Fireplace

[malcolm]

It would be fascinating if photography had been invented in Tudor times, though perhaps no one would have wasted precious film on domestic drudgery. Now, if there had been smartphones back then we'd have millions of 'selfies' covering every mundane aspect of everyday life. Good luck to future historians researching the late 20th century onwards. :lol:

Even in the '80s those 36 shots were precious and I remember trying not to waste any. All of the shots I have of my house before about 1980 are where it appears in the background on another shot. I'm close to a pretty church and have a reasonable record of the last century.

I have some shots of the inside from maybe 1990 onwards. Possibly 2000 onwards where pictures of the inside of a pub could be used to advertise. 2013 onwards everything is documented and blogged where it seems half interesting. Digital images are tricky to maintain long term. Sure some images will survive but they might become difficult to find.

I've got humans who walk by that remember the phase of the building I'm interested in at the moment from before 40 years ago. Unfortunately they didn't pay attention to the finer points of detailing.

 

[Flyfisher]

I have a 1908 photo of our house, quite a few from the 1930s, a few from the 50s and many from the 1970s onwards. You're so right about "those 36 shots" on film being precious (and relatively expensive!) so that each 'click' was carefully considered, something that's far less of an issue in the age of digital photography. I've just checked and found that I have 26,508 photos in my house renovation folders alone, requiring 142GB of storage space. It's also a sobering thought that when I started work in the computer industry in 1980 there probably wasn't that much digital storage in the whole country, never mind on my desk! :shock:

Digital images are tricky to maintain long term. Sure some images will survive but they might become difficult to find.

Not sure I agree with the point that digital images are tricky to maintain long term, especially now that 'the cloud' exists and search engines are so advanced. I reckon that photographic prints are far more vulnerable to damage or loss, long term, and I'd guess 99% of negatives are lost so any copies that are made are limited in quality by copying the original prints. I accept the common argument that digital media becomes obsolete but I don't really think that's relevant. I still have copies of documents that were originated on an Apple II and stored on 5.25" floppy disks, even though the original disks are long gone, because as the media changes I've copied important stuff over to new media - 3.5" floppy disks, zip disks, CDs, DVDs, etc. Nowadays, I can store all my 'stuff' (docs, photos, videos, music etc) on a single hard drive and a lot of it on a USB memory stick and, because it's all digital, every generation copy is a perfect copy of the original. So I'd argue that digital content is easier to maintain and protect than chemical photographs, especially if we think in terms of centuries.

Probably the real issue is how important such images are to future generations, which applies to both chemical or digital photos. I wonder how many family photo albums have been lost forever since photography was invented?

 

[wobs]

Not sure I agree with the point that digital images are tricky to maintain long term, especially now that 'the cloud' exists and search engines are so advanced. I reckon that photographic prints are far more vulnerable to damage or loss, long term, and I'd guess 99% of negatives are lost so any copies that are made are limited in quality by copying the original prints. I accept the common argument that digital media becomes obsolete but I don't really think that's relevant. I still have copies of documents that were originated on an Apple II and stored on 5.25" floppy disks, even though the original disks are long gone, because as the media changes I've copied important stuff over to new media - 3.5" floppy disks, zip disks, CDs, DVDs, etc. Nowadays, I can store all my 'stuff' (docs, photos, videos, music etc) on a single hard drive and a lot of it on a USB memory stick and, because it's all digital, every generation copy is a perfect copy of the original. So I'd argue that digital content is easier to maintain and protect than chemical photographs, especially if we think in terms of centuries.

Probably the real issue is how important such images are to future generations, which applies to both chemical or digital photos. I wonder how many family photo albums have been lost forever since photography was invented?

 

[tobydog]

Hi,

Very interesting that someone else has a similar oddity to us.

You'll see from the photos below that our inglenook is not lined up with the centre of the back of the actual fireplace. If you follow the shape at the back of the fireplace to the right, you will see that it naturally ends at the outside wall of the house. You can't see it in the photo but this brick design goes much higher up the inglenook. Unfortunately it's now capped off with a concrete plinth that a 1990's chimney sits on.

The other photo shows that the beam has been cut through and this also suggests it used to reach the outside wall. In the inside right of the inglenook there is infill brickwork that suggests a bread oven or the likes used to be in that end.

If the inglenook originally reached the outside wall, that doesn't make sense. It has always suggested to me that the fireplace actually comes from a bigger and earlier house and that our cottage may have been built around. I've always thought that the inglenook is way too big for just a two bedroom house. It is vast for the size of the lounge it's in.

I should add that the left hand end on the beam is square cut. Also, the left hand side of the inglenook brickwork is twice as wide as the right hand side which supports the idea that the right hand side was, at some point, in the middle.

Can anyone make sense of this?

 

[Kearn]

Can anyone make sense of this?

