# Sherwin Williams COPPER BOTTOM ANTI-FOULING PAINT #45



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Sherwin Williams COPPER BOTTOM ANTI-FOULING PAINT #45.
Has anybody used this paint in the tropics? Have you met anyone who has? Though I cannot find a price for this paint anywhere online, it is rumored to cost under us$100.00 per gallon!
If this product is even a quarter as effective as claimed, it would be 10 times better than Sea Hawk Island 44 or any other paint anybody I know has used down here in the tropics, at a quarter the price.
It even comes in 5 gallon drums!
A decent paint at a fair price? Tell me it's so, please.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Cant see a price on google

Copper Bottom Anti-Fouling Paint #45 - Protective & Marine


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

Post 66 and 69 on Anti foul, bottom paint, soft, medium or hard? - Cruisers & Sailing Forums


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

Looked and can't find a price either. Will try to go to Sherman Williams store when I can and report back if I get any information. Looked at economics of this and think much depends on how often you haul and where. For us what has worked out is:
Use multiple coats of ablative with highest Cu % when north and having a haul. Three on leading and trailing edges. Two elsewhere.
Use something with tin and hauling south.
Removing bottom paint is a PITA. Not a fan of hard for cruising boats. Makes sense for racers and those with bigger budgets than me. Water based stuff is being forced on us so brought a bunch of the old stuff and it has the better anti slime. Don't know what I'll do when it's gone. If stripping is done Do it yourself you run risk of going through epoxy coat. Depending on where you are there maybe restrictions on how and who can do it. Containing and disposal of residue etc.
Hence a practical sailor checked multi year ablative may end up cheaper in the long run. Personally like the 66 but find the anti slime effect and grass at waterline not so good as in the past. Use a light touch with a terry cloth rage which serves. Try not to see black clouds. Use a bendy plastic scraper with side edges ground off for rare hard growth. Only thing I can't keep clean is bow thruster. Put Velox plus on it last haul. Too soon to comment.


----------



## miatapaul (Dec 15, 2006)

I stopped by a local store last fall to get info, and they knew nothing about it, but assured me that they would get back to me, but never did. But this does not sound like it would be great in the tropics here is there description:



> Used for moderate tropical fouling conditions where a moderately high concentration loading of cuprous oxide is required. Used as an anti-fouling coating over prepared surfaces such as steel, wood, aluminum, fiberglass, and previously painted surfaces coated with anti-fouling paint. Use on vessels with a service speed of less than 10 knots.


moderate tropical fouling conditions does not sound encouraging. Have you heard anything about PPG ABC #3 (they have other #s but I don't know the difference). PPG makes some pretty good professional paints and it is supposed to get good results in Hawaii. About 130 a gallon, and is also available in 5 gallon cans.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Cant see a price on google
> 
> Copper Bottom Anti-Fouling Paint #45 - Protective & Marine


Yep, I found that too. I also read up on their their commercial antifouling for vessels that travel over 10 knots so they seem to have been in the biz for some time.
I like that it's a tropical formula, not some 'good for everybody, everywhere' paint.


----------



## MarkSF (Feb 21, 2011)

"If this product is even a quarter as effective as claimed, it would be 10 times better than Sea Hawk Island 44 or any other paint anybody I know has used down here in the tropics"

So they're claiming it's 40 times as effective as any other paint? I can't seem to find that in the marketing material.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

MarkSF said:


> "If this product is even a quarter as effective as claimed, it would be 10 times better than Sea Hawk Island 44 or any other paint anybody I know has used down here in the tropics"
> 
> So they're claiming it's 40 times as effective as any other paint? I can't seem to find that in the marketing material.


Here, I'll try to simplify it enough so you can understand it.
I said, "If this product is even a quarter as effective as claimed, it would be 10 times better than Sea Hawk Island 44 or any other paint anybody I know has used down here in the tropics, at a quarter the price." I said that because neither I nor anybody else I've talked to down here has had even moderate antifouling results from any of the common antifouling products available (see my previous posts on the subject).
Read their product data sheet for what they claim, if you care, which I don't see why you would because last time I checked Frisco was not tropical and this is a paint formulated for the tropics ("Used for moderate tropical fouling conditions"), no matter what San Francisco''s clamorous bottom cleaner believes!


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

capta said:


> I said that because neither I nor anybody else I've talked to down here has had even moderate antifouling results from any of the common antifouling products available


I agree with that!! At $1,000 just for the paint for a 40 footer e are being ripped off!


----------



## MarkSF (Feb 21, 2011)

capta said:


> Here, I'll try to simplify it enough so you can understand it.
> I said, "If this product is even a quarter as effective as claimed, it would be 10 times better than Sea Hawk Island 44 or any other paint anybody I know has used down here in the tropics, at a quarter the price." I said that because neither I nor anybody else I've talked to down here has had even moderate antifouling results from any of the common antifouling products available (see my previous posts on the subject).
> Read their product data sheet for what they claim, if you care, which I don't see why you would because last time I checked Frisco was not tropical and this is a paint formulated for the tropics ("Used for moderate tropical fouling conditions"), no matter what San Francisco''s clamorous bottom cleaner believes!


The principle anti-fouling ingredient of these two bottom paints is copper (unless you were using the Sea Hawk that also has TBT). One of these products is 45% copper, and the other is 47% copper, the latter being the Sea Hawk. So it remains to ask whether a paint that has 2% less copper is likely to be 10 times as effective. If we're comparing to the TBT formulation of Sea Hawk, we are asking how a product with 2% less copper, AND no TBT, would be 10 times as effective. I don't know, but I can make an educated guess....

Could it be possible that you are just in a really difficult environment for bottom paints?

For a paint with more or less the same amount of copper to be 10 times as effective, it would have to release it 10 times more quickly. I don't think you'd be happy with a 3 month lifetime for the paint.


