Stealth Inflation: A Gallon of paint no longer a gallon

[Sunset]

A friend and I owned a house built just before 1900 in the late 1970s. We found when we redid the bathroom that the 2 X 4's really were 2" by 4". My friend, who had been doing DIY for years, knew that the ones they sold at the home improvement store were "nominal" 2 by 4s but that was the first time I'd heard of it. ....

+1
Had the same issue, finally went to a small mill to get wood cut to match. It was great, they even would cut 3x6 lumber for decking to match existing stuff.

 

[Philliefan33]

No need for you to retire if your job is to watch the paint peel! That's as good as the job of guy who works for Scotts and has to watch the grass grow.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

One would think. Maybe I'm bored?

 

[misty57]

We call it stealth inflation but MegaCorp calls it cost savings. Paper towel and toilet paper manufactures have been doing this for years. Less material in a "perceived" unit of measure while increasing the price.

Retailer ads sometimes break down the price per roll as if that tells you anything. I have always purchased based on the price per sq. ft. The problem is that you have to actually go into the store to find out what that is.

 

[6miths]

Imagine our disgust in Canada when we went from a 4.55 L Imperial gallon to a 3.78 L US gallon years ago. They didn't even go through the pretense of going to a 4 L can.

 

[ExFlyBoy5]

Although maybe not being ripped off in the paint department, it does happen. As a matter of fact, Lowe's got into some trouble for either mislabeling or ripping off the customer in some form or fashion recently. Let me see if I can find it...

Edit...here is the story. I think it was the lumber, which was not labeled with exact dimensions. This was in California, so I wouldn't say this is a normal 'fine' and I wouldn't classify this as ripping off customers.

http://claycord.com/2014/08/28/lowes-to-pay-1-6m-in-settlement-for-mislabeled-building-materials/

Sent from my mobile device so please excuse grammatical errors.

 

[misty57]

Stealth inflation has become common. In 2010, the smallest bottle of Dawn dish washing liquid was 11 oz. and could be found on sale regularly for $.99. Time went by and the amount in the bottle was reduced to 10.3, oz. and then to 9.5 oz., leaving more and more space between the liquid and the top of the bottle. When they went to 9.0 oz., they finally had to repackage the product in a smaller bottle because the lack of product in the larger bottle would have become blatantly obvious.

 

[NW-Bound]

I read the article in the following post,

... As a matter of fact, Lowe's got into some trouble for either mislabeling or ripping off the customer in some form or fashion recently. Let me see if I can find it...

Edit...here is the story. I think it was the lumber, which was not labeled with exact dimensions. This was in California, so I wouldn't say this is a normal 'fine' and I wouldn't classify this as ripping off customers.

Lowe’s to Pay $1.6M in Settlement for Mislabeled Building Materials —claycord CLAYCORD.com...

which then leads to the another article, Marin judge orders Lowe's Home Centers to pay $1.6 million settlement, which has the following excerpts.

The settlement, ordered by Marin Superior Court Judge Paul M. Haakenson, is the culmination of a civil enforcement action filed in Marin Superior Court and led by the district attorneys of Marin, Los Angeles, Monterey, San Joaquin and Stanislaus counties. It was alleged Lowe's stores throughout the state unlawfully advertised structural dimensional building products for sale, such as lumber, using incorrect product dimensions. In some instances, Lowe's advertisements restated misleading or inaccurate product dimensions provided by the manufacturers or suppliers...

Karen Cobb, spokesperson for Lowe's, said in a statement: "Periodically, representatives of local Weights and Measures departments visit retailers and they expressed concerns about common product measurements, such as a 2x4 piece of lumber... Historically, Lowe's provided information about product dimensions received from vendors. Moving forward, customers will now be able to locate product by actual and common dimensions as provided by vendors for certain building products. For example, for a piece of lumber commonly known as a 2X4, customers will see both the common name (2x4) and the actual product dimensions (1.5 x 3.5 inches).​

What the hell? For decades now, a "two by four" piece of stud is not really 2"x4" but 1.5"x3.5". Everybody says "2x4" while knowing that that the piece is really smaller. When was the last time that a stud was truly 2"x4"? Were the judge and district attorneys born yesterday? And why did they pick on Lowe's? What does Home Depot or any other lumber yard call the same piece? A "one-and-a-half by three-and-a-half"?

 

[Telly]

Midpack, I realize that you are just relaying the paragraph of info below, so I'll try not to shoot the messenger

.....From someone involved in the retail side of paint for a decade:

You're reading waaaaayyy too much into this!
* Tint-bases (tb) have varying fill-levels ON PURPOSE.
* Whiter/Lighter colors go into a "fuller" tint-base (often @ 124-128 oz. fill).
* This allows 2 oz. of colorant to be added...and leaves 2 oz. worth of "shaking/over-tinting" wiggle-room.
* You could view 132 oz. as a TOTALLY full gallon, but mixing would be very difficult!
* For medium colors, there's usually a couple medium-fill bases.
* The darkest colors go into the least full base, often @ a labeled 114-116 oz's!!
* This leaves room for a LOT more colorant for the real dark colors.

