Can someone please explain how I've ruined my house?

[Tom]

...And I simply don't believe that there was never anything other than relatively modern cement render on the inside of the house.

I'm not saying there never was, either. What I am saying is that there was no evidence of anything under the render, the drawing from 1706 shows it with no render and so do the later oil paintings.

EDIT

Sorry, Gervase and Gareth, it's getting confusing between the inside and outside! The stronger evidence is for the outside, as above. As for the inside, all I know is that there was nothing, not a trace of anything under that render. I'm not bothered if it's rendered or not, and I don't mean that flippantly. I mean I have no desire one way or the other. I haven't left it bare because I like it (although I don't dislike it either). I left it bare because the house hasn't suggested it should be anything else.

 

[Gervase]

So are you really saying that in your part of Lincolnshire, all the stone houses had bare stone walls inside? I find that astonishing. So astonishing, in fact, that I'm willing to wager that it's simply not true. Walls were plastered. And plastered to a high standard, particularly in the 'public' rooms. The idea of living in a bare stone shell would have been anathema.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

...And I simply don't believe that there was never anything other than relatively modern cement render on the inside of the house.

I'm not saying there never was, either. What I am saying is that there was no evidence of anything under the render, the drawing from 1706 shows it with no render and so do the later oil paintings.

You have a drawing from 1706, and later oil paintings, showing the inside of the house with no plaster on the walls?

 

[Tom]

So are you really saying that in your part of Lincolnshire, all the stone houses had bare stone walls inside? I find that astonishing. So astonishing, in fact, that I'm willing to wager that it's simply not true. Walls were plastered. And plastered to a high standard, particularly in the 'public' rooms. The idea of living in a bare stone shell would have been anathema.

Gervase, please see my edit to the post above.

 

[Tom]

...And I simply don't believe that there was never anything other than relatively modern cement render on the inside of the house.

I'm not saying there never was, either. What I am saying is that there was no evidence of anything under the render, the drawing from 1706 shows it with no render and so do the later oil paintings.

You have a drawing from 1706, and later oil paintings, showing the inside of the house with no plaster on the walls?

Aaaarrrrgghhhhhh!!! No. Sorry. We're all cross-posting. Please see my edit above.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I see. Is there any chance you could scan and post this 1706 drawing for us all to have a look at? Then, please, a photo of the house as it was when you got it, and a photo of it as it is now, preferably all the same or samish view?

 

[Tom]

I see. Is there any chance you could scan and post this 1706 drawing for us all to have a look at? Then, please, a photo of the house as it was when you got it, and a photo of it as it is now, preferably all the same or samish view?

I've said before, the copy of the drawing I have is in storage. You may remember we're in a caravan at the moment and it's not possible to have all our belongings with us. I've also said before that the oil paintings don't belong to me, although I did say I'd try to get a photo of them. Note the word 'try'. It's entirely possible I'll be refused.

Most of my photographs from when we bought the house are also in storage. We bought it 1995, well before we had a digital camera!! It wasn't much to look at; just very, very white. Like a white box, really. We bought it for the land, not the house. However, here's one that gives an indication of what the front looked like...

...and one of the back...

These were taken in 2007 but show the render that was on.

Here it is now...

 

[Tom]

Oh, it's chopped the right hand side off. Oh well, you get the idea anyway

 

[robgil]

guys, this is just running around in circles and is resolving nothing.
if the house was plastered originally which we all think it might have been then what is the best way to move this forward?

 

[Matt Green]

guys, this is just running around in circles and is resolving nothing.

It's getting pretty boring too. Can someone please post a profane vitriolic rant to perk the forum up a bit?


M.
-You know things a bad when you start hoping for a new damp thread.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Put in windows that are coherent with the new door. Not timber windows, windows with stone mullions and criss cross leaded panes.

Get a better roof on, steeper pitch, more suitable material? I'm not qualified to pick roof styles.

Leave the stone on the exterior exposed now.

