no way. some people prime before texture but never before taping

In cases where I do repairs of damaged drywall, the paper edges may want to fuzz up in the sanding process. Once that is evident, I sand for level surface before the last coat of mud and prime. Then sand to kill the fuzz and apply last coat of mud. Sand and prime again. Lots of extra work. I am not a drywall expert and this procedure gives me superb results. I often use it when removing ceiling texture materials and small areas of damaged paper occur.

"In cases where I do repairs of damaged drywall, the paper edges may want to fuzz up in the sanding process."

Practicer so all you need to do is lightly scrape over the dry mud with a drywall knife.

I never sand drywall (new or repair) since I learned on plaster (it cannot be sanded).

Seems you are creating double work (and more work for the painter) since it will still need to be primed again. You can't paint over "raw" joint compound or plaster.

Here's what a pro poster at another site says:

"I would not tape a house like that for a number of reasons.

1. 2nd + coat of mud will bubble likely.

2. Tape will not bond as well.

I have been using a power sander for smooth level 4 walls for about 5 years. Yes, it scuffs the paper a little. I also do some priming of my jobs. If the painter wants to spray without backrolling you may very well have some problems. If you backroll and then sand after priming, which you should do anyway on a smooth wall, you should have no problems.

A side note, I don't feel that I scuff the paper worse than hand sanding does. I think you actually get a better job because the sander knocks down all the edges. (I still finish up by pole and sponge.)"

And a couple more comments:

"Thats just a stupid painter with a big ego who thinks he knows everything about his trade. It can scuff up the paper if the person using it doesn't know how to operate the power-sander. Regardless, after they prime, and paint, the painter needs to sand lightly in-between coats to keep the walls smooth. If he thinks he's going to prime the wall first, he's a total idiot. He's just trying to convince the home-owner that so he can get paid twice for priming the walls. What an idiot!"

And another:
"Just like you don't wipe before you poop, you don't prime before you tape."

I see a pattern here. :-)

A lot of resistance from the pro crowd. To clarify, he's not getting paid to prime twice, this is just how he does his jobs, and he was only $0.10 per sq ft higher than the competition.

The order he does is prime before mud & tape, prime after mud & tape, cut in twice, spray once, then he comes back at the very end of the build (around the time the floor guys will do the final coat) and rolls the final coat.

I'll report back in about 2 months with an update on how the walls turned out.

"The order he does is prime before mud & tape, prime after mud & tape, cut in twice, spray once, then he comes back at the very end of the build (around the time the floor guys will do the final coat) and rolls the final coat. "

its not because of the cost that it is a bad idea. drywall mud has to bond to the paper. if you prime before mud the primer seals the paper and the mud cant bond.

The post by vhehn implies that the bond of the joint compound to the paper is stronger than the bond of the joint compound to the primer. I have not seen any data from controlled tests on this subject. But in my experience, the compound bonds to primer quite well.

considering the difficulity of correcting the problem if the tape bond fails i wonder why a person would try such a thing.

A formal study would be interesting. Suppose that it revealed that the overall bond of drywall paper to primer to compound is stronger that that of paper to compound?

I suspect the strength of the bond is going to depend on a) the strength of the paper and b) whether or not the covering solution [mud or primer] actually saturated the paper sufficiently to make a solid bond rather than a layer over it.

Yeah, we need testers with microscopes and calipers.

well. its like this. if you are a drywall professional your duty is to apply products to manufacturers specifications. if you do something different and problems arise you open yourself up to liability.
the problem i see here is that there is little to gain and a lot to lose. are you going to tape sombodys million dollar house knowing that if the tape fails you stand to lose a lot of money? if sombody asked me to do it i would tell him that i wont say it will not work but there would be no guarantee.

The issue of the mud not sticking to primer is pretty funny to me. When a pro comes to patch a wall, they don't remove the paint in the section they repair. And the paper on the drywall, you don't think it has a color painted on it already? It's not white all the way through, is it? Nope, it's a brown paper that's been painted white on one side.

I've been very negative on GC/Homebuilders because everytime I asked them to do something different (aka not bare minimum code), they resisted and tried to scare me off with revoking all their warranties and guarantees and the "You're overbuilding the home!" junk. So when faced with a newer technique, instead of cowering like the "pros", I took a risk and said let's try it. If my drywaller had not been on board with it, I wouldn't have risked it. But he called the painter to get him in before the mud and tape. That assured me that we weren't going to have problems finishing the drywall.