This explanation has two problems.

As I said up top, I don't think anyone is dropping 12 Oz. (1 1/2 cups!) of tint into a ~gallon of paint. I have never seen it. That is an incredible amount of tint. At that rate, store personnel would be changing out the tint canisters at a very fast rate... like might as well back up a tint-tanker to the back door

The second problem is simple volumetrics. Someone says there are 114 - 116 Oz. because dark colors can take so much tint to be added(!) to make... and yet the smaller amount of bases are coming now in shorter cans, that cannot take a gallon, because they are so small... hmmm, maybe those short squat cans are like Dr. Who's Tardus, bigger on the inside than the outside! I don't buy it.

I took a look around my place today to see what I have laying around, I measured can height versus marked volume. Some volumes I had multiple cans of. This is what I found:

128 Oz. 7 3/4" tall
126 Oz. 7 3/4" tall
124 Oz. 7 3/4" tall (one of these was a dark interior color)
122 Oz. none found
120 Oz. 7 3/4" tall (this one oddly enough was a light exterior color)

Since all of the above are in true one gallon cans, they might have come up close to a gallon when tint was added. But I really doubt the 120 Oz. can needed 8 Oz. of tint (1 cup!), and for a pretty light color!

But NONE of these that I have are in squat cans like I saw Wednesday. A squat can that is well under a gallon in volume will by definition not have room for a gallon. So if someone is telling me that a squat 114 Oz. can, with tint added, approaches a gallon (almost 2 cups more!), then they must be putting the tint into a Zip-Loc bag for the customer to take home and mix up themselves in some bigger container. Or they have invented a new scaled-down liquid measure... the Short Gallon, made of Short Ounces, Short Cups, etc. etc.

There is a paint guy I know I can trust, but I don't see him very often, and he is usually loaded with customers when I do, not a good time to talk about this topic with him. Sometime, when the opportunity presents itself, I'll quiz him on it.

Somewhat separately... every week I get a Lowe's sales ad in the mail. I noticed now that they never say "Gallon". The only reference to volume is in the text, where it says 114 or 116 Fl. Oz. The word "Gallon", the standard measure of paint, has disappeared.

 

[Midpack]

There is a paint guy I know I can trust, but I don't see him very often, and he is usually loaded with customers when I do, not a good time to talk about this topic with him. Sometime, when the opportunity presents itself, I'll quiz him on it.

We look forward to your findings after that discussion.

You might be surprised at how much tint is required for some colors (see below), and not knowing what each customer will specify, the base volume has to accommodate the worst case/most tint.

I don't disagree with your general observation (and noted same in another post), but using paint base gallons isn't a straightforward example, there are good reasons for all the different ounces per gallon can. Again I am not a paint expert, but I wonder if tintable base paints ever were 128 ounces. If they were, you always had more than a gallon after tinting, way more if you chose a dark color.

A tintable white may accept up to four fluid ounces of tint per gallon, while a neutral or clear base may have no titanium dioxide present and can take up to sixteen ounces or more of tint. Using a base that was formulated to be tinted without any added tint will result in poor performance, not white paint.

Touching All the Bases | Northwest Renovation

PaintInfo | Caution Notes | Paint Colorants and Problems with Tints

 

[Philliefan33]

Telly, I haven't been in a paint store lately so I haven't seen the squat cans you have seen. I will keep an eye out for them.

But let me assure you that some colors do need 12 oz of tint. In fact one of my current projects uses 14 oz of tint per gallon of paint, as specified by the paint company. I make the tint base, then for tinting I mix about 2/3 cup tint base with about 1/4 cup tint. (We work in grams so it is 250 g paint / 50.5 g tint. But that varies as the density of the base and tints vary).

Of course if the packaging has changed, everything gets scaled down. But the cans will still be short-filled so there is room for the tint.

Does anyone remember when Dutch Boy sold 1.5 gallon containers of paint? That was actually a perfect size for interior painting. A typical bedroom requires more than a gallon of paint for a good two-coat job,but well short of two gallons. I don't see that packaging anymore in the US so customers must have resisted.

 

[JoeWras]

I used to love "Dial" soap. When they were mostly independent, they provided good, solid shaped bars.

Then one year - What The Hell? - the bar started getting these little dents inserted into them. I called up and complained, and the nice lady had some excuses, but basically said "Everyone is doing it."

Fast forward to today. The bars are ridiculous. They have all sorts of carvings taken out of them. It sure as heck isn't to hold it better in your hand. It is to make it big, but with less product.

I trace this all back to when Henkel took them over. Corporate greed. Looks like Europeans are as good at it as Americans.

