Black Beams - Paint removal

[Gareth Hughes]

Toby. You may or may not be an insufferable arrogant knowall - it's so difficult to express, or to read, "tone of voice" when typing.
However, the tenor of your posts certainly is one of "I'm a french polisher, and I know the site owners, therefore I know better than anyone else here about every subject vaguely related to wood". It really doesn't do you any favours. It means that even when you do "genuinely want to know" more about something somebody else has mentioned, it reads as if you are doubting their knowledge, on the basis that they aren't you and clearly therefore they can't be right.

 

[DJH]

My point was Toby that nowadays a security expert with knowledge of his subject is probably not in some cases a profficient carpenter as well and that nowadays the old fashioned 'attendance on other trades' which used to be the builder or main contractors involvement in the process doesn't happen, maybe for cost reasons, and the resultant damage when these experts are let loose takes place.

Used to be a plumber, albeit in later years a leadworking one...

Doug

 

[Toby Newell]

Gareth

I concede that.

I do not suffer fools gladly and do not expect to be treated any different. I always try and correct information which I strongly believe to be wrong. I am aware that that may upset some people and that my tone may be regarded as condescending.

However, I do not concede that or have ever stated that my opinion is any more valid than any other and indeed I do not think it is. My opinion is an informed opinion, informed in a different way to other people, that is all.

You may wish to re read some of my posts, I only counter facts that are wrong and are provable for example pumice is almost identical to sand ergo pumice blasting = sand blasting. Which I think is very helpful. Where I am unsure, such as in floor staining, I state my experience which may differ from others and qualify it. I think you may find many of the posters who post the facts I repudiate are more often more adamant and certain in their statements, please check. I also politely asked Andrew to provide evidence for his sweeping statement that all beams were more likely to have been lime washed, I did not deny this in fact as I do not know and would love to find out myself, I simply stated that in my experience and with my knowledge, which is very limited in this area I did not believe it necessarily was the case, although it is often mentioned.

I fail to see how my interest in finding out historical facts whilst adding my own limited but maybe valuable experience to a topic is sweeping all before me?

Should no one challenge anyone else? I agree that my sardonic tone obviously grates with some but cannot agree with your erroneous assertion that I believe my opinion subsumes and usurps all others because I do not. Any feeling that I do comes from your interpretation only. My opinion is one of many and no more valid, but then there are the facts, science, pumice = silica sand and aluminium oxide mineral, which is an abrasive and identical to normal sand blasting sand. So pumice blasting = sand blasting so to say one is gentler than the other is misleading. I believe this information is useful to people. I qualified this by stating I was upset with the marketing men whose idea was to mislead rather than the OP whose intention obviously was to be helpful!!! If I were scared to offend everyone's sensibility people may not know this information. Now it is out there.

Everyone can individually decide whether they would rather have a debate. Or possible irrevocably damaged beams because they thought pumice blasting was considerably gentler than sand blasting.

T

 

[Toby Newell]

Doug

I feel it is the loss of pride and apprenticeships and yes, you are correct, my grandfather could build you a house, paint, gild, bronze, french polish, restore, repair clocks and was a master sprayer too, where as I can merely sand things and restore wood and obviously not french polish to his standard. He undertook a seven year apprenticeship though and spent two years polishing the backs of wardrobes and the inside of drawers, imagine asking a 15 year old to do that these days!!! People had to be more resourceful, most painters for example could grain and do a little polishing, some could even gild and when I say a little polishing I mean to a better standard than many polishers today! Thats just how it was. It is a shame. I am sure many plumbers of yore took far more care than those of today after all, all it takes is a couple of saws, a chisel, drift, hammer and some flat bars and maybe thirty seconds extra at the wood depot to seek out the rose heads or cut brads rather than whatever comes to hand.

I learnt partly from my grandfather who learnt from his father. I only take the pride in what I do because of my family and that I am a proud person, I do not do it for my customers per se, I work for myself, to my own standards, ie I run my own race. It just so happens I like doing a careful, thorough and caring job. I normally care more about the wood than my customers. Many restorers are the same and many trades are too, at least many of the ones I know are but of course many are not. It is a shame but thats progress for you. Many of the best tradespeople I have ever met are totally unqualified and self taught, especially in wood work.

T

 

[JoceAndChris]

Toby is a very passionate, enthusiastic and hard working character. I had a very helpful chat on the phone with you Toby, some years ago now, I don't know if you recall, but you were most encouraging, and I also got to admire your gorgeous floors at Nigel's house- and I remember Pford's pictures of his too that you worked on.

Hitting the right tone in writing these posts isn't always very easy, especially when people are about to go smashing up their homes.