My experience indicates that the sprayed ceiling texture, "popcorn" in the terminology of some, bonds better to a primed surface than it does to the bare paper. Never would I choose the textured ceilings.

"I've been very negative on GC/Homebuilders because everytime I asked them to do something different (aka not bare minimum code), they resisted and tried to scare me off with revoking all their warranties and guarantees and the "You're overbuilding the home!" junk. "
and i have been amused by the wanabe owner gc who when advised by the pros who do this for a living that it isnt a good idea continue to insist that they know better.

"...pros who do this for a living..."

vhehn ~ you didn't really mean to say that, did you? If so, go back and read all the posts where "the pros" are making a living, but not by doing their jobs right. Claiming -or being proclaimed- "a pro" is absolutely no guarantee that the person knows his job, much less has done any research into methodology or even pays attention to anyone else's experience. That's why we always say to check the pro's references, and whenever possible look at his/her prior work!

Anyone who has ever had to repair drywall can tell you that mud (ie: joint compound or fast-drying compound or spackle) DOES stick quite well to paint! What must be checked is to determine whether or not the paint is bonded with the sheetrock... and when the paint doesn't bond it often makes very obvious bubbles. (The bubbles reflect a problem with the drywall's paper not bonding to the gypsum, not with the fact of painting.)

If OP checks with the drywall manufacturer, and gets a written confirmation that paint/primer will properly adhere to the bare wall (and I don't know of any reason for it not to do so), then IMHO, I see no reason to object to the OP's proffered style --- other than the time it will take (because waiting for the primer to cure is being added to each session of waiting for the mud to cure) and the likely increase in cost for materials and labor. I equally see no particular benefit in pre-priming, although that too can/should be discussed with the manufacturers.

"vhehn ~ you didn't really mean to say that, did you? If so, go back and read all the posts where "the pros" are making a living, but not by doing their jobs right. Claiming -or being proclaimed- "a pro" is absolutely no guarantee that the person knows his job, much less has done any research into methodology or even pays attention to anyone else's experience."
so you are trying to claim that you,someone who does not do this for a living peobably knows more than somone who does. thats a little presumptive of you dont you think?
we are not talking about patching a small area. we are talking about taping a one inch area along a wall where a failure can have devastating results.
good luck getting a drywall manufacturer to ok this in writing. when they do get back and we will talk. until then if you ask me to prime before taping i will say ok but no guarantee.

vhehn ~ presumption is assuming all pros are all-knowing and all non-pros are unknowing.

And please realize that you have no idea what I have or have not ever done for a living.

Personally, I don't think of sloppy work as "devastating" unless there is a possibility of structural failure. I do think sloppy walls can be infuriating and exasperating and disgusting and expensive to repair and totally uncalled-for when done by a professional.

I also think, and have said, that one should check with the manufacturer before indulging in non-common applications. OTOH, remember that the adhesive fibreglas tapes were also non-common with they first came out.

I equally see no particular benefit in pre-priming....

That says it all.

I have been watching this thread. My husband is a paint contractor of high end homes( where the paint bid can range up and over 80,000.00 sometimes).

I asked him his opinion. He would not prime before mudding but not because of adhesion but it costs the customer more. He thinks their may be a possible problem ( but not likely) with an oil primer but not with a latex primer.

The original painter is doing this to get a better(smoother finish) maybe because he is use to working with lower quality drywallers. It always ends up being the painters problem if the finish is off, he is just trying to ensure a good final result.

Again, let me remind vhehn that this was not my idea, it was my drywaller and painter who came to me for doing it. And when it comes to how to build a home, I don't rely on "that's how I've built them for 30 years" mentality, I go to the Building Science Corp that tests these new methods. I've read the manufacturer's instructions on every product we've used, including engineered I-Joist and the spray foam MSDS sheets. I know more about the products the "pros" use than they do.

jmagill brought up my only concern, cost. This isn't costing me any more than not doing it. The painter believes it's worth his time and the extra money for primer to do this so his end product is better, and he proves it by not charging more for doing it. It took one of his crew one morning of time and a few buckets of primer. I don't know if the walls will be smoother or not, but I'll know if the final product is good or bad in a couple months.