----------



## ebourg (Dec 3, 2015)

I think this may be the material that the folks from "sailing uma" on youtube used. They did a clip on the product and how they applied it. Might want to check with them on how it works, I believe they are down around Miami currently but I'm not certain.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

MarkSF said:


> . I don't think you'd be happy with a 3 month lifetime for the paint.


You know, I think I might just be very happy with 3 months at that price! Last two bottom jobs with Sea Worthless (@ 4 X the price), a third of it had fallen off in 3 months, after being professionally applied. And we aren't alone.


----------



## MarkSF (Feb 21, 2011)

For an honest paint at a fair price, have you looked at the Jamestown Distributors' own brand, Total Boat?


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

Bottom paint claims are hype. You need a diver with all of them. Take away.... use hardest paint... paint only every 3 yrs and let a diver take care of your bottom! Way more effective and way less expensive.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

SanderO said:


> Bottom paint claims are hype. You need a diver with all of them. Take away.... use hardest paint... paint only every 3 yrs and let a diver take care of your bottom! Way more effective and way less expensive.


Sounds like you are advertising for fastbottoms.
We are our own divers and there's nothing "less expensive" about spending the time, tools and effort cleaning a bottom we've paid good money to antifoul. Therefore this post seeking information about a cheap paint.


----------



## ad28 (Jan 29, 2016)

1. With some things, including bottom paint, you get what you pay for.
2. There is no such thing as antifoul which doesn't need at least some cleaning.

btw:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tributyltin
FTA: "Toxicity[edit]
The effects of antifouling paint go beyond the organisms that it is intended to kill. By poisoning barnacles, algae, and other organisms at the bottom of the food chain, TBT is biomagnified up the marine predators' food web. It has been shown to harmfully affect many layers of the ecosystem, including invertebrates and vertebrates, even humans. Toxic effects in some species occur at 1 nano-gram per liter of water.[8]

Bioaccumulation[edit]
Even with its ban, TBT presents a danger to the environment. One of the most problematic aspects of TBT is its accumulation in sediments and its long half life of about 2 years. TBT often bonds to suspended material and sediments to the bottom, where it can remain and be released for up to 30 years.[9]"


----------



## RobGallagher (Aug 22, 2001)

Petit Horizons ablative "Deep Purple. Someone mixed the red and blue pigment at the factory. $45 a gallon at Defender three years ago. I bought 100 gallons. sold about half at a profit to get all my money back, sold some to friends at cost, kept 20 gallons for myself. Mix in a quart of black and it turns black but I don't bother with that mess.

Some people attempt to make fun of the color but I feel I'm having the last laugh. Now that's cheap bottom paint!


----------



## Rhapsody-NS27 (Apr 8, 2012)

miatapaul said:


> Have you heard anything about PPG ABC #3 (they have other #s but I don't know the difference). PPG makes some pretty good professional paints and it is supposed to get good results in Hawaii. About 130 a gallon, and is also available in 5 gallon cans.


I found out about that one myself about 6 months ago. Suposedly used on commercial ships since they don't haul out often and claim 5yr use out of it.

I'm looking at using ABC #3 myself when it's time to launch.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

ad28 said:


> 1. With some things, including bottom paint, you get what you pay for.
> 2. There is no such thing as antifoul which doesn't need at least some cleaning.
> 
> btw:
> ...


"With some things, including bottom paint, you get what you pay for." Apparently not, as even the expensive ones are not very effective any more.
As for the rest of your post, I'll stack my "Toxicity footprint" up against yours any day of the week. I would much appreciate it if you did not lecture me when you're probably polluting this planet at a rate 100 times greater (or more) than I.
Let he who poluteth not cast the first stone.....


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

That abc #3 sounds too good to be true. ? Anybody have personal experience?


----------



## smj (Jun 27, 2009)

We've done 4 bottom jobs with ABC3. Definitely not a magical paint but a great bang for the buck. We paid between $80 and $125 per gallon and it seemed to last about 2 years. It's ablative so I think it wore thin but didn't lose its antifouling properties. We spent most of the time in Southern Florida and the Keys where the growth is pretty aggressive. All in all we have been very satisfied with the product.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## RocketScience (Sep 8, 2008)

outbound said:


> That abc #3 sounds too good to be true. ? Anybody have personal experience?


Definitely not the same down there as up here in Puget Sound, but I get 5 good years out of PPG's ABC #3, and pay around $110/gal. It's the top secret (not anymore) long term bottom paint, and used by many of our commercial fishing fleet.


----------



## FarCry (Apr 21, 2007)

capta said:


> Sherwin Williams COPPER BOTTOM ANTI-FOULING PAINT #45.
> Has anybody used this paint in the tropics? Have you met anyone who has? Though I cannot find a price for this paint anywhere online, it is rumored to cost under us$100.00 per gallon!
> If this product is even a quarter as effective as claimed, it would be 10 times better than Sea Hawk Island 44 or any other paint anybody I know has used down here in the tropics, at a quarter the price.
> It even comes in 5 gallon drums!
> A decent paint at a fair price? Tell me it's so, please.


It's so in my area. I've mentioned it before here but a guy who scrubs 100 bottoms a day out west and still manages to be on SN all the time doesn't think it's any good. Funny, there are a lot of boats around me using it and are very satisfied. Most in my marina that are using it are getting 2 full years out of it and a few have stretched to 3. I can endorse it as a good value for my area from boats I've seen hauled and spoken directly with the owners who intend to use it again on their next haul. Keep in mind, many are converts from Micron 66.


----------



## xort (Aug 4, 2006)

We are on our second application of PPG Ameron ABC3. The first barely lasted 2 years...but that was because of an overly aggressive bottom cleaner who took a lot off plus I needed a short haul and the power washer took a lot off also.

I also had some adhesion issues which I think were related to launching too soon after painting. Applied it this spring and so far it is totally clean. I expect 2 to 3 years cruising New England in summer and Bahamas and Fl in winter. I have also talked directly with people who got 5 years sitting in mid-lattitudes.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

FarCry said:


> I've mentioned it before here but a guy who scrubs 100 bottoms a day out west and still manages to be on SN all the time doesn't think it's any good.


