Painting old beams

[karenscott]

Hi everyone

Having finally got around to the decorating in our old cottage, the beams are giving me pause for thought... They are currently painted a dark brown and a few are original, but most (I suspect), are not. Although it's a lovely idea to sandblast them, it isn't a practical option either from a cost point of view and the fact that sandblasting would also uncover the substandard beams that have been added over the years.

So.. I've been looking at staining them black, but have bought and taken back to the shop three different types of paint/stain so far as they don't look right..

Does anyone have any recommendations for an internal black stain that doesn't leave a sheen or shiny finish that will make the room (in my view) look like a pub..?

Thanks in advance

Karen

 

[JanieB]

Blackboard paint.

 

[karenscott]

Thanks Jamie. I hadn't thought of that...!

 

[mims&pip]

Why the preference for black? Our current house (built 1853) has black beams in the three main reception rooms dating from when the house was extended in Arts & Crafts style in 1924. As much as I adore the Arts & Crafts movement (we collect furniture/furnishings/objects from that period), I hate them with a vengeance as I think they look 'pubby' and would love them to be the rich, golden, honey brown of those at our previous (Georgian) house or the aged oaks beams in the Tudor house we had before that. Unfortunately ours are also too uniform in shape and size to look truly 'original'.....

None of ours are good enough timber to strip, but if they were that's what I would be doing - as time consuming as that would be as we have loads - but I understand your hesitation due to the mix of old and newer timbers. I think I would still be tempted to give it a try as you can then experiment with liberon or similar stains to match the timbers (see Wobs and Feltwell's separate but similar threads on cupboard restoration :wink: ). It would, if nothing else, give a little insight into your house's history and if you hate the look you can always go with your original idea and paint them black.

Mims x

 

[Lewis Tiffany]

International do a nice matt black paint

 

[bennoa1]

there are companies that do dry ice blasting which is less messy and less destructive than sandblasting. I'd still take the paint off as if you're wrong then your covering them with even more paint/stain. You could try Klingstrip stripper on a section to see what you they are like and if you want to progress with removal or keep them hidden.
http://www.stripperspaintremovers.com/pdfs/Kling-Strip%20Usage%20Data.pdf

 

[Flyfisher]

Is it just me who thinks it slightly strange that, in general, we go to great lengths to preserve, say, a bit of original lime plaster, yet think nothing of using all manner of aggressive chemicals to strip away original paintwork I order to expose the underlying bare wood? The modern trend for stripped pine is just one example.

We have beams that have been limewashed, painted and even boxed in - anything to hide the underlying 'roughness' of the structure of the house - so should I even consider stripping all this off to expose wood that was never intended to be exposed?

Indeed, our drawing room has been completely 'dry lined' with battens nailed to the original oak frame and then lath and lime plastered, all to hide the crude oak frame and wattle & daub panels - and all done a few hundred years ago. Such is the historic importance of this, I can't imagine being granted LBC to remove it all to expose the original Tudor room (and if it hadn't already been done I can't imagine being granted LBC to do it today!).

I suppose I'm just wondering at what point does modern decorative fashion override our instinct for preservation or adherence to true periodicity. I guess it's a very broad and very fuzzy line!

 

[Feltwell]

I suppose I'm just wondering at what point does modern decorative fashion override our instinct for preservation or adherence to true periodicity. I guess it's a very broad and very fuzzy line!

Very much so. I believe the Victorians were rather fond of taking church interiors back to bare stone - how much of an outcry would there be now, over 100 years on, if there was a move to paint them all again?

It does seem that we strive for the opposite of what is readily available - in years gone by, pre-mechanisation, that rough sawn timber was the cheapest and so you wanted to hide it to show you were better off. Now of course mechanically sawn timber is cheap and readily available, we want the rustic look!

I saw a country house a while ago that had what would have been incredibly expensive, very flat and optically good window glass fitted. It didn't look that much different to modern float glass, but at the time it must have seen as so superior to the "wobbly" cheap glass that we love and that now costs a small fortune!

 

[Toby Newell]

there are companies that do dry ice blasting which is less messy and less destructive than sandblasting. I'd still take the paint off as if you're wrong then your covering them with even more paint/stain. You could try Klingstrip stripper on a section to see what you they are like and if you want to progress with removal or keep them hidden.
http://www.stripperspaintremovers.com/pdfs/Kling-Strip%20Usage%20Data.pdf

Sorry Bennoa1, you state dry ice blasting is "less messy and less destructive than sandblasting" have you made that statement from experience? Or have you just read it somewhere?

Only I am a conservator / wood restorer and one of my customers who found me via this forum, tried dry ice blasting to remove the bitumen off his mahogany parquet blocks, he had to tell them to leave as they completely ruined many of the block breaking big chunks off and consequently the floor was very hard to lay and we had to use extra adhesive.

I can, of course, only directly comment on what I have directly witnessed (I saw the blocks before and afterwards and hand scraped every single one!) what I can say is that the company promised the process would be very gentle and in fact it turned out to be very destructive, it is possible therefore that any company advertising dry ice blasting as gentle may not be telling the whole truth.

All blasting bombards the substrate with abrasive particles that smash into the surface and break small pieces off, none are gentle, some are more gentle than others and each has their own niche.

Water and air vortex blasting is gentler than sand blasting, but it depends upon the grit, you can get different grits, in different materials in different sizes, to say sand blasting is meaningless unless you know what medium the abrasive particles are and what their size are and what force they are propelled to the substrate with. Its like saying sanding is gentle or aggressive, it depends what machine is being used, what abrasive and what grade of abrasive! Soda blasting is gentler than other types of blasting but can still be destructive.

