It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Xaphan
Anyways, I digress. 1,972 at two coats each time brings us to a total of 3,944 coats. The average coat of paint is 0.005 inches thick (thanks Wikipedia). 3,944 x 0.005 = 19.72 inches. I paint all four walls, and the ceiling, which means that a total of five surfaces are growing larger. 19.72 x 5 = 98.6. Each room has lost 98.6 inches of space in total. Will I have to reduce the price? I'm thinking that if I knocked $20 off for every inch lost I would only lose $1,972.
originally posted by: ManFromEurope
*thousand yards stare out of the window*
Do I dare make a joke? No.
Do I dare to inquire what those 2000 linings might look like if cut? Why not, could be a piece of art.
And yes, I do try to stop imagining how a room like that might look like, if you would take a grinding machine to work at a wall.
I really hope that you didn't use just boring plain white paint for every layer...
originally posted by: Ceeker63
Maybe you should have started with a smaller canvas. Possibly selling them over the last years.
originally posted by: kosmicjack
One thing is for sure, if your interior is painted many different colors, it won't show well and will be harder to sell. And if there are aesthetic anomolies due to over-painting, that won't help either.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
a reply to: Xaphan
I think it more hurts the resale value from the fact that there thousands of coats of paint as opposed how much they reduced the square footage.
I had seven to ten coats of paint on all the woodwork in our Victorian and that was still a massive undertaking to remove them. I would not even contemplate buying a house like yours.