Guess what, chief? I've never once posted an opinion about Sherwin Williams Copper Bottom Anti Fouling Paint #45. I'd never even heard of the product before this thread was started. Maybe you should ratchet back the snarkiness before posting ill-informed bullsh*t, hmmm?


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

outbound said:


> That abc #3 sounds too good to be true.


ABC3 works well on commercial vessels because those boats spend the great majority of their lives moving at relatively high speeds. You should not expect the same performance from that product when used on a sailboat.


----------



## RocketScience (Sep 8, 2008)

Fstbttms said:


> ABC3 works well on commercial vessels because those boats spend the great majority of their lives moving at relatively high speeds. You should not expect the same performance from that product when used on a sailboat.


Our commercial *fishing* fleet (which I quoted) can sit idle for many months of the year. Our commercial salmon season for example is only open from around May to September with closures in between. And although some will commercial bottom fish, most just sit. Our coastal crab fleet (Dungeness) sits idle from September to January.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

I'm not saying that ABC3 isn't a great anti fouling paint- I'm sure it is. But let's face it, Seattle isn't exactly a hotbed of fouling. And even if it were, commercial fishermen are notorious for not having their hulls cleaned. In fact, I'd wager that a large percentage of the fleet you are referring don't even live in saltwater during the offseason.

My point is that it's tough to draw meaningful conclusions about a paint based on anecdotal evidence from a low-fouling region.


----------



## RocketScience (Sep 8, 2008)

Fstbttms said:


> I'm not saying that ABC3 isn't a great anti fouling paint- I'm sure it is. But let's face it, Seattle isn't exactly a hotbed of fouling. *And even if it were, commercial fishermen are notorius for not having their hulls cleaned. In fact, I'd wager that a large percentage of the fleet you are referring don't even live in saltwater during the offseason.*
> 
> My point is that it's tough to draw meaningful conclusions about a paint based on anecdotal evidence from a low-fouling region.


It's all anecdotal, as is your response. Facts will always be hard to come by in the proverbial bottom paint debate.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Fstbttms said:


> ABC3 works well on commercial vessels because those boats spend the great majority of their lives moving at relatively high speeds. You should not expect the same performance from that product when used on a sailboat.


I think ABC3 is designed for slow-moving boats. There are other version numbers of ABC that are used on faster commercial ships.

However, the real point is that, while designed for slow-moving boats, it is really designed for MOVING boats. Most boats don't move much - sail a bit, then sit a long time.

I suspect most paints, particularly ablative ones, would work much better if the boat was always moving.

BTW, we wanted an relatively inexpensive paint to put on for only a year and recently bought some of this. We'll see how it goes...

Mark


----------



## FarCry (Apr 21, 2007)

Fstbttms said:


> Guess what, chief? I've never once posted an opinion about Sherwin Williams Copper Bottom Anti Fouling Paint #45. I'd never even heard of the product before this thread was started. Maybe you should ratchet back the snarkiness before posting ill-informed bullsh*t, hmmm?


I'm sorry you seem so upset about something but let's focus on your post that seems to be directed at me for some reason.

Chief? Nope, don't carry that title or rank. Perhaps you have me mixed up with another poster, it happens a lot...

I just found a quote from a poster using your same screen name from a little over a year ago. The cut and paste from that is "My experience in San Francisco Bay is that the Sherwin Williams anti fouling paints have very mediocre anti fouling properties. I do not recommend them."

Ratchet back the snarkiness? That was an especially funny comment and I really enjoyed it. Thanks for the laugh. I'm just not sure how my comments have been "crotchety" "short tempered" or "irritable" as those are the words used in dictionaries to define snarky. If nothing else my intent was for some good natured fun. I'm a long ways from short tempered or irritable. In fact your comments seem to fit the the definition of snarky quite well.

Lastly, my "ill-informed BS"-- I do have a couple of questions here and please let me apologize in advance for my ignorance once again regarding confusion with your usage of words. Is ill-informed BS better or worse than informed BS? Is it like a double negative equals a positive and ill-informed BS is actually a good thing and informed BS is more like a lie? I directly quoted a guy that uses your screen name. I just read back to confirm that I didn't use any screen names in my original post since I couldn't recall who gave SW an unfavorable review. You seem to think it's all about you which somehow makes you feel the need to try and provide direction to my future posts on this forum. Good luck with that! It very well could be another person using your screen name (that's sarcasm, but it still doesn't really fall under snarkiness).

Now that the SN server space has been wasted, would you care to actually add to the thread and provide a recent opinion on SW bottom paint or do you just want to let the previous quote from last year stand?


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

What part of, "I've never heard of Copper Bottom Anti Fouling Paint #45 before" don't you understand? I didn't comment on it on it then (despite your attempt to infer that I did) because I've never cleaned a boat that uses it. I absolutely stand by my low opinion of every Sherwin Williams product with which I do have experience however.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Fstbttms said:


> What part of, "I've never heard of Copper Bottom Anti Fouling Paint #45 before" don't you understand? I didn't comment on it on it then (despite your attempt to infer that I did) because I've never cleaned a boat that uses it. I absolutely stand by my low opinion of every Sherwin Williams product with which I do have experience however.


yes you have and it was a year before this post

Sherwin Williams Bottom Paints - Cruisers & Sailing Forums


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

Don0190 said:


> yes you have and it was a year before this post
> 
> Sherwin Williams Bottom Paints - Cruisers & Sailing Forums


1.- Really? Are you so obsessed with me that you felt the need to dredge up a three and a half year old post (from a completely different forum, BTW) to tell us about it here, in a two and half year old thread? My God, it boggles the mind to think of how much work it took you to find it. Unbelievable.

