|
STRIPPING WOOD MOULDINGS Losthawk writes: I have begun the project of stripping and refinishing the wood in my 100 year old Cambridge triple-decker -- tonight I put Peel-Away stripper (approved for use on lead, no dust) on the baseboard in my living room. Tomorrow I get to peel it off, wash it down, and neutralize it. (I did a radiator a couple of weeks ago so I have some idea of the mess ahead of me.) People keep saying to me that it would be cheaper to tear all the existing wood out and have it replaced. I find this pretty hard to believe. It looks like it's going to run me about $50 worth of Peel-Away (expensive, but I get to keep all my remaining brain cells) per room, and then whatever I want to spend on polyurethane and stain and stuff once I see what I've got, but presumably I'd have to buy finish for these putative new moldings, too. So my first question is: could I really get 8 inch hardwood baseboards, installed, for less than $1 a running foot? How 'bout the four-inchdoor frames and windows and stuff? I've also been told I should take all the boards out and refinish them elsewhere, then reinstall -- something I am reluctant to do because they are old, I am not strong these days, and the possibility for breakage (them or me) seems unduly great. Is this really very much better? It doesn't sound easier in the least. I can't afford to have Lead Abatement Specialists in to do this. Is there something inherently wrong with wanting to refinish this wood? If I could find the morons who painted it all I'd make THEM refinish it, but they are long gone. The paint job -- bad latex over antique varnish -- is so badly cracked and chipped that I would have to strip it to paint it anyway; this seems like the least destructive option, and it's really nice wood underneath. Why do people keep trying to talk me out of the project? It'll be a nightmare, but isn't that what home ownership is all about? Next question: This close contact with my baseboards has brought to my attention the fact that they don't really quite meet the floor anymore. place where there's another small piece -- about 1/2 inch square -- of molding attached to the foot of a baseboard. I am thinking of adding some similar kind of foot molding -- it'll also cover the places my paint-stripping job damages the floor finish! -- to cover the gaps. Has anybody ever seen this or done it? Any hints on what kind of wood matches 100 year old 'gumwood', as the real estate agents tend to call it? (But then real estate agents call the Fenway "Back Bay" too...) And what kind of nails do you attach molding with, anyway? Thanks for any pointers. If anything amusing happens during tomorrow's scrape and peel operation I'll be sure to let you all laugh at me... > And what kind of nails do you attach molding with, anyway? Small ones. And you pre-drill the hole for them, too, or else you split your molding. Either that, you obtain a finish air nailer, which basically smushes the wood fibers, so that you have no splitting. That's what our builder did. He came away from building our house with a *lot* of new tools: framing air nailer, finish air nailer, drill press, Makita cordless drill (to replace one with dead batteries -- it's nearly as cheap to buy a whole new drill as to replace batteries), palm sander, and a handful of specialized hand tools. Then again, he'd never built a whole house before. -russ >People keep saying to me that it would be cheaper to tear all the existing wood out and have it replaced. Um, I think they are including non-zero labor cost in the calculation. Pay yourself $40/hr (or $1/hr...) and do the numbers again...but this is irrelevant for most 100 year old moldings anyway, as you can't get stock matches, custom moldings are $$$, and if you wanted to put up cheesy modern approximations, go live in the suburbs...so go to it! >I've also been told I should take all the boards out and refinish them elsewhere, then reinstall -- something I am reluctant to do because they are old, I am not strong these days, and the possibility for breakage (them or me) seems unduly great. Is this really very much better? I think you're right. We had a limited amount of this done (on unreplacable window and door moldings, covered with many layers of leaded paint) and the pros that did it said it was a bitch. 100 year old t.d.'s are put together pretty well...also, dipping is much harder on the wood than stripping in place. >The paint job -- bad latex over antique varnish -- Sounds like a 70's job - the varnish is probably original. The latex may not be lead (tested?) so you might be able to sand or scrape, but I would guess that would be just as hard as stripping. >Next question: This close contact with my baseboards has brought to my attention the fact that they don't really quite meet the floor anymore. I would like to echo this question - what is it with old t.d. floor- baseboard joints? I couldnt believe it when I figure out how ours worked- it wasnt just a case of shrinkage, it was obviously not intended that the floor extend under the molding. indeed, in a few spots the molding extends a little below the floor level, making it obvious that it went in first. In modern construction, the whole point of the molding is to hide the sloppiness of the floor-wall joint, but here the floorboards had to be very precisely shaped to meet the mouldings corner-to-corner. Of course with a little shrinkage the gap show opens, and the space under the moulding is connected to the (uninsulated) space behind the wall, which (on exterior walls at least) has obvious and annoying consequences. Any idea why this is? Our only theory is that they were too cheap to "waste" the wood under the moulding (#$^% new englanders..) but that is not based on knowledge. -hmcmanus >In modern construction, the whole point of the molding is to hide the sloppiness of the floor-wall joint That's half the point. The other half is to cover wood movement, which will be significant no matter how carefully fitted it is. This is much more of an issue across the width of boards than along their length. -dca |
||