phil wrote:That looks nice, other than that someone painted your antique door... but now I'm just ribbing you I should strip all mine too.
Funny enough, all of the doors and trim in this house were originally painted. I remived test strips to confirm. I think I have a thread floating around here about it actually. It’s a colonial revival home, and apparently painted wood was part of that style. The only wood in the whole house that wasn’t painted originally are the stairs and hardwood floors!
I also own a Colonial Revival home and can support your assertion that the woodwork was originally painted. Even parts of our stairs were originally painted. The handrail is the only part of our back/servant stairs that wasn't painted. The main/front staircase was originally painted other than the handrail and treads (the wainscot, balusters, and riser face were always painted). Rather than stripping our woodwork, I'll stick with what our home's architect intended (Cass Gilbert).
For those who persist in believing we should strip all antique woodwork, go visit Mount Vernon and Monticello and tell them they're doing it wrong.
phil wrote:That looks nice, other than that someone painted your antique door... but now I'm just ribbing you I should strip all mine too.
Funny enough, all of the doors and trim in this house were originally painted. I remived test strips to confirm. I think I have a thread floating around here about it actually. It’s a colonial revival home, and apparently painted wood was part of that style. The only wood in the whole house that wasn’t painted originally are the stairs and hardwood floors!
I also own a Colonial Revival home and can support your assertion that the woodwork was originally painted. Even parts of our stairs were originally painted. The handrail is the only part of our back/servant stairs that wasn't painted. The main/front staircase was originally painted other than the handrail and treads (the wainscot, balusters, and riser face were always painted). Rather than stripping our woodwork, I'll stick with what our home's architect intended (Cass Gilbert).
For those who persist in believing we should strip all antique woodwork, go visit Mount Vernon and Monticello and tell them they're doing it wrong.
Thank you! I totally agree. Our stairs are just as you described- partly painted, partly stained. We’ve decided to leave the parts of the house that were originally painted alone. Although I love the look of stained wood, I think it’s best to keep with the overall style of the house.
Stains often hide wood grain , In many cases staining a piece is more damaging than paint as it soaks into the wood rather than just sitting on the surface. I've seen many antiques damaged by "restorers" who took it upon themselves to apply a stain. Often lacquer toners were done but they don't soak into the wood so removal is easy. With most of the real heritage antiques they were made from darker and cherished hardwoods such as black walnut or the early varieties of mahogany. later when the wood became scarce, toners were used to mimic the more expensive hardwoods. stains and dies can be original features though. dies are a bit different as they often can accentuate grain. different species react quite differently to that. some stains are like paint stains like you'd put on your fence and they are basically like paint but may not peel like paint so stain is a fairly general term. those tend to mask the grain like paint putting that on your fence helps stop the UV as does paint.
Yes it's true that some houses had painted woodwork from the get go. It's also a lot of work to remove it all. My opinion is that paint removal is not damaging unless you damage the wood in doing so , because it can be painted with very little labor involved at any time. I never even suggested JaquieJet removes all her paint. If she chose to do that I wouldn't consider it bad or damaging myself but I can definitely relate to how much labor would be involved. . Yes some may like the contrast too. Bottom line is if you own the place you can paint everything hot pink if you desire to. Some trim was plaster too, so it needed a coating. sometimes people put a finish on plaster to fake the eye into thinking it is wood.
these days with so much fake wood around, and painted pine or MDF and such and so many houses having their woodwork painted in at some point in time, I think it looks nice when people do remove it anyway, but so far as creating authenticity yes, It could have been painted from day 1 and that could be perfectly original and that may be the target of the owner, true indeed. maybe Then it would be more likely to be milk paint and not glossy?
painted furniture. It probably isn't new either but it was not common to paint furniture. some was , for example the Japanese lacquered antiques were often hand painted in certain ways. Most fine European furniture is unpainted. It might be more common in antiques from India to be painted in ways that seem outrageous to Europeans. Those trends and customs were quite different.
in most cases the European style furniture maker carefully chose their woods with the thinking that the wood itself was beautiful and meant to be shown. In some ways maybe that speaks about how the decision trended over time. It bugs me when I see people take beautiful European style furniture and paint it, but if you own it who's to say what you can do.
what often happens and that may not be the case in this particular house is someone from the 50's wants to brighten things up , makes that one bad decision and does it in one area , then subsequent owners want it to match, then they start painting everything else made of wood because that method is way less time consuming than stripping. Often the painters are just homeowners, not people who care about originality or have the expertise to successfully strip paint. In many cases it is caused by flippers and time is money.
Before long you've lost the contrast and beauty that was originally intended , this is a very common slippery slope and many houses and other buildings fell victim to it.
paint cans did change how paint was sold but of course paint goes back thousands of years.
Don’t worry Phil, I wasn’t harping on you! I’ve just heard that a lot about my painted doors, and until I did more research I was also actually considering stripping them (when I didn’t know what was underneath). But, it’s nice to stay true to the original intent as much as possible, so the paint is staying.
Another confirmation that a lot of wood trim was originally painted. Ours was originally painted a powder blue/gray color in keeping with the Colonial style.
Finished woodwork began gaining popularity during the middle to late Federal era, though it wasn't until well into the Victorian era that it became the norm. In the 1890s, when the Revival styles began going mainstream, originally painted trim became more en vogue again. From about 1900 through about 1920 or so, it was split probably 50/50. I've been in just as many houses from that era with originally painted trim as finished trim.
One observation I've made (your mileage may vary). Most of the Georgian revival houses I've been in had woodwork that was always painted. Most of the foursquares, Prairie, and Craftsman influenced houses had finished woodwork.
Easy way to tell is to strip a small section. If it's pine and you don't find any evidence of shellac, it was always painted.
1918ColonialRevival wrote: Most of the foursquares, Prairie, and Craftsman influenced houses had finished woodwork.
That has been my observation too. The "rule" applies at my house; all the woodwork that I've stripped has shellac, except for the kitchen and bathroom which appear to be originally painted.
1918ColonialRevival wrote:Another confirmation that a lot of wood trim was originally painted. Ours was originally painted a powder blue/gray color in keeping with the Colonial style.
Finished woodwork began gaining popularity during the middle to late Federal era, though it wasn't until well into the Victorian era that it became the norm. In the 1890s, when the Revival styles began going mainstream, originally painted trim became more en vogue again. From about 1900 through about 1920 or so, it was split probably 50/50. I've been in just as many houses from that era with originally painted trim as finished trim.
One observation I've made (your mileage may vary). Most of the Georgian revival houses I've been in had woodwork that was always painted. Most of the foursquares, Prairie, and Craftsman influenced houses had finished woodwork.
Easy way to tell is to strip a small section. If it's pine and you don't find any evidence of shellac, it was always painted.
I have stripped a test patch on three difference areas of the house, and all the wood underneath is raw fir. No shellac, no stain. Interesting!
I stripped every inch of the trim in my 1941 house, and there's no finish underneath. It was always painted, so I've repainted everything and now it all looks nice and fresh.
Just to prove what an exciting guy I would be at party conversation, just read this little article on door knob history. https://www.antiquehomesmagazine.com/re ... -doorknob/ Thought maybe it would interest others here in the District.
Gothichome wrote:Just to prove what an exciting guy I would be at party conversation, just read this little article on door knob history. https://www.antiquehomesmagazine.com/re ... -doorknob/ Thought maybe it would interest others here in the District.
Indeed it does. *bookmarks for later*
--Proud member of the Industrious Cheapskate Club --Currently pondering ways to encourage thoughtful restovation and discourage mindless renovation.
I should strip all mine too.
