Final clean up of ancient timbers (internal)

[Flyfisher]

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

While in no way defending the 'horrors of sandblasting' I find it a little inconsistent that there is, seemingly, no equivalent 'horror of chemical strippers'.

Fair enough, careful stripping shouldn't damage the underlying wood, but isn't the paintwork, or other finish, itself a part of the historical fabric or patina of the property?

(and I count myself amongst the bare wood supporters club, although I'm less certain about doors).

 

[Toby Newell]

You haven't seen my Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa post then?

Solvent strippers do not harm the wood at all. Caustic ones do and I NEVER use them. As regards paintwork etc, well you just have to be judicious.

Where do you stop? Do you leave 200 yr old coatings? 100yr? 50yr? 20yr? Its all personal preference. My general rule is, what is the period of the property (or antique) what is appropiate for the age? If the coating is appropriate and in keeping with what was traditional at the time then I would advise customers to leave alone if sound, or restore if damaged.

I frequently turn down jobs stripping pine stairs and doors etc as I don't agree with it, occasionally I strip painted stairs (under protest) if they are less than 100 yrs old but I don't recall if I have ever stripped a painted pine door that would have originally been painted (99% of them)

Of course 20yr old black "pub" paint on otherwise immeasurably beautiful 500 year old sound elm or oak beams would be well within my radar. Limewash or hundred year old linseed paint, well that would take some consideration, ultimately it's up to you. If in doubt, leave alone.

Sometimes it is nice to have artifacts finished and repaired at different times after all the history of a place doesn't just mean ancient or original history close to its inception, it's a fluid thing and evolving all the time, actually a coat of gloss paint last Thursday would be part of the history of the property, only very recent.

 

[Nemesis]

Any work which will alter the character of a listed building requires LBC, and advice should always be sought from the local authority before doing anything which could alter the character.

Record making is another issue to bear in mind, eradication of all past schemes could wipe out centuries of history, and where there is a possibility that ancient painting of the timbers could have been hidden by later over-painting then the work of a professional conservator may be required.

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


http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.10217


PPG 15 and Annexe C may be of interest:

http://www.molas.org.uk/downloads/ppg15.pdf

 

[Nemesis]

More light reading:

http://www.ihbc.org.uk/context_archive/64/paint/reasearch.html

 

[DaveBrigg]

Removing the cement render from our gable end exposed a window lintel that looks a little the worse for wear, though not obviously rotten. After inspection, the CO, whose knowledge and dedication I respect greatly, shocked me by saying that a concrete replacement would be fine. Once covered, no-one will ever know, and it will probably last longer than the original, but even so?
I'm glad the stripping question has been raised. We have a couple of exposed beams that have badly flaking limewash. They have been brushed to prevent any more deposits on the carpet, leaving traces of several different colours remaining. It seems that any further treatment - washing off the remaining limewash or recoating, will harm the historic fabric.
The kitchen ceiling is in a similar state. Limewashing it would reproduce one of the original surfaces, but only if the 2mm thick historic coating is removed first. Washing the boards down and oiling would give a beautiful finish, but it's hardly authentic. Covering the ceiling completely with lath and plaster would return it to the condition it was in when the windows were fitted, but would hide one of the more interesting features of the house. So far I've tried to leave it alone, and get regularly cursed when bits of 400 yr old limewash fall into the dinner.

 

[Nemesis]

a concrete replacement would be fine. Once covered, no-one will ever know, and it will probably last longer than the original,

Well that's true, and it would be an honest repair and also maybe the loadings more easily calculated.

But ... it also might bring the need for the BCO.

All houses vary, in materials etc, and what is right for one isn't right for another.

 

[Flyfisher]

'Honest repair' seems to be a quite variable term (to me, anyway). I understand (I think!) the context in terms of replacing a failed/failing oak lintel with a modern one, but wouldn't the use of a new oak lintel also be an 'honest repair'? It would certainly be like-for-like.

I appreciate these things can be dependent on other considerations but it makes things quite difficult when trying to do the best for the property.

 

[Nemesis]

Yes,a new oak would be OK too, and in an oak framed building it's certainly what I would do. In a heavy stone one like ours I think something a bit beefier might be better, but both approaches are, I think, valid. Where we have inserted new windows we have used concrete as we are not listed (one of the many that got away) and BC regs had to apply.

There are always hard decisions to be made, and always heart searching about if it was the right thing to do. But taking time to make informed decisions, and ones which won't damage the house in future (cement...) while retaining what is good about buildings takes care and time. Too many people are only interested in getting it all done as rapidly as possible, and without any thought as to what they may be destroying in the process.