wrote in message

On Feb 4, 11:17 am, "PDQ" wrote:
wrote in
...

On Feb 4, 9:16 am, "Leon" wrote:





"PDQ" wrote in message

...

"Leon" wrote in message

...
Snip

Why do I get the feeling that this is just a cost cutting move on
the part of the builder?

At no time would I condone any scenario wherein the cabinets were
installed before the finish floor. If I were having new flooring
laid, I would also have the cabinets removed and re-installed after
the lay.

P D Q

Which begs the question, WHY would you want more expensive and
never to be seen flooring to be under your cabinets? It is a cost
cutter, one that makes sense. If you have you home recarpeted, do
you remove all shoe moldings, base boards, and door sills so that
you can put the carpet under them also?

Actually, I pulled the carpets, put them in the garage under my cars, and laid hardwood. Yes, I lifted all the trim (that cheap **** that looks like mahogany) and replaced it with oak. I had carpet laid in my basement and put the moldings on afterwards.


What advantage is there in spending extra money on something that
you will never see?


I know, and that is all thatr matters.

Just for fun, try to find a flooring store that will remove your
cabinets before putting down a new floor. You will be lucky if you
can find one that will actually remove "and" replace shoe molding.

Do you live in the USA?

Back in the mid 1990s I redid the flooring and cabinetry in two
kitchens. Rooms were stripped bare of all cabinets. I ran the
flooring wall to wall. Although in the ceramic tile floor I did use
gray tiles when I needed extras under the cabinets. White in the
visible area. And grout lines were not finished as much under the
cabinets. But the whole floor had the same thickness of tile and
cement backboard. The 25 feet of linear cabinets and the 50 square
feet of tile under the cabinets at $1 per square foot of tile was not
a big deal given the cost of the entire job. $50 extra for tile under
the cabinets. Big deal. It made the installation of the cabinets
more than $50 easier later on. Extra backer board was required too.
Little extra cost too. Also no bid deal. Running from wall to wall
was easier than stopping exactly, exactly at the edge of the
cabinetry. If I was laying tile in one kitchen a week or two a week
the cost would add up more.

Seems like a "PAY ME NOW OR PAY ME LATER" situation. I agree with
your thoughts. Only way to do this is to explain to the end-user
that the little extra in time and materials will save time and
exasperation later on and not force them into a set footprint.

As far a colour differences between what's under the counter and
what's out in the open - a little time and no one will be able to
see the difference. Besides one never goes smaller.

In my case it was white ceramic tile in the visible area. And gray
tile under some of the cabinet. Not just a little color difference.
Two different colors. I presume the white tile was out of stock when
I went to get more and the gray was there. I did put the gray tiles
in the corner under the lazy susan cabinet. Pretty sure the corner
will always have cabinets over it.


Russell, not to get sweaty, just added a few comments to earlier stuff to see if OEquotefix really works. Beyond that, with tile, one does what one must. I have the same problem in my basement where SWMBO wants to pull some of the carpet and install more tile beside the tile that is already there. Ever try to match 20 year old last of the run tile?

That story will have to remain for another time.




P D Q- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

P D Q