Fireplace ideas

[JohnArmer]

We're currently having the front room of our 1870s (?) house replastered and thoughts are turning to the fireplace that needs to go in it.



The room is the one behind the bay window. Currently, the chimney breast is back to bare stone, having removed the cement plaster and pointing. We're having it replastered in lime and plan to reinstate an open fireplace (there was nothing but a 1960s hanging gas fire on the wall and nothing left of the original fireplace). The fireplace opening was about 3ft wide originally but has been partially filled in.

What sort of fireplace would have been fitted originally? My thoughts were to put something like this from Stovax:



i.e. an insert and surround, but not sure if there would have been a wood surround like this originally. Our house is basically identical in plan to many of the terraced houses of the same period in Lancaster, except that it was built as a detached house which had a barn added later to the right hand side. The room itself is square in plan with a chimney breast which is 5ft wide. There is simple plaster cornicing around the top of the room and evidence of a picture rail about 18" from the top of the walls.

I'm not so keen on the hearth arrangement of the Stovax fireplace shown, I was thinking of a hearth that was flusher to the floor, with perhaps a fender round to demarcate it - the room it is in will be carpeted.

I'd love to see what others have got in your front rooms, or any suggestions you could offer.

 

[Westholme]

Have you asked your neighbours whether their front room has an original fireplace? They should be happy to talk about it if they do.

This is the fireplace in the front room of my 1894 house:


The chimney breast is almost 5' wide (59½" to be precise). The shelf is 1" thick and 57" long with the top 45" above the floor. The surround must be wood, mostly veneered with inlaid panels that have a really nice texture. The width between the outside of the pillars is 50½". "The Nottingham" cast iron insert is 37" wide by 37½" high. The fireplace hood is hinged at the top and the flue is closed off in the photo. I think there is a counterweight behind the hood because I can hear something go clank when it is fully open.

You mention plastering. In my house and no doubt countless others, the corners of the chimney breasts and the chamfered corners of the bay window in the front room do not have ordinary plaster but something much harder, presumably to withstand knocks. I have been told this is alabaster and it extends 1½" from the corners themselves.

 

[plasticpigeon]

I really like stovax products and I do think that that fireplace is a good style for your age of house, although I don't know what was popular in your area at the time. Wooden surrounds of the period tend to be simpler, but nobody seems to make anything appropriate. I have attached a pic of one I salvged from a skip for reference. I agree, a flush hearth is both nicer and more traditional. I dug mine out, filled it with concrete and tiled the top on a bed of cement sand screed (ie I laid the tiles on the wet screed) You will have to reduce the size of your opening with some kind of masonry, perhaps including a lintel, and then when the insert is installed backfill it. Traditionally the backfill was broken bricks and lime mortar, but nowadays vermiculite cement mix is more convenient. The vermiculite allows for the expansion and contraction of the fireplace with changing temperature. The top of the backfill is flaunched with cement sand so that anything falling down the chimney falls back into the fire grate and not behind the insert. Here is a picture of the brickwork I inserted into the builders opening, and also the finished room, which sounds quite similar to what you are going to do. My house is a terrace circa 1900. If you need any more info about putting the insert in I can help.

 

[paulc]

You mention plastering. In my house and no doubt countless others, the corners of the chimney breasts and the chamfered corners of the bay window in the front room do not have ordinary plaster but something much harder, presumably to withstand knocks. I have been told this is alabaster and it extends 1½" from the corners themselves.

On my chimney breast, and the external corners of the bay window, have what appears to be a cement corner piece 2" wide from floor to ceiling. This has a thin veneer of finishing plaster over the top. This is a late 1920s build, so probably not quite period enough for an 1870s property, but no reason the idea couldn't be used - Maybe NHL5 or pozzolanic cement (certainly more in keeping than metal or even plastic edging).

 

[plasticpigeon]

The surround must be wood, mostly veneered with inlaid panels that have a really nice texture.

I am certain that your fire surround is slate which has been painted to look like wood. This was very skillfully done back then, and I think it looks amazing.

 

[JohnArmer]

Thanks for the feedback. Seems I am along the right lines with my ideas for the fireplace - the surrounds all seem to have corbels of some sort or another. I just need to decide on the material. The houses next to mine or much more recent - Edwardian - so not really comparable.

The walls didn't have any harder plaster at the corners but they do have dowels / beading which my plasterer is re-using and replacing where it's missing. I'm sure that will help protect the corners. I got rid of the metal corner formers and gypsum!

Plastic: your brickwork behind your fireplace is very neat! One question about your hearth though, is the fender fixed... and did you carpet up to the fender? If not, how did you finish the carpet which must be slightly higher than your hearth which is flush with the floorboards?

 

[plasticpigeon]

Hi John, the fender is not fixed, I just had to frind one that roughly fitted round the hearth. I nailed some beading round the hearth that the carpet fitter could use to ram the edge of the carpet into. Niether the carpet fitter nor I knew if it would work but it looked pretty neat when done. I'll put a photo up later.

