On 5/30/2012 10:16 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
....

... It really does take a different
perspective to think through this kind of question. So many of the things
that we might do in contemporary times just lose their validity when talking
about period stuff. Of course, the effect my son is looking for is not for
everyone, but I do appreciate the persective you bring.

As CW notes I've also spent a lot of time in refurbishing pre- and
postbellum houses in Lynchburg, VA, that were built from the early 1800s
to mid- to late 1880s.

Virtually every one of them had wide pine flooring that was virtually
the same as any conventional flooring today excepting for the width.
They were laid to be close-joined and flat and were finished (generally
shellac) well. Of course, over the intervening years most of these had
seen very rough usage and damage from all sorts of causes but the basic
flooring installation had nothing particularly different than a
"contemporary" hardwood floor would have.

A few of the really upscale Federal-era houses had more expensive
material than the local pine; northern white pine or various native
hardwoods. Interestingly enough, in that area until very late 19th or
early 20th century, walnut was pretty much considered a 'trash' wood
rather than a prized cabinet wood as we think of it. It was often used
as the construction lumber in houses from trees cleared off the land
where the house/building was constructed. I bought about 40,000 bd-ft
from the salvage demolition of an old school house in which the bulk of
the floor beams and joists were walnut or oak. They varied from full
dimension 8/4 to 16/4 by 8 to as wide as 12 and up to 20-ft in length.
I paid $1000 for the lot...

--