I would have it away , it's not an important enough feature to warrent its survival. Whip it out and put it at the back of the shed. It will then tell a story of being fitted in the 60's and whipped out in the 201's <? is that right? Anyhow , not only will you be preserving the historical 'story' of the house, you will also be adding to it. I am sure future historians wont get all bent out of shape over its demise.
- Thread starter Zebra
- Start date
FamilyWiggs
Member
- Messages
- 3,452
- Location
- Flintshire, N Wales.
Ah... But if every 60s fireplace is ripped out because it doesn't suit our tastes in this decade, then future historians will not thank us for it.
One day, there will be a PPUK forum somewhere discussing the best way to repair avocado bathroom suites and paying a fortune for sets of original matching green tiles with that grass design on them.
Thankfully I'll be long dead and returned to stardust by then.
One day, there will be a PPUK forum somewhere discussing the best way to repair avocado bathroom suites and paying a fortune for sets of original matching green tiles with that grass design on them.
Thankfully I'll be long dead and returned to stardust by then.
Gareth Hughes
Member
- Messages
- 2,741
- Location
- In the wilds of East Anglia
In the absence of more detailed photos, I really don't believe it's 1960s. Late 1700s / early 1800s, yes.
JoceAndChris
Member
- Messages
- 6,606
- Location
- Lincolnshire
I've never known Gareth to be wrong about such things, in which case I change my vote - but - being a purist it then needs a plastered wall and an early 1800s hob grate, which is clearly not going to happen.
I still think it's a clash with what's there now.
I still think it's a clash with what's there now.
Zebra
Member
- Messages
- 2,984
- Location
- St Albans, Hertfordshire
I'll address Gareth's point first, about its age. That's very interesting that you think it's earlier than 1960s. The reasons I had thought it to be 1960s are:
There is a cement render under it. The uprights are stuck on top of the cement render that was all over the room.
The timber looks to me like an exact match for a somewhat similar structure created when the house was extended forwards in 1969, (I know the date because I have the builder's drawings). At that time they took the front door away, cut away a large section of the front wall, and built a sort of timber arch between the old and new parts of the house.
This picture shows the timber arch between the new and old parts of the house, from 1969:
(please excuse the ply wall, that is currently my front door)
Here are two close-ups of the fire surround. As you can see, its construction is quite simple. It was gloss painted which I've stripped back but not managed to get all the undercoat off.
There is a cement render under it. The uprights are stuck on top of the cement render that was all over the room.
The timber looks to me like an exact match for a somewhat similar structure created when the house was extended forwards in 1969, (I know the date because I have the builder's drawings). At that time they took the front door away, cut away a large section of the front wall, and built a sort of timber arch between the old and new parts of the house.
This picture shows the timber arch between the new and old parts of the house, from 1969:
(please excuse the ply wall, that is currently my front door)
Here are two close-ups of the fire surround. As you can see, its construction is quite simple. It was gloss painted which I've stripped back but not managed to get all the undercoat off.
Zebra
Member
- Messages
- 2,984
- Location
- St Albans, Hertfordshire
tobydog
Member
- Messages
- 923
- Location
- South Suffolk
Zebra - unfortunately I think something has to go. Together, the fire surround and the burner just jar.
Looking at the fire surround up close it does have a kind of rustic charm about it and I wouldn't haven't thought, unless you said, that is was 60's. You can see where it's been screwed to the original wooden lintel behind and, for this reason, I would say the surround should go. That would make it 3-3.
Having said this, the burner also looks too small for the space which isn't helping.
Looking at the fire surround up close it does have a kind of rustic charm about it and I wouldn't haven't thought, unless you said, that is was 60's. You can see where it's been screwed to the original wooden lintel behind and, for this reason, I would say the surround should go. That would make it 3-3.
Having said this, the burner also looks too small for the space which isn't helping.
Lime
Member
- Messages
- 2,749
- Location
- East of England
What is going to replace the surround if it is removed?
AFAICS it is the only decorative part left.
AFAICS it is the only decorative part left.
JoceAndChris
Member
- Messages
- 6,606
- Location
- Lincolnshire
How fascinating. That looks like an old surround to me, and my personal opinion is that Zebra's finding likeness between the surround and the way they extended the room could well be a bit of a red herring. If the surround comes off and the construction is examined that will likely reveal whether 20th C or much older.
