“Heavier frames are a thing, yeah, but it’s not usually a dealbreaker unless you’re dealing with old, saggy sills.”
That’s the bit that tripped me up—my place is 1940s and those original sills are, well, “characterful” is putting it nicely. I went with double pane because I wasn’t sure the frames (or my budget) could handle triple. Anyone tried reinforcing sills to handle the extra weight? Curious if it’s worth the hassle or just asking for more headaches down the line.
Reinforcing sills sounded like a clever fix when my contractor first floated it, but once we started poking around, I realized my 1938 sills were basically petrified sponge cake. We looked at adding new supports underneath, but the labor and materials just kept creeping up—plus, you never know what you’ll find when you start opening up old walls. Ended up sticking with double pane for peace of mind (and wallet). Not saying it’s impossible, but in these old houses, sometimes “character” just means more surprises...
That sounds about right—old houses are like a box of chocolates, never know what you’re gonna get once you start opening things up. I’ve been debating the same thing with my 1941 place. Did your contractor say anything about condensation or drafts with double pane vs triple? I keep hearing mixed things, but I’m not sure if it’s really worth the extra cost for triple in these leaky old places…
Triple pane is kinda like putting a parka on a scarecrow—sure, it’s warmer, but if you’ve got drafts sneaking in around every frame, you’re still gonna feel that chill. In old houses, the big gains usually come from fixing up the leaks and insulation first. Double pane is already a solid upgrade over single, and unless your place is sealed up tighter than a mason jar, triple can be overkill (and pricey). Condensation’s more about humidity and air leaks than the window glass itself. I’d patch the gaps before splurging on triple.
I get where you’re coming from about patching up leaks first. When we bought our place (built in the 60s), I was convinced new windows would be the magic fix, but after one winter with drafty rooms and wild temp swings, I started noticing cold air sneaking in around the trim and outlets. Ended up spending a weekend with a caulk gun and weatherstripping instead of dropping a fortune on fancy glass. Made way more difference than I expected.
That said, I’m still tempted by triple pane sometimes—mostly because our street is pretty loud and I’ve heard the extra layer helps with noise. Anyone actually notice a big sound difference going from double to triple, or is that more marketing hype? I love the idea of better insulation, but if it’s just “a bit” quieter and costs a ton more, maybe not worth it.
On condensation, totally agree it’s about humidity. We had foggy windows until we got a dehumidifier running, and now even our old double panes are clear most mornings.
Curious if anyone here’s run into issues with window weight or installation headaches when they picked triple pane? I read somewhere that older frames might not handle the extra heft well, and last thing I want is to open a can of worms mid-reno.
I looked into triple pane for the same reasons—noise and insulation—but honestly, the sound reduction wasn’t dramatic in most demos I saw. The weight is real, too. Our contractor warned us older frames might sag or need reinforcement, which bumped up install costs. If your main issue’s drafts, sealing gaps like you did gives way more bang for your buck. Triple pane seems best if you’re already replacing everything or live somewhere brutally cold... otherwise, I’m not sure it’s worth the headache or expense.
We went down the triple vs double pane rabbit hole last fall. Our place is a 1960s ranch, and I geeked out comparing U-factors and sound ratings. Honestly, the triple panes were noticeably heavier—my installer actually groaned lifting one into the opening. The energy savings on paper looked good, but in our mild-ish climate, the payback was... let’s just say, not quick. Ended up going double pane with extra attention to weatherstripping and caulking. No regrets so far—house feels less drafty, and my wallet isn’t crying.
You made a solid call, especially for a 1960s ranch in a mild climate. I ran into the same debate last year—triple pane sounded great on paper, but when I saw the price tag and factored in our not-so-harsh winters, it just didn’t add up. Paying extra for something you’ll barely notice day-to-day feels like overkill. Tight weatherstripping and careful caulking really do make a difference, sometimes more than the glass itself. Sounds like you struck the right balance between comfort and cost.
I hear you on the price tag. I looked at triple pane last fall when we were redoing the living room windows, and honestly, I just couldn’t justify the cost either. The sales guy made it sound like I’d be living in a spaceship—super quiet, super efficient—but in our area (mid-Atlantic, nothing too extreme), double pane with good seals has worked just fine.
I did notice a bigger difference after I spent a weekend crawling around with a caulk gun and some weatherstripping than I ever did swapping out glass. Not glamorous work, but it stopped those annoying drafts around the old frames. Triple pane might make sense if you’re right up against a busy street or have crazy winters, but for most of us…feels like putting a turbo on a lawnmower.
I’m all for comfort, but I’d rather spend the extra cash somewhere I’ll actually notice it—like better insulation in the attic or a new HVAC filter.
Couldn’t agree more about the “turbo on a lawnmower” bit. Unless you’re living next to an airport or your winters are brutal, triple pane is usually overkill around here. I’ve seen folks get way more bang for their buck just sealing up drafts and beefing up attic insulation. Sometimes it’s the boring fixes that actually make the difference... not the fancy glass.