As for beams, my understanding is that it became very fashionable in the '30s and again in the '70s to reveal them, and prior to that they were for the most part covered up by plaster or even cloth. Not the pretty carved beams but the bog standard ones that no-one would have thought worth revealing in the days when more assertive craftsmanship was everywhere.

It's a terrible shame, in my view, that this fashion for beams leads to horrors like stuck on random beams with no point or purpose or pulling off the Georgian plaster to reveal the poor skeleton of construction underneath. So I must say that whenever I read "how should I strip my beams?" my first thought is should they even be exposed in the first place? I'm terribly snobby and I think having a home with inappropriate trappings, like caveman style indoor exposed stone, and plaster pulled off to reveal the beams, and 19th C fireplaces pulled out to create an inglenook, is like carrying a great big banner announcing one's stupidity and ignorance about period properties. I don't care that it's a modern fashion. I think it's an ignorant one, responsible for an awful lot of destruction to historic fabric, and it ought to change. We can all stamp and shout about what we feel passionately about :lol:

As for the Georgians enjoying fine polished woods, yes, I did know that, but I didn't know that the Georgians constructed fine oak panelling that was given a polished finish- I was under the illusion they always went for painted finishes (around 1740) and later on did those panel moulding things in the style of Robert Adam - but I'm very happy to be corrected!

 

[Flyfisher]

Toby
For someone who wishes to be known as an expert you come across as a prig.
No wonder you hide your address and telephone number.
I suspect you've got yourself into trouble before with your outspoken and arrogant point of view.
I wouldn't employ you judging by your unpleasant and rather nasty persona.

Your actions are of a troll.

That all seems a bit harsh to me. There can be a fine line between being 'outspoken and arrogant' and being knowledgeable and experienced and wishing to correct misunderstandings or things that are just plain wrong. As Gareth has pointed out, the tone of a post can be assumed based on the reader's prejudices and may bear no relation to the tone of the post intended by the author. Such are the pitfalls of online forums.

I can offer no wood expertise of my own, which is why I read these posts, but it seems to me that Toby is generally very careful to provide the background reasons for the opinions he does offer here. That is hardly the action of a troll.

. Limewashing of expressed internal timbers is perhaps more authentic in the vast majority of cases.

I would genuinely be very interested Andrew to find out where you get this information from that all beams would have been lime washed so I can research it for my articles, as I have no historical reference at present, a book name or peer reviewed historical article would be very helpful.

We have a mixture of internal beams - some have been painted black, some are bare wood (in general, the more ornate ones) and some are limewashed. All the exposed timbers in the three attic rooms are limewashed. Even more of the original timbers have been covered up with lath and plaster during a 'Georgian makeover' at some stage in the 450-ish year history of the house.

I've no idea if this is typical or helpful - all I can say for sure is that it's factual for this sample of one. As for what to do with such beams, we've taken the easy option: we've repainted the black beams black, we've left the bare beams bare and I'm intending to re-limewash the limewashed beams.

 

[Toby Newell]

As for the Georgians enjoying fine polished woods, yes, I did know that, but I didn't know that the Georgians constructed fine oak panelling that was given a polished finish- I was under the illusion they always went for painted finishes (around 1740) and later on did those panel moulding things in the style of Robert Adam - but I'm very happy to be corrected!

Ah JoceAndChris read my post carefully! I do not doubt you are correct, the Georgians did indeed favour painting a lot of their panelled rooms, at least the pine ones! These were to be found in many houses both in the country and the town. What I was saying was specifically that oak panelled rooms and indeed any hardwood and sometimes pitch pine panelled rooms were more likely to have been clear finished, with or without a stain. I am sure the predominant style was for painted pine panels, especially earlier on because oak, walnut, mahogany and pitch pine panels were so much more expensive, but where these more expensive woods were used they were more often than not 'shown' off. The fashion for 'show wood' indeed, as you correctly point out, took off later in the period, you have to remember the Georgian period covered quite a lot of ground, over 116 years so it is sometimes not that accurate or helpful to just characterise a property or item of furniture as 'Georgian' as furniture and building styles (which were heavily interlinked) went through several distinct stages over those years. Many pine doors, skirtings and moldings latterly for example were grained to resemble either oak or mahogany. A fashion that you may agree would appear doubly odd if they then went and painted the oak!!! Mind you, it is possible, during Mad King George's mad phase that he had all the pine grained to resemble oak and all the oak painted white to resemble pine panelling, but he probably didn't bless him as he was probably too busy suffering some horrible 'cure' his latest physician had come up with.

So painted panels there were in abundance and clear finished hardwood and pitch pine panels there were, to a lesser extent. So, no need for correction. Just elaboration. I fear we are both correct.

