I get the cost savings with a layover, but I’ve always worried about what’s hiding under that first layer. When we finally tore ours off, there was some rot around the chimney we never would’ve seen otherwise. Maybe it’s just my luck, but I’d rather pay a bit more upfront than risk missing something bigger down the line. Guess it depends on how old the roof is and if you trust what’s underneath.
Title: Tearing Off Old Shingles vs. Layering New Ones: Which Route Did You Take?
“I get the cost savings with a layover, but I’ve always worried about what’s hiding under that first layer. When we finally tore ours off, there was some rot around the chimney we never would’ve seen otherwise.”
I get where you’re coming from, but I’ll be honest—sometimes a layover just makes sense, especially if you know the roof’s history. We did a layover on our old ranch house about eight years back. The original shingles were only 12 years old and still lying flat, no curling or soft spots. I crawled up there myself and checked for any mushy decking or weird dips before signing off on it.
Not saying it’s always the right move, but in our case, it saved us a chunk of change and a lot of mess. No dumpster in the driveway for a week, no nails all over the yard for months after. Plus, we didn’t have any leaks or issues until we sold last year—home inspector didn’t flag anything either.
Now, if your roof is pushing 20+ years or you’ve had ice dams or leaks before, yeah, I’d probably tear it down to the deck too. But sometimes people get spooked by horror stories and end up spending more than they need to. It’s not always doom hiding under there.
One thing I will say—if you’re in a spot with heavy snow or wild temperature swings (we’re in upstate NY), you gotta be extra careful with layovers. Too many layers can trap heat and cause more problems down the road.
Guess my point is: don’t write off layovers completely. If you do your homework and check things out properly (or have someone who knows what they’re looking at), it can work out fine. Just depends on what you find when you poke around up there...
You make a solid case for layovers, especially when you know the roof’s history and have actually done a hands-on inspection. I’ll admit, I tend to lean toward caution with stuff like this, but your approach makes sense—checking for spongy decking or signs of leaks before deciding is just smart. Doing that kind of due diligence can save a lot of unnecessary work and expense.
We went the tear-off route last summer, mostly because our shingles were showing their age (18 years, lots of curling at the edges) and we’d had a couple of minor leaks after a rough winter. We figured if we were already seeing issues on the surface, there was probably more going on underneath. Turned out there was some minor rot around one vent and a patch of soft decking near the eaves—nothing catastrophic, but it would’ve gotten worse if we’d just covered it up. The peace of mind was worth it for us, but I get that not every situation calls for that level of intervention.
You’re right about climate making a difference too. We’re in Michigan, so snow load and freeze/thaw cycles are brutal. Our roofer said adding another layer would’ve made ice damming worse, so that tipped the scales for us. But if you’re somewhere with milder winters or your first layer is still in decent shape, I can see why people go for the savings.
One thing nobody really talks about is disposal costs—those dumpsters aren’t cheap, and hauling off old shingles adds up fast. Plus, there’s always that stray nail that finds its way into a tire months later... Been there.
At the end of the day, seems like it really depends on what you find up there and how long you plan to stay in the house. If you’re planning to move in a few years and everything checks out structurally, saving money with a layover could be totally reasonable. If it’s your “forever home” or you’ve got any doubts about what’s under those shingles, peace of mind might be worth the extra cost.
Either way, sounds like you did your homework and made an informed call—and honestly, that’s more than most folks do.
If it’s your “forever home” or you’ve got any doubts about what’s under those shingles, peace of mind might be worth the extra cost.
I get where you’re coming from, but I’ve actually seen a few cases where a full tear-off wasn’t really necessary, even for long-term owners. Sometimes, if the first layer is solid and there’s no sign of leaks or rot, a layover can last just as long and save a chunk of change. Not saying it’s always the right move—especially in places with wild winters like Michigan—but sometimes folks get talked into a tear-off when a careful inspection could’ve saved them thousands. Just my two cents.
I’ve seen both sides of this, honestly. My uncle did a layover on his place about 12 years ago—no leaks, no issues, and he’s in upstate NY where winters aren’t exactly gentle. But if you’ve got any soft spots or weird dips, skipping the tear-off can come back to bite you. Sometimes it’s worth poking around a bit before making the call.