It's huge! If really 1800s, then seems to be from a massive though rustic hob grate in a vernacular setting (just not posh enough to be from a big grand fire). I find it hard to imagine it started life in the room, though it's possible the room's been altered so much over 200 yrs the current rather dainty proportions now look wrong for the surround?
As for it being on cement, there are things on my house which are 200 yrs old on cement. This is because the previous owner thought "oooh, nice bit of dentil moulded guttering, I'll stick it up there and use in place of cornice" and Charlotte Burrows in 1930 though "ooh, nice load of York stone going, I'll have them stuck all along the outside as a plinth" - stuff gets reused and reused differently and the story of how it looked in 1800 gets very blurred.
I so agree with tobydog, and as for the surround being the only decorative thing there, have a look at this page for ideas for how to set stoves off. What Zebra has done is contemporary and needs contemporary dressing. (with maybe the odd antique)
http://www.gaitainteriors.com/blog/?tag=wood-burning-stoves
It's huge! If really 1800s, then seems to be from a massive though rustic hob grate in a vernacular setting (just not posh enough to be from a big grand fire). I find it hard to imagine it started life in the room, though it's possible the room's been altered so much over 200 yrs the current rather dainty proportions now look wrong for the surround?
As for it being on cement, there are things on my house which are 200 yrs old on cement. This is because the previous owner thought "oooh, nice bit of dentil moulded guttering, I'll stick it up there and use in place of cornice" and Charlotte Burrows in 1930 though "ooh, nice load of York stone going, I'll have them stuck all along the outside as a plinth" - stuff gets reused and reused differently and the story of how it looked in 1800 gets very blurred.
I so agree with tobydog, and as for the surround being the only decorative thing there, have a look at this page for ideas for how to set stoves off. What Zebra has done is contemporary and needs contemporary dressing. (with maybe the odd antique)
http://www.gaitainteriors.com/blog/?tag=wood-burning-stoves
tobydog
Member
- Messages
- 923
- Location
- South Suffolk
My personal feeling is not to replace the surround with anything else. See how it looks with the original wooden lintel first.
Joce - really like the first image which could work so well in Zebra's case.
Joce - really like the first image which could work so well in Zebra's case.
Lime
Member
- Messages
- 2,749
- Location
- East of England
Surely the real question should be: If the surround is very old should it be removed?
It seems to me that because it has been labeled as a 1960s addition it is thought to be fair game to remove it.
As I said before, it doesn't look like the work of the 1960s to me... and I was there which is more than can be said of most of you young things.
You have to realise that many old parts of a building have been sometimes temporarily removed for alterations or repairs and then put back.
It is not a new thing.
People have been doing it long before the present day.
Also it is quite common to find cement, plaster, newspaper etc stuffed in all sorts of inaccessible places too.
It seems to me that because it has been labeled as a 1960s addition it is thought to be fair game to remove it.
As I said before, it doesn't look like the work of the 1960s to me... and I was there which is more than can be said of most of you young things.
You have to realise that many old parts of a building have been sometimes temporarily removed for alterations or repairs and then put back.
It is not a new thing.
People have been doing it long before the present day.
Also it is quite common to find cement, plaster, newspaper etc stuffed in all sorts of inaccessible places too.
JoceAndChris
Member
- Messages
- 6,606
- Location
- Lincolnshire
Well said Lime.
You have to assess the aesthetic and architectural merit of the thing in question. Merit is usefulness and condition, beauty and rareness. Usefulness, condition and rareness are fairly objective criteria, which leaves the subjective beauty - but most people would agree that Zebra's surround isn't up there with Grinling Gibbons in terms of art. In my opinion a beautiful, rare and potentially useful item - that no longer suits the environment it's in can be happily moved to another home, as long as this change is photographed and documented.
The devastation has already been done to Zebra's house - sorry to say that so baldly but it's true. She's trying to repair and make it nice where it hasn't been nice for a long time.
If somebody were to rip out all the original 1800s fires and their surrounds in my house it would be a different story, which is a lot why I fought to get it listed. But that surround looks like a fish out of water.
robgil said:
You have to assess the aesthetic and architectural merit of the thing in question. Merit is usefulness and condition, beauty and rareness. Usefulness, condition and rareness are fairly objective criteria, which leaves the subjective beauty - but most people would agree that Zebra's surround isn't up there with Grinling Gibbons in terms of art. In my opinion a beautiful, rare and potentially useful item - that no longer suits the environment it's in can be happily moved to another home, as long as this change is photographed and documented.
