Do these fireplaces look original?

[Coles]

Hi,

We have just moved into an Edwardian 1905 house and are kicking off a restoration project.

It was turned into flats, so we are turning back into one house.

Luckily most of the original features remain.

But I was not sure about these fireplaces.

I'm assuming they are original. Neither work, they were converted to gas which was capped off.

I would love to get them up and running again.

Thanks

 

[Toby Newell]

If you can post some better quality photos and close ups, impossible to tell from those poor shots.

 

[Toby Newell]

You didn't really do much research did you lol You should try Google!

Type "Edwardian Fireplace" search 'image'.

11th image, click on... 7th related image =

Antique Art Nouveau Polished Cast Iron Tiled Fireplace

A stunning original antique combination fireplace in polished cast iron with elegant original floral runner tiles. This well-proportioned fireplace is embellished with feminine floral motifs on the hood, lintel and jambs. The piece is a fine example of Art Nouveau design and has been fully...

antiquefireplaceslondon.com

 

[Toby Newell]

They say it's original. No idea if this was a very mass produced style. There seem to be quite a few for sale. You need to check for patina, very hard to tell otherwise. You can get repro surrounds and repro tiles too. Fire fronts probably replaced and hearth tiles look too new.

It's pretty easy to make a lost wax mold (done this myself at Uni) using an original as a template, repros would have imperfections and cast iron rusts instantly and looks old as soon as it is cast, so really tricky to tell original from a new repro unless up close and you can check for makers marks, 'apprentice marks' etc.

They are quite pretty and age and style appropriate anyway.

 

[Coles]

They say it's original. No idea if this was a very mass produced style. There seem to be quite a few for sale. You need to check for patina, very hard to tell otherwise. You can get repro surrounds and repro tiles too. Fire fronts probably replaced and hearth tiles look too new.

It's pretty easy to make a lost wax mold (done this myself at Uni) using an original as a template, repros would have imperfections and cast iron rusts instantly and looks old as soon as it is cast, so really tricky to tell original from a new repro unless up close and you can check for makers marks, 'apprentice marks' etc.

They are quite pretty and age and style appropriate anyway.

Thank you, I did research them before we purchased the house but I have seen the style so many times in fireplace stores I wasn't sure. I can't get to the back as it's fixed in.

The only number viewable is on front plate hiding the ash pan which says 43-30, which I'm assuming is the size.

The only aspect that indicated it was orginal was that I read the pattern on replicas isnt so obvious as it loses some of its depth in the moulding. I'm not sure how accurate that is.

 

[Coles]

I hope these pics are clearer.

 

[Toby Newell]

Seems like you have dust in your lens, I had the same on my previos Galaxy. Still not sharp enough. I can see the ribbon motif tiles are heavily crazed so they seem original but impossible to say. I've never seen so many of the same style but maybe it was a popular style. Look like repros to me, especially the surrounds, but I could be wrong. Maybe someone like Chesney's would know.

 

[malcolm]

They look original enough to me. Late Victoran to 1920s would be my guess, and I doubt anyone would have replaced the fireplaces when they were 15 years old. Looks like they have survived the 1960s very well. Well worth preserving. Tiles in the hearth probably aren't original - they would have been more fussy but look nice enough.

Are you looking at having them as coal fires or converting them to something? They might be a bit small for wood burning.

 

[CliffordPope]

Some of the detailing looks very slightly different between the two fireplaces. If reproductions, wouldn't they probably have been copied from the same original, so absolutely identical?

 

[Toby Newell]

Some of the detailing looks very slightly different between the two fireplaces. If reproductions, wouldn't they probably have been copied from the same original, so absolutely identical?

What's different? The issue I have is I never see two of these types of fireplaces that are exactly the same but online I found half a dozen of these. Seems odd. I recall seeing one similar in a house in Wimbledon, I will check my portfolio and see if I took any photos of it.

 

[Coles]

Some of the detailing looks very slightly different between the two fireplaces. If reproductions, wouldn't they probably have been copied from the same original, so absolutely identical?

The one with the tall flowers in a pot tiles is smaller and upstairs. I think when it was flats that was the living room and may well have been removed from the downstairs as they took the whole chimney breast out in the front room.

 

[Coles]

They look original enough to me. Late Victoran to 1920s would be my guess, and I doubt anyone would have replaced the fireplaces when they were 15 years old. Looks like they have survived the 1960s very well. Well worth preserving. Tiles in the hearth probably aren't original - they would have been more fussy but look nice enough.

