If we’d just kept stacking, I’m pretty sure we would’ve had bigger problems.
That’s what worries me, honestly. My place is early ‘60s, and when I bought it, there were already two layers up there. I had a roofer tell me it was “fine,” but I kept thinking about hidden rot or even ventilation issues. Did you notice any difference in energy bills or attic temps after your tear-off? I’m wondering if all those layers trap more heat than they help.
That “it’s fine” line from roofers always makes me pause. I get that two layers isn’t unheard of, especially in houses from the ‘50s and ‘60s, but it’s not like extra shingles magically fix what’s underneath. I’ve seen enough attic spaces with mystery stains and that musty smell to know hidden rot is a real possibility. Sometimes you lift those layers and—surprise—sheathing’s been slowly turning to compost for years.
On the energy side, you’re onto something. I’ve checked attic temps with an IR gun before and after tear-offs, and it’s almost always cooler once you go back to a single layer. All those shingles stacked up act like a heat blanket in summer, so unless you have killer ventilation, your AC works overtime. Winter’s trickier... sometimes those extra layers can help a bit with insulation, but honestly, it’s not enough to outweigh the downsides.
One thing I’d ask: how’s your attic ventilation? Gable vents, ridge vents, soffits—if they’re blocked or undersized (which is common in older places), heat just builds up. Even if you don’t see leaks yet, moisture trapped under all those layers can start trouble you won’t spot until it’s way worse.
I get why folks want to avoid the cost and mess of a full tear-off, but if you’re already thinking about rot or energy bills, it might be worth at least getting someone up there who’ll poke around instead of just eyeballing from the driveway. Had a neighbor who kept adding layers “to save money”—until his ceiling started sagging and he had to replace half his rafters. Not a cheap shortcut in the end.
Curious if anyone here has actually tracked their utility bills before and after a tear-off? I’ve only seen anecdotal stuff, but it’d be interesting to know if it really makes a big dent or just feels better because you know what’s under there.
Has anyone noticed if the age of the house makes a difference with this? Ours is a 1958 ranch with the original sheathing, and I’m worried that adding another layer might just be hiding bigger problems. Is it ever worth skipping the tear-off if the decking’s that old?
I’ve worked on a few houses from the ‘50s and honestly, I’d be nervous about skipping the tear-off with original sheathing that old. In my experience, once you pull up those old shingles, you usually find at least some rot or soft spots—especially around valleys or chimneys. Covering it up with another layer might seem easier (and cheaper), but if there’s hidden damage, you’re just buying time before bigger headaches pop up. I get why people want to avoid the mess and cost, but with decking that’s pushing 70 years? I’d want to see what’s going on underneath before stacking more weight on top.
That’s spot on—old houses can be full of surprises once you start poking around under the roof. I’ve seen sheathing from that era that looked fine from below, but when we actually pulled the shingles, it was a different story—spongy spots, old leaks nobody noticed, even some weird repairs from decades ago. It’s tempting to just slap another layer on and call it good, especially if you’re looking at the price tag for a full tear-off. But honestly, with something pushing 70 years? I’d want to know what I’m working with before stacking more weight up there.
I get some folks do the overlay and don’t have issues right away, but it really is rolling the dice. Plus, if you ever do need repairs down the road, it’s a bigger headache with two layers. Not saying overlays are always bad—sometimes they make sense—but with original sheathing that old, tearing off is usually the safer bet in my book.