Plaster the inside.

Then, it's Jaqy's idea of the house at some point in its history but it would make more sense aesthetically.

 

[Tom]

Put in windows that are coherent with the new door. Not timber windows, windows with stone mullions and criss cross leaded panes.

Get a better roof on, steeper pitch, more suitable material? I'm not qualified to pick roof styles.

Leave the stone on the exterior exposed now.

Plaster the inside.

Then, it's Jaqy's idea of the house at some point in its history but it would make more sense aesthetically.

What do you mean; my idea of the house?

And, would the shape of the windows that are in now have had stone mullions? I don't think so, but I may be wrong. I think, given the shape, that when they were altered in the past they would have been sashes.

 

[Flyfisher]

. . . . . but it would make more sense aesthetically.

. . . which, I think, neatly summarises the problem (and why we're going around in circles). It's all so subjective.

(I like the suggestions, though, so perhaps you'll make a good dictator Joce :wink: )

:lol:
I'd not heard of that 'law' before, but it does seem appropriate for so many things. Looks like we're in the hideous/ridiculous phase for plastic windows then, which seem about right.

Joce, I understand your 'benevolent dictatorship' approach to these things but I'm wondering if this is a reaction to the (understandable) frustration arising from the subjective nature of the whole issue. I'm finding this a fascinating thread but I don't feel that we're making much progress towards an objective set of guidelines for how to treat period properties. If we could, then such things could be enshrined in laws that would apply to everyone in the land, be they experienced architects with an eye for classical beauty or oiks who haven't a clue.

But is it possible to compile a list of 'golden rules' that would pass the 'plastic window test'? i.e. prevent their use on objective rather than subjective terms, while not making them a specifically prohibited item?

I'm beginning to doubt it's possible, which is why we're still debating DWB's "ruined" house and the more we learn about it the more it seems to only have been "ruined" in a decorative sense - something that we generally agree is just a matter of personal taste.

 

[Tom]

...I'm beginning to doubt it's possible, which is why we're still debating DWB's "ruined" house and the more we learn about it the more it seems to only have been "ruined" in a decorative sense - something that we generally agree is just a matter of personal taste.

But it isn't even personal taste. Like I said, I haven't replastered because the house has never suggested that it should be, as there was no evidence of that previously. I don't dislike it plastered. I don't dislike it unplastered. I've just left it as it seems to have been before the cement render went on. I'm not doing this house 'to my taste'. I'm trying to do it as the house dictates.

 

[Gervase]

And, would the shape of the windows that are in now have had stone mullions? I don't think so, but I may be wrong. I think, given the shape, that when they were altered in the past they would have been sashes.

Although invented in the 17th Century, sash windows didn't start to become widespread until well into the 18th Century, starting with the grander houses, so they may well have been installed in your house as a later retrofit, but casements would seem more likely. It looks as though there are traces of stone mullions on the windows on the rear of the house at the right, so one might assume that the fenestration at the front was similar.
As for plastering inside, it would be almost unheard-of for a house not to be plastered. My assumption is that whoever did the cement render did a pretty thorough job of stripping off the old plaster.
One give-away externally is to see if the detail is flush with the stonework or stands proud (to accommodate render). Is there anything internally that might suggest that. You might also look for evidence of wooden plugs on the arrises of the windows where staff beads may have been nailed or elsewhere on the walls for cornices, rails or panelling. Are there nail traces on existing ceiling laths or joists which might given an indication of the plaster thickness on the walls?
I'm sorry to labour the point, but a bare stone interior for a house like that is so unusual as to be pretty well unique.

 

[JoceAndChris]

If we didn't care about beauty, elegance of design, fitness for purpose, preserving the fascinating, bespoke, unique, glorious styles of the past we'd have bought Barratt box houses. And yes, we can argue forever about what constitutes those things, though personally speaking I've found it more useful to read Osbert Lancaster, pore over Vitruvius Britannicus, and Matthew Rice, and Papworth's Rural Residences, watch Sir Alec Clifton Taylor and Dan Cruikshank and try to take in what they have to say. I don't class myself as knowledgeable at all, but it is at least an Ariadne thread in the labyrinth of taste.

