MANUFACTURER: Galaxy Carpet Mills, Inc.
NUMBER on BACKING: Not Applicable
ROLL & INVOICE NUMBERS: Not Given
STYLE NAME & NUMBER: Above All
COLOR NAME & NUMBER: Not Given
ID METHOD: According To Manufacturer
FIBER COLOR: Green
CONSTRUCTION: Conventional Tuft
YARN STYLE: Saxony
SQUARE YARDAGE: 258
BACK SYSTEM: Action
PRIMARY BACKING: Polypropylene
SECONDARY BACKING: Polypropylene
TYPE LOCATION: Residential
DATE INSTALLED: 11/12/97
CUSHION: 1/2 Inch Rebond 7.5 Lb./Cu. Ft.
SUBFLOOR: Concrete on the First Level, Plywood on the Second
AREA INSTALLED: Livingroom, Diningroom, Stairs, Halls, 3 Bedrooms
USE & MAINTENANCE STATISTICS AT THE TIME OF THE INSPECTION
LITERATURE RECEIVED WITH PURCHASE: No
ADULTS: 3 - CHILDREN: 0 - PET(S): 0
DO THEY SMOKE?
SPOTTING AGENTS: Not Applicable
TEMPERATURE: 73.1F - 22.8 C RH 37%
VACUUM TYPE: Upright
VACUUM FREQUENCY: Weekly & More
SOIL: Slightly Soiled
HEATING TYPE: Forced Air Gas
COOLING TYPE: Central - Electric
CLEANING: Never Been Cleaned
This dwelling is located at the edge of the Anaheim Hills.
The dwelling is a large, two-story, owner-occupied, freestanding house. The
furnishings were neat and orderly.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION MADE TO THE INSPECTOR
The previous carpet of ten years was replaced with this similar green Saxony
nylon. The claimant used the previous carpet as a comparison. The dealer
reportedly said that the carpet in question was of an equal quality as the one
installed at that time. Within the first year of use, the new carpet began to
mat and crush. The claimant’s opinion is that the carpet is worn out and needs
DESCRIPTION OF PROBLEM AREA BY THIS INSPECTOR
In the areas most frequently traveled, apparent wear patterns were immediately
noticeable. The yarns were slightly crushed with a slight loss of twist. A
comparison was made with an uninstalled remnant and there was a noticeable
difference. Another comparison was made with the previous carpet and the
installed carpet appeared to have received more wear. The claimant’s vacuum
cleaner appeared to be in proper working order with an appropriate brush for
this style of yarn. No unusual footwear was discovered or reported.
ON-LOCATION FIELD TESTING
Yarns from the edge of the carpet in question and the old carpet were removed
and untwisted, then allowed to re-assert their twist. Retention of the twist of
the carpet in question appeared to be inconsistent from one yarn to another,
with some yarns appearing to have good retention and others not.
The issue of this inspection is to determine whether the fiber producer has
responsibilities to this consumer for correcting the problem.
GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATING THE ISSUE
The fiber producer warranty is the applicable standards for this issue.
INDUSTRY STANDARDS & DEFINITIONS
According to the FLOOR COVERING DICTIONARY, it says this:
TWIST RETENTION – This type of defect will only manifest itself after the carpet
has been in service. Poor twist retention will manifest itself as a general
untwisting of the yarns in the traffic areas and areas of heavier use. Poor
twist retention is purely a judgment decision; however, a general rule of thumb
for adequate retention would be where no more than 25% of the yarn bundle would
show untwisting after 12 months service.
THE INSPECTOR'S ANALYSIS
The contrast in appearance between the previous newly installed and un-installed
remnant is due to variations in twist retention. The field test suggests, but
does not prove that a problem may exist in the heat setting to create polymer
memory. In addition, this field investigation did not discover errors from
either the claimant or installer. The new carpet appears to be specified very
closely to the previous carpet. Therefore, it is recommended that the remnant be
tested under the commissioner’s own guidelines to make a more conclusive
Based upon background information, observations, and field-testing done at the
time of the inspection, it is the inspector’s professional opinion that the
acceptability of this carpet in question should rest upon the outcome of