I can't compare Andersen with Pella or any others, or the 200 series v. the 400 series, but I bought Anderson double hung windows and a sliding door, and I am sorely disappointed in them. I paid a LOT, esp. or the door. I had no choice but to get the top of the line because I had to get the bronze exterior color. The screens on the windows are flimsy. The hangers for the screen sliding door are plastic and break all the time. I've had problems with a new lock I installed on the sliding doors in December since December…. I would not buy Andersen again. But for all I know, the others are the same. I and so anti-corporate America right now. The greed is out of control; the mentality of cutting on quality in order to increase profits is anathema to me, but that's what they're doing, everywhere.

Dealing with a similar sutuation. New build with same windows. I was a little surprised when i noticed the exterior mitre joints, as mine are identical. One thing i know for sure is that “damage” you think is from the factory is 100% from the installer. Mine were installed with way more damage. Aside from the major damage, I did have those scuff/scratch type marks all over several of mine as well, the good news is - they literally wipe off with a decent amount of elbow grease. I was happy when I realized it wasnt permanent.

I did mix them all throughout the house (my window style is a cottage 4-over-1 grid with both interior and exterior grids), and after all my fretting, no one would ever be able to tell from the inside or outside! (I even have to look and try to remember whether some of the casements are 100s or 400s.) If it weren't for needing some very specific sizes (and wood grids to stain in our den), I would do all 100's because I cannot tell the difference in terms of operation/quality on the casements and you can barely discern the difference in terms of looks. And even in rooms where I chose the 400 series because I wanted to have double-hung windows, I wouldn't do it again....as appealing as the notion of being able to open the upper or lower sash was, what I've found in day-to-day living is that I only ever open the bottom sash, so I would've been just fine with simply doing single-hungs! Overall I'm satisfied with my Anderson windows, but I like my friend's Marvin Integrity windows better than mine--hers operate better and just have more of a "quality" look (mine still look fine.....I was actually going to do Integrity originally, but they did a price-hike during construction, and I just couldn't justify the extra $15-20K). I will say, however, that my Anderson 100 sliding windows that I did in the basement are ATROCIOUS in every way. Incredibly difficult to lock (you have to slam the window shut in order for the locking mechanism to "catch"--I far prefer the manual latches I had on my previous sliders), don't slide open very smoothly, let dirt in (we live in a very windy climate but still I've never seen so much fine dirt piled up on a window ceil!), super cheap--the lock plates have snapped or broken off over half of them in just the first year (and we almost never even use them). Needless to say, the inexpensive vinyl sliders we had in the basement of our last house were far superior.

The last time I was discussing Andersen window options with my usual supplier I asked about the 100 series and said to not use them. This is someone I trust; he grew up the son of the largest Andersen dealer in this half of the state and he's now working for the successor to that company. Because of your post I looked up the 100 series windows and I see clearly why I was warned to avid them. Here are some of my observations: • General The 100 series is an all-composite window (PVC & wood sawdust that Andersen calls Fibrex). Its basically built like a vinyl window and the frame depth front to back is 1 1/4" smaller than the 400 series Andersen windows. • Appearance I dislike the appearance of windows that place the glass near the exterior trim of the house because they look "bug-eyed". Perhaps they're OK on a modern design but they look terrible on a traditional design. The 400 series places the glass 1 3/4" back from 3/4" thick siding and trim. the 100 series paces the glass 3/8" in front of the siding and trim. The total difference is a very noticeable 2 1/8". In elevation view, the width of the frame and sash of the 400 is a 1/2" narrower than that of the 100 but the 100 looks much larger because the sash is flush with the frame and the 400 sash is set back 2" from the frame. In other words, the 100 windows have no "shadow lines" so the windows look stuck on the face of the wall. • Function The 100 series double-hung doesn't have a moving upper sash nor can the sash be tilted inward for cleaning. For this reason the 100 series only offers a half screen. However, the Tilt Wash version of the 400 series has an epoxy painted sash. This is not very noticeable because there is an unusually large and unattractive glazing stop that covers most of the sash frame. • Mullion Sizes Both windows have 3/4" wide applied mullions but the 100 series mullions are 3/16" deep with little shape and the 400 series mullions are 3/8" deep with a distinctive shape. • Sill design The 400 has a steeply sloping sill, a drip groove under the lower edge and a notch that prevents water from getting behind the siding. The 100 has none of those features. To prevent serious water infiltration problems I recommend installing a sub-sill below the 400 which might look odd on a protruding flat window.. • In summary The 400 TW is a well designed middle of the road residential window. The 100 is a builder grade residential and light commercial window with odd features and some design deficiencies. I cannot think of an appropriate use for the 100 series, however, you haven't told us anything about the style of the house which is ultimately the single most important design consideration.