2.- BTW- In the ancient thread to which you referred, I never once mentioned the product in question, Sherwin Williams Copper Bottom Paint #45. Never mentioned it once. So after all your creepy weirdo detective work, chasing down posts that I made years ago (and essentially calling me a liar), it turns out that you don't know what the f*ck you are talking about anyway.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

colemj said:


> I think ABC3 is designed for slow-moving boats. There are other version numbers of ABC that are used on faster commercial ships.
> 
> However, the real point is that, while designed for slow-moving boats, it is really designed for MOVING boats. Most boats don't move much - sail a bit, then sit a long time.
> 
> ...


Since this thread has been revived, and I saw what I wrote over 2yrs ago, I thought I would update it.

We originally thought we would only need the paint on for ~6 months, after which we were going to haul again for other purposes and repaint. So I just slapped on 2 coats quickly and without much prep other than a pressure wash. The previous paint was almost all gone.

Plans changed and we ended up with this paint on for 2.5yrs now. The boat has been used in Florida and the Bahamas - spending 4-6 months during the summer on a dock in FL, and the rest of the time in Bahamas.

There was no growth at all for the first 8 months we were actively using it in S. FL and Bahamas. We put the boat on a dock in Vero Beach (still, fetid, hot water) for 4 summer months, and had moderate barnacles - mostly around the water line. The local diver who scraped them off told us that our bottom was very light fouling compared to the other boats he services. He was surprised that we had no bottom service at all for 4 months, as he needs to almost weekly scraped his other boats. These were scraped off and we went to the Bahamas for another 6 months. No growth at all during most of this time. By May, we were getting light to moderate slime and some grass at the waterline/air interface that required wiping every 3 weeks. In July (2yrs since painting), we put the boat in a slip in Brunswick, Georgia. We have had no hard growth here, and only light slime, even thought the water temps are in the 90's in the summer, and the pilings are full of oysters and barnacles.

To summarize, a quick and dirty paint job with Ameron ABC3 had no growth for almost 2yrs, after which we needed to begin wiping slime off it every 3 weeks. The exception was a dock stay in the middle of this period, where we had moderate barnacle growth in hot, stagnant water.

This is one of the best bottom paints we have used. I am surprised at how well it worked, and did not expect it. I just bought another 4 gallons at $90/gal to reapply on our next haulout in the spring. The current paint will have been on 3yrs by then.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Man, if I was in the Bay area, I know who I wouldn't hire to take care of my boat...

Mark


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

colemj said:


> Man, if I was in the Bay area, I know who I wouldn't hire to take care of my boat...


Imagine how much sleep I'm going to lose over your disapproval of me. :crying


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

*Re: Sherwin Williams COPPER BOTTOM ANTI-FOULING PAINT #*



Fstbttms said:


> 1.- Really? Are you so obsessed with me that you felt the need to dredge up a three and a half year old post (from a completely different forum, BTW) to tell us about it here, in a two and half year old thread? My God, it boggles the mind to think of how much work it took you to find it. Unbelievabley.


Nope, I don' give a flying bat crap about you

It was all right out there plus even more of your normal negative comments that turned up in a search on SW paint that I was looking into. And you expressed your normal all knowing disapproval on them In more that one thread, all dated earlier than your claim of of never having done so.

You think you are bottom paint expert, when all you really are is a bottom pant scrapper.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

*Re: Sherwin Williams COPPER BOTTOM ANTI-FOULING PAINT #*



Don0190 said:


> You think you are bottom paint expert, when all you really are is a bottom pant scrapper.


I can't tell if you are bad at spelling, or good at coining a phrase.

Mark


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

An update:
We applied Sherwin Williams SEAVOYAGE 100 CDP, @ us$105.00 a gallon, antifouling bottom paint in Oct 2016 and it did stay on for two years without any problems, unlike the Sea Hawk products we have used in the past. 
The antifouling properties of the Sherwin Williams SEAVOYAGE 100 CDP, were much, much better than the last Interlux product I used in 2009 and so far superior to Sea Hawk island 44 that I couldn't even honestly call the Sea Hawk product paint, as it didn't stay on more than 6 months or so, even though it was professionally applied two years in a row by a very reputable contractor. Sea Hawk would not stand behind their product and every attempt to come to an equitable agreement, including having replacement bottom paint applied by the contractor of their choice in the yard of their choice, were rebuffed rather impolitely. 
I still have not been able to get any #45 antifouling to try, but I was able to get 6 gallons of the SeaVoyage this time for around us$7.50 a gallon (an overstocking problem, or something), so of course, we used it again!
All on all, I think the Sherwin Williams SEAVOYAGE 100 CDP is a pretty good value @ us$105.00 a gallon, especially after talking personally to quite a few private and charter captains in this region about their bottom paint. Of course, 
@ us$7.50 a gallon it is a fantastic value, but I doubt seriously that we shall be able to repeat that bit of luck!
Never again will I spend anything like us$300.00 a gallon for a big name marine paint company's products. Another con, like so many in this industry.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

*Re: Sherwin Williams COPPER BOTTOM ANTI-FOULING PAINT #*



colemj said:


> I can't tell if you are bad at spelling, or good at coining a phrase.
> 
> Mark


everything spelled right, just that maybe or maybe not the wrong word


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

I am goin* to bounce this thread as i5 came up again on search of Sherwin Willians paint. Looking for USER reviews.


----------



## pdqaltair (Nov 14, 2008)

colemj said:


> [after 8 months]...We put the boat on a dock in Vero Beach (still, fetid, hot water) for 4 summer months, and had moderate barnacles - mostly around the water line....
> 
> ... The exception was a dock stay in the middle of this period, where we had moderate barnacle growth in hot, stagnant water....


In other words, the paint was relatively ineffective starting at 8 months, but that fact was only revealed when in high fouling waters. Kind of like not getting sick when you were not actually exposed to anything. 

