On Mon, 13 May 2013 02:04:39 -0700 (PDT), sm_jamieson
wrote:

http://s1139.photobucket.com/user/sm...rary/fireplace



Normally I'm no great fan of tiled 30's tat, but that's ok looking.

It is a bit different to the chunky art deco style fireplaces in foul swirly patterns and colours, which would definitely get ripped out.
The house although built in the late 1930s was built to an earlier pattern using lime mortar, fireplaces in upstairs bedrooms, etc. So perhaps the fireplace is slightly earlier in style, although I cannot find anything similar in google images.
The other notable feature is the mantle is very low.

If that were mine I'd keep it. It's possibly a one-off, fitted in the
50s.

On Sun, 12 May 2013 17:04:41 +0100 (BST), "Dave Liquorice"
wrote:

-1 Not a Good Idea to place a mirror over a fireplace. People will stand
in front of the fire preening themselves in the mirror and not notice
their clothes catching light...

Darwinian.

On Sun, 12 May 2013 23:48:38 -0700 (PDT), Owain
wrote:

On May 12, 9:07*pm, Alexander Lamaison wrote:
We've had a mirror above the fireplace for 15 years. *Zero injuries in
that time. *Maybe I should fit a yellow warning sign just in case.

Photo of the M-i-L's traditional.

http://tinyurl.com/cdxqta5

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
If that were mine I'd keep it. It's possibly a one-off, fitted in the
50s.

The bit I don't like is the swirly beige tiles, not the actual surround. I
wonder if you could replace with something a bit more contrasty? You'd then
keep the painted tiles, but would change the look of the thing.

Theo

On 11/05/13 23:09, sm_jamieson wrote:
I kind of agree. It would be a shame to rip it out.
The house is 1930s, and the fireplace tiles kind of echo the tiles above the adjoining kitchen worktop (see the kitchen photo album) - which themselves echo the original kitchen tiles before we extended.
I think the chintzy print on some of the tiles is the main difficulty, but trying to change some of the tiles or using tile paint would probably wreck it.

Trying to change it is the worst possible action. Vandalism that will
leave it worthless for the future and probably won't really make you
content. If you really cannot live with it remove it carefully and
architectural salvage will find it a loving home.

No really my taste I will admit, but it is a unique feature, whereas
anything you buy off the shelf will be uninteresting from the start and
soon look dated.

--
djc

On Monday, May 13, 2013 8:55:45 PM UTC+1, Theo Markettos wrote:
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:

If that were mine I'd keep it. It's possibly a one-off, fitted in the

50s.



The bit I don't like is the swirly beige tiles, not the actual surround. I

wonder if you could replace with something a bit more contrasty? You'd then

keep the painted tiles, but would change the look of the thing.

Thats what I said, SWMBO said she did not mind the those but they are the worst bit.
Simon.

On Mon, 13 May 2013 21:47:18 +0100, djc wrote:

On 11/05/13 23:09, sm_jamieson wrote:
I kind of agree. It would be a shame to rip it out.
The house is 1930s, and the fireplace tiles kind of echo the tiles above the adjoining kitchen worktop (see the kitchen photo album) - which themselves echo the original kitchen tiles before we extended.
I think the chintzy print on some of the tiles is the main difficulty, but trying to change some of the tiles or using tile paint would probably wreck it.

Trying to change it is the worst possible action. Vandalism that will
leave it worthless for the future and probably won't really make you
content. If you really cannot live with it remove it carefully and
architectural salvage will find it a loving home.

No really my taste I will admit, but it is a unique feature, whereas
anything you buy off the shelf will be uninteresting from the start and
soon look dated.

+1.

--
Frank Erskine

On 11/05/2013 20:10, sm_jamieson wrote:
We have to decide whether to keep a 1930s tiled fire surround or rip it out and
replace with timber surround etc. The fireplace itself is a Baxi Burnall (just missing the front
ironwork and adjusting rod) and is being kept either way.
I cannot decide if the original tiled surround has some charm or not !
Would you keep it ?

http://s1139.photobucket.com/user/sm...rary/fireplace

Oh, whilst here, some pics of the kitchen I just about finished in time for Christmas

(still a few bits to do - cornice etc). Thanks to all that gave advice.

http://s1139.photobucket.com/user/sm...ibrary/kitchen

Simon.

Nothing wrong with it apart from the tiles and design.

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 8:48:46 AM UTC+1, Rob wrote:
On 11/05/2013 20:10, sm_jamieson wrote:

We have to decide whether to keep a 1930s tiled fire surround or rip it out and

replace with timber surround etc. The fireplace itself is a Baxi Burnall (just missing the front

ironwork and adjusting rod) and is being kept either way.

I cannot decide if the original tiled surround has some charm or not !

Would you keep it ?



http://s1139.photobucket.com/user/sm...rary/fireplace



Oh, whilst here, some pics of the kitchen I just about finished in time for Christmas



(still a few bits to do - cornice etc). Thanks to all that gave advice.



http://s1139.photobucket.com/user/sm...ibrary/kitchen



Simon.



Nothing wrong with it apart from the tiles and design.

Hey ?!
Is that comment about the fireplace or the kitchen ?
If the kitchen, I'd genuinely be interested in what you don't like about it.
If the fireplace, we've got that covered ;-)

Cheers,
Simon.

On Tue, 14 May 2013 01:50:54 -0700 (PDT), sm_jamieson
wrote:

Hey ?!
Is that comment about the fireplace or the kitchen ?
If the kitchen, I'd genuinely be interested in what you don't like about it.
If the fireplace, we've got that covered ;-)

Taste: it's like assholes.
Everybody's got one and everyone else's is just an asshole.