60s fire surround, smash it up?

[JoceAndChris]

What a lovely CO we have; gentle and patient as ever. Silly me, hadn't really twigged that Zebra's surround was to go round a whole cooking type fireplace rangy thing- hence bread oven -and so explaining its huge proportions. I was trying to imagine round the standard cottagey hob grate in a parlour, and couldn't, so thought it might have been reclaimed from elsewhere. It's a pity it's such a clash with the current set up, but as a record of "this is where the range used to be" ought to be retained, I agree. Conservation issues are never straightforward, this reads, potentially, like one of those classic cases of misinterpretation and too many subsequent changes leading to more loss of historic fabric.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

The position of the timber lintel (which in itself was never meant to be seen*) shows that the fireplace opening has always been that big. Stylistically, the surround is right for a kitchen fireplace of c.1800 and I suspect it was retained during 1960s alterations, rather than inserted then, with the new opening between the original house and the additions (mistakenly) treated to match it.

It's quite a sharp, plain, and angular piece of work, which is why it jars against wobbly, heavily-textured exposed brickwork (which also was never meant to be exposed). Painted, and set against a plastered wall, it would look fine. The log burner, though I appreciate the point about it being quite sufficient for current needs, does look too small in relation to the opening (and always will, timber surround or no timber surround). Imagine it with a range inside and it makes perfect sense.

*(Never meant to be seen in the last 200 years that is; it is possible, if the house is pre-1700, that it was once exposed)

 

[worms]

The position of the timber lintel (which in itself was never meant to be seen*) shows that the fireplace opening has always been that big.

Would the hearth level, raised as it is above the level of the kitchen floor, be normal for a fireplace of this style or would it more typically have been all at floor level?

 

[Gareth Hughes]

The position of the timber lintel (which in itself was never meant to be seen*) shows that the fireplace opening has always been that big.

Would the hearth level, raised as it is above the level of the kitchen floor, be normal for a fireplace of this style or would it more typically have been all at floor level?

I've seen that, in odd cases, but looking at the original pics again I have a suspicion that the present floor level might have been excavated?

 

[Lime]

I've seen that, in odd cases, but looking at the original pics again I have a suspicion that the present floor level might have been excavated?

One of my sister's old houses was 16th century and the ground floor had been dug out.
(you still had to duck if you were more than 5'6")
It wasn't without problems however because in heavy rain it would flood.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

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"

Thank goodness, some people still watch TV rather than just look at it. :wink:

My vote remains to keep it, and I'm sorry Zebs, I'd plaster the wall up to the surround, probably leaving the inside as brick.

I know you like the idea of the oak lintel behind, but it may well have only ever been structural and intended to have the surround fixed to it.

 

[worms]

The position of the timber lintel (which in itself was never meant to be seen*) shows that the fireplace opening has always been that big.

Would the hearth level, raised as it is above the level of the kitchen floor, be normal for a fireplace of this style or would it more typically have been all at floor level?

I've seen that, in odd cases, but looking at the original pics again I have a suspicion that the present floor level might have been excavated?

Certainly makes more sense than my scenario of the fireplace being raised!

 

[Zebra]

None of the floor levels are where they used to be. Hard to tell where they used to be. The whole room has a 6 inch thikc concrete slab. I made that slate hearth on top of it last year in a hurry because I needed to get the wood burner in so I could live here through the winter! Everywhere else in the room I have started to take the slab out, and will continue to take the whole thing out, and have a new insulated slab. I have wondered whether the original floor was right down there, below the slab, but all I've found is broken remnants of pamments and soil. The uprights of the surround were longer, I cut the rotten bottoms off to sit on top of the hearth. they went down into the slab (as did the arch from the new to the old parts of the building, so I wouldn't take this as a sign that they are necessarily older than the slab).
However, if the surround is early 1800s or thereabouts, (and yes, I reckon this would have been the main cooking area for the house, as when the house was its original size this would have been the only downstairs room), if indeed they did take it off in the 60s, render underneath it and put it back, if it tells a story of where the range used to be, and give a hint of how the house might have looked in that period, then I am left with more of a dilemma than I thought.
The only thing is it really doesn't look right in the room as I intend the room to look. Hmmmmmm.

Oh, and I wouldn't ask Henry what he thinks, he tends to think everything's marvellous, and his judgement is really not to be trusted in matters of this sort...

 

[Zebra]

OK chaps. It's decision time. If you all recall (and I'm sure you do...) this thread from nearly three years ago, I am at the point where this is the last wall in the house which is to be plastered, and so the decision must be made, to remove the fireplace surround or not.
To recap for those who have not been around for that long, the house is a detached one-up one-down which dates from around 1700-1750ish. There is a huge fireplace opening, which we assume would once have held a range, all long gone. The house was extended in the 60s and when I bought it, there was cement render outside and in, vinyl floor tiles, gloss paintwork, the full 1960s works. Nothing remains from the original except the structure itself.
This fireplace surround I had assumed to be from the 1960s, as it looks very similar to the timberwork which was inserted when the house was extended, between the original house and the extension.
I posted on here three years ago asking whether I should keep it or lose it, and opinion was very divided. It is out of keeping with the rest of the house now, which is soft lime plaster, exposed timber, limewash, oak.... but that isn't necessarily an argument against it.....
Many of my amateur friends who have seen it are of the opinion that I should get rid of it and expose the oak bressumer underneath, to which it is attached. That would be the obvious thing to do aesthetically. Yet this post of Gareth Hughes has so far stayed my hand:

The position of the timber lintel (which in itself was never meant to be seen*) shows that the fireplace opening has always been that big. Stylistically, the surround is right for a kitchen fireplace of c.1800 and I suspect it was retained during 1960s alterations, rather than inserted then, with the new opening between the original house and the additions (mistakenly) treated to match it.