That is a sub-single season performance. Most Chesapeake marinas are hot and stagnant all summer. And curiously, in the same marinas, we have no growth in the winter. Conditions matter.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

pdqaltair said:


> In other words, the paint was relatively ineffective starting at 8 months, but that fact was only revealed when in high fouling waters. Kind of like not getting sick when you were not actually exposed to anything.
> 
> That is a sub-single season performance. Most Chesapeake marinas are hot and stagnant all summer. And curiously, in the same marinas, we have no growth in the winter. Conditions matter.


I think your reading comprehension needs work.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

To add to our experience. The boat ended up sitting in Brunswick GA (an extreme fouling area) for another year without moving or having its bottom clean. During that time, the paint developed a handful of barnacles and some grass around the water line. The paint was 3.5yrs old at this time. The paint ended up being one of the best performing bottom paints we have ever used.

Mark


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

colemj said:


> To add to our experience. The boat ended up sitting in Brunswick GA (an extreme fouling area) for another year without moving or having its bottom clean. During that time, the paint developed a handful of barnacles and some grass around the water line. The paint was 3.5yrs old at this time.


No offense but if this is true, then your boat was not in an “extreme fouling area.”


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Fstbttms said:


> No offense but if this is true, then your boat was not in an “extreme fouling area.”


Sorry, but it is true. Have you been to Brunswick GA? It is a fetid swamp with fertilized lawn and sewage runoff directly into a marina that has no outlet or water flow and is in the middle of a swamp. 

To put it in perspective, our other boat with coppercoat sitting in the adjacent slip needed a reef scraped off it every 3 weeks, and that was pushing it. Even if you don't believe it, at $90/gallon, it performs no worst than the best $300/gal paints. I've had 25yrs of experience with pretty much every bottom paint on our boats (including TBT) and this one was the best value by far, and one of the best performers.

It is a bit odd that two people with no experience at all with the paint, and limited geographical range, cast such aspersions on the results of those who have several years experience with it in a variety of environmental conditions and geographical areas. 

Mark


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

colemj said:


> Sorry, but it is true. Have you been to Brunswick GA? It is a fetid swamp with fertilized lawn and sewage runoff directly into a marina that has no outlet or water flow and is in the middle of a swamp.
> 
> To put it in perspective, our other boat with coppercoat sitting in the adjacent slip needed a reef scraped off it every 3 weeks, and that was pushing it. Even if you don't believe it, at $90/gallon, it performs no worst than the best $300/gal paints. I've had 25yrs of experience with pretty much every bottom paint on our boats (including TBT) and this one was the best value by far, and one of the best performers.
> 
> It is a bit odd that two people with no experience at all with the paint, and limited geographical range, cast such aspersions on the results of those who have several years experience with it in a variety of environmental conditions and geographical areas.


I do not doubt that Brunswick, Georgia experiences robust fouling conditions. But the fact of the matter is that at 3.5 years old, your anti fouling paint was at (or near) the end of its useful lifespan. The paint's ability to retard fouling would have been minimal at best. If it was (as you say) in an area of extreme fouling, the paint would not have performed so well as to allow what could only considered to be (for the location) relatively light fouling. If the fouling conditions are as bad as you claim, even brand new paint would need cleaning every month or two. Yet you tell us the boat sat for a year with old paint, unmoved and uncleaned and still came out of the water with light fouling. I'm sorry but that just doesn't add up.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Fstbttms said:


> I do not doubt that Brunswick, Georgia experiences robust fouling conditions. But the fact of the matter is that at 3.5 years old, your anti fouling paint was at (or near) the end of its useful lifespan. The paint's ability to retard fouling would have been minimal at best. If it was (as you say) in an area of extreme fouling, the paint would not have performed so well as to allow what could only considered to be (for the location) relatively light fouling. If the fouling conditions are as bad as you claim, even brand new paint would need cleaning every month or two. Yet you tell us the boat sat for a year with old paint, unmoved and uncleaned and still came out of the water with light fouling. I'm sorry but that just doesn't add up.


Don't know what to tell you then if you don't believe my actual experience. The diver we hired to clean the bottom before we sold the boat charged us 1/4 price because he said he just had to knock off a few barnacles and wipe the slime, and the bottom was clean when it was hauled two days later. He had spent the entire day scraping other boats on that dock in the marina (including our other boat).

For comparison, the props and thruhulls were balls of growth.

It isn't the first bottom paint I've used, and it isn't the only place I've used that bottom paint. Even if it only performs as good as any other paint, it is the best bang for the buck I've found. I have no reason to make this up, nor am I a neophyte to bottom paint and fouling that is misinterpreting things.

Mark


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

colemj said:


> The diver we hired to clean the bottom before we sold the boat charged us 1/4 price because he said he just had to knock off a few barnacles and wipe the slime, and the bottom was clean when it was hauled two days later.


This story just keeps getting better and better. So now after a year of sitting in terrible fouling conditions, your 3.5 year old paint was so clean the diver knocked 75% off your invoice? Bwahahahaha!


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Just to be clear, because the title of the thread may lead to misunderstanding, and old posts have been brought to life again, I have been talking about Ameron ABC3 bottom paint, not Sherwin Williams 45.

Mark


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Fstbttms said:


> This story just keeps getting better and better. So now after a year of sitting in terrible fouling conditions, your 3.5 year old paint was so clean the diver knocked 75% off your invoice? Bwahahahaha!


Yes, right after I paid him 25% more for the extremely fouled boat he had to spend extra time on above the quoted amount. He charged me less on that boat because he spent 75% less time on the boat than quoted. The divers here work on a per foot rate expecting a certain amount of time to do so. It isn't unusual to get a break or overcharge if the time is less than or exceeds "normal".

Perhaps scruples are better on this side of the continent?

Mark


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

colemj said:


> Yes, right after I paid him 25% more for the extremely fouled boat he had to spend extra time on above the quoted amount. He charged me less on that boat because he spent 75% less time on the boat than quoted. The divers here work on a per foot rate expecting a certain amount of time to do so. It isn't unusual to get a break or overcharge if the time is less than or exceeds "normal".
> 
> Perhaps scruples are better on this side of the continent?


