Remove old tiles first or new tiles on top of old?
 

Hi

I'm thinking of having my kitchen updated. All the exposed walls are tiled
but I hate the colour and the design on them so I want to re-tile the walls.

Ive been told its best to tile on top of the old as they provide the perfect
surface. Ive also been told that old tiles must be removed first.

So now I'm confused.

I'd be grateful for your views on which is best and why.

Thanks

Rob

On Thu, 26 May 2005 11:18:39 +0000 (UTC), "Rob"
wrote:

Hi

I'm thinking of having my kitchen updated. All the exposed walls are tiled
but I hate the colour and the design on them so I want to re-tile the walls.

Ive been told its best to tile on top of the old as they provide the perfect
surface. Ive also been told that old tiles must be removed first.

So now I'm confused.

I'd be grateful for your views on which is best and why.

Thanks

Rob

IMHO tiling on old tiles is a bodge. Best to knock them off and
replaster if necessary. If you tile on top,the tiles will be twice as
deep on the wall and will look orrible!!

you can have it fast or you can have it right!

Remove antispam and add 670 after bra to email

Be a good Global citizen-CONSUMECONFORMOBEY

Circumcision- A crime and an abuse.
http://www.sexuallymutilatedchild.org/

On Thu, 26 May 2005 11:18:39 +0000 (UTC), "Rob"
wrote:

Hi

I'm thinking of having my kitchen updated. All the exposed walls are tiled
but I hate the colour and the design on them so I want to re-tile the walls.

Ive been told its best to tile on top of the old as they provide the perfect
surface. Ive also been told that old tiles must be removed first.

So now I'm confused.

I'd be grateful for your views on which is best and why.

Thanks

Rob

Either could be best under different circumstances.
Personally, I'm a much too recent convert to the cult of "Whatever's
Easiest". Having been thus corrupted, I'd definitely say leave the
original tiles on if at all possible. You can guess the rest.

--
Regards,
Mike Halmarack

Drop the EGG to email me.

On 26 May 2005, Rob wrote

Hi

I'm thinking of having my kitchen updated. All the exposed walls
are tiled but I hate the colour and the design on them so I want
to re-tile the walls.

Ive been told its best to tile on top of the old as they provide
the perfect surface. Ive also been told that old tiles must be
removed first.

Horses and courses, assuming the existing tiles are both sound and
level. Hacking tiles off inevitably means replastering or boarding-out
the wall -- maybe a good purist's route, but a bit of overkill in my
view. I[ve had perfectly good results tiling over tiles. (The only
rule I can think of is a glaringly obvious one: to avoid aligning the
new tiles with the old.)

The main drawback of tiling over tiles, of course, is that you're
making the wall thicker. That's not a huge concern in most cases, but
it can screw up fine tolerances -- like refitting sockets where there's
insufficient leeway in the cabling.

--
Cheers,
Harvey

If any old tiles are loose, then your knew ones are going to be loose too
because of that. Any tiles that meet a door might well sit proud of the
doorframe. You *might* need longer faceplate screws for any outlets/sockets
on the tiles.

Ditch the old tiles. they're easily removed with a bolster or similar, or a
large flat screwdriver at a push.

Disclaimer: I'm not a tiler. But I've done lots of tiling.


"Rob" wrote in message
...
Hi

I'm thinking of having my kitchen updated. All the exposed walls are tiled
but I hate the colour and the design on them so I want to re-tile the
walls.

Ive been told its best to tile on top of the old as they provide the
perfect surface. Ive also been told that old tiles must be removed first.

So now I'm confused.

I'd be grateful for your views on which is best and why.

Thanks

Rob

Rob wrote:
Hi

I'm thinking of having my kitchen updated. All the exposed walls are tiled
but I hate the colour and the design on them so I want to re-tile the walls.

Ive been told its best to tile on top of the old as they provide the perfect
surface. Ive also been told that old tiles must be removed first.

So now I'm confused.