Inglenook 1.jpgInglenook 2.jpg

How much further to the right are we talking? For example, our late 16c cottage, was built with money at the time and the fireplace possibly at the same time or very soon after the timber frame was constructed. We’re only two bay, what’s now our living room with the fireplace is approx 4x5m, the fireplace opening being more than 50% of the 4m wall, plus the right side likely an oven complex all the way to the external wall for the remaining metre - unfortunately this edge and the bressumer was destroyed mid last century in a fire, and rebuilt narrower to accommodate a door, so only the foundations remain showing the outline of the original from which we restored the original footprint.

http://www.periodproperty.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15970

Oddly there was never a fireplace in the solar room above, or elsewhere in the cottage, so yes we have a large dominant opening, in a relatively small space, but it would’ve heated the entire building.
In terms of alignment, the original centre of our fireplace does not, and has never, been aligned to the spine beam in the room! Who knows why... it’s a few inches off only, so our flue to spine beam is similar to yours, but still noticeable!

The detail in the centre of your fireback doesn’t look too skewed though to the opening as it stands?

Your beam has clearly been cut - the profile showing the rear chamfer for drawing up the throat, not the supporting end square section. And you can also see the more subtle front chamfer. Which would show that section was never originally supported as it currently is. If there was an oven complex to the right, there would be little need for the expensive oak to continue much further across into the brick work. Long oak was a valuable commodity!

What do you make of the right pier of bricks compared to the original? Age? Mortar. Knife sharpening contours etc... There certainly looks like some similarities. And as you say, the infill is odd, as it shows more than just a simple narrowing. You can see the knife sharpening curvature to the original pier, which is the side on which it was usually found.

Above the bressumer - what’s the situation with the tie beam? It looks like there is extra timber support parallel to the tie beam, but underneath? Might be a trick of the camera. However, the brickwork above the bressumer is certainly not the same quality as the pier, much more haphazard - I’m wondering if amendments have been made above the beam also along the way...

Supporting piers aren’t always the same width. A sign of skill and status was to show the strength of the bressumer by being supported on the minimum brickwork. Our piers are only 9 inches wide, from the front, however, one side of the fireplace internally has an extra half brick of width not on show where it continues behind a post for a doorway.

 

[tobydog]

Hi Kearn,

Thanks for your response. I have attached a few more photos where you can now see the upper part of the fireplace back. If you follow this across to the right you can see that it would have been very close to, if not touching, the side wall. The walkway is only 2' 6" wide. The house dates from around 1640. The front wall is full (and very vernacular) timber framed. Looks like it was made from what they found in the garden! The back wall to the right of the fireplace is brick on the lower floor and timber above. The low quality of the front timber frame is at odds with the solid 9" brick wall which might suggest the back was rebuilt later on.

You can also now see more clearly how narrow the right hand pier of the inglenook is compared to the left. It's half the size and suggests it might have once been somewhere in the middle.

You are correct that the brickwork above the inglenook beam is of a different and poorer quality to that below. The mortar in many parts is actually clay/earth. The mortar below is lime based. This also suggest to me that the inglenook was, in fact, originally much larger and that a cheaper and lower quality stack was built above the narrowed inglenook.

Yes, the main ceiling beam does actually sit on three pieces of oak. No idea why.

Interestingly, you can see the void where I believe salt was dried. You can actually reach into a cavity behind the wall.

Sadly, up close, it's all a bit of a mess. We secured agreement from the CO that we could lime render the fireplace back. In his own words he said "It's not quite a thing of beauty". It was clearly rendered in the past and this has been unsympathetically hacked off at some point. There are a few remaining patches of what I think is the original parging.

I should also add that the majority of the scorching on the beam is between the wood burner and the right hand pier.

It's all a real shame because there is clear evidence of old but quality brickwork, however, there is also too much evidence of poor old and modern work.

 

[Kearn]

What I’m a touch confused by, is the fact it looks like your fireplace projects into the room, as opposed to sitting outside of what would’ve been the exterior wall? i.e. usually the front face of the piers would be effectively flush with the internal face of the wall of the room, with a stack being built on the outside of the building, and it looks like you have joists continuing to the alcove next to the fireplace and the flue seems to angle away from the fire also rather than going straight up? All of which don’t quite add up....

That narrower pier, isn’t too narrow - 9inches is fine if the oak was up to the job of a small support area - was a sign of craftsmanship. However, while it is clearly old, that pier or that beam we’re not meant to be together. The cross section isn’t right for being supported, it’s for smoke draw up the flue, as you say as evidenced by the soot evidence - maybe it was an afterthought to add an oven complex after the original fire was built...