 

[imoldernu]

The obfuscation has many miles (kilometers) to go before we will catch up on the comparison of sizes and volumes.

Consider yourself super savvy about stealth inflation if you can answer these questions without the internet or a calculator.

How many ounces in1.75 liters?
What does 10 degrees Centigrade equal on the Fahrenheit scale?
How much do you weigh in kilograms?
100 grams equals how many ounces?
50 MPH equals how many Kilometers?

So when the cost of Sirloin is measured in ounces... and the price is $.60/.oz... is that better than $9/lb.?

We have a long way to go. Some may remember the attempt in 1975 to institute metrification... Didn't pass the public acceptance test then, which leaves open the manipulation of weights and measures in the marketplace for the foreseeable future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_Conversion_Act

 

[sengsational]

Retailer ads sometimes break down the price per roll as if that tells you anything. I have always purchased based on the price per sq. ft. The problem is that you have to actually go into the store to find out what that is.

Even per square foot is useless if it's two different brands (they just make it thinner). It required pencil and paper to figure out whether Bounty paper towels were cheaper at Sam's or BJ's since the roll sizes were different. And yeah, you had to go to the store to get the data off of the packaging.

So when the cost of Sirloin is measured in ounces... and the price is $.60/.oz... is that better than $9/lb.?

This one gets me all of the time. The big size is dollars per quart and the little one is dollars per ounce, or something like that.

 

[MRG]

I read the article in the following post,


which then leads to the another article, Marin judge orders Lowe's Home Centers to pay $1.6 million settlement, which has the following excerpts.
.....snip good stuff......

What the hell? For decades now, a "two by four" piece of stud is not really 2"x4" but 1.5"x3.5". Everybody says "2x4" while knowing that that the piece is really smaller. When was the last time that a stud was truly 2"x4"? Were the judge and district attorneys born yesterday? And why did they pick on Lowe's? What does Home Depot or any other lumber yard call the same piece? A "one-and-a-half by three-and-a-half"?

I don't understand the ignorance of such suits. Your points are spot on, it's been called a 2x4 for eternity. In dried and planed lumber the dimensions have been mostly the same for a century. (Thanks ERD50).

If the same group ever looked at how board feet are calculated, it would take years/decades for them to decide.

One of the re-manufacture methods I frequently used depended on how board footage was calculated. Given the correct widths I could turn one 8' length board that contained 3 board feet, into two 4' boards that contained 2 board feet each. If it results in the same grade and all you do is cut the board in half, gain an extra board foot why not(if you're the manufacturer)?

 

[Midpack]

Given the correct widths I could turn one 8' length board that contained 3 board feet, into two 4' boards that contained 2 board feet each.

How? I assume we're talking cutting one board in half, my math says you end up with the same total board feet (even ignoring kerf).

 

[MRG]

How? I assume we're talking cutting one board in half, my math says you end up with the same total board feet (even ignoring kerf).

Easy based upon how board feet are calulated in NHLA rules for rough sawn lumber. It's just rounding. We're going to cutting this board in half lengthwise, proper pratice gives a couple of inches to play with.

The simple calcution for 4/4 or 1" lumber is length in feet x width (measued to 1/8 inch) this gives you units(1"x12 ") then divide by 12 to turn into board footage. The trick is a board foot in non dimensional lumber is rounded to the nearest board foot.

So a board 8 foot long by 4 3/4 inches wide is 38 units(1"x12"). Divide by 12 that equals 3 and 1/6 board feet. That rounds down to 3 board feet.
If it's 1 board 4 foot long by 4 3/4 inches wide is 19 units(1"x12"), divide by 12 is 1 7/12 units, that gets rounded up to two board feet. Then add in the second piece you now have a rounded up to 4 board feet. It's the exact same area that's being measured, rounding messes it up from how we logically think.

Don't know if the same rules apply to dimensional lumber. Even if they do I can't think of an existing dimension piece that would have the issue.

I also can't say how lumber yards do it after it's been planed and ready for retail, I'm describing how it's sold.

 

[Midpack]

I didn't realize lumber yards rounded to the nearest foot, I learned something, thanks.

 

[harley]

How many ounces in1.75 liters?

I knew this one, but I killed those particular brain cells before I finished the bottle.

 

[ItDontMeanAThing]

I've seen 'measure lines', e.g. pint, half pint, on glasses. IIRC such lines are required in England. Graphics on packaging could give an easy indication of stealth inflation. Require manufactures to use a bar or pie graph showing the percentage of a "standard measure", e.g., for comparing to a gallon, if the contents were a gallon the pie graph would be 100% filled in, if the contents were 92% of a gallon, the pie would have 92% filled in. Or the same info could be included in the QR code.

It wouldn't surprise me if the disabilities act could be interpreted to require this.

Defining what 'standard measures' are acceptable would open a hornets nest.

 

[beachlovingal]

I learned about paint unexpectedly as well. Nice plus for this little school teacher.