Scruples are no different here, but maybe intelligence is. "By the foot" means exactly that. Why would he then decide to charge you based on the amount of time the job took? But maybe you aren't explaining the situation very well. Perhaps the diver quoted you a higher rate assuming the boat was going to be excessively foul but then finding it not to be, charged you his regular rate instead. That's different than throwing you a 75% discount. 

I'm guessing I know who your diver is. I would love to get the straight dope from the guy who actually got into the water and did the work.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Thanks for real user info Mark


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

colemj said:


> Just to be clear, because the title of the thread may lead to misunderstanding, and old posts have been brought to life again, I have been talking about Ameron ABC3 bottom paint, not Sherwin Williams 45.
> 
> Mark


That sounds pretty promising. Prices I saw are not as low as some listed here but still clearly below $200/gal which is much better than some others.

I saw the cans say 'For use in commercial shipyards only.' Any idea why that is?


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> That sounds pretty promising. Prices I saw are not as low as some listed here but still clearly below $200/gal which is much better than some others.
> 
> I saw the cans say 'For use in commercial shipyards only.' Any idea why that is?


No, other than the usual packaging for this is 5gal buckets and it is primarily oriented toward commercial shipping. I've never had a problem getting it at a local PPG store in gallon containers. Sometimes I have to have them order it and pick it up a few days later. If you need 5gal, then the buckets are less expensive.

Mark


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

colemj said:


> No, other than the usual packaging for this is 5gal buckets and it is primarily oriented toward commercial shipping. I've never had a problem getting it at a local PPG store in gallon containers. Sometimes I have to have them order it and pick it up a few days later. If you need 5gal, then the buckets are less expensive.
> 
> Mark


Thank you.

I need a half-bucket. Time to find a paint-buddy?


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

PPG store in Jacksonville said a 5-gal of ABC3 in blue or black $495


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Sherwin Williams Copper #45 , $103/gal at the local SW store. As much copper as most of the US copper based paint for $200-300/gal paint.


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

Don L said:


> Sherwin Williams Copper #45 , $103/gal at the local SW store. As much copper as most of the US copper based paint


45% cuprous oxide is not much. Certainly nowhere near as much as the actual high copper content paints. You know, assuming that's what you meant.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

met what I wrote!!


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Pretty much all of the ablative paints are using lower copper levels than in the past now because the ablative technology has changed a lot to allow more controlled release. These paints are no longer just soft sloughing paints. Antifouling performance is a function of more than just the cuprous oxide content now.

Mark


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

colemj said:


> Pretty much all of the ablative paints are using lower copper levels than in the past…


Also true of some high end hard paints. The Trinidad line, for example. They can process cuprous oxide (or whatever flavor of copper they use) in such a way that less apparently does more.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

To put it in perspective with other much more expensive ablative paints, Micron 66 has 25-35%, Pettit Ultimate 40 has 40-50%, Micron CSC has 25-50%, Seahawk Cukote has 35-50%, Seahawk Biocop has 25-50%.

So why do you consider the 45% content of SW low?

Mark


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

colemj said:


> To put it in perspective with other much more expensive ablative paints, Micron 66 has 25-35%, Pettit Ultimate 40 has 40-50%, Micron CSC has 25-50%, Seahawk Cukote has 35-50%, Seahawk Biocop has 25-50%.
> 
> So why do you consider the 45% content of SW low?


I wasn't referring to ablative paints specifically, because Don L did not specify that his 45% was referring to ablatives only. I was referring to anti fouling paints in general.

BTW- I haven't checked all the ablative paints you mentioned but the one I did check (Micron 66) has a copper content of as much as 50%, which is significantly higher than your claim.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Fstbttms said:


> BTW- I haven't checked all the ablative paints you mentioned but the one I did check (Micron 66) has a copper content of as much as 50%, which is significantly higher than your claim.


Kind of. The first MSDS that came up for me was for their "Dover White" which is as I stated. I didn't check color when I was looking. I now see the black is 25-50%. 

I also found this recent EPA document that states the red, green, blue, and black contains 40.21%, which is rather more specific.



https://media1.svb-media.de/media/snr/1114/pdf/secure_datasheet_2016-07-18_09-38-47_01d58cc1a888f15164aefb1f65240624.pdf





http://datasheets1.international-coatings.com/msds/YBA473_USA_eng_A6.pdf





https://www3.epa.gov/pesticides/chem_search/ppls/002693-00187-20200722.pdf


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Fstbttms said:


> I was referring to anti fouling paints in general.


You of all people should know you can't group these in general. Hard paints are completely different, with different antifouling mechanisms, than ablatives, and both are different than foul release coatings.

There is no "in general". Only comparison within product type.

Within ablative paints, the SW is among all others in copper content. Maybe a bit on the high end.

Mark


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

colemj said:


> You of all people should know you can't group these in general. Hard paints are completely different, with different antifouling mechanisms, than ablatives, and both are different than foul release coatings.
> 
> There is no "in general". Only comparison within product type.


You absolutely can lump all copper-laden paints into a single group when discussing copper content. *OF COURSE* hard paints have a somewhat different biocide leaching mechanism than ablatives (although not nearly as different as I suspect you believe them to be.) But that has little or no bearing on this discussion. As for foul release coatings, they have no biocide at all and are therefore not part of this discussion.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Fstbttms said:


> Bullsh*t. You absolutely can lump all copper-laden paints into a single group when discussing copper content. *OF COURSE* hard paints have a somewhat different biocide leaching mechanism than ablatives (although not nearly as different as I suspect you believe them to be.) But that has little or no bearing on this discussion. As for foul release coatings, they have no biocide at all and are therefore not part of this discussion.


You are missing the point that controlled-release ablatives depend on ablation mechanism, not leaching, as well as copper content for their antifouling performance. This is different than the leaching mechanism of hard paints, where copper content is the only measure of antifouling.

Because of this, all ablatives have less copper content than hard paints.