I'd be grateful for your views on which is best and why.

Thanks

Rob

tiles are the worst surface to tile onto, smooth and slippery. You can
do it either way, but Id tile personally. Old tiles have a habit of
being or coming loose.

NT

Ive been told its best to tile on top of the old as they provide the
perfect
surface. Ive also been told that old tiles must be removed first.

You can tile over old. A bit like you can paint over old gloss paint. It's
possible, but its cheap bodge and better results can be had from removal.

Christian.

Christian McArdle wrote:
You can tile over old. A bit like you can paint over old gloss paint. It's
possible, but its cheap bodge and better results can be had from removal.

I really do *not* think that in the majority of cases it is necessary
to strip the old gloss off something before re-painting. Where did that
idea come from?

"Rob" wrote in message
...
Hi

I'm thinking of having my kitchen updated. All the exposed walls are tiled
but I hate the colour and the design on them so I want to re-tile the
walls.

Ive been told its best to tile on top of the old as they provide the
perfect surface. Ive also been told that old tiles must be removed first.

So now I'm confused.

I'd be grateful for your views on which is best and why.

In my student days the tiles in the kitchen of the "newly refurbished
house", came away from the existing tiles and fell off, after about 6
months. This was because the new tile adhesive had not stuck to the layers
of fat and grease on the old tiles near the cooker and layers of soap and
other yuck around the sink. Just pulled new tiles off, cleaned up old tiles
and landlord never noticed.

Ian_m wrote:
"Rob" wrote in message
...

Hi

I'm thinking of having my kitchen updated. All the exposed walls are tiled
but I hate the colour and the design on them so I want to re-tile the
walls.

Ive been told its best to tile on top of the old as they provide the
perfect surface. Ive also been told that old tiles must be removed first.

So now I'm confused.

I'd be grateful for your views on which is best and why.


In my student days the tiles in the kitchen of the "newly refurbished
house", came away from the existing tiles and fell off, after about 6
months. This was because the new tile adhesive had not stuck to the layers
of fat and grease on the old tiles near the cooker and layers of soap and
other yuck around the sink. Just pulled new tiles off, cleaned up old tiles
and landlord never noticed.


Tiling over old tiles..

Old tiles make a good base for new tiles.. So things to bear in mind...
how well do the old tiles adhere as your new tiles will only be as good
as the old adhesive! As above are they clean, how will corners,
cupboards etc work out with the increased height of the new tiles if
placed on the old. Do a test to check that adhesive used works well on
old tiles.

If you decide to remove the old tiles then a flat even surface will
improve the final result so will you need to replaster, can you
replaster or afford a tradesperson otherwise.

I personally remove old tiles most of the time but nearly always end up
re-skimming the surface.. David

In article , keefers
wrote:

Disclaimer: I'm not a tiler. But I've done lots of tiling.

Perhaps you might like a little reading?

http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk

I really do *not* think that in the majority of cases it is necessary
to strip the old gloss off something before re-painting. Where did that
idea come from?

Exactly. It isn't necessary, but it looks much better. Have you not seen 100
year old architrave looking like a blobby mess because all the delicate fine
mouldings are encased in 20 layers of gloop.

Christian.

Christian McArdle wrote:
I really do *not* think that in the majority of cases it is necessary
to strip the old gloss off something before re-painting. Where did that
idea come from?

Exactly. It isn't necessary, but it looks much better. Have you not seen 100
year old architrave looking like a blobby mess because all the delicate fine
mouldings are encased in 20 layers of gloop.

Of course, but that has not very much to do with your statement that
it is a "cheap bodge" to paint over old gloss. It isn't in the large
majority of cases. Your 100 y.o. architrave probably looked fine
intil about 1975.

Of course, but that has not very much to do with your statement that
it is a "cheap bodge" to paint over old gloss. It isn't in the large
majority of cases. Your 100 y.o. architrave probably looked fine
intil about 1975.

