We have had a contractor renovating our pool including new concrete decks, tile and plaster. The old plaster was in poor condition so it was chipped out down to the shell, then re-plastered. I came home today very excited that our project was nearly complete knowing they finished the plaster, and was shocked to find that they applied white plaster instead of the "harbor blue" color that we had specified. The contractor has acknowledged this error and offered two options to rectify it. I've added what I perceive as the pros and cons for each one.
A. Bond plaster: Fill pool and let new white plaster cure for 30 days. After 30 days, drain pool, saw cut plaster along tile and fittings and chip out a keyway within 6 inches of cuts, apply bond coat and a 1/2 inch layer of (correct blue-colored) plaster. Pros: reduced chance of chipping out more shell concrete and potentially damaging shell (there was some structural cracking of the shell that was repaired as part of this project) from additional chipping; get to use pool now while summer wanes. Cons: unshapely lip at the keyway where the 1/2 inch plaster feathers back down to the tile face; Knowledge that the white plaster will be down there, taunting me for evermore.
B. Replace: Chip out all the new plaster down to the shell again and re-do with new entire layer of plaster. Pros: I end up with the product that was specified; don't have to re-drain the pool in 30 days; Cons: potential for damage; more summer days waiting for a swimmable pool.
It seems that Option A is better. I'd be very grateful if anyone had some insight or advice that could help me make a decision on this matter. If Option A is chosen, am I ending up with as good quality of a product as if they had done it right the first time?