It’s honestly kind of amazing how much just being prepared can shift the whole inspection process. I’m with you on the checklist—mine is a little over the top, but I’d rather have too much info than not enough. I’ve noticed inspectors tend to take you more seriously if you’re organized and can show you’ve tracked repairs or maintenance. Last year, I had all my receipts and photos in a folder, and the inspector actually thanked me for making his job easier. The report ended up way more favorable than my neighbor’s, who just let them poke around without any background.
I do think there’s a bit of luck to it, though. Like you said, weather plays a role, and sometimes it depends on who shows up that day. One guy went straight for my attic insulation and barely glanced at the gutters, while another spent 20 minutes on the roof itself. It’s a little frustrating how subjective it can be.
I’ve also had to fight back on a couple “findings” that felt nitpicky—one inspector flagged some moss that was basically decorative at that point. But I cleaned it up, sent in new photos, and my insurance company actually adjusted their rate down after seeing proof of maintenance. Not always guaranteed, but worth pushing back if something seems off.
For anyone else reading this, keeping your own documentation really does pay off. And yeah, even small stuff like clearing out leaves or replacing a cracked shingle can make a difference when someone’s writing up that report. It’s not fun spending weekends on the roof, but if it means saving a few hundred bucks a year... hard to argue with that logic.
Curious if anyone’s tried those newer synthetic underlayments instead of felt? I’m due for an update soon and wondering if it’s worth the extra upfront cost.
That checklist habit pays off, trust me. I’ve seen folks get dinged for the tiniest things just because they didn’t have backup or proof of repairs. About the synthetic underlayments—honestly, I’m seeing more homeowners go that route lately, especially in wetter climates. They’re pricier up front but seem to hold up better if you’ve got a low pitch or shady areas where moisture lingers. Just make sure your installer’s familiar with it... I’ve seen a few botched jobs when someone tried to treat it like old-school felt.
I get the appeal of synthetic underlayments, especially with all the rain we get here, but I’m still on the fence about whether they’re worth the extra cost for everyone. When I did my roof last year (asphalt shingles, 5/12 pitch, lots of tree cover), I priced out both synthetic and traditional felt. The synthetic stuff was almost double, and my contractor said unless you’re dealing with really low slopes or planning to leave the underlayment exposed for a while, felt can still do the job just fine.
I’m also a little skeptical about the “better in moisture” claim. If water’s getting past your shingles and underlayment regularly, isn’t that a bigger problem? Maybe it’s just me being cheap, but I’d rather put that money toward better flashing or attic ventilation. Anyone else stick with felt and not regret it? Or did I just get lucky with no leaks so far...
If water’s getting past your shingles and underlayment regularly, isn’t that a bigger problem? Maybe it’s just me being cheap, but I’d rather put that money toward better flashing or attic ventilation.
Honestly, I’m right there with you. When I did my own roof (similar pitch, lots of shade from trees), I weighed the same options. The synthetic underlayment sounded great on paper, but the price jump was hard to swallow. My thinking was: if the shingles and flashing are solid, the underlayment is really just backup. I ended up sticking with felt, and after a couple years—no leaks, no regrets.
I do wonder sometimes if I’m just rolling the dice, but like you said, if water’s making it past both layers, something else is probably wrong. I put my extra cash toward ice & water shield in the valleys and upgraded the attic vents. Maybe not as flashy as synthetic, but it felt like a smarter use of the budget.
Anyway, you’re not alone in being skeptical. Sometimes “tried and true” is good enough, especially if you’re keeping up with maintenance.
I had a similar debate when I was helping my uncle with his roof last year. He was convinced synthetic underlayment was a must, but I kept wondering—if the shingles and flashing are done right, how much does the underlayment really matter? We ended up splitting the difference: felt everywhere except the valleys, where we used ice & water shield. No leaks so far, and his insurance actually dropped a bit after the inspection. Maybe it’s just luck, but I’m starting to think the basics—good install, solid flashing, regular checks—matter more than the fancy upgrades. Anyone else notice insurance companies care more about visible condition than what’s under the shingles?
