How my timber frame should look...do I try to restore?

[Kearn]

In the 70s/80s the owner of our house decided it would be a good idea to paint the internal timber frame of our cottage black.

Then the previous short term owners to us, in their bid to 'modernise' the house, had the internal frame sandblasted. I'm sure they thought they were doing the right thing and didn't appreciate their mistake, but it is done.

We are therefore left with a dull and pale finish to our high quality, well crafted oak that is at least 400 years old and unfortunately all of the areas of wood where there were infestations, are now very pitted, rough and sharp with the softened surface and often original shape, long gone.

We have been living with this for the last 5 years happily, and the tone of the wood is actually quite nice and much darker could become a bit overbearing in a cottage. Recently I have stripped and restored the three oldest of our internal doors, on one of which I removed the unnecessary, more modern knob. I therefore also removed a piece of wood on the original door frame that had been a makeshift location for the strike plate. I thought it hadn't been there that long, but it obviously precedes any black painting as the oak underneath has a lovely warm, smooth and slightly glossy finish. Unfortunately now I have seen this, I am looking at the rest of the frame in disappointment!


Elsewhere, except less well preserved, where I have removed coverings during restoration, you can see the variation in tone and colour of the oak, such as above our fireplace where it was protected from the paint and subsequent sand, by a mantle.


All of this has made me start to think about the possibility of staining and finishing the internal timber... there is a lot of wood - 2 bays, 2 storeys and almost all of the frame exposed. This total area in itself doesn't bother me so much as the terrible finish on many of the surfaces due to the blasting over infestation.
I also wonder how the original/previous finish was achieved, as any stain I would have expected to penetrate deeper into the wood, whereas this really looks like a surface finish.

I suppose I am really looking for thoughts / experiences from anyone who has undertaken the same. I also really don't need any more distractions if I am honest, given I still have our entrance hall brick floor to lay, a false ceiling to remove, a redundant Victorian chimney stack to dismantle and subsequent roof repairs, re-wiring, plumbing and plastering. But I can't help but wonder how much better everything would look, especially having restored some of the old plank doors recently and also four wooden floors which make such a difference....!!!

 

[Flyfisher]

Well, this topic should attract a range of opinions . . . . so here goes!

Our timber frame is of a similar vintage (c.1550) and has been quite extensively messed about over the years to the point where we have some timbers unmolested, some painted black, some (in the attic rooms) limewashed and some completely covered over by lath-and-lime-plaster 'dry lining'. We've also got our fair share of painted floorboards. I've little doubt that each represents some prevailing fashion of the day so I'd say the question 'How my timber frame should look' is pretty much impossible to answer definitively except in terms of the prevailing fashion of today . . . . with the proviso that we are all at liberty to ignore the fashions of today. In other words, it's pretty much up to you.

Personally, I would have preferred it if some previous occupants had not painted some of our timbers black but I've also concluded that life is too short to spend a considerable portion of it in the painstaking and messy removal of said paint. Equally, I would have preferred it if some previous occupants had not changed an essentially Tudor building into a Georgian lookalike by covering up all the wonderful oak timbers, obscuring and blocking in the original windows and hacking great holes in the close-studded frame in order to fit totally inappropriately large sash windows, but I somehow doubt I'd get consent to strip it all back to the original build. And even if I could, my above conclusion would mean I wouldn't do it.

Really, such things are mainly decorative considerations and, as such, are influenced by the fashions of the day. For example, I suspect most Victorians would turn in their graves at the thought of stripping back their painted doors and skirting etc, to reveal the cheap pine it was made from, yet it's a very popular pastime these days - and who is to say it's right or wrong? It has to be a personal choice and, in my case, I generally prefer to concentrate on all the structural things like making sure the roof doesn't leak, that the gutters and downpipes all work, that wiring and plumbing is both safe and functional, that plaster is not falling off walls and ceilings and that windows are not about to fall out because the frames have rotted away.

But that's just my opinion . . . I'm sure others will be along soon.

 

[Kearn]

I've little doubt that each represents some prevailing fashion of the day so I'd say the question 'How my timber frame should look' is pretty much impossible to answer definitively except in terms of the prevailing fashion of today . . . . with the proviso that we are all at liberty to ignore the fashions of today. In other words, it's pretty much up to you.

