On Tue, 19 Jan 2021 03:13:01 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:

On Monday, January 18, 2021 at 6:57:11 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 18:22:04 -0500, Hawk wrote:
On 1/18/2021 4:29 PM, Tekkie? wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jan 2021 23:03:54 -0500, Ed Pawlowski posted for all of us to
digest...


Well, he makes it look easy

https://imgur.com/gallery/KC4yYIV

Hatchet man`````

He makes me tired just looking at it...


It's easier when using many small pieces as it appears he was doing. The
downside it more drywall compound and sanding.
The smaller sheets were used under plaster - no taping or mudding
of the seams. ... perhaps under bathroom tile in this case ?
John T.

That looks like what's on the oldest walls in my 1947 house. It's rock-hard
and weighs a ton; I can see why they didn't use 4x8 sheets. Every
one of those walls is skim-coated with plaster. Our bathroom was
different: metal lath nailed to the studs and covered with a buttload
of plaster underneath the tiles.

Cindy Hamilton

That was the way they did bathrooms before the advent of cement board
and water resistant drywall. In Florida my Mom's whole apartment had
that kind of walls. It was a way to deal with potential flooding.
There was a gap under the base board to allow the water to drain.
In my addition the block walls are covered with stucco on both sides.
The inside is skim coated with white plaster like drywall over the
normal brown coat.