It's quite a sharp, plain, and angular piece of work, which is why it jars against wobbly, heavily-textured exposed brickwork (which also was never meant to be exposed). Painted, and set against a plastered wall, it would look fine. The log burner, though I appreciate the point about it being quite sufficient for current needs, does look too small in relation to the opening (and always will, timber surround or no timber surround). Imagine it with a range inside and it makes perfect sense.

*(Never meant to be seen in the last 200 years that is; it is possible, if the house is pre-1700, that it was once exposed)

So, it is decision time. I don't hate it. In fact, it gives me somewhere to put stuff. The best that one can say of it is that it is of unknown provenance, but I fear that the brickwork underneath is rather patchy and will give me another challenge when it comes to finding an edge for the new plaster.
It would be rather a weird thing to keep. Exposing the bressumer underneath would be certainly the fashionable thing of our times. And yet...........
I'd be grateful for any final verdicts. I have attached a picture which shows it in its new surroundings. Please bear in mind that I shall plaster that last wall regardless, although I shall leave exposed the ends of the bressumer, as well as the older bressumer underneath.
http://s1276.photobucket.com/user/zebanovski/media/DSC04637_zpsehhpvvoe.jpeg.html

 

[plasticpigeon]

My two pennies worth is that it looks nice as it is, and I think fireplace openings look much better with a surround even if there is no insert or range in the opening. I don't think there is a right and wrong though, just personal preference.

 

[malcolm]

I would keep the surround and plaster the wall around it. I would go for the early 19th century style and not worry that it doesn't match the style of the rest of the room. It's an old house and people would have added bits that they thought looked nice. The surround doesn't work when the surrounding wall is in brick, and there will be plenty of brick on show within the fireplace. I think the brick wall without any surround or plaster would look dark and scruffy.

On the other hand will building regs sign off the wood burner with a wooden fire surround? The dark side of the force might make the decision for you.

 

[88v8]

B**ger Building Regs.

With my cheapo infrared thermometer I scoped the temp when the woodburner was in bee-removing mode a few days ago. After four hours, the temp on the wall immediately adjacent, less distance than prescribe by the Regs, was only 105F, not even enough to boil water.
Anyway, Zebra's stove is there already.

In fact, the stove is the aesthetic botheration here, in my eyes.
As Gareth said, it's too small.

It would look better if it were higher. Perhaps on 6" of stone plinth. That could be done by shortening the stove pipe. Or save up for a wider stove.

As regards the fire surround, I'd keep it. I might get out the tea bags and try to tone it somewhat. Or, as Malcolm said, plaster the wall. Lime, not smooth.

Anyway, I still think to keep it.

Ivor

 

[Zebra]

I will plaster the wall regardless. OK, so that's pretty unanimous so far.....

 

[skier-hughes]

I would keep it as well.

 

[noj]

With the wall plastered I'd certainly vote to keep it...

 

[Zebra]

Right then! Plastering tools to the ready........

 

[plasticpigeon]

Where is your name from Zebra (Zebanovski)? A v and and i, isn't that quite unusual?

 

[Zebra]

It isn't. That's just a silly nickname from years ago, based on Russian-sounding nicknames my partner and I gave each other when we were travelling.
We weren't in Russia, so why we did that I don't know.
Since then I understand that the suffix -ski isn't even Russian, it's Polish, so there you go. Learn something every day.

 

[mims&pip]

I'm afraid I'm a bit late to the party Zebra, but another vote for keeping it

Personally I much prefer that look and agree that in a house that has *evolved over time* it won't look amiss, and if anything looks less contrived :wink:

Regarding building regs (and the size of the woodburner!) I'm with Ivor......at our last house we inherited a huge (16kw) Coalbrookdale multi fuel stove from the PO. It sat in a vast inglenook that he had remuddled in his typical *disneyesque* style. We plastered the chimney breast, wallpapered it (a very nice Voysey pattern - Fool's Parsley) and added a huge reclaimed oak fire surround that we found on eBay for £100 and that just happened to fit the opening

I confess we never even stopped to consider the issue of proximity of wood surround to woodburner......and when we had our private building inspector carry out his various checks and final sign-off, the subject never even arose....tbh anyone would have thought it had always been in situ :roll:

Anyway, go for it Zebra and I look forward to seeing pics of the finished room!

Mims x

 

[Zebra]

OK, well then. I shall have to decorate it. Ya bastards! Another thing to put on the list!
Actually, if it is late 1700s / early 1800s as Gareth believes, then it will end up being my only period feature! (There might have been some original lath and plaster if I'd been a little less enthusiastic in the early days, but I'm afraid it all came off with the cement walls, before I discovered this forum and knew better. The original stairs are there underneath but with new treads on top. The original bedroom floorboards are similarly there but with a new floor on top. The brick walls and the timber frame are still there, much repaired, but there is nothing else, not a doorknob or a pamment from the original.)