No primer before painting - is it a disaster

C

CMK

Registered User
Messages
219
Is not applying a primer to bare wood (banisters) before painting it - a complete disaster. My sister has just done this - unknown to her husband yet! Is this a complete disaster or will it have to be redone again. She has two coats applied already!! It looks ok but she is just a wee bit worried.

Any replies appreciated.
 
CMK said:
Is not applying a primer to bare wood (banisters) before painting it - a complete disaster. My sister has just done this - unknown to her husband yet! Is this a complete disaster or will it have to be redone again. She has two coats applied already!! It looks ok but she is just a wee bit worried.

Any replies appreciated.
Click to expand...

When in doubt always read the instructions.

Complete and utter disaster.

Primer is the glue that holds paint onto the wood.
 
No problem if the paint applied is a good quality paint. You said it looks well. I presume that means that there are no lumps, no flaking. It will be perfect. No one will ever know unless you tell them.

Primer is only intended to make the wood less porous - it is NOT the glue that holds paint on to wood. A good quality paint will adhere perfectly to bare wood.
 
CMK said:
Is not applying a primer to bare wood (banisters) before painting it - a complete disaster. My sister has just done this - unknown to her husband yet! Is this a complete disaster or will it have to be redone again. She has two coats applied already!! It looks ok but she is just a wee bit worried.

Any replies appreciated.
Click to expand...

Perfectly fine usually, if decent paint/varnish used.

Primer only helps seal raw timber so that is doesn't absorb too much of the finish coat/s.
 
It's not ideal but it may not be a complete disaster either.

But the instructions on all paints will require primers or undercoats on bare wood... so is this to be taken with a pinch of salt? Is it like the shampoo companies saying 'rinse and repeat' when that is considered pointless?

Are the paint companies saying 'always use undercoat' simply so that people buy more undercoat even if it's not required?


I think the job could go wrong in the end.. and it can't be fixed. But at the same time it may be ok.. it does depend on the brand of paints and how well it's adhered to the bare wood.


But I can't imagine anyone recommending that people save money by not using undercoats.
 
Thanks for all the replies - S.L.F. not a complete and utter disaster - thankfully I only saw your reply today. It turned out fabulous - she went to paint shop and got their advise - no primer was not the end of the world. Her husband painted it twice more with an acrylic eggshell paint and it looks fab! Both delighted with it.
 
I came across this site today
[broken link removed]

an American guy but he seems very knowledgeable about all a

Incidentally, he says he has tested 14 primers and none of them perform as well as simple paint on bare plasterboard. He recommends Zinsser Gardz for bare plasterboard.
 
tosullivan said:
ya but they would have turned out better if you'd used primer
Click to expand...

^^^This

The reality is that professionals (me included) think long term not short term.

If you want the paint work to be ok in 3 or 4 years time you must use a primer.

Cracking of paint is normally cause by the paint not sticking to the wood.

Some painters use undercoat which has been watered down with white spirit (dries very fast) which works well too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top