Got a Before & After to share? Let's see 'em!

[wletson]

Slowly, I will start posting in this thread, and will start my own post shortly (again) about the progress on my house.

This installment I will entitle "What a difference a paint makes"

This was my fireplace when I first moved in. The house was built in 1948. The trim was cheap at the time, and the fireplace is framed out with plywood, treated to look like the rest of the trim in the house (also not prime examples of Canadian woodworking if I may say)
I know some people are not going to approve of what you are about to see. If you think all things old should be stained, varnished, shellacked, or any other form of seeing woodgrain... look away!


Although from a distance this may look absolutely charming, when you got close-up, the multi layers of plywood on the shelves etc., were just too much.
I am going to state here that this following picture is a "in the process of designing" shot. This coming Winter, I will be totally rebuilding this entire wall, making it more Craftsman style. Yes, again, for all you purists reading... I know, it is not period correct. Not every house was built by craftsmen. Some were built by carpenters! There are times when you are showing the house respect by ripping out the crap and installing or doing something better. Whether in the 1940's, or the 1840's, not every house was built with prime components. The kitchen in my parents' house, built in the 1890's, had painted woodwork throughout. it was a softwood, likely pine, and it was always meant to be painted! Just because there is paint on woodwork does NOT dictate that the paint needs to be removed to make a space "period"! And, just because it was originally part of the house does NOT make it the right, or proper, choice! Maybe someone somewhere along the line made a bad choice! Maybe what was there should be replaced!?!

Thus endith my sermon...

Back to my before and after... Here is the fireplace and windows after a coat of white paint I had down in the basement (leftovers from the school house)


I will update with a new post when I complete this project over the winter, but I thought that I should contribute something to a post, other than my opinions on things.

(sorry about the rant in the middle, but don't get hung up on stripping paint! Maybe it was painted because it was cheap wood and the owner didn't want people to know)

[TexasRed]

Wletson I think your fireplace wall looks very nice. IMO, the paint transformed it into a calm, comfortable space. Don't sweat the painted wood taboo, it was a great solution for you at this time.

Even though I love that 90% of my woodwork has never ever been painted, I'm fine with the fact that the trim in the kitchen and baths is painted white. I do not think they were originally, as the profiles match the other trim exactly. Who know which way I will go with those rooms - I may strip and restore ... or not. We all do what works best for how we want to live in our old homes.

Keep us updated on the craftsman build out you will do in this space. I'm sure it will be top notch, as all your projects are.

[kelt65]

Whether in the 1940's, or the 1840's, not every house was built with prime components. The kitchen in my parents' house, built in the 1890's, had painted woodwork throughout. it was a softwood, likely pine, and it was always meant to be painted! Just because there is paint on woodwork does NOT dictate that the paint needs to be removed to make a space "period"!

A lot of people think this and stylistically it's clearly not true. There are several pre-20th century styles were all trim was painted, even wainscoting and everything else. I don't think it really mattered whether the wood was fine quality or not. The more money involved just meant a better painter.

Italians still like to paint everything ...

158645923.jpg (194.47 KiB) Viewed 11267 times

or here, Monticello.

OD-AJ632_MONTIC_G_20110819012106.jpg (92.57 KiB) Viewed 11267 times

[Sow's Ear Mal]

Looks really great, Warren. Bright and refreshed.

[DavidP]

I also painted (well, ahem, am in the process of painting) my woodwork (1904 Queen Anne) in a very light buff color--basically white with just a little yellow added. It was originally shellacked, then painted by POs. The wood is yellow pine, the zebra-stripe kind of stuff. I don't find it particularly attractive. If it were oak or mahogany I might have redone it natural. Also, I don't like a dark-feeling house. Having light woodwork throughout gave me much more choice in wallpaper.

I did some research on this. In the first half of the 19th century, painted woodwork was very common. After the Civil War natural finishes became more popular. I have wondered if there was technological component here; did shellac become cheaper or more widely available? It certainly dries faster than oil-based paints. But paint never went away completely so it's wrong to say that woodwork must always be natural.

[Mick_VT]

I don't know if he was a driver or just responding to fashion but Henry Eastlake promoted use of wood in its natural state. He also discussed faux graining to make chaeper woods resemble more expensive ones but without looking I cant remember if he was for or against, though I have a hunch it was the latter.

[Gothichome]

Charles Eastlake would most defiantly not like graining. He felt that the natural qualities of the wood should be highlighted not up scaled with false grading. He actually despised the stuff being done on the continent (USA)in his name. He was most defiantly one of the precurcer figures of the arts and crafts movement. But. He did like ebinizing.

[Mick_VT]

Charles Eastlake

Oh yes, it was Charles wasnt it - dunno where "Henry" came from

[Mick_VT]

oh yes Gothichome, you are right I looked it up. In "Hints on household taste" he says this:

The practice of graining wood has not, however, been so long in vogue in this country as to command a traditional respect. It is an objectionable and pretentious deceit, which cannot be excused even on the ground of economy. Int he last century when English oak and Spanish mahogany could be procured at a reasonable price, the grainer's work was , of course, unneeded. In modern days the usual substitute for those now expensive woods is deal; but deal is so soft and absorbent in its fibre that it becomes quickly soiled, and in most situations, especially when exposed tot he air, it soon requires painting. But why should we paint it in imitation of oak? Everybody can see at a glance it is not oak, and ,as far as appearance is concerned, there are many modes of treatment which would be far more effective.

He goes on to advocate finishing so one can see the natural grain of the wood. "Deal" is a term for Fir or Pine.

[oaktree]

I talked to a historical preservationist about my house (1860s Greek Revival), and he told me that it would be most common to have painted trim at that time (very plain in style). The trim would have been painted a few shades darker than the wall color. Same with the floors...mine were originally painted. Cheap wood doors had a faux grain painted on to make them look more expensive sometimes. Making everything natural wood is not always the historically accurate choice. If I were doing that, I would have repainted my floors instead of sanding and finishing. My original trim was gone, so I tried to recreate what might have been their originally (somewhat) with simple, painted trim.

wletson, I like the wall color you chose!