An ablative paint and a hard paint can have the exact same antifouling performance, while having vastly different copper content.

Therefore, one cannot group paints and their expected performance together solely on copper content. This is ignoring that some paints don't even contain copper as the biocide anymore, or contain a different compounding of copper than cuprous oxide.

This is pretty basic stuff.

Mark


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

colemj said:


> You are missing the point that controlled-release ablatives depend on ablation mechanism, not leaching, as well as copper content for their antifouling performance. This is different than the leaching mechanism of hard paints, where copper content is the only measure of antifouling.


You misunderstand how ablative paints work. *Ablative paints do not shed fouling growth through ablation.* In fact, when a paint of this type is covered with even a light coating of slime, they do not ablate at all. The surface of the paint must be clean for this to occur. Ablation is merely one of the means by which these paints expose fresh biocide. The other is leaching. Yes, ablative paints also leach their biocide just like hard paints do and they do it 24/7/365 whether or not the boat is moving.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

circular hair splitting


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

Don L said:


> circular hair splitting


I'd hardly consider correcting a complete fallacy "splitting hairs."


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx never mind, all I really care is user info from cruisers


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Fstbttms said:


> You misunderstand how ablative paints work. *Ablative paints do not shed fouling growth through ablation.* In fact, when a paint of this type is covered with even a light coating of slime, they do not ablate at all. The surface of the paint must be clean for this to occur. Ablation is merely one of the means by which these paints expose fresh biocide. The other is leaching. Yes, ablative paints also leach their biocide just like hard paints do and they do it 24/7/365 whether or not the boat is moving.


_"Frequently used boats may want to use an ablative paint, which will get smoother over time and will shed light growth."_




__





A guide to choosing bottom paint for your boat | West Marine


West Marine is committed to outfitting your life on the water. With over 250 store locations, 100,000 products in stock, and knowledgeable Associates, trust West Marine for your boating, sailing, fishing, or paddling needs. Shop with confidence - get free shipping to home or stores + price match...




www.westmarine.com





_"By ablating, they shed some paint along with marine growth."_




__





Boats & Bottom Paint: 15 Quick Answers (For Beginners)







www.godownsize.com





_"explains George Dunigan, technical sales representative for Interlux Paint and past president of the Marine Trade Association of Maryland. “The movement of the boat causes the paint and any growth to gradually slip off the hull, exposing fresh antifouling agents.”"_




__





Bottom Paint: What's Right for You | PropTalk


When it comes to selecting bottom paint, boat owners have many choices. We recently caught up with a few regional experts who shared some important information to help you prepare your boat for splash day and find the bottom paint that's right for you.




www.proptalk.com





Mark


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

Yes, water moving past the hull will undoubtedly help some very light growth to possibly wash away (regardless of whether the coating is hard or ablative.) This however does not occur because the paint itself is ablating, taking the fouling growth on top with it. That simply does not happen and the fact that ablative paints get foul just as much and just as quickly as hard paints do is evidence. Boats that use ablative paints do not magically become clean during use. If there is any growth on top of the paint that does not completely come off (and sailboats typically do not move fast enough to truly "clean" the hull) then the paint underneath it is not ablating either. This is why ablative paints require in-water cleaning every bit as often as hard paints.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Apparently a reading comprehension problem, or a confirmation bias clash. Ablative paints have an additional mechanism of antifouling over hard paints. Otherwise, their copper content alone would mean they don't work as well as hard paints, or last as long between repainting. It does not mean that they don't require cleaning as often. It means they achieve equal antifouling to hard paints using less biocide content. At the end of life, both types of paint are bereft of biocide, and ablatives are bereft of the paint itself.

Mark


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

No reading comprehension issue here. And while most of your post above is true, the point is that ablatives do not shed fouling because the paint underneath the fouling growth is ablating. The growth on top of the paint retards (or eliminates) ablation. Yes, the ablation exposes fresh biocide and this is why these paints can do their job with less copper than their hard counterparts. But for ablation to occur, there can be no fouling on the surface of the paint. If the fouling isn't coming off (and for the most part it isn't), then neither is the paint underneath it.

BTW- if ablatives were "bereft" of paint at the end of their useful lifespan (as you maintain), then the hull would be down to gel coat every few years. But this is not the case. When an ablative paint has depleted its biocide and become ineffective, there is still typically plenty of paint left on the hull (unless some careless hull diver has scrubbed it off.) Further indication that these paints also work by passive leaching.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

I can believe the Interlux Paint technical representative, or you, but both can't be correct.

Yes, there is some paint left at EOL, but not much. This is why indicator coats are used on ablatives, but not hard. At EOL, all our ablative experience is ~25-35% of the paint remaining and the indicator color showing underneath. We have the pressure washer go to town on it to remove most of that.

Ablation does stop when growth overtakes it, which is why ablative paints also need regular maintenance. After maintenance, ablation again becomes a component of the antifouling mechanism along with the biocide until growth overtakes it again. The two mechanisms are complementary, which is why ablatives can use half the biocide content of hard paints. Hard paints only have biocide as an antifouling mechanism. They both are formulated to need the same amount of maintenance in the same timeframes, and same lifespans (assuming both are multiseason or both single season paints).

Nobody is arguing that ablation does not expose fresh biocide (which isn't passive leaching). Your argument appears to be that ablation has no role in the antifouling itself.

Mark


----------



## Fstbttms (Feb 25, 2003)

Talk about reading comprehension issues :



colemj said:


> Nobody is arguing that ablation does not expose fresh biocide (which isn't passive leaching).


I never said that ablation and passive leaching were the same thing. *NEVER* said or inferred that.



colemj said:


> Your argument appears to be that ablation has no role in the antifouling itself.


I have said several times that ablation exposes fresh biocide. If that isn't performing a "role in the antifouling", I don't know what is.

Unbelievable.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Fstbttms said:


> Further indication that these paints also work by passive leaching.





