Video summary

Peintures BAUFAN, tests et avis

Main summary

Key takeaways

Product Review

Product reviewed

BAUFAN / Beauofan professional interior wall paints—available in two “finish-style” variants: Satin and Velvet. These are satin/velvet wash/water-resistant interior coatings distributed mainly through professional channels (not widely available to individuals).

Key features mentioned (both products)

  • Professional interior wall paints with similar “finish-style” naming.
  • Low smell (essentially odorless; mostly just a typical paint smell).
  • Acrylic-based formulation.
  • Dilution: can be diluted with water by up to ~10%.
  • Sprayable, including the mention of spraying with airless equipment without issues.
  • Low specular gloss / “velvety” appearance:
    • Very matte
    • Helps hide wall imperfections
  • Washable / water-vapor resistant concept
    • Satin: positioned as a washable interior vinyl paint (cleanable with damp methods).
    • Velvet: explicitly positioned as washable without adding products—wipe with a damp sponge.

Subtitled evaluation: ratings & observations

1) “Satin” (washable interior vinyl paint)

Pros

  • Easy application thanks to a “star” consistency: neither too runny nor too thick.
  • Very opaque with strong hiding ability
    • “Opacity and marking” rated high.
  • Low gloss / matte look
    • Described as more “velvet” than typical satin, improving imperfection hiding.
  • Dilutable and sprayable.

Cons

  • Splatter tendency
    • Described as splattering more than average during application.
  • Texture affects appearance
    • Droplets / “greased trowel” effect make the finish look less like a perfectly smooth wall (reviewer suggests this costs him “a star”).
  • Coverage calculations are tricky
    • Reviewer tested on a textured and already-painted surface.
    • He argues technical-sheet coverage differs from real-world results (single coat vs total coats).

Coverage / consumption discussion (important nuance)

  • The review references technical-sheet style coverage examples such as:
    • “6 m² per liter” with a stated contrast-class scenario (example of brand presentation).
  • Then it mentions consumption around ~170 ml/m² from the sheet.
  • Reviewer conclusion:
    • Coverage numbers may be counted differently (e.g., single coat vs total coats).
    • In his own conditions, he estimates closer to 12 m² per liter, implying the official sheet claims can be confusing.

Other notes

  • Specular gloss percentage wasn’t provided in the specs, though the reviewer infers it’s low from results.
  • Value: good quality at a competitive price, but availability is limited.
  • Implied star-style scoring
    • Smell: 2 stars (discreet, essentially normal paint smell)
    • Value: positive / competitive pricing
    • Finish deductions: reduced score due to splatter and projected texture effects

2) “Velvet” (waterproof / washable positioning)

Pros

  • Washable by wiping with a damp sponge with no added products.
  • Ideal/consistent application feel
    • Note: the same splatter caveat applies, but working flow is praised.
  • Great stain hiding / opacity
    • Reviewer tests with visible stains (hand/food-related marks on a corner).
    • Reports the paint isolated and covered stains effectively:
      • multiple coats initially,
      • while marks did not reappear as they did with other brands.
  • Very low sheen / low specular gloss
    • Helps hide imperfections (compared side-by-side with another brand’s wall section).

Cons

  • Splattering again
    • Another “star” deduction due to splatter tendency.
  • Potentially confusing or duplicated marketing/technical language
    • Reviewer claims the technical data looks copy-paste identical between Satin and Velvet.
  • Same odor verdict
    • Smell: 2 stars.
  • Availability limitation
    • Still more “construction-site / professional supply” oriented, not broadly sold to individuals.

Implied star-style scoring

  • Smell: 2 stars
  • Value: the “first star” plus good stain isolation; overall described as very good for the low price
  • Finish/application: deduction due to splatter

Comparisons made

  • Caparol:
    • The reviewer calls BAUFAN/Beauofan a direct competitor in type and finish quality, but cheaper.
  • Another “velvety” brand:
    • A split-wall comparison (“Pldox” vs “Beauan/Beaufan”) suggests different sheen/finish appearance, even when both are advertised as velvety.
  • DIY store paints:
    • Reviewer argues DIY store pricing can be higher due to distribution/reseller structures, even if manufacturing may be similar.
  • Coverage math discrepancies:
    • Notes that German brands (e.g., Caparol) may use contrast-class/coverage calculations that differ from how he counts in testing.

User experience & handling

  • Application feel: good consistency, easy to apply, sprayable.
  • Mess factor: splattering more than average (repeated negative).
  • Smell: minimal odor.
  • Coverage behavior: strong opacity and stain hiding, but real-world coverage depends on surface prep and coat count, with emphasis on the gap between technical-sheet vs practical results.

Price & availability

  • Estimated price: ~€5 to €8 per liter.
  • Major drawbacks:
    • Sold primarily in 15L containers (too heavy to carry upstairs).
    • Not widely available to individuals; even professionals may need access via a specific contact/supplier.

Packaging drawback (major con)

  • The reviewer strongly regrets the 15L container size/weight—a practical issue for typical users who must carry multiple heavy units.

Overall verdict (concise recommendation)

Recommended for professionals or users who can access professional supply and handle 15L containers. The paints perform well for a matte “velvety” appearance, low sheen, and good stain covering, with low odor and good workability. Main downsides: splattering during application and access/pack-size constraints (15L heaviness and limited retail access).

Unique points mentioned (consolidated)

  1. Brand: Beauofan / BAUFAN, low online presence; positioned as professional.
  2. Includes an odd/bizarre historical claim mentioned by the reviewer (in subtitles).
  3. Distribution: professional channels; potentially in Paris region and also Luxembourg/Germany; limited availability in France.
  4. Satin: washable interior vinyl paint; good consistency; low gloss; high opacity; splatter tendency; texture/droplet projection reduces “perfect finish” look.
  5. Satin can be diluted ~10% and is sprayable.
  6. Smell: low odor (2-star feel).
  7. Coverage claim confusion due to technical sheet vs real-world differences (surface texture and coat-count assumptions).
  8. Velvet: waterproof/washable; wipe-cleanable with a damp sponge only.
  9. Velvet: strong stain isolation/coverage; low sheen hides imperfections.
  10. Velvet: also splatter and receives a deduction for it.
  11. Reviewer claims the technical data appears copy-pasted between Satin and Velvet.
  12. Estimated price: €5–€8/L, described as good value.
  13. Major con: sold in 15L containers (too heavy to carry upstairs).
  14. Favorable comparison to Caparol (similar quality, cheaper).
  15. Contrast vs DIY store paints (often cost more due to distribution/resellers).

Speaker/role notes

  • Main reviewer (single primary speaker): conducted the testing, impressions, comparisons, and star-style remarks.
  • Denis / brand representative: thanked for supplying paints and enabling the review (no separate technical expertise beyond access/distribution context).
  • “Michel” etc.: appears as playful dialogue/jokes while the reviewer continues evaluation (not presented as separate product expertise).

Original video