Update on the fire place

[sorrel_101]

well schoolmarm looks to be right about the tiles round our fireplace.

i drank a bottle of wine and decided to rip up the carpet in front of the fire - we can't see a lot as there's a board glued down where the hearth was but there are some remaining tiles we can see poking out and alsoo some with gripper rods nailed through them - ouch! the tiles are the same as the ones currently in the fire surround.

so i have a couple of questions if anyone can answer them?

1) would the tiles in the surround be the same as the hearth tiles or would they have been different?
2) would the surround definitely have been made of metal and not slate/granite (when i say surround i don't mean the mantel, i mean the bit actually holding the tiles)?
3) i can see where the old hearth tiles used to be (as there are still some there) and they go half way UNDER the mantel piece legs, like the mantel piece (big thing with marbel paintwork made of wood) is built on top of the hearth tiles. Does this mean the mantel is not original as the hearth tiles would have been laid around it or would they have been laid under it?

If i'm not making any sense just shout and i'll take another pic.

I've added a pic of the fireplace onto this just to give a reminder of the fireplace i'm on about.

Thanks for any thoughts in advance - the last answers i got were extremely helpful so i really do appreciate any comments.

thanks Folks

S

 

[njr_26]

I have a fireplace almost the same and yes the tiles do appear to have been laid on the hearth and the surround put on top of it. My surround is painted slate and the insert is cast iron with tiles (the same ones as the hearth).

 

[Penners]

I don't imagine there are/were any hard-and-fast rules about this, but I can well envisage the decision being made to lay the hearth tiles first, and then to place the surround on top. This would reduce the necessity for cutting (and possibly destroying) expensive tiles. So I don't think your discovery of this detail is necessarily significant.

As to whether the hearth tiles would have matched the surround tiles - who knows? Given the "assertiveness" (thanks, Gareth) of the design, just about anything might have been done.

If you're keeping the fireplace, then I should simply choose a hearth material that you like.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I would expect the hearth tiles to be plainer (actually, plane-er, smoother) than the tiles on the surround, for easier cleaning.

 

[arl]

Weirdly i just happened to be looking on ebay for something for my victorian fireplace and saw this.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Victorian-Cast-Iron-Fireplace-Large-Slate-Surround-/250636480611?cmd=ViewItem&pt=UK_Antiques_Architecural_RL&hash=item3a5b193063

familiar?

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Crikey - they made two of them! :wink:

It's almost identical. At least you know what the canopy should look like now.

 

[Schoolmarm]

:lol:

 

[Moo]

And it must be a great comfort to know how much your fireplace is worth!

 

[FamilyWiggs]

And it must be a great comfort to know how much your fireplace is worth!

Particularly as you could flog yours to them so they could sell them as a pair!! 8)

Just joking...

 

[Penners]

Crikey - they made two of them!

To misquote Lady Bracknell:

"To make one such fireplace, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune. To make two looks like carelessness."

 

[yamin]

Crikey - they made two of them!

To misquote Lady Bracknell:

"To make one such fireplace, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune. To make two looks like carelessness."

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Of course its 'worth' of £825 is unproven, since at the time of looking absolutely no bids.

Its certainly an 'assertive' design, and if you are keeping it, then restored beautifully it will certainly make an arresting focal point for your room.