- Gotta say, sometimes all those hidden layers aren’t doing you any favors.
- Old tar paper and shakes can trap moisture or hide rot—seen a lot of “surprises” during storm repairs.
- More history means more stuff that can go wrong down the line.
- If you’re re-roofing, stripping it all the way back is usually safer, even if it’s a pain.
- Not everyone agrees, but I’d rather deal with the mess once than risk leaks later.
I totally get the “deal with the mess once” idea, but man, I was not prepared for how much old stuff they pulled off my roof. Found like three layers of shingles and some weird old felt that just crumbled. Does anyone actually keep track of all the layers when they buy a house? I feel like my inspector barely mentioned it…
Honestly, I think a lot of inspectors just do a surface check unless you specifically ask about roof layers. It’s not really standard for them to dig into how many times a roof’s been re-shingled, especially if it’s not leaking or sagging. But that’s exactly why I always recommend getting a detailed roof report before closing. Too many people get stuck with these “roof lasagna” situations and then the first big storm exposes all the shortcuts. It’s wild how much old material can be hiding up there... and yeah, the weird felt is usually a sign someone cut corners decades ago.
The “roof lasagna” thing is spot on. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve peeled back shingles and found three, sometimes four layers stacked up—like some kind of archaeological dig. Folks are always surprised when I show them what’s really up there. The worst was a place from the 70s where someone had just slapped new shingles over old wood shakes, then tossed on a layer of that weird black felt you mentioned. It looked fine from the street, but underneath? Total mess. The decking was half-rotted, and the nails barely had anything to grip.
I get why inspectors don’t always catch it. Unless you’re specifically looking for those clues—like uneven shingle lines or odd bulges—it’s easy to miss. But honestly, skipping a real roof inspection is just asking for trouble, especially in places with wild weather swings. Around here (Midwest), ice dams and wind storms will find every weak spot in a hurry.
And yeah, the terminology doesn’t help. Half the time I’m explaining to homeowners what a “cricket” or “soffit” is, or why “underlayment” isn’t just some random paper. It’s like the industry went out of its way to make things sound complicated. But knowing the difference between felt and synthetic underlayment, or why you don’t want too many layers, actually matters when you’re staring down a $15k replacement bill.
If you’re buying an older house, it’s worth asking for a full tear-off history—or at least getting someone up there who’ll poke around a bit more than just eyeballing from the ground. Otherwise, you might end up paying for someone else’s shortcuts... and trust me, those old roofs have plenty of secrets.
I get the point about full tear-offs, but I’m not sure it’s always worth the extra cash, especially if the top layer’s still in decent shape. My place had two layers when I bought it, and the inspector said it was fine for a few more years—no leaks, no soft spots. I get nervous about spending $15k just because of “what-ifs.” Maybe I’m rolling the dice, but sometimes it feels like the roofing industry pushes for total replacements when a patch would do. Guess it depends on your risk tolerance and how long you plan to stay.
