Final clean up of ancient timbers (internal)

[Gervase]

Nice Day?!?! Is Oop North in some sort of meteorological nexus? It's absolutely p!ssing down here. I am a ray of sunshine, however, having seen off the static caravan from the yard this morning (and am still smiling despite the detritus that was lurking underneath it).
One more step along the road...

 

[Nemesis]

Well it WAS a nice day - first we have had for ages - but the clouds are gathering...

So I have come in to make, would you believe, bara brith!

Ah caravans - yes. We have a graveyard too. And lots of other crap which MUST this year be moved.

I'll send im indoors out to do that.

But hooray for you - I know how it feels.

 

[Penners]

I am a ray of sunshine, however, having seen off the static caravan from the yard this morning

I well remember the day that we got rid of ours, after four years of living in it.

Mrs P and I cheered. The children cried to see it go.

 

[Flyfisher]

Nem's links were helpful in terms of explaining the differences between restoration and repair but less helpful in explaining why some practices, such as stripping away historical paintwork (surely a destruction of original fabric?) seem to meet with tacit approval, whereas others such as the replacement of single with double glazing - or even discussions about how it might be achieved - generally meets with complete horror and hostility.

I'm not arguing that either is acceptable but I am curious about the apparent difference in reaction. Presumably such things are on a sloping scale of acceptability depending on the prevailing fashion of the time.

I'm also a little confused about what happens when, for whatever reason, historic fabric really does reach the end of its life and cannot be effectively repaired? Say, a wooden lintel over a window for example?

Is it 'best practice' to replace the lintel with another wooden one, i.e. a modern replica, or should a modern lintel made of modern materials be used so there can be no future confusion about what is original fabric?

 

[Moo]

"... to proceed from comprehensive knowledge of the buildings for the time being in their care, via logical argument, to defensible, if not inevitable, solutions." (my italics)

- from the final sentence in the book outline in Nem's first link.

 

[Penners]

It seems to me that there could be an argument for insisting that every listed building should be equipped with a log book.

Any and all changes/repairs to the building should be logged, so that future generations know exactly what is original and what isn't.

But then, arguing with my own suggestion, if (to continue FF's example) a rotted lintel has been replaced like-for-like with a new one, why does that actually matter? The character of the house is unchanged, the stability and longevity of it has been improved, and it has undergone a perfectly natural evolutionary process.

If I lose a chunk of skin in an accident, and my body grows a replacement, I'm still the same person.

 

[Flyfisher]

Interesting point about a log book.

In a way, that's exactly what we're doing with all the photos being taken of all the work we're doing. As I look at various things around the house, I often think it's a shame we don't have more info behind the many changes over the centuries. There'll be a much more complete story about the current work for future generations.

BTW, my lintel example is not hypothetical; it's very real indeed. I presume that, from a legal perspective, I could replace it like-for-like without LBC but would require LBC to use a modern lintel (if it was granted). But what's the 'best practice' in conservation terms?

 

[Penners]

My understanding is that best conservation practice would be (a) to repair and conserve the existing lintel if possible, or (b) if it's beyond repair, replace it like-for-like.

In either case, I don't reckon you'd need LBC. It's a genuine repair.

 

[Flyfisher]

Very definitely beyond repair . . . unless you know of a way to stick handfuls of 'sawdust' together to reconstitute a beam!

Another victim of cement render I'm afraid, which has resulted in trapped water around the beam. Still, the window frame seems to be doing a good job of keeping the wall supported :shock:

My instinct is to replace it with another oak lintel but, sadly, the original fabric is already gone forever and I'm mindful of the 'grandfather's spade' syndrome.

 

[Nemesis]

You will probably require building control approval.

 

[Flyfisher]

Not according to my CO.

 

[Toby Newell]

Nemesis

I am not quite sure what problem you have with me, as far as I know no one else has voiced there displeasure in such a way. It is almost sweet (and I don't wish to be condescending) I am not entirely sure you are reading my posts objectively, yes I "pop" in nowadays as I am v busy and I try and offer my advice where I think it could help, sometimes I may be too late.