T

PS And yes I do remember you contacting me although not the details and I do remember your floors looking rather nice.

 

[Toby Newell]

We have a mixture of internal beams - some have been painted black, some are bare wood (in general, the more ornate ones) and some are limewashed. All the exposed timbers in the three attic rooms are limewashed. Even more of the original timbers have been covered up with lath and plaster during a 'Georgian makeover' at some stage in the 450-ish year history of the house.

I've no idea if this is typical or helpful - all I can say for sure is that it's factual for this sample of one. As for what to do with such beams, we've taken the easy option: we've repainted the black beams black, we've left the bare beams bare and I'm intending to re-limewash the limewashed beams.

It's not entirely fair to quote you as that is exactly what I had surmised, based on my limited experience of maybe only a few dozen beamed properties I had worked in. It is only a sample size of one to add to my sample size of less than one hundred, but it appears to bear out what I have seen at least, that indeed there was a mixture.

The easy option sounds like the most sane and sensible and guilt free option! Yes repaint the black ones, yes re lime the limed ones (whether they were limed originally or not) and yes leave the bare ones bare as each of them I am sure have their own charm. What could go wrong?!

Toby

 

[LadyArowana]

Like you I noticed the masons bolster chisel inserted between some boards ready to lever them up in a recent topic. You alluded to it with just the words...cold chisel.
Doug

It was in the thread about staining floorboards and what Toby wrote was "LadyArowana Cold chisel. Nice. Your 'black stuff' looks like............" I assumed this was meant somewhat sarcastically, and decided that since my electricians transgression was 3 1/2 years ago it was possibly not the best use of my time to enter into further discussion. A note to self along the lines of "supervise lifting of floorboards" for any future project would suffice.

Toby
For someone who wishes to be known as an expert you come across as a prig.
No wonder you hide your address and telephone number.
I suspect you've got yourself into trouble before with your outspoken and arrogant point of view.
I wouldn't employ you judging by your unpleasant and rather nasty persona.

Your actions are of a troll.

If that's what you think then heed the warning notice.

 

[DJH]

Ha, it was your post Lady A. My apologies for picking on you but it illustrated my point so well that I couldn't ignore it, that point being that the people who lift floorboards for access are not always carpenters and any subsequent damage caused through carelessness is regretable and mostly irreversable. In my experience from my plumbing and heating days ( )carpenters both removed and replaced any boarding during the works.

A good tip though to keep your eyes on any floorboard lifting...

Doug from sunny Tipp.

 

[DJH]

In a previous life I had occasion to cast new and repair old lead statuary. As an aside a clue to dating the age of your lead figure is the material the base is. An 18thC figure invariably has a stone base, mainly Portland stone, whereas later figures have an integral lead base forming part of the casting so that the figure and base are all one. Almost all statuary and ornaments came in to the workshop with a degree of patina on them varying from silver grey to ‘tea’ brown. The former from natural carbonation of the lead, and the latter depending on a variety of reasons one of which was how damp the moulds were when the figure was cast.
I took the utmost care to maintain the patination on each piece when repairing figures which were all taken to pieces for insertion of load bearing armatures,new cores etc and I used to scavenge and root around inside to salvage enough surplus original lead to cast into filler rods to use when joining all the pieces back together. Doing this meant that the welds were of the same ‘mixture’ of lead as the original and the patination would and could be made to match more easily.

Getting to the point of this (at last) there were other repairers who used to clean off figures by blasting soft (?) shell at the lead. The figures were then returned after repair along with the advice of oiling them once a year, or so, which left them with an all over dark appearance. The very reasonable argument for this was that it is not always possible to completely seal areas that may be porous caused by steam escaping during the original casting and oiling would prevent ingress of water.

Lead garden statuary was introduced shortly after it became apparent that marble figures brought back from the ‘Grand Tour’ were not up to the vagaries of an English winter and the subsequent damage to them through frost. It was usual for marble statuary to be wrapped in straw or similar and then boxed in for the winter months spoiling the vistas. Lead figures could withstand these conditions didn't need protection from frost and were often coloured as life improving vistas all year round.
After many years of being exposed to the weather the paint would wear off and the underlying silver grey patina was found to be very acceptable against a background of green topiary and yew so they were rarely painted again.

We now have three historic finishes for garden statuary. White for marble, painted lead, a natural finish of lead where the paint has worn off and now a modern dark grey finish. Which one to choose?

Now, where’s that concrete Venus lurking somewhere out there in the bushes?

