Crown or not?

[atlasfever]

Hi All,

I have a question about the type of glass I have, in my windows.

I have a few 6 over 6 sash windows. About 6 architects have all said that the sash frames are not original as the glazing bars are to wide and thick. The glass is interesting: The top sashes are relatively clear, but they have a mild visual effect. When you stare through them, there are horizontal blurs that are evident (imperfect). Is this what one refers to as crown glass? I have seen some old glass on the the same street, but that's really pretty and the unevenness is everywhere. In my case, the blurs have a repetitive nature.

The bottom sashes have a glass that so far, 6 architects can not identify. I have not seen it on any other building in my neighbourhood and after stalking so many other neighbourhoods, I think I may have only seen it once before. The glass is a bit dull, not 100% transparent, has a few marks, like dots, in the glass. It basically looks like there is a film on it, but it appears to be the glass itself. It's rather odd that only the bottom sashes have this glass.

The architects have all said non of it is crown glass, and most likely just post-war glass. I plan on applying on changing the glass, either for the double glazed units or just single glazing, but I'd like to know if this glass is already 'historic' and then I'll just drop the idea of changing it. Frankly, the bottom sashes are not so lovely.

Cheers

 

[Keith Bowman]

The upper panes, with regular imperfections, sound like horticultural glass. A just-about-usable-substitute for old glass if, like me, you never had any money to spare. It only comes in the sizes used for greenhouses though!
Other people might have better ideas.

 

[Lime]

The glass may have been replaced during the last war.
The glass available then was of low quality, variable and sometimes opaque.

 

[Flyfisher]

Genuine crown glass is still available (genuine as in the genuine process, I believe, rather than genuinely old) from Tatra in the UK.
http://www.tatra-glass.co.uk/crown_glass.php

If it's genuine old original glass then there's no question that it should be carefully looked after.

But for new glass, I'm in two minds about it. On the one hand, I suppose a modern copy would be barely distinguishable from the original article, but on the other hand it's basically a flawed product - who wants a window that distorts your vision? It's like solid rubber tyres on a car, gas mantle lamps or magnesium powder for photography. OK if there is no alternative, but why continue to use them when there are vastly better alternatives today?




(I hope I don't get into too much trouble over this )

 

[plasticpigeon]

I's say the panes with lines in sound like glass that is 20th century, but not as perfectly flat as it is now. Shame on you FF you'll be fitting PVC windows next!!!!

 

[Flyfisher]

Not really, because I'd argue that oak, as well as being traditional, is actually a better material for a window and will last longer than uPVC. 'Wobbly' glass, however, seems to me to be functionally inferior to modern optically flat glass, so it's use in a new window must, presumably, be a fashion thing.

The thing that interests me is the inconsistency in the general approach to such period things. Thus, traditional wobbly glass is deemed to be 'good', despite the fact that it's actually the product of a poor process that results in an imperfect product, yet no one would ever seriously cconsider living by traditional candlelight, oil lamp or even gas lamp, which are all inferior products to the electric lightbulb. So why is it that we seem happy to accept the superiority of electrical lighting but not the superiority float glass?

Perhaps it's just a fashion thing. The sort of reasoning behind olde worlde stripped pine furniture, 'Georgian' electrical fittings and newly-built houses made from reclaimed bricks and exposed beams in order to give them 'character' - whatever that means.

I'm not being critical, I just find it all very curious.

 

[atlasfever]

Fly,

Thanks for that message -- it's nice to hear that I'm not the only one who holds this opinion. I wondered myself why I'm allowed to have radiators, and my fireplaces are not meant to be used

I just spoke with the borough's conservation advisory council today, for feedback on double glazing, and although he was polite, I just thought the basic logic he presented to me about why not to double glaze was rather.... well, I thought it was arbitrary. Mind you, he's an architect and should therefore know more than me, but I can't say I understand what I would call an over-obsession with the past. To your point, I guess we just pick and choose what we want to 'save,' and some of us are the position to create policy while the others have to follow on

Any further feedback on the glass would be great. thanks.