I'm just used to houses built around 1880-1910. They ALL have/had blobby
mess architraves. Even my "old" 1986 built hutch had issues with overpainted
gloss, with the crevices looking less than sharp.

Christian.

Christian McArdle wrote:
I'm just used to houses built around 1880-1910. They ALL have/had blobby
mess architraves. Even my "old" 1986 built hutch had issues with overpainted
gloss, with the crevices looking less than sharp.

I can't quarrel with you, it does happen - much of the problem is due
to poor/no preparation, and more is due to the use of "one coat" and
acrylic paints, and poor technique. I've spent a fair time "burning
off" paint from from mouldings; the finished effect is quite satisfying.

Perhaps I've been posting this way on usenet since 1991

"Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)" wrote in message
. ..
In article , keefers
wrote:

Disclaimer: I'm not a tiler. But I've done lots of tiling.

Perhaps you might like a little reading?

http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post

--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk

keefers wrote:
Perhaps I've been
(wrongly)
posting this way on usenet since 1991

Wow! Irritating people & getting killfiled for 14 years! What was
your posting ID then?

So where do you get the "wrongly" from then. There ain't no right or wrong.
A bunch of "rules" made up by some arbitrary bunch doesn't pass for right or
wrong. If there was a "right" way of posting, news posting apps wouldn't let
you do it the "wrong" way.

Personally, I much prefer the way I do it. Obviously, otherwise I wouldn't
do it this way. I'm not alone either. As i recall, these were "the rules"
before the arbitrary bunch came along. I think it's easier to read. I think
it's easier to follow. I don't have to spend half my life wearing out my
finger scrolling my mouse wheel up and down. I don't have to read down any
further than the last post.

If you're uppity about the "rules", then find yourself guilty of posting
off-topic!



"Chris Bacon" wrote in message
...
keefers wrote:
Perhaps I've been
(wrongly)
posting this way on usenet since 1991

Wow! Irritating people & getting killfiled for 14 years! What was
your posting ID then?

So where do you get the "wrongly" from then. There ain't no right or
wrong.
A bunch of "rules" made up by some arbitrary bunch doesn't pass for right
or
wrong.

I'm absolutely amazed that you can have been on Usenet for so long and still
crosspost. It is in every newbie guide. The fact that Microsoft produces bad
programs that don't comply with the rules is hardly news.

Context posting is not arbitrary. It has been the standard for decades.

Christian.

I'm absolutely amazed that you can have been on Usenet for so long and
still
crosspost.

I meant toppost, not crosspost!

Christian.

I didn't cross-post, I posted to uk.d-i-y. I don't cross-post, and to my
recollection have never done so. I was a newbie when there was no such
definition as a newbie, 'cos everyone was a newbie. Cross-posting was
frowned upon right from the start.

Bottom or top posting isn't a standard, it's a guideline. There are
certainly plenty guidelines which suggest bottom-posting, but I think
they're crap.

keefers wrote:
posting this way on usenet since 1991

What was your posting ID in 1991, then??

Bottom or top posting isn't a standard, it's a guideline. There are
certainly plenty guidelines which suggest bottom-posting, but I think
they're crap.

You may wish to disobey the standard, but if you do, you'll never stop
getting told to read the newbie FAQs!

Christian.

keefers wrote:
So where do you get the "wrongly" from then. There ain't no right or wrong.
A bunch of "rules" made up by some arbitrary bunch doesn't pass for right or
wrong.

Depends who you consider an arbitrary bunch. Who _do_ you consider the
arbitrary bunch in this case?

If there was a "right" way of posting, news posting apps wouldn't let
you do it the "wrong" way.

Not true. A word-processor will let you write a badly-formatted letter.
A drill will let you drill your eye out. Applications are just tools.

Personally, I much prefer the way I do it. Obviously, otherwise I wouldn't
do it this way. I'm not alone either.

The fact that a lot of people do it doesn't make it correct. Your
argument is full of logical flaws.