Doug

 

[andrew gayton]

I also politely asked Andrew to provide evidence for his sweeping statement that all beams were more likely to have been lime washed

I do not need, nor do I have the time, to 'provide evidence' to justify my comment. The comment is based on my observations of some some 25 years spent dealing with historic building issues.

 

[DJH]

Thinking back I agree with FF that the attic rooms I saw were whitewashed all over, beams and all, dairy and food storage rooms including kitchens were the same and the beams in living areas were predominantly not ...

Doug

 

[Keithj]

The beams in my attic are whitewashed, too. It's pretty old whitewash - probably from the time when there wasn't an "upstairs ceiling".

The visible beams are all black painted. I wish they weren't, but I'm not going to the faff of removing the black. It's all part of the history of the house - just as the church has features from 1208 (original build, quite a lot still present) right up to the late Victorian vestry, each in its own style. It's "characterful" I believe is the expression.

We're soon going to rip out all the 1960s wires tacked along the walls just above head height, and the 100 watt bulbs up at the ceiling (totally out of reach, and totally inadequate for being able to see writing after nightfall). The plan is concealed wiring and LED lights. It will remain, as it has been since 1300, a glorious mixture of all ages. So is my house!

 

[Toby Newell]

I also politely asked Andrew to provide evidence for his sweeping statement that all beams were more likely to have been lime washed

I do not need, nor do I have the time, to 'provide evidence' to justify my comment. The comment is based on my observations of some some 25 years spent dealing with historic building issues.

Who said you needed? Who said I needed? I was curious and asked, to try and increase my knowledge base, specifically as I know you are very experienced with period buildings, moreso than I. So, one should shoot the pupil who asks the teacher a question? Or who dares to ask? Did I not ask very politely??? Who said I require evidence, you require evidence? Really? I was asking because I was curious. Why the so defensive? I do not understand. Look. Read my post below. How could that be misconstrued?

I would genuinely be very interested Andrew to find out where you get this information from that all beams would have been lime washed so I can research it for my articles, as I have no historical reference at present, a book name or peer reviewed historical article would be very helpful.

I am afraid I do not know myself. I have comparatively little experience of old beams and have not researched or read any books on the subject as it forms such an infinitesimal part of my work. I would be interested in finding out myself as I am interested in all things timber wise.
Toby

I have just finished writing some of the most in depth articles on wood restoration in the country to be found in one place, over 59,000 words which are read by people all over the world, so my question was both pertinent and valid.

Why do people get so upset when their sweeping statements are checked for clarification??? I asked very politely!!!??? If someone asks me and they do frequently I just tell what I know and how I know it, that is all.

Your 'evidence' is evidence! 25 years of dealing with historic building issues is evidence and it is very valuable as you have more experience with historic buildings than I do. I just wanted to know if it was your observation or from a literary / historical record that I could find and read.

Seriously. It is natural for interested parties to ask questions when supplied with sweeping statements so as to check their accuracy especially people like me who work in the field of period building restoration and who are therefore asked for their advice and opinions on things. I always ask home owners, lime plasterers, slaters, thatchers, grainers, gilders, carpenters, carvers, stonemasons etc even older experienced painters who know tricks many younger painters do not, everyone, about the property I am working on and about their job, to try and increase my knowledge base, most people are very happy to find someone genuinely interested in their work or their observations. People ask me what is the right or appropriate finish for them to apply all the time and I try my hardest to try and find out and give the most accurate and honest answer. I was asking for help Andrew on a topic I am very interested in and have relatively little knowledge of and which I was hoping to maybe learn something more from you. Which I have. But with the additional bizarre baggage of you getting upset.

Many people may take your word as gospel. I do not. If someone tells me a statement I read it and then try and confirm it, if possible, that's all, so when people ask me I can give them the most helpful and accurate information possible. I do this with everyone and everything. I would expect people to do this with my advice and observations. It is also understandable I think that a professional person who works in the field may be more likely to be interested to research further than a general home owner. I am sorry you got upset, but I am not sorry for asking a question. As I do not feel asking politely for further information was rude in any way.

Toby

 

[Toby Newell]

Lady Arowana

I was of course trying to be amusing but make an important point. The cold chisel is one of the least damaging ways workmen use to lift boards count yourself lucky. It's very hard to supervise, it's just one of those things. Very tricky unless you have a friend or relative who is around and who is a decent carpenter (or just careful!)

I have seen plumbers drill holes with a half inch flat bit across the board until it falls through, like a large mouse bite and that was after they were told to be careful as the floor was going to be sanded. What can you do? Sometimes a father-in-law or a friendly confident DIYer can be roped in, it's not hard, it just takes a very little patience and care. I imagine it must be very hard to supervise workmen, workmen on the whole do not like being 'supervised' especially by the customer (as they more often and not think they are doing everything perfectly correctly and that the customer knows nothing) so apart from the time logistics it must be very uncomfortable, definitely a tricky one, unless you can get someone else to lift and relay the boards you just have to ask very politely, it's all you can do.