 

[plasticpigeon]

Ah, it wasn't a serious dig! I think that wobbly glass looks great from the outside in but not so great from the inside out, I still treat what's left in my house with the utmost care.

 

[Feltwell]

I rather like my wobbly glass! It's noticeable here that the original glass in the downstairs rooms is less "wobbly" than that used in the upstairs rooms - I'm presuming the Victorians had more than one grade of glass and in my case the best stuff was only used downstairs.

Having said that, inevitably I've got various windows with modern float glass in some or all of the sashes, and I've got others where I need to replace the glass. I've looked at horticultural grade glass in my local merchants and it appeared to be as flawless as float glass.

I thought you couldn't get crown glass any more, and only cylinder glass was available now anyway?

This article is rather interesting, the author's views are quite clear!

http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/glazing/glazing.htm

 

[Flyfisher]

If I may paraphrase that author's introduction . . . .

Perhaps the most noticeable and yet misunderstood feature of a historic building is that of its lighting and the way that lighting influences both the atmosphere and ambience of the building.

The influence of lighting can be seen both internally and externally, working in a radiant and colouring capacity. Externally, the radiant quality of lighting will be most noticeable, varying from the dazzling bright appearance of electric light to the subtle shimmer of period candlelight. Internally, candlelight will radiate a softness and warmth. The difference between a cold clinical electrical light and the warm, flickering illumination from period candlelight is profound.

But who would take such sentiments seriously enough to discard modern electricla lighting with authentic period candles? Again, I'm not arguing one way or the other on either subject, just noting the inconsistency in how they are generally treated.

 

[Flyfisher]

I just spoke with the borough's conservation advisory council today, for feedback on double glazing, and although he was polite, I just thought the basic logic he presented to me about why not to double glaze was rather.... well, I thought it was arbitrary.

What were his arguments against double glazing?

I'd be surprised if they were entirely arbitrary. Firstly, if you do have historic glass then it really should be preserved as part of the original fabric of the building. Secondly, even if there is no historic glass, replacement with double glazing can serious affect the structure of a window frame. A frame designed for 3mm single glazing cannot easily be adapted for 22/24mm double glazing units and a complete replacement (thereby losing original fabric) will almost certainly not be identical to the original appearance. These things are far from arbitrary.

However, that's not to say that a sensitive solution is impossible. Secondary double glazing is often acceptable in period properties. It also has the advantage of being completely reversible without destroying or altering any of the original fabric - a very important, and far from arbitrary, consideration.

It's all very tricky.

 

[plasticpigeon]

The thing that interests me is the inconsistency in the general approach to such period things. Thus, traditional wobbly glass is deemed to be 'good', despite the fact that it's actually the product of a poor process that results in an imperfect product, yet no one would ever seriously cconsider living by traditional candlelight, oil lamp or even gas lamp, which are all inferior products to the electric lightbulb. So why is it that we seem happy to accept the superiority of electrical lighting but not the superiority float glass?

Perhaps it's just a fashion thing. The sort of reasoning behind olde worlde stripped pine furniture, 'Georgian' electrical fittings and newly-built houses made from reclaimed bricks and exposed beams in order to give them 'character' - whatever that means.

I can't tell whether you are being serious or not. I think your argument could easily be extended to advocating destruction of anything that is not as functional as it could be. Wobbly glass doesn't stop the window functioning as a window, and many people actually like it either for its historical value, or pure aesthetics. Please don't degrade such a choice to the status of whimsical fashion. I don't think most people interested in preserving old buildings are trying to preserve a lifestyle although they may be interested in it, just preserve the building as much as possible, so many concessions to modern living will be made, hopefully as sensitively and with as little alteration as possible.