Jaqy, personally speaking I think it would be very odd to put sash windows with your new doors. Like a Georgian frock coupled with a Tudor doublet.

I know styles do get mixed up but I don't think that would look pretty on your house.

If you'd like to return the house to 1740 or whatever I think you'd need to change the door too

 

[Gervase]

Like a Georgian frock coupled with a Tudor doublet.

Along the same lines, a friend has just emailed me to say he's received a CV set in Comic Sans.
:?

 

[Tom]

And, would the shape of the windows that are in now have had stone mullions? I don't think so, but I may be wrong. I think, given the shape, that when they were altered in the past they would have been sashes.

Although invented in the 17th Century, sash windows didn't start to become widespread until well into the 18th Century, starting with the grander houses, so they may well have been installed in your house as a later retrofit, but casements would seem more likely. It looks as though there are traces of stone mullions on the windows on the rear of the house at the right, so one might assume that the fenestration at the front was similar.

Yes, the remnants of the stone mullions are also visible from inside, too, on these windows. I was planning, when we get around to doing the windows, to put these back. Would this be the right things to do? We only have one stone mullion left in the whole house and I love it!! Here it is...

As for plastering inside, it would be almost unheard-of for a house not to be plastered. My assumption is that whoever did the cement render did a pretty thorough job of stripping off the old plaster. One give-away externally is to see if the detail is flush with the stonework or stands proud (to accommodate render). Is there anything internally that might suggest that.

Gervase, this is one of the best ways yet of, perhaps, determining whether the house should be rendered externally. Looking across from here, it looks very flush but I'm going over to the house in a short while to do some more waxing (I'm sure I do this in my sleep now :roll: :lol: ), so I'll have a better look and take some pictures, too.

You might also look for evidence of wooden plugs on the arrises of the windows where staff beads may have been nailed or elsewhere on the walls for cornices, rails or panelling. Are there nail traces on existing ceiling laths or joists which might given an indication of the plaster thickness on the walls?

There are no traces of areas where nails have been in the walls for cornicing etc. I know that for sure, because I'm up-close-and-personal with the walls at the moment while I'm waxing beams. As I'm moving around, I'm hoovering the walls in attempt at a first phase clean :lol:

There are, actually, some nails left in about 3 of the joists, which I assume held laths at some stage. I'm leaving them as they are, as part of the history of the house. They don't seem to protrude down very far but I'll try to remember to measure them when I go across.

I'm sorry to labour the point, but a bare stone interior for a house like that is so unusual as to be pretty well unique.

No, please don't be sorry. This is the first bit of positivity in moving forward with this. I'll report back later

 

[Tom]

Jaqy, personally speaking I think it would be very odd to put sash windows with your new doors. Like a Georgian frock coupled with a Tudor doublet. I know styles do get mixed up but I don't think that would look pretty on your house. If you'd like to return the house to 1740 or whatever I think you'd need to change the door too

Joce, I wasn't suggesting putting sashes in. I was just wondering if they'd have had sashes in when the style was altered in whatever period it was. To be honest, I don't know what to do with the windows but I'll definitely be coming here for advice when I do, just as I did for advice on breathable floors, pointing with Lime, finishes for my floors etc.

As mentioned earlier, I'd like to re-instate the stone mullions in the rear windows and have leaded lights (if they're appropriate) but what to do with the front and sides? The windows are all different shapes and sizes. I don't there's any way to try to make them 'uniform'. But I guess their 'ununiformness' is part of the history. Anyway, I'll be pestering for help and advice when the time comes!! :lol:

 

[Gervase]

Some thoughts:
Windows like these might work:

Or

or

or

They would certainly complement the door and its surroundings better than sashes.