Fstbttms said:


> I never said that ablation and passive leaching were the same thing. *NEVER* said or inferred that.


Yes, ablation exposing fresh biocide is performing a role in the antifouling, but it isn't the sole role. You maintain that ablation only exposes fresh biocide. This doesn't explain why ablative paints have the same performance as hard using half the biocide while not using twice as much paint. It also is contrary to how Interlux themselves claim the paint works.

You keep twisting words and using tangent deflections to support your argument that physical ablation has no role in antifouling other than exposing biocide, against supporting evidence and statements by paint companies themselves that this isn't the case.

Again, this is basic stuff.

Mark


----------



## hpeer (May 14, 2005)

In USA I use PPG ABC3. Is also available in St Martin.

In Newfiundland I can only get ABC4. Fouling there is very light there and at least one guy uses none at all. 

I was told last year they now sell only 5 gallon cans.

I have found price to be all over the place, Jacksonville was very high compared to any other location. No clue why.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

So I did more web searching looking for the difference between the ABC3 and ABC4. so far the only difference I have found is they call the ABC3 "high performance" and the ABC4 "economical". I sent in a technical inquiry to PPG for what the differences are and which they would recommend for a sailboat.

Also during this I found more forum threads with PPG users. None of the USERS have had anything bad to say about the ABC3 paint. BUT ON EVERY ONE our SF bottom cleaner came in to say otherwise and to turn the thread into an argument.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Says here the difference is that ABC4 has less biocide and slower release rate, and is designed for shorter life.



http://www.marineandprotectivecoatings.co.uk/sheets/ameron/ABC.pdf



Mark


----------



## hpeer (May 14, 2005)

Makes sense, frigging cold water up there. Slow growth.


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

colemj said:


> Says here the difference is that ABC4 has less biocide and slower release rate, and is designed for shorter life.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


your googlefi is much stronger than mine


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Don L said:


> your googlefi is much stronger than mine


I didn't even know there was an ABC4. Wonder how high it goes? What happened to ABC1 and ABC2?

Mark


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

Been emailing back and forth all morning with the PPG tech guy trying to word around their belief things are "secret". They did say this:

"Thank you for your inquiry. The main difference in ABC 3 and 4 is that ABC3 has a more controlled release in the ablative process. Both use copper as the active ingredient. Amounts are proprietary information, but they both are rated for the same length performance. Another option we have used on pleasure vessels since they have long periods for being moored is the PSX 700 Polysiloxane. It has a surface tension the prevent the marine growth from attaching."

I finally got him to agree that the ABC3 has ACTIVE INGREDIENT: Cuprous Oxide ... 47.99% because that is right off the pesticide label.

I have seen some old mention of ABC1&2, but didn't read them as they aren't listed as available.

I keep finding more threads with the ABC3 paint and I still have not found a negative user comment. I found an old Aus Practical Sailor article that have ABC3 in top 4, along with Micron 66. Which brings us around to why use paints 2-3x more expensive than the ABC3?


----------



## hpeer (May 14, 2005)

Long story short, I found that spraying my bottom with some diluted acid helps keep the hard growth down. I am using ABC3 And typically haul every 6 months for winter storage. I wojld expect it to work the same with similar paints. I found this by accident but did a very unscientific test wnd it does seem to help. 

Due Covid we launched in late November 2020, spent 6 months in black fresh water, 6 month on theMiddle Chesapeake,and will now be spending 4 months in brackish Delaware River water. When I moved her here to the Delaware she was a little slow. It will be interesting to see how she behaves heading back down island to St Martin. I expect her to be sluggish at start hut to the ln pick up speed. I saw that happen after 3 WEEKS in Luperon. Initially she was a slug but after an hour or two came right. Which was a big relief.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

hpeer said:


> Long story short, I found that spraying my bottom with some diluted acid helps keep the hard growth down. I am using ABC3 And typically haul every 6 months for winter storage. I wojld expect it to work the same with similar paints. I found this by accident but did a very unscientific test wnd it does seem to help.


I'm a bit confused. You can't spray it underwater, and nothing grows when it is out of the water, so what does the above mean? Do you mean you spray the bottom paint with diluted acid on the hard, then nothing grows when you put it in the water? I can tell you as a chemist that this doesn't work - the acid will be converted to its salt on the hard before launch, and any that could possibly remain after launch would immediately be dissolved into the water. Doesn't mean you didn't notice a difference after doing so - just that the acid had nothing to do with it other than possibly uncovering a fresh layer of biocide.

Mark


----------



## Don L (Aug 8, 2008)

colemj said:


> Doesn't mean you didn't notice a difference after doing so - just that the acid had nothing to do with it other than possibly uncovering a fresh layer of biocide.
> 
> Mark


As a ex chemical treatment guy, I also bet the biggest gain was exposing fresh biocide.

BTW - if you want to keep the bottom clean in Chesapeake run all the way up a river and spend a day in fresh water.


----------



## colemj (Jul 10, 2003)

Don L said:


> BTW - if you want to keep the bottom clean in Chesapeake run all the way up a river and spend a day in fresh water.


That's the real way to have inexpensive antifoul. In Panama, a day trip up the Chagras resulted in a clean bottom. Enter the Rio Dulce dragging a reef along, and your bottom will be clean when you wake up the next morning. If we kept the boat anywhere near navigable fresh water, that would be a monthly event for sure.

Mark


----------



## hpeer (May 14, 2005)

I spray it on after a fresh application of bottom paint

I am no chemist so I take your word for the reactions. I have no idea how it works.

However, I discovered this by accident. Some acid was spilled on deck and ran over the sides resulting in less growth insome areas. I then tried it intentionally, I sprayed some areas and none in others. The sprayed areas had LESS growth after 6 months than non sprayed areas. Maybe 20% to 35% less growth? Not a scientific measure but noticable.

No clue what is going in. More interested to see if anyone else has tried the same thing and what their observations were.

And maybe over a longer time it would be negligible? 

Just thought I would mention it.


----------