I do not assume I am any more "right" than anyone else on this forum. I am very sure though that when I offer advice it is backed up by direct experience and sometimes of many years and many successful (and unsuccessful) attempts.

Many people offer thier advice on what they have heard or what they have read on other sites or on what they have achieved once or twice, for example which is fine, I mostly offer advice on specific tasks that perhaps I have performed several hundred times in my life, it is for the reader to determine what advice to take.

If my advice contradicts that of another poster that is just as it is, I just try and offer my wisdom which is normally hard won! It is not to suggest anyone elses advice is any less valid.

Personally I prefer to try things out myself, as learning from ones mistakes is often the best way, so I would be happy to get a range of advice and try a few different things. I am giving people the chance to try a different way. I am sure what is not in doubt is that I am very passionate about wood and old buildings and that I enjoy reading and trying to help people who share this passion. Whether I am any good at my job or know what I am talking about is a completely differnet question, the proof is in the pudding!

I think it is quite boring and inelegant for me to have to defend myself in this way so perhaps you could save this message and reread it occasionally. As far as my Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa post, well that is a measure of my love of wood! Contact the London school of furniture or anyone at the wood restoration courses in High Wycombe or East Sussex and you will get the same answer, never, ever use a caustic stripper to strip ancient timbers or timbers containing large amounts of tannic acid like oak. You say you are from an art background, well if you heard someone was considering restoring an old master using cotton wool and Nitromors you may well go Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

Best wishes

Toby

 

[Nemesis]

Toby - I think the problems are all yours, dear boy, all yours!

 

[Nemesis]

Not according to my CO.

Then if you are replacing with something, ensure it's up to the job.

That's usually what Building Regs are for. So that the place doesn't fall down.

 

[Cloudscape]

On a separate, but related, issue to stripping old wood, I'm a bit confused about the 'heritage' position on all this. Where's the boundary of approval between destroying historic fabric (i.e. the painted finish or other coverings) and revealing the underlying historic fabric.

In various parts of our house, some of the oak beams are painted, some are limewashed, some have been boxed in during (we believe) a 'Georgian makeover', some are original and bare and all the doors are painted.

Is it 'good conservation' to remove some of this in order to let the 'glory' of fine English oak shine out or is it pandering to the 'stripped pine' fashion of recent times which may be historically inaccurate? Or does it not really matter either way?

I'm really glad you asked that. It's been bugging me for a long time. I feel I am being pushed towards stripping and sanding visible wood, and getting it to look as clean and 'natural' as possible. At the same time, I feel I am being urged to preserve the patina.

I too have painted beams, stained beams, shellac-ed beams and some which look like they have been vaguely sanded, with traces of plaster and limewash. That's not counting the ones that are half eaten or have had their weaker wood hacked away. But what they all have is all the original tool marks and surface variations.

All the timber I can see anywhere is dark, including under 200+-yr-old lath/plaster, and around wattle and daub.

I tried to raise this kind of point before - what is "right"? And to what extent are 'renovations' influenced by fashion and current taste?

One of my neighbours the other day (in a GII* house) said, "We spent months stripping, wirewooling, hand-sanding and oiling these beams, but I think it was worth it." They were slightly lighter and slightly smoother than the other 550-yr-old beams in her house. They also looked like beams in a contemporary barn conversion, while the un-fiddled-with beams looked older and had a lot of character.

I have one ceiling where the beams are satin black. It looks like a pub... but then it was a pub. Go figure. The tools marks, and the hacked-away decay look great on some of them, and the black makes them look like they are made out of coal. The beams in that room are quite special as they are. I have enough rooms to allow for a variety of 'looks'.

Is the aim of all the stripping and sanding for the wood to 'breathe' as much as possible. Does the wood 'need' stripping back? Does it need feeding in some way - is that what the linseed oil (etc) are for?

 

[Flyfisher]

Re: Nemesis - Absolutely. I would regard like-for-like meaning the same sized piece of oak, which should be OK because a) the original hasn't failed through being overloaded and b) the, presumably, much weaker window frame seems to be able to support the wall above anyway. Thank goodness for over-engineering.

