Hi all

I've long had a notion to rip out the ugly brick fireplace in my old
cottage and rebuild it to my own design, in either a more-rustic-looking
brick or alternatively, white limestone.

I wondered if anyone had any comments on the pros and cons of either
material. If I use the limestone (which I can get for next to nothing where
I live, because it's lying around all over the place, due to the geology of
the area) it'll be very irrgular sized pieces, which will mean that the
stone and its joints will tent to collect dust and perhaps be a chore to
keep clean.

Obviously, brick would be an easier material to work with due to the
uiniformity of shape