Some people might think putting in non original wobbly glass is sham old, and has no integrity. That is a shame as this rather ill defined idea of integrity might stop an object being as beautiful as it could be. I know if my dad who is a violin maker, repaired violins with new wood without matching it to the old, made a feature of the repair and refinished a french polished or oil varnished instrument with 2 pack polyurethane as it is more shiny and durable, his customers wouldn't be very happy.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Flyfisher is a wonderfully practical and skilled person, if I had even the 1/10 of his ability to repair things this house would be in a lot better state. But I think aesthetics and the whole topic of what looks right scare him, or at least, are uncomfortable topics - I hope he will take that remark in the affectionate spirit in which it's meant.
I prescribe an interior design course, or a soft furnishings course, to girly him up a bit. :wink:

If you have a lovely battered old sash window, already with a good deal of 19th C glass, thick with the glooped paint of the ages (some thing I've heard FF express a healthy liking for), then wobbly glass is its partner just as you'd put a woolly hat with a winter coat, but not a summer dress. There a sense and a rightness to the visual effect of things that I'd argue is not to do with taste or fashion, just plain common sense. In such a case I'd make an effort to match the wobbly glass.

If you have a new sash window that's been matched to what was there before (as some of ours are), thin paint, fitted out with all new and flat glass, then to smash it out and replace with wobbly is artifice, fun, but quite silly really.

As for candlelight, yes, I like nothing more than to switch all the lights off and see how atmospheric and lovely it looks by candlelight. Not practical for chores but superb if you're just relaxing by the fire. Few people would want not to install the modern comforts, but a lot of people also think a contemporary interior is a shame.

Here's a lovely house but the contemporary presentation of it actually makes me want to cry. It's so devoid of charm! What it needs are period contrivances, antiques, battered and well-loved hand me downs, moth-eaten swags and tails.
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-40633010.html

 

[vicky whitworth]

I'm with you on that Joce. That house terrifies me. Beautiful on the outside and like a boutique hotel on the inside. I cannot understand why people want to live their life as if they were staying in a hotel. Where's their soul? Do they not have any 'stuff'? Where's the books? The cats? The piles of ironing?

 

[atlasfever]

I just spoke with the borough's conservation advisory council today, for feedback on double glazing, and although he was polite, I just thought the basic logic he presented to me about why not to double glaze was rather.... well, I thought it was arbitrary.

What were his arguments against double glazing?

I'd be surprised if they were entirely arbitrary. Firstly, if you do have historic glass then it really should be preserved as part of the original fabric of the building. Secondly, even if there is no historic glass, replacement with double glazing can serious affect the structure of a window frame. A frame designed for 3mm single glazing cannot easily be adapted for 22/24mm double glazing units and a complete replacement (thereby losing original fabric) will almost certainly not be identical to the original appearance. These things are far from arbitrary.

However, that's not to say that a sensitive solution is impossible. Secondary double glazing is often acceptable in period properties. It also has the advantage of being completely reversible without destroying or altering any of the original fabric - a very important, and far from arbitrary, consideration.

It's all very tricky.

Fly,

He was very straightforward and did not beat around the bush (which is good even if I don't like the feedback): He/Advisory Council do not support double glazing, whether old style or new slim version, in any listed property. I did explain that my 6 over 6 are not original sashes, nor do I likely have crown glass. But, no matter.
He suggested the usual, secondary glazing... He agreed it's not that attractive to have secondary glazing w shutters.

Joce: First off, please do start a blog or some sort of public/editorial/writing outlet. I love the way you write, and the way you express/describe.
I would have to disagree with you about the layers of paint No, thank you. Old can still be kept fresh I have had arguments with my freeholder b/c he uses terms such as 'old building' to switch topic away from 'rotten wood, decaying paint, rusty gates.'

Overall: Everyone has a line that they don't cross. I think it's crazy to get rid of original shutters, or original fireplaces. However, I think single glazing is a relic of the past, and should be left in the past. Ok, I do think crown is attractive, but that would be the only reason why I would keep it (again, limited by LBC). Everything has a 'best before' date, even me
Cheers

 

[atlasfever]

Actually, Joce, i think the house is rather fabulous, except that there are no paintings/art on the wall which makes it look drab. As for ironing and laundry... who wants to live in reality? not me. Bring on hotel life any day I spend 1 out of 4 weeks in a hotel at the moment, and there's nothing wrong with returning home after work and finding your bathroom in perfect order.