The problems, so I'm told, with building regs in old buildings is that it can become difficult to know how to apply them and when to stop applying them. For example, we have beams supporting the first floor that are sat on beams across doors and windows, whereas they 'should' be sat on brick pillars. No signs of any problems though.

In other cases we have chalk clunch supporting structural beams, which would probably not be acceptable and a pillar of engineering brick might be 'required' to meet current regs, but then we have 'inadequate' foundations, so that would have to be fixed, etc, etc.

Against all that, I'm advised to keep BR away from such things because there seems to be nothing structurally wrong with the building design overall, just some bits that need repairing back to the original because of neglect - like my rotted lintel.

I know I'm often critical of bureaucracy but there some advantages to listing - providing you have a knowledgeable and helpful CO!

Re: Cloudscape - I suspect all this wood stripping is mainly for fashion rather than to feed and preserve the wood, although that might be a side-effect. However, I'm sure we've all seen naked oak beams exposed to 400 years of weather that are still structurally sound, so I'm not convinced about the 'need' for preservatives.

 

[Toby Newell]

Cloudscape.

I dont know the heritage position on this. I have found them to be the same as any other official body. I am very cynical. Some ppl may be good there but you can do anything to any building (like Palace of Westmisnter for example where I worked for 3 years) if the money is right.

Personally I treat ancient timbers like I do period antiques, i.e. strip as a last resort. Many times removing layers of paint can damage the surface of the beam which still may have cutting or warding marks visable through the paint. If the surface is sound then removing the coatings and polishing up can look particularly beautiful but it is a dirty, costly and time consuming experience to do it carefully. (Carefully does not mean sand blasting) To notice a real difference in say a 500 yr old beam you would have to employ a professional otherwise a clean up and recoat of similar finish may be the best option.

I am not an expert in ancient internal timbers per se but most would have been left natural to go black with soot, iron stains etc from repeated washing, in which case they may have been oiled by some, or limewashed with the rest of the interior. Finishes only started to become popular in the 17th century and were mostly oil based, some later on with the addition of earth pigments/soot and siccative (spelling?) additives like lead and zinc compounds to aid drying and water resistance to form what you could call the first oil based varnishes (in europe, at least, the Chinese had been wood finishing for nearly 4000 years)

 

[Penners]

Is the aim of all the stripping and sanding for the wood to 'breathe' as much as possible. Does the wood 'need' stripping back? Does it need feeding in some way - is that what the linseed oil (etc) are for?

I would suggest that the vast majority of beam stripping that goes on is done purely for aesthetic reasons. The majority of people today prefer their old oak beams "naked" (and I include myself in that august body). I don't think they give much thought to allowing the wood to breathe.

You can, of course, oil or wax the wood if you like the visual effect of this, and either of these treatments might be regarded as modestly beneficial to the wood. But given the nature of oak and the over-engineering of most period oak-framed properties, I don't think anyone is going to do much structural damage to their property whether they strip their beams or not, or whether they "feed" the wood or not.

Aesthetic damage is another matter. Horrors like sandblasting can cause sad loss of patina, and often of moulding detail.

 

[Nemesis]

http://www.eastherts.gov.uk/index.jsp?articleid=2587

http://www.localhistory.scit.wlv.ac.uk/listed/graseley.htm

http://www.mkheritage.co.uk/wdahs/Thornton/docs/chapel.html

http://www.iiconservation.org/news/calendar.php?idnr=186

 

[Toby Newell]

Sorry, forgot the most imp point.

As far as I know, there is not much you can do to harm a 500 yr old oak beam etc other than get it wet whence it will get munched by microscopic and not so microscopic life forms.

(If you've ever hit your head on a dry one...hard as steel)

As Penners points out, unless you have a damp problem your beams will probably not gain much noticable benefit being stripped and oiled, just stripped, or just oiled or left as they are, you can however cause a lot of surface damage by stripping them incorrectly. I tend to give anything older than myself the benefit of the doubt, at several hundred years the beam probably knows how to look after itself better than we do.

Toby