We just went through this exact dilemma last fall. Our house is a 1960s ranch with a low-slope roof, and the previous owner had already done one overlay about 15 years ago. When we started noticing a couple of water spots in the attic, I was hoping it’d be a quick patch or maybe just another layer. But after talking to a few contractors, it sounded like adding more shingles would just hide the real problems.
I’ll admit, the price difference between an overlay and a full tear-off was tough to swallow. But once they pulled everything off, there were sections of decking that were basically mulch. If we’d just kept piling on shingles, I doubt we’d have caught it until things got way worse.
The mess and noise were no joke, but at least now I know there’s solid wood under there and the warranty is valid. I get why overlays are appealing—especially with how expensive everything is right now—but for us, the peace of mind was worth it. Still, if your roof’s in good shape and you don’t see any leaks or soft spots, I can see why some folks roll the dice.
That’s exactly why I’m not a fan of overlays, especially on older homes. You just can’t see what’s going on underneath, and if there’s rot or mold, it’ll keep festering. Plus, two layers means more landfill waste down the road… not great for the planet or your wallet long-term. I get the sticker shock, but sometimes ripping it all off is the only way to know you’re not just covering up a bigger headache.