As i recall, these were "the rules"
before the arbitrary bunch came along. I think it's easier to read. I think
it's easier to follow. I don't have to spend half my life wearing out my
finger scrolling my mouse wheel up and down. I don't have to read down any
further than the last post.

Perhaps, if you didn't use outdated, non-standards compliant
news-reading software, you wouldn't make life difficult for yourself by
being complelled to use the scroll wheel and for others by top-posting.
One thing that I have learnt since reading this group is that you have
to have the right tool for the job.

Antony

"antgel" wrote in message
...
Depends who you consider an arbitrary bunch. Who _do_ you consider the
arbitrary bunch in this case?

Anyone who writes "standards" without the authority to do so

A drill will let you drill your eye out. Applications are just tools.

Fair point.

The fact that a lot of people do it doesn't make it correct. Your
argument is full of logical flaws.

The fact that someone takes it upon themself/ves to write a "standard"
doesn't make it correct either

One thing that I have learnt since reading this group is that you have
to have the right tool for the job.

Couldn't agree more. But sometimes it's worth doing a bodge if it's quick,
and a one line top post might well be such a bodge but if it does the job
then so what.

What was your posting ID in 1991, then??
I don't have to justify myself to you or anyone. I can't even remember all
the id's I've used, and even if I did, I couldn't be bothered replying with
it. It might have been the same as this. I don't know and I don't care. You
obviously don't believe me. I don't care about that either.

I'm bored with this now.

keefers wrote:
What was your posting ID in 1991, then??

I don't have to justify myself to you or anyone. I can't even remember all
the id's I've used, and even if I did, I couldn't be bothered replying with
it. It might have been the same as this. I don't know and I don't care. You
obviously don't believe me. I don't care about that either.

I'm bored with this now.

Bye, then. Off.

"keefers" wrote in message
...
I didn't cross-post, I posted to uk.d-i-y. I don't cross-post, and to my
recollection have never done so. I was a newbie when there was no such
definition as a newbie, 'cos everyone was a newbie. Cross-posting was
frowned upon right from the start.

Bottom or top posting isn't a standard, it's a guideline. There are
certainly plenty guidelines which suggest bottom-posting, but I think
they're crap.


Hi Guys

Thanks for all the info on tiling.

Its a lot of extra work but the guy about to do my kitchen (its tiled right
up to the ceiling on 3 walls!) much prefers to remove the old first.

While we werent on the subject...at the risk of going O.T...

Ive never understood why so many object to cross-posting. I can understand
it when its abused by spammer trolls to spread their rubbish everywhere but
when its from legitimate users posting to relevant groups wheres the harm?
And if it were so objectionable why is it then possible to do it. (I realise
that some groups reject crossposted messages)

Thanks for your views...

Rob

Rob wrote:
Ive never understood why so many object to cross-posting. I can understand
it when its abused by spammer trolls to spread their rubbish everywhere but
when its from legitimate users posting to relevant groups wheres the harm?
And if it were so objectionable why is it then possible to do it. (I realise
that some groups reject crossposted messages)

Thanks for your views...

It's not objectionable in the least when used legitimately, as
you say. Multi-posting (the same article to several different
NGs individually) *is*.

Ive never understood why so many object to cross-posting.

Just to clarify, I have no problem with moderate cross-posting either. I
just had a brain fart when writing top-posting.

Christian.

In article
, T N Nurse
wrote:
It's not objectionable in the least when used legitimately, as
you say. Multi-posting (the same article to several different
NGs individually) *is*.

Just curious...but why?

If you have a reasonably intelligent newsreader it only shows you the
message once. And if you reply your reply finds its way back to all the
groups the original was cross-posted to (which is not always
appreciated in the case of thread drift!)

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

In article , keefers
wrote:

Perhaps I've been posting this way on usenet since 1991

Perhaps you will hear lots of:

*plonk*

--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk

** Would you like to learn to post effectively? **
** http://www.allmyfaqs.com/faq.pl?How_to_post **