Could, I meant to write could!! :roll: now I have opened up a can of worms haven't I....!

It is of course a matter of aesthetic preference. As well as wanting to be respectful to the original fabric, where feasible, I'm keen to roll back what easily can be, without creating a pastiche. Over the past few centuries, our home has obviously had similar generations messing with what was once there. It frustrates and annoys me where beautiful original features have been thoughtlessly damaged, but Tudor fashion and function wasn't going to remain in vogue all this time! And some things can't be undone, but thankfully some can. I'm at the fortunate stage, currently at least, where the building is sound now and I have the luxury of looking at some of the easier to fix medling which has occurred inside and cosmetically.

Like I said though, I've enough on my plate elsewhere in the house and I'm not sure that this is a job for now! However, now I have seen this piece of wood, I can visualise how stunning the rest would/ could look once finished this way - Whether it originally was, now that is another question....

 

[Flyfisher]

Well, how your timber frame could look is entirely up to you and given that you are the one to live with it that's fair enough (subject to minimising any permanent harm, of course).

I guess there have always been some people who yearn for times past and others who only look forward and yearn for more modern and different styles and fashions - and just as well really, otherwise we'd still be living in caves (and no doubt there are some people out there who wish they could :wink: ).

Today we're fortunate to have a whole range of period styles to choose from, though I wonder how future people will view the new period styles that will no doubt emerge over the next 500 years. Perhaps the best is yet to come and we're all going to miss it? And perhaps that's why many people prefer the relative certainty of history compared to the greater uncertainty of what might be? There's comfort in the familiar.

 

[Anonymous]

My two penneth having successfully had all the plank doors in our house stripped is, "I don't know why I bothered" but that's just because they are knackered cheap pine imitation doors... there's only one oak plank door and that looks lovely without it's coating of paint on it.... As far as I'm concerned I agree really it comes down to your own personal taste but my personal taste is that wood should just never be covered over (unless it absolutely needs to be).. My windows have to be covered over because there's more resin than wood in them ...

 

[Kearn]

My two penneth having successfully had all the plank doors in our house stripped is, "I don't know why I bothered" but that's just because they are knackered cheap pine imitation doors... there's only one oak plank door and that looks lovely without it's coating of paint on it.... As far as I'm concerned I agree really it comes down to your own personal taste but my personal taste is that wood should just never be covered over (unless it absolutely needs to be).. My windows have to be covered over because there's more resin than wood in them ...

I only stripped the three solid very old plank doors that remain - the others are unfortunately more modern pine ranging across the last 100+ years until probably 20 years ago - with these I agree, paint is preferable! although a part of me is now tempted to strip and stain them. But frankly I don't think they are worthy of the effort!

 

[88v8]

Upstairs, our elm frame has been sandblasted, I think in the 70s. A means of removing the white paint that had been slapped everywhere. Good.
.... pause to shoot a rat off the bird table.. now, where was I, oh yes..
But in the precess the outer skin of the timber has been removed and the former empire of the worm lies exposed. And of course the colour is gone.

One could restain and wax. I posted a llnk recently on another thread about waxing.
http://www.periodproperty.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=15357&sid=2516bdc97700c75179a4f0ab4b8ee4cd
What one cannot do is restore the texture, the open grain with all the soft stuff blasted out. It is what it is.

Downstairs the vandals with pots of white paint never transgressed so we have the original unpainted untouched beams. Very lucky.

I do not think you can turn back the clock. You could slather it with grain filler and stain and produce a simalcrum that some future owner will seek to 'restore'. But the moving finger has writ, and having writ, moved on.

Ivor

 

[Kearn]

I certainly wasn't thinking about filling, no point hiding what is done with a modern alternative. I was thinking that some surface finish could be improved with a laborious process of brushing then sanding, at least to reduce a little the profiles of the infestation colonies of old. On the uneaten wood, a smooth finish should be attainable, but a whole house job is dauting as we actually live here! A ponder for another day (year) methinks...