The devastation has already been done to Zebra's house - sorry to say that so baldly but it's true. She's trying to repair and make it nice where it hasn't been nice for a long time.
If somebody were to rip out all the original 1800s fires and their surrounds in my house it would be a different story, which is a lot why I fought to get it listed. But that surround looks like a fish out of water.
So, in order to keep the surround shoulkd the wall be replastered to suit? I dont think Zebra would be up for that and even if it is asn old fire surround is it historically important enough to keep on its own?
Also would there have been an insert within the fireplace? If this is gone then why bother with the surround?
Perhaps you should leave it until the room is finished then decide, it wont take much to remove it if you still dont like it.
Also would there have been an insert within the fireplace? If this is gone then why bother with the surround?
Perhaps you should leave it until the room is finished then decide, it wont take much to remove it if you still dont like it.
Zebra
Member
- Messages
- 2,984
- Location
- St Albans, Hertfordshire
OK, yes the fireplace is huge, and the stove out of proportion. But it's already an 8kw stove in quite a small room. I don't like the idea of painting the inside of the fireplace white. I repointed those bricks, restored the bread oven, and it's staying as it is. I could lime plaster the wall around the fireplace if the bare brickwork is too much, but I do like where you can see the remains of an older lintel lower down, so would like to reveal that at least.
When I bought the house the fireplace was lined with cement render painted pink, with an asbestos register plate, vinyl floor tiles and an electric fire in it. I have no idea how it was in 1800, we can only guess whether it ever had a hob grate.
If I took it off I would prefer to restore the original oak lintel which is behind it, as Tobydog says, rather than replace it with a new surround. What the condition of the brickwork is like behind the uprights is another matter, and whether I have to somehow cover up the sides of the fireplace, would remain to be seen. That may force me to plaster the wall, and that might be a good thing, who knows.
There are two questions, aren't there. One of taste, and one of ethics. In terms of taste I rather prefer to take it off and see what the original oak lintel is like underneath. But in terms of ethics, will I be depriving the house of something of interest?
When I bought the house the fireplace was lined with cement render painted pink, with an asbestos register plate, vinyl floor tiles and an electric fire in it. I have no idea how it was in 1800, we can only guess whether it ever had a hob grate.
If I took it off I would prefer to restore the original oak lintel which is behind it, as Tobydog says, rather than replace it with a new surround. What the condition of the brickwork is like behind the uprights is another matter, and whether I have to somehow cover up the sides of the fireplace, would remain to be seen. That may force me to plaster the wall, and that might be a good thing, who knows.
There are two questions, aren't there. One of taste, and one of ethics. In terms of taste I rather prefer to take it off and see what the original oak lintel is like underneath. But in terms of ethics, will I be depriving the house of something of interest?
Zebra
Member
- Messages
- 2,984
- Location
- St Albans, Hertfordshire
Do you know, I really hadn't considered that it could have been reclaimed when it went in. The builders from the 60s clearly had a very competent carpenter, since there were bits of very nicely fitted trim this way and that way over everything, disguising the old features, with shaped painted brackets to hold up old beams, and a bespoke 60s kitchen (sorry, that went in the very first skip!!). I had just assumed that this was more of the same person's work.JoceAndChris said:
Feltwell
Member
- Messages
- 6,378
- Location
- Shropshire, England
It could be reclaimed, it could be the original one that was removed to make it easier to plaster the walls in the '60s - and then put back. You'll never know. Personally I quite like it, but it's your house and if you don't like it then I'd say that bearing in mind the uncertainty over its provenance, and the amount of other features that have been lost, I wouldn't feel too guilty over taking it out.
worms
Member
- Messages
- 1,992
- Location
- ultima Thule
I was going to ask about that. To my eye, it is only the scale of the surround (and indeed the whole opening) that is out of keeping with the scale of the room. Is it possible the hearth was raised at the same time as the opening was enlarged and that the surround was refixed at the higher level at that time? If you imagine the whole affair at floor level, the increased gap between mantle-shelf and ceiling might make all the difference.Zebra said:
Gareth Hughes
Member
- Messages
- 2,741
- Location
- In the wilds of East Anglia
Just a last plea from me for retention, here's the pastry-chef's fireplace of c.1800 at Syon House, seen in tonight's BBC2 "Great British Bake Off"