I never had a concern about the mud not sticking or bubbling or stuff like that. If this does result in a smoother finish, I wondered why I hadn't heard of it before, here or on another forum or TV show. That was my intent of the post.

I know more about the products the "pros" use than they do.

Congrats! It must be nice to know it all.

A "true" level 5 finish involves completely skim coating the entire surface of the wall board on the final coat, although it seems it is rare to see that these days. With skim coating, it would eliminate the need for pre-priming. Without skim coating, pre-priming sounds like a good idea imo, as when the paint ages and fades on a "level 5" finish that hasn't been skimmed, eventually the seams of the mud vs the paper of the wallbaord will protrude through. A lot is dependent on the natural/mechanical light in the room(s). Without skim coating, i would think priming followed by the mud/finish, followed by another coat of primer followed by two color top coats.

There are pros and then there are "pros". I consider myself a pro in a couple of trades, but paint and drywall are not among them. I hired a father-son team of "Pros" to paint the exterior of a house for me. Father very limited English, son recently graduated high school in the USA. Offered a reasonable quote, had enthusiastic endorsements from previous customers in the neighborhood where the house is located. They insisted on furnishing the paint. Blew water under the front door with their pressure washer resulting in a puddle in the carpet. Poorly masked the storm windows and had some of the frames sprayed while others were not. None should have been sprayed. Painted the EXTERIOR of the house with INTERIOR paint. I discovered it. Did you know that the words INTERIOR and EXTERIOR are exactly the same in both English and Spanish? An error is one thing, but they told multiple lies to try to get me to accept the job. Now resolved in my favor. I completely agree that customers should keep close tabs on the work that contractors are doing. That includes knowing about the materials.

"Congrats! It must be nice to know it all."

Congrats yourself! Your eyesight is incredible, seeing "know it all" in the sentence "I know more about the products the "pros" use than they do."

Or should I just regress to the "takes one to know one defense"?

I hope Worthy doesn't double dog dare me to reply to his next enlightening post.

This week, I encountered more "pro" work. House built in 1968, tract of spec built starter houses. Single story roof trusses spaced 2' oc. Roof sheathing 1/2" plywood. No clips on adjoining edges, no spacing between sheets, nailed with 6d nails, only about half the proper number of nails used. Some badly buckled and ready to blow off due to nails pulled out by the buckling. All now corrected with new shingles. Ceilings are 1/2" drywall fastened to the bottom of the trusses. Ceilings sagging and peeling sprayed texture on the ceiling, blown-in insulation on the ceiling, perhaps 3" thick. Scraped off the texture and discovered that the ceiling drywall was nailed only every 24". Along the truss chord, the better fastener spacing would have been every 8". So now the ceiling is properly fastened with drywall screws. I absolutely do think that careful owner inspection is essential as frequently as possible. I do not mind at all having owners inspect my work. And I do review all the work of my lawyer and CPA even though I am not an expert in either field.

Bus Driver,

I would guess that every house built in 1968 followed those specifications. 1/2" plywood, back then, was Ok for 24inch centers. There were no such thing as plywood clips back then. I think they came about when OSB started making headway in the market. Same thing with spaced sheathing. I dont know when 5/8 drywall fell into favor, but my guess wouldve been about this vintage also, as prior to the truss era, all framing was at 16 inch centers and half inch drywall on the ceilings, was fine on 16". My guess, is that this group of homes, fell into the time frame when things were moving from stick built to truss built, with little exceptions for the additional spacing.

Certainly, we all know better now.

I do agree that the fastening is/was inadequate, which led to most of the failures.

I cannot locate definite information about the introduction of the H-clips, but my memory tells me that they were being used long before 1968- and I was involved in building long before then, but not in framing nor roofing. Some plywood sheathing was listed for 32" OC roof framing.

Great article, I noticed sanding the joints are very difficult in some cases, just wondering if different compounds have diffferent resistance to sanding, if yes do you have any recommendation for easier sanding process ?

I learned on plaster to use a thick wet felt brush to smooth everything out. I still use it on drywall and people are astonished that there is little or no sanding needed.