60s fire surround, smash it up?

[88v8]

...there is nothing .. not a doorknob or a pamment from the original.

Hurr hurr.
In 50 years' time someone's going to be on this forum grumbling about you.

 

[Zebra]

That wasn't me. The only original material I took out was some remaining lath and plaster.
It was already all gone, and replaced with cement plaster, vinyl floor tiles, polystyrene ceiling tiles etc in the 60s.

 

[Roger H]

A fascinating discussion. My vote would be to retain the fire surround, plaster the walls and leave bare brick within the fireplace.

 

[Zebra]

And what do you all think of the idea of plastering the wall but curving the edges of the plaster around to leave the ends of the beams exposed, so that you can see where the fireplace opening has been enlarged?
(cringes in expectation of a general gasp of horror/groan of exasperation from you all...)*
(You can't see the beam from inside the fireplace)
Here's another couple of pics of the detail in question:
http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y479/zebanovski/DSC04642_zps9jw9jstd.jpeg
http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y479/zebanovski/DSC04643_zpsuqnvj62g.jpeg

*But please dont' be shy of telling me if it's a bad idea. I have learned in my four years on this forum that my ideas are often wrong, and I'd rather get it right in the end than get my own way!

 

[malcolm]

I'd say go for it if you think it will look interesting. Nothing to lose If you don't like it - you can always fill in with more plaster later.

It is important to add your own touches to a house and get it as you like it. Otherwise the historical thread of the building misses a beat.

 

[Zebra]

Those are both very good points malcolm, thank you. Indeed nothing is lost this way. Perhaps I could do the base coat like that, post a picture on here, and then decide before I do the top coat.

 

[LadyArowana]

Those are both very good points malcolm, thank you. Indeed nothing is lost this way. Perhaps I could do the base coat like that, post a picture on here, and then decide before I do the top coat.

Good plan, I'm glad you seem to be veering towards keeping the surround. It's quirky and interesting, and those things are not the easiest to love, but they are the ones you miss when they are gone.

 

[Zebra]

Well if it is from 1800, and not 1969 as I thought, then I don't think there's any question.

 

[Zebra]

And what do you all think of the idea of plastering the wall but curving the edges of the plaster around to leave the ends of the beams exposed, so that you can see where the fireplace opening has been enlarged?
(cringes in expectation of a general gasp of horror/groan of exasperation from you all...)*

*But please dont' be shy of telling me if it's a bad idea. I have learned in my four years on this forum that my ideas are often wrong, and I'd rather get it right in the end than get my own way!

I've done the base coat leaving the ends of the beam exposed. Now that I've done it, I'm not sure it doesn't look daft. What do you all think? Please be honest.

 

[mims&pip]

Honestly, Zebra? I don't like the exposed beam ends, sorry!

I think it would look infinitely better if the entire wall was plastered......just my two cents though!

Mims x

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Plaster right up to the surround. As it is it does look as if an archaeologist has said "oh, that's interesting", and then left the beam ends exposed for their "interest" rather than their aesthetic value or historic authenticity.

 

[malcolm]

I wouldn't leave any brick exposed as I think it looks scruffy (there is always limewash), but seeing the lower beams rather than the one almost completely hidden by the fire surround isn't offensive to me.

It's up to what you like. I don't always go about things in a completely authentic or historical manner myself. I try to preserve materials that are there but after that I'm guided more than anything else by what I think would be fun. Someone else can fiddle later if they don't like it and no harm is done.

 

[Zebra]

Well, I tried it both ways. Pics here.
http://s1276.photobucket.com/user/zebanovski/library/Fireplace
On the one hoof I believe malcolm is right, and it doesn't look offensive with just the one set of beam ends exposed. However on the other hoof, Gareth and Mims are right, and now that the fireplace is staying, I feel that the exposed beam doesn't lend anything to the fireplace. It jars a little, and the fireplace looks more right without it. There's plenty of exposed timber elsewhere anyway.
Thanks for your help folks!

 

[noj]

If the timber lined up with the top of the fireplace then they could look good exposed - but agree they're a little odd floating part way down. I reckon you're right to plaster the lot

 

[LadyArowana]

Not a fan of the exposed brick and beam. It says "museum" to me rather than "home". The place does look like a home now, rather than a building site, you must be thrilled to be at this stage.