That. is. wonderful.

 

[Flyfisher]

I can't tell whether you are being serious or not. I think your argument could easily be extended to advocating destruction of anything that is not as functional as it could be.

I would never extend the argument in that way. I said above that historic glass (historic anything) should always be valued and preserved. Regardless of it's functionality, its value lies in its history and that is unique and irreplaceable.

Wobbly glass doesn't stop the window functioning as a window, and many people actually like it either for its historical value, or pure aesthetics. Please don't degrade such a choice to the status of whimsical fashion.

This is where we stray into the realm of subjectivity and I think prevailing fashion does play a big part, which is entirely understandable. Anything to do with aesthetics will inevitably involve an element of fashion. I'm not suggesting this is wrong, per se, but it inevitably leads to inconsistencies - hence, for example, the apparently different appreciation of historic glass and historic lighting. We could probably find other examples as well. Consider the debate over the use of reclaimed materials instead of 'honest repairs' for example - is the replacement of historic glass with modern wobbly glass an honest repair?

I worry that such inconsistencies may actually put our truly historic buildings at risk because if we readily accept repairs/replacements of historic fabric with replica or reclaimed materials then we risk devaluing those things that are truly old and historic. A crude example might be stripping the paint from a window with a blowtorch; if we think it's OK to slap in a bit of modern wobbly glass, we may be less careful about breaking the truly historic glass already present. Historic fabric becomes less valuable if it can be easily replaced. The replacement glass might look the same, but it's not and we would have lost a part of our heritage. We end up with "Trigger's Broom".

I've got a number of old sash windows to renovate and I'm absolutely terrified of breaking the historic wobbly glass!

 

[Flyfisher]

I'm with you on that Joce. That house terrifies me. Beautiful on the outside and like a boutique hotel on the inside. I cannot understand why people want to live their life as if they were staying in a hotel. Where's their soul? Do they not have any 'stuff'? Where's the books? The cats? The piles of ironing?

Absolutely! I used to travel a great deal on business and it was the souless hotels that made it so wonderful to return home to some comfortable chaos. And yes, everytime I watch one of those grand/renovation/makeover/design programmes I wonder where the owners have put all their 'stuff'. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Flyfisher]

Flyfisher . . . . . But I think aesthetics and the whole topic of what looks right scare him, or at least, are uncomfortable topics - I hope he will take that remark in the affectionate spirit in which it's meant.
I prescribe an interior design course, or a soft furnishings course, to girly him up a bit. :wink:

Perceptive, as ever, Joce and certainly no offence taken. I'd like to think I'm as receptive to a bit of girlying up as anyone. :wink:

But I wasn't really trying to suggest any rights and wrongs when it comes to all things aesthetic, it was more the perceived inconsistencies in the general treatment of such things.

 

[Penners]

The thing that interests me is the inconsistency in the general approach to such period things. Thus, traditional wobbly glass is deemed to be 'good', despite the fact that it's actually the product of a poor process that results in an imperfect product, yet no one would ever seriously cconsider living by traditional candlelight, oil lamp or even gas lamp, which are all inferior products to the electric lightbulb. So why is it that we seem happy to accept the superiority of electrical lighting but not the superiority float glass?

Perhaps it's just a fashion thing. The sort of reasoning behind olde worlde stripped pine furniture, 'Georgian' electrical fittings and newly-built houses made from reclaimed bricks and exposed beams in order to give them 'character' - whatever that means.

I'm not being critical, I just find it all very curious.

I'm with you, FF. I find it extraordinary, for example, that people are prepared to hunt high and low to find old bakelite light switches to put in their built-pre-electricity houses. Any light switch is going to be an anachronism, so why fit one that's inferior to (and possibly less safe than) today's high-impact plastic jobs?

The previous owners of our Georgian cottage had gone one step further: they had modern light switches to switch the lights on, but they had screwed old bakelite switches to the wall as well - just for decoration! :roll:

There's nowt so queer as folk...