Ice blasting uses water or dry ice pellets which are fired into the substrate at high speed, so it's not gentle, it is used in industry where there is a marked difference between the thermal conductivity of the substrate and the contaminant, the low temperature of the blasting pellets removes heat from the contaminant lowering the temperature of the contaminant closer or below the brittle transition temperature (which is a point where a substance moves from an elastic to brittle state and thus breaks more easily) this then makes the contaminant easier to remove as it flakes more easily.

A good example would be old brittle bitumen, when cooled the bitumen becomes more brittle and it would be easier to remove it as it will shatter and fall off the substrate at a lower applied shock loading (pellet or abrasive speed) this can indeed be more gentle. There is a problem however if the substrate also becomes brittle as this then can shatter too, which was indeed the witnessed case with the mahogany wood blocks.

I think it would be fair to say that in limited circumstance dry ice blasting MAY be less destructive but unless you have considerable experience to prove otherwise I would say it should be taken on a case by case basis and used with caution.

Toby

 

[Toby Newell]

BTW

I have probably sanded and refinished more beams than everyone put together currently on this forum, from a logistical point of view I would not advise it, it is, as you would imagine either messy and expensive or if you do it yourself messy and cheap and deleterious to your health, there is no real secret, you strip either mechanically or chemically, with old irregular beams chemical stripping is very hard and probably not worth it so you can blast or sand.

I have never and will never be an advocate of blasting until such time as they invent a truly gentle system which I will promptly buy, sadly there is none.

Sanding and scraping can have wonderful results but the job is hard work, I once stripped and refinished over 150 linear metres of beams in one job and ended up losing money, they did look great though!

If you are repainting then it is not always necessary to remove the previous finish if it is sound, you will need to apply a finish that is compatible, if you do not know what gunk is already on there then you need to apply the least reactive finish possible. Basically the most unreactive finishes are the oil finishes, traditional oil based polyurethane paints and shellacs.

Make sure there is no wax on the surface or clean this with white spirits, then apply one or two coats of matt oil based polyurethane (alkyd) 'gloss' paint (if you cannot buy in low sheen level then you may need to search for a matting agent) International make great quality paints and varnishes but I am not sure if their blackboard paint is water based or not, if it isn't then that may be a great idea as it has like a 1% sheen level! If it is water based you may still be lucky, try a bit and see if it dries well and doesn't scrape off easily.

You could also use a black shellac which is sold ready made called 'black polish' Mylands, Morrells and Jenkins sell that. You will need to add a matting agent to the mix in the ratio of 1:1:1 of matting agent:meths:black polish it is harder to apply than the oil paint but dries in five or ten minutes and you can finish the job in a day. The only company I know who sells the matting agent is Jenkins in Tottenham, I think it is called LT12 matting agent. Probably best to give Jenkins a ring and ask them if they still sell it or something similar, if you ask nicely I am sure they will even make up a small batch just for you and sell you a nice brush to apply it, they are very helpful.

Toby

 

[bennoa1]

Read it but it has to be less messy than blasting with silica which can kill you. I've tried the Klingstrip with limited success on a small section so will probably revert to the wire brush in drill method, but its a slow process and not pleasant. Done loads of this on cast iron to either paint (I use POR15 which is indestructible) or have used the bison paste but only very recently. Bottom line is their is no great option available and all have their downside.

 

[Longdogs]

Is it just me who thinks it slightly strange that, in general, we go to great lengths to preserve, say, a bit of original lime plaster, yet think nothing of using all manner of aggressive chemicals to strip away original paintwork I order to expose the underlying bare wood? The modern trend for stripped pine is just one example.

We have beams that have been limewashed, painted and even boxed in - anything to hide the underlying 'roughness' of the structure of the house - so should I even consider stripping all this off to expose wood that was never intended to be exposed?

Indeed, our drawing room has been completely 'dry lined' with battens nailed to the original oak frame and then lath and lime plastered, all to hide the crude oak frame and wattle & daub panels - and all done a few hundred years ago. Such is the historic importance of this, I can't imagine being granted LBC to remove it all to expose the original Tudor room (and if it hadn't already been done I can't imagine being granted LBC to do it today!).

I suppose I'm just wondering at what point does modern decorative fashion override our instinct for preservation or adherence to true periodicity. I guess it's a very broad and very fuzzy line!

I think although some of us love to restore and preserve old properties, we have to remember that we also have to live in it. I am currently changing the bathroom and removing a modern suite for another modern suite including a large shower enclosure. I realise that some people would prefer to install a period suite and decorate to match but that doesn't appeal to me personally. My bathroom will not look ultra-modern but will be suitable for modern living and I will try to tile/decorate in a sympathetic style. I disagree with removing any main features of a property such as fireplaces or period doors but if you intend to live there for many years (as I do) then it has to be comfortable and to your taste. Just don't go overboard.

What does annoy me though is the actions of some developers. When we were viewing house in our area, there were several properties on the market that all had the same Wickes kitchen, the same cheap laminate flooring and even the same carpets. Obviously, a developer had been buying up lots of houses in the area, giving them a quick fix, then selling on.

 

[karenscott]

Thanks everyone for your replies and suggestions.

I went for the blackboard paint in the end as first suggested and although it's been a lot of work - with a very small brush in the main, the beams look great!