T

 

[atticman]

My sitting room has 3 inch deep floor boards that are made from a curious pale pink wood. They are extremely hard (you can't drive a nail through them), which I think is just a result of them drying out over the last 188 years or so since the house was built.

Unfortunately, in the 1960s, due to a damp probem that wasn't treated for years by previous owners, an area of the floor was replaced with pine when the original boards rotted through.

The point of all this? When I moved into the house in the 1980s, we decided to install central heating ( the fireplaces had all been concreted over during a pre-sale "modernisation").
So the plumber needed access to the underfloor space. Did he use the 1960s replacement boarded area to gain access. No - he tried to cut throgh a bit of the original flooring with a circular saw, and when that blade broke, he tried a jigsaw, and burned that out. He then had the temerity to try to charge me for these items, claiming my floor was too hard!

Anyway, the end result is that I avoid tradespeople in my house whenever I can now, and if I have to bow to the inevitable, I drive them mad by standing over them and making helpful comments like "Do you have to do it like that.....?" or "Can't you go round, rather than through?" or "PUT THAT CIRCULAR SAW DOWN AND STEP AWAY......."

 

[Toby Newell]

Pale pink? Intriguing. Beech? Ash that has suffered a chemical reaction? Maple and ash sometimes can go pink but rarely all over. Swiss pear? Beech or pear? Three inch deep? Wow. With a jigsaw???? Thats a very large circular saw that cuts over 75mm plunge cut. Brand new top quality blade required his was probably blunt. Some jobs we go through three blades otherwise you just make smoke. And he charged you! Amazing. He should have won a prize or something.

Yes. Stand. Shout orders. And preferably, if you can, do as much work as possible yourself.

 

[plasticpigeon]

Ah Toby I'm glad you're back. I've just read your article on wood finishing. It is very informative and has made me reconsider my initial thoughts on how to finish my boards. I was originally going to stain and polyurethane varnish as I believe polyurethane is tough and gives a nice finish. I have got some very nice finishes with clear poly on some modernist replica plywood furniture I mad a while back. I am now minded to stain, seal with dilute shellac and finish with a hard wearing water based varnish as suggested in your article. I would be great to avoid the smell and long drying time of polyurethane.

I would think that pretty much everyone on this forum is a natural skeptic and makes decisions based on either empiricism or rational thought if there is no first hand experience, and very little received wisdom as you call it is given much credibility.

 

[Toby Newell]

Thanks pigeon.

I shall be doing the same in sunny Norfolk from Sunday. Water based lacquers (the good ones I mention) are also polyurethane but much more hard wearing, much less prone to yellowing and dry much quicker, not to mention much better for the environment (less than 6% VOCs)

People tend to view the word 'polyurethane' as evil when few, if any actually understand what it refers to. 'Polyurethane' varnish is approximately 40% linseed oil and around 40% white spirit, almost identical to modern oil finishes from Osmo, the only difference being the polyurethane part in the older traditional varnishes that aids drying, film formation etc is replaced in the new 'green' oils, which aren't really that green at all but just use different modifying agents but at 45% oil and 50% white spirits (50% VOCs) are strikingly similar to polyurethane varnishes.

That is the sort of received wisdom I am talking about! Mention polyurethane people go yuk! Mention Osmo oil et al and people go ahhhhh! yet one is just a thinner more modern version of the other and very similar!

Traditional yacht varnish polyurethane, the microporous ones are still the best clear coatings for exterior work, it's just that they take so long to dry and so long to coat! I normally find six coats are required for a really nice, long lasting and good looking finish. For interior work they have been superseded.

The modern water based lacquers can look every bit as good as a modern oil finish and last much longer the key, in aesthetic terms, the real trick, is to apply a coat of shellac first to the wood either to the raw wood or to seal your stain. This adds depth, clarity and a warmth that the water based finishes just cannot provide. The only time I ever would condone applying a water based finish direct to the wood is when the wood is to be kept as light as possible for example on beech, maple and ash, at all other times seal first.

One coat of shellac and two coats of satin or matt water based lacquer applied properly look the same as a modern oil finish but will last ten times as long with less fossil fuel solvents used.

The only time oil finishes have a very special look of their own is if they are applied very thinly, by hand which gives a lovely low build which is unlike anything else and can look very natural, not very durable, but a special unique look.

Glad you found my articles helpful.

T