Armond Perretta wrote:

In case the point was not adequately explained (or
more likely not adequately understood by some) in earlier posts, let me
restate the point he the idea is to save money. Could that point have
possibly been overlooked?

I don't think the point was misunderstood by anybody, not even by Wilbur
who, in his inimitable style, called the idea stupid. He did make a
valid point though, that *if* re-antifouling is the only reason for
spending the winter ashore, which as a rule is quite a bit more
expensive than spending the winter afloat, then your plan is a false
economy, but of course it rarely is the only reason.

Sharing your experiences is appreciated, but you do yourself no favour
by exaggerating the benefit. The fact is that by thinning to 75% you
only save a quarter of the price, not half. However, if you would like
to experiment to see what happens when you thin to 50%, I'm sure your
results will be awaited with interest.

I think you're right that most people slap on more of the stuff than
is really necessary to last a six-month season, so it makes sense to
try to reduce the amount applied. On the other hand, if you winter
afloat occasionally, you will save more money even if you have to use
3 times as much paint because it has to last 18 months.

Wilbur's suggestion that by applying 2 gallons instead of 3 quarts
(or even just 2 or 1.5 quarts) this will last 4-5 years is absurd.