 

[plasticpigeon]

Sorry about the ash and dust. Here is how i finished the edge of the hearth.

 

[JohnArmer]

Just seen this PP, thanks. Looks a nice way to do it!

 

[OliveTree]

I really like stovax products and I do think that that fireplace is a good style for your age of house, although I don't know what was popular in your area at the time. Wooden surrounds of the period tend to be simpler, but nobody seems to make anything appropriate. I have attached a pic of one I salvged from a skip for reference. I agree, a flush hearth is both nicer and more traditional. I dug mine out, filled it with concrete and tiled the top on a bed of cement sand screed (ie I laid the tiles on the wet screed) You will have to reduce the size of your opening with some kind of masonry, perhaps including a lintel, and then when the insert is installed backfill it. Traditionally the backfill was broken bricks and lime mortar, but nowadays vermiculite cement mix is more convenient. The vermiculite allows for the expansion and contraction of the fireplace with changing temperature. The top of the backfill is flaunched with cement sand so that anything falling down the chimney falls back into the fire grate and not behind the insert. Here is a picture of the brickwork I inserted into the builders opening, and also the finished room, which sounds quite similar to what you are going to do. My house is a terrace circa 1900. If you need any more info about putting the insert in I can help.

When did vermiculite start being used as backfill?

 

[Toby Newell]

We're currently having the front room of our 1870s (?) house replastered and thoughts are turning to the fireplace that needs to go in it.



The room is the one behind the bay window. Currently, the chimney breast is back to bare stone, having removed the cement plaster and pointing. We're having it replastered in lime and plan to reinstate an open fireplace (there was nothing but a 1960s hanging gas fire on the wall and nothing left of the original fireplace). The fireplace opening was about 3ft wide originally but has been partially filled in.

What sort of fireplace would have been fitted originally? My thoughts were to put something like this from Stovax:



i.e. an insert and surround, but not sure if there would have been a wood surround like this originally. Our house is basically identical in plan to many of the terraced houses of the same period in Lancaster, except that it was built as a detached house which had a barn added later to the right hand side. The room itself is square in plan with a chimney breast which is 5ft wide. There is simple plaster cornicing around the top of the room and evidence of a picture rail about 18" from the top of the walls.

I'm not so keen on the hearth arrangement of the Stovax fireplace shown, I was thinking of a hearth that was flusher to the floor, with perhaps a fender round to demarcate it - the room it is in will be carpeted.

I'd love to see what others have got in your front rooms, or any suggestions you could offer.

Very hard to say, this type of surround with a rounded fireplace seems very common these days. Not my cup of tea, I would say it's fairly accurate for the period, but not precise, if that makes sense.

The surround certainly is off, it would of been simpler or more elegant, those fluted corbels would of had extra embelishments both underneath (eg shells or acanthus leaves) and in the middle (eg roundel / rosette etc) to balance or have not been fluted as pidgeon shows. Also there are no plinths at the bottom, it just looks inelegant. As regards the fireplace itself, many of the original Victorian ones I see seem to be rectangular or oval with a gentler curve and many have tiled inserts.

It's near enough that most people would think it appropriate.

Your house is, very unfussy, I would opt for one without the fluted corbels or embellishments on the cast iron.

Things tended to be very plain or quite ornate, that style grates (sic) on me because it's plain with random details and thus neither, which is very common for modern reproductions.

But beauty is in the eye etc.

I think the more antiques you see the more 'feel' you get. I like it when I walk into a room and I cannot immediately tell if something is a repro.

 

[Drayton]

Very hard to say, this type of surround with a rounded fireplace seems very common these days. Not my cup of tea, I would say it's fairly accurate for the period, but not precise, if that makes sense.

The surround certainly is off, it would of been simpler or more elegant, those fluted corbels would of had extra embelishments both underneath (eg shells or acanthus leaves) and in the middle (eg roundel / rosette etc) to balance or have not been fluted as pidgeon shows. Also there are no plinths at the bottom, it just looks inelegant. As regards the fireplace itself, many of the original Victorian ones I see seem to be rectangular or oval with a gentler curve and many have tiled inserts.

It's near enough that most people would think it appropriate.

Your house is, very unfussy, I would opt for one without the fluted corbels or embellishments on the cast iron.

Things tended to be very plain or quite ornate, that style grates (sic) on me because it's plain with random details and thus neither, which is very common for modern reproductions.

But beauty is in the eye etc.

I think the more antiques you see the more 'feel' you get. I like it when I walk into a room and I cannot immediately tell if something is a repro.

Its an old post that has been resurrected - I only noticed myself when there were replies by Plasticpigeon. Anyone know what happened to him?

 

[Toby Newell]

Its an old post that has been resurrected - I only noticed myself when there were replies by Plasticpigeon. Anyone know what happened to him?

Oh, really, I didnt check. I don't know, I hope he's ok.