[MassHistPres] (no subject)

[slater at alum.rpi.edu]

>The NR-listed Universalist Meeting House of
>Provincetown is considering
>using liquid vinyl on its steeple (www.liquidvinylsystem.com
> ), installed in New England by Permacoat
>New England (www.permacoatnewengland.com
> ). It is promoted as being similar to
>paint in appearance, but essentially a permanent coating of liquid
vinyl.
>It expands with the temperature, and is touted as being more breathable
than
>paint. They have asked for my opinion. I am rather skeptical, but was
>wondering is anyone has actually used it on an historic building.

I have heard bad things about this product. Here's a link to "Ask the
Builder":

http://www.askthebuilder.com/411_Miracle_Liquid_Siding_Products.shtml

Here's another:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62853-2004Nov19.html

I would say that the major drawback of this product is that the color of
the building becomes permanent. While that may not be a problem for a
church that will always be white, it severely restricts home colors from
changing in the future. Even if your district doesn't control paint
color, I think it should control a covering that permanently eliminates
the ability to paint a house. 

I have seen vinyl siding that looks exactly like cedar shingles, but I
would still not consider that appropriate for a historic house simply
because the color is fixed forever. One house may be fine in such a
siding, but given that tastes change, and given that artificial siding
is usually in light colors, an entire district of light unchangeable
colors seems like something to avoid.

Ralph Slate
Springfield, MA