Hi there,
I just bought a house and it came with a 36′X18′ swimming pool that
badly needs replastering. I’m new at this and confused about
whether to replaster or go with tiling. The pool is approximately
600 square feet. Half of the pool is about 3 feet and the other
half is 8 1/2 feet deep. I had an estimate of $5,500 to strip the
old plaster and replaster it. Or spend $9,500 for tiles. This
price does not include coping. The coping is in perfect condition.
The pool guy said plastering will last 8-10 years, where as tiles
last a lifetime. Anyone out there know if tile is the way to go, or
is it more reasonable to go with plaster? And is the price he
quoted me for tiling is a good deal? I thought tiling for my pool
size will run close to $20,000. Thanks in advance.
Johnny
Tile vs. Plaster
February 22nd, 2005 · 3 Comments
Tags: pumps
3 responses so far ↓
1 janis_40 // Feb 28, 2005 at 6:42 pm
In a message dated 9/21/2003 11:16:23 PM Central Daylight Time,
lwps16@… writes:
I see plaster only two years old fail due to lack of
proper care, or also excessive use of metal out, water needs a
certain amout of minerals, and when removed 100 %, the water will
suck the minerals out of the plaster.
Agreed, plaster needs a certain chemical balance for longevity and an
important part of that is the mineral content of the water. Many people in the
southwest fill their pools with soft water and over a long period of time this
can
actually damage the plaster because soft water with it’s llack of minerals is
termed aggressive and will actually seek a source of minerals. That source is
your plaster leaving it etched and rough.
On the flip side too many minerals will also damage the plaster. Calcium
will collect over time and leave the surface rough but the great thing about
plaster is that you can do an acid wash and some sanding and it will almost look
new. No other pool surface will do that and none are as forgiving as
plaster plus if it really gets bad you can paint it with a good quality epoxy
pool
paint and get another eight years out of it. The only other surface that even
comes close is fiberglass.
Ken
2 janis_40 // Mar 2, 2005 at 9:39 am
In a message dated 9/22/2003 9:16:46 AM Central Daylight Time,
kglosser@… writes:
As a consumer (not a pro) I still think plaster carries a lot of unnecessary
risk when compared to more “modern” surfaces….the cost of most of these
surfaces has come way down and the cost differences between many of them and
plaster is small.
Personal opinion is that plaster is a very forgiving surface. Throw five
pounds of cheap cal-hypo in the shallow end of a plaster pool and what will
happen! Nothing, it will sit there until it dissolves. Do the same thing to
your
nice medium blue Pebble-Tek surface. You will have a nice bleached spot
where the chlorine took the color out of the surface and discolored the
aggregate and the sad part it that the stain will not go away. Do not laugh I
have
known some people who would do something just like that and then get mad at
the pool builder. They are also the ones who pour acid in the pool while
standing. That reminds me acid will also discolor your fancy surfaces but
plaster
will remain largly unharmed.
Yes you are correct in stating that the newer surfaces will last but the
warranty does not cover acts of stupidity and do not feel like I am slamming
pool
owners hell even the pros do dumb things one in a while.
If properly cared for any surface is good and each has drawbacks and
advantages.
Ken
3 janis_40 // Mar 6, 2005 at 11:01 am
In a message dated 9/22/2003 12:36:40 PM Central Daylight Time,
palmtree_3@… writes:
Mother was a nut about maintenance and it rubbed off on me….I’ve NEVER had
a pool problem and by staying on top of things I’ve never had to do a lot
of
work.
Hey, not to slam the guys but most of the people I know who have pools the
wives do a better job than the guys in normal maintenance. I have yet to see a
lady do a sand change!
Ken
You must log in to post a comment.