 

[MikeG]

I'm not sure that hinge in the OP photo is any more an indication of the original look of the timber than the sand-blasted surface surrounding it. That was probably someone in the early 20th century applying the then fashionable finish (the original hinges would probably have been pin hinges, anyway). If you want an authentic as-she-was-built look, then slap some limewash over the everything, or leave it as it is.

 

[Kearn]

I'm not sure that hinge in the OP photo is any more an indication of the original look of the timber than the sand-blasted surface surrounding it. That was probably someone in the early 20th century applying the then fashionable finish (the original hinges would probably have been pin hinges, anyway). If you want an authentic as-she-was-built look, then slap some limewash over the everything, or leave it as it is.

The second iteration of pin hinges are still doing a great job for the ancient, but not original plank door. This section is on the other side of the frame, not an 'original' finish I'm sure. But it was food for a moment's thought until the realities had a chance to flood in... While I can't love the rough finish from sandblasting such well crafted and expensive timber in its prime the tone and colour does work well in the house. It is highly unlikely to be adjusted, by me...

 

[Kearn]

If you want an authentic as-she-was-built look, then slap some limewash over the everything, or leave it as it is.

Mike, I'm intrigued by the idea of all timber being limewashed originally, I was under the impression that reasonably high wealth timber would have been on show, so to speak, not obscured back in the day?

 

[MikeG]

Well, that was the choice I gave: leave it plain, or limewash it.

 

[Kearn]

I was more interested in any knowledge or balanced opinion than an ultimatum, but thanks all the same. :wink:

 

[Flyfisher]

I'm intrigued by the idea of all timber being limewashed originally, I was under the impression that reasonably high wealth timber would have been on show, so to speak, not obscured back in the day?

'High wealth timber' could also be shown off by close-studding and the size of the timbers. Also, lime washing does not really obscure the timbers, as demonstrated by the G1 Guildhall in Lavenham, which is lovingly limewashed every five years by the National Trust. A more detailed description here: https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/lavenham-guildhall/features/conservation-on-a-grand-scale

 

[Kearn]

'High wealth timber' could also be shown off by close-studding and the size of the timbers. Also, lime washing does not really obscure the timbers, as demonstrated by the G1 Guildhall in Lavenham, which is lovingly limewashed every five years by the National Trust. A more detailed description here: https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/lavenham-guildhall/features/conservation-on-a-grand-scale

That almost pale grey look is actually rather stunning!
It's not that high wealth unfortunately :?

We do have traces of limewash indoors, but understandably on the walls and rear of the chimney stack that were the animal shelter.

 

[88v8]

That almost pale grey look is actually rather stunning!

It's also quite practical. Externally, we have cracking between some of the timbers and the infill panels. Repairs are fiddly. The panels are painted white, the timbers are blacked. How much easier if it were all limewashed; the wash would fill the cracks and redecorate and protect the timbers all in one go.
Of course this would significantly affect the appearance of the building. Suppose one should ask the CO. I shall have to do something next year. The timbers are painted with household paint, should at least be linseed. But if I linseed and then need to repair the movement cracks that will be another regular pain.
No wonder so many timber frame buildings fell down once limwssh became unfashionable.

Ivor

 

[Flyfisher]

That almost pale grey look is actually rather stunning!

I agree, though the effect does vary over time because the oak weathers faster then the rendered panels. If you search online there are many photos of this building at various times within its limewashing cycle.

The biggest problem with limewashing, I'd say, is the cost. Not the material itself, which is very cheap indeed compared to modern paints, but the labour required to apply multiple coats and the almost obligatory scaffolding, plus its relatively poor durability. Historically, such things would have mattered less when labour was cheaper, and often quite abundant immediately after harvest time, and working from ladders was not frowned upon. But times change.

 

[MikeG]

I was more interested in any knowledge or balanced opinion than an ultimatum, but thanks all the same. :wink:

Hang on a cotton-pickin'.......

I said "If you want an authentic look". Note the "if". That doesn't seem like an ultimatum to me, wasn't meant as one, and I'm sorry you made the mistake of taking it that way.

So IF you want an authentic look (from when it was built), you have 2 choices. That's a valid ultimatum-free suggestion. Nothing more.