 

[masochists-r-us]

Great find Flyfisher. We had two big inglenooks like this to dig out. They'd been filled with rubble so took some time to clear out.One was just like yours and still had the remains of the original seat and a partion wall which had been built so they could insert a doorway !
I'm with Me! on this though. It looks like the dividing wall is a later addition and that the left side was perhaps the original seat rather than a bread oven. If it were mine, I would take out the dividing wall and restore the fireplace to it's the original size. As suggested by someone else, I would also consider lime plastering inside or maybe painting if sorting out the brickwork isn't practical.

 

[Flyfisher]

This is also our second inglenook to be opened up. The first one was also divided but the dividing wall only extended about 8 feet upwards into the chimney so was easy to remove. The dividing wall of the work-in-progress fireplace extends as far as I can see up the chimney so I think removal is not an easy option.

 

[Kearn]

This is also our second inglenook to be opened up.

Any pics of the finished (?!) article?

 

[Flyfisher]

This is also our second inglenook to be opened up.

Any pics of the finished (?!) article?

Now you're just trying to embarrass me - and it hasn't even been a year since the last photo. Give a chap a chance!

Here's the current state of play. Not much visible progress but tiled floor has been lifted, the ground lowered a little and an insulated limecrete slab has been laid (based on the Mike Wye foamed glass design), with wet UFH pipes installed and then the original tiles plus a few reclaims re-laid on top, plus a raised hearth in the fireplace ready for a new stove eventually. Hopefully in time for winter anyway!

Things slowed down approaching Christmas and haven't really picked up again as I'm still waiting for new windows to be delivered and for the electrician to move the consumer unit into the adjacent room and generally tidy all the very messy wiring. You can just see some conduit that was put in place before the limecrete floor was laid.

The next job will be to cover the floor with protective hardboard and the remove all the plaster from the walls, which is a mixture of patches of hard cement render and gypsum plaster. I'm still thinking about how best to insulate the walls and am currently favouring fixing savolit boards to the walls before lime plaster, perhaps with some pavatherm boards as well, though I don't want to build up the wall thickness too much as they are already quite thick. I suppose I should take some time to do some thermal calcs, though I'm not exactly sure what I should be aiming for. Whatever I do will definitely be an improvement.

The problem is that spring has sprung and I've been very busy with some fairly extensive landscaping works so I'm pretty much outdoors full time at the moment.

Nevertheless, I'd like to think the room will be usable in time for Christmas but if I don't post any further progress then feel free to remind me again this time next year :wink:

 

[Kearn]

This is also our second inglenook to be opened up.

Any pics of the finished (?!) article?

Now you're just trying to embarrass me - and it hasn't even been a year since the last photo. Give a chap a chance!

Silly me, I hadn’t realised the time - you must be way ahead of schedule really based on that list then and overdue a well earned break...!

Removing a foot of concrete followed by another foot of soul and flint, Laying RFG, limectete and pavers is a fun job I’m not in a hurry to do again anytime soon...

And I know what you mean about consumer units, I destroyed the hideous block wall cupboard ours was in, to open the room out again, only to realise the main cable into the building was only so long... temporarily it’s been just inside the loft hatch for the last few years... :roll:

It’s definitely looking so much better though!!

 

[wobs]

Nevertheless, I'd like to think the room will be usable in time for Christmas

Which Christmas?

 

[Flyfisher]

You don't think I'm falling for that one, do you?

 

[Kearn]

Now you're just trying to embarrass me - and it hasn't even been a year since the last photo. Give a chap a chance!

Here's the current state of play. Not much visible progress but tiled floor has been lifted, the ground lowered a little and an insulated limecrete slab has been laid (based on the Mike Wye foamed glass design), with wet UFH pipes installed and then the original tiles plus a few reclaims re-laid on top, plus a raised hearth in the fireplace ready for a new stove eventually. Hopefully in time for winter anyway!

Things slowed down approaching Christmas and haven't really picked up again as I'm still waiting for new windows to be delivered and for the electrician to move the consumer unit into the adjacent room and generally tidy all the very messy wiring. You can just see some conduit that was put in place before the limecrete floor was laid.

The next job will be to cover the floor with protective hardboard and the remove all the plaster from the walls, which is a mixture of patches of hard cement render and gypsum plaster. I'm still thinking about how best to insulate the walls and am currently favouring fixing savolit boards to the walls before lime plaster, perhaps with some pavatherm boards as well, though I don't want to build up the wall thickness too much as they are already quite thick. I suppose I should take some time to do some thermal calcs, though I'm not exactly sure what I should be aiming for. Whatever I do will definitely be an improvement.

The problem is that spring has sprung and I've been very busy with some fairly extensive landscaping works so I'm pretty much outdoors full time at the moment.

Nevertheless, I'd like to think the room will be usable in time for Christmas but if I don't post any further progress then feel free to remind me again this time next year

View attachment 8805

Dare I ask….?!!? Would genuinely love to see progress of this one though…