Are you looking at having them as coal fires or converting them to something? They might be a bit small for wood burning.

I was thinking of putting them back as gas, the elderly lady that lived here said they were dangerous so capped off. But didn't know why.

 

[Toby Newell]

I was thinking of putting them back as gas, the elderly lady that lived here said they were dangerous so capped off. But didn't know why.

They look pretty and period correct, tbh it would be very difficult to tell the difference between original and copies of the cast surround, it's more any wooden overmantle, the hearth stone or tiles and the edge tiles. I like them. The mantle shelf would normally of been cast too, the top one has wood, maybe they cut it off?

You can only really tell super close up. Cast iron rusts and pits, one would expect some erosion, depends how often they were polished and waxed or if they had been painted before.

 

[Coles]

They look pretty and period correct, tbh it would be very difficult to tell the difference between original and copies of the cast surround, it's more any wooden overmantle, the hearth stone or tiles and the edge tiles. I like them. The mantle shelf would normally of been cast too, the top one has wood, maybe they cut it off?

You can only really tell super close up. Cast iron rusts and pits, one would expect some erosion, depends how often they were polished and waxed or if they had been painted before.

Thank you. The wooden pine mantle is definitely not original. It looks glued onto the wall, so I was just going to paint it as I really don't like it. I thought maybe the top of the fire was hidden under it but it feels like a major pain to pull it off to check.

The hearth has also been changed as floor has horrible thick LV flooring and the hearth is flush with it rather than sitting lower.

So that floor all coming off and replaced.

 

[Stevers]

It's possible that these fires wouldn't have had a Flame Supervision Device (FSD) which appears to be a legal requirement (from 2011?) for buildings containing multiple dwellings, which would include a house divided into flats. I believe that all new installations can only be of gas fires with FSDs, so even though your house is a single dwelling again, I suspect they've lost their grandfather rights to be re-installed. I'd be interested in knowing if this is indeed the case.

 

[Toby Newell]

Thank you. The wooden pine mantle is definitely not original. It looks glued onto the wall, so I was just going to paint it as I really don't like it. I thought maybe the top of the fire was hidden under it but it feels like a major pain to pull it off to check.

The hearth has also been changed as floor has horrible thick LV flooring and the hearth is flush with it rather than sitting lower.

So that floor all coming off and replaced.

Yes, normally you would expect a cast mantle shelf on top, it's probably underneath the wood, only a nutjob would try and grind off cast iron. Maybe the shelf was made as a separate piece.

 

[Stevers]

We have two surviving sizes of Victorian cast iron bedroom fireplaces and both sizes have the mantle shelves as separate casting.

This does look like a fireplace that might have been dollied up with a surround as if it was an insert - though it's the wrong proportions to be one of those.

 

[Coles]

Yes, normally you would expect a cast mantle shelf on top, it's probably underneath the wood, only a nutjob would try and grind off cast iron. Maybe the shelf was made as a separate piece.

Looking at the mantle closer it looks pretty solid, it's so flush with the iron 'insert' it's going to be hard to paint it nicely. So I end up taking it off.

It looks like it hasn't been used in years and the flue looks closed off.

There are old leaves and what appears to be bird poop in it.
Sorry for the bad pics, my phone fell into the toilet two weeks ago and there is water behind the camera which appears to be staying there.

 

[CliffordPope]

What's different? The issue I have is I never see two of these types of fireplaces that are exactly the same but online I found half a dozen of these. Seems odd. I recall seeing one similar in a house in Wimbledon, I will check my portfolio and see if I took any photos of it.

Apparently the two are not identical anyway - the one from upstairs is smaller. So presumably the castings would have been different. The very slight difference in spacings between the two is probably therefore not significant.
That would point to them being genuine - if reproductions are just run off from a single mould they would all be the same?

It's just occured to me that analysis of the metal would be a clincher - I bet 1880 cast iron is not quite the same as 1980?

 

[Toby Newell]

Apparently the two are not identical anyway - the one from upstairs is smaller. So presumably the castings would have been different. The very slight difference in spacings between the two is probably therefore not significant.
That would point to them being genuine - if reproductions are just run off from a single mould they would all be the same?

It's just occured to me that analysis of the metal would be a clincher - I bet 1880 cast iron is not quite the same as 1980?

They are probably closer to 1905 than 1880 if original. It's the surround rather than the centre that looks odd for me, you can see the carving tool marks in the middle, but not on the surround. Decorative cast iron hasn't really changed much from the mid 1800s but yes, you could forensically analyse the impurity level and probably even where in the world the ore was from.