - leverage is there in the form of it benefits them monetarily to respond to our requests. There are even some nitch areas of the paint industry itself that this can work.
But general painting? Architectural applications of general paints is not where the money is. They could almost totally ignore us and still be extremely successful.
Don’t get me wrong, there are manufacturers (and more importantly their product reps) that I really respect. I know that they go out of their way to provide assistance.
But lets get serious about leaning on the paint industry in the area of general field painting standards. That’s just not going to happen if it has not happened in the last 30 years.
William
It’s easy to take pot shots by making claims that can’t be “disproven.” The fact is, in many industries there are issues with the repeatibility of test results, and these do need to be addressed. (One major example is STC ratings of door and window products.) But this test done at an “independent lab,” even if supporting the paint manufacturer’s position, will most likely never be made available to the specifier. This is because of the paint industries Omerta (code of silence) regarding testing of their products.
Yes, good paint reps are extremely helpful–as are good reps in any industry. But they’re as much in the dark as we are regarding the performance of architectural finishes.
If manufacturers don’t want to play in MPI’s sandbox, there are plenty of ASTM standards that they can test to, and share results with specifiers who wish to compare performance. For example (forgive my abbreviation of titles):
D2486 for scrub resistance,
D3450 for washability,
D3928 for sheen or gloss,
D4213 abrasion,
D4400 sag resistance,
D5150 hiding of roller-applied paint,
D6736 burnish resistance, and
D4946 resistance to blocking.
That’s just a smattering of the ASTM tests that are available to manufacturers that they can have done by (or observed by) any independent lab that they choose. However, I doubt there’s any specifier or architect who has ever seen any of these except perhaps on a rare occasion. I know I have repeatedly asked for these for years–never seen a one.
Yes, MPI in combination with Masterspec is cumbersome to use. However, once one has gone through it a couple of times, it becomes relatively easy.
I simply cannot garner any sympathy for manufacturers who bristle at the supposed monopoly, costs or inconvenience of MPI. They chose to play the game this way, and now that they’re being challenged they’re starting to cry. Boo hoo!
I have been listing paint products by MPI number and going to the MPI “Product index by Category” and selecting products. I don’t think it is completely appropropriate to require bidding contractors to go through and make these selections at least until this standard settles down a bit. (but this last thought could use more discussion).
I also have paint manufacturers review my schedule of products. I recently learned that MPI number 135 has no listings, which did have listings previously. The category had product listings then dwindled down to one listing and now there are no listings.
What gives?
I made a conscious decision years ago to restrict my paint products to national brands, such as SW, BM, and ICI, that I trust and that have large R&D budgets. In Part 2 for basis of design I specify the products from one brand by their name for each of the subtrates encountered and gloss levels required. Even if I specified proprietary from one brand, I have competition between painting contractors.
I am sure I am not the only one who uses this approach and I may be missing out on some equally good products, but frankly Scarlet, I don’t give a damn.
I should say at this point ALL my clients are private.
MPI does make available certain advantages that are not related to their product listings. For example, I routinely use MPI’s descriptions for gloss levels or surface preparation or repainting.
Their guide specs also offer some useful wording examples for describing general requirements for color selection to bidders when the colors have not been selected at time of bidding. These general requirements work very well to describe intent when combined with a room finish and color schedule. Go to www.paintinfo.com.
Wayne
Wayne,
Don’t forget KM.
If you get a substitution request for a certain paint product, how do you evaluate it?
Kelly Moore, Frazee, Dunn-Edwards, and probably others I don’t know, are well known brands in the west, but are not available nationally. If you want national brands, ICI, S-W and Ben Moore are more or less it.
Paint substitutions cannot be properly evaluated because there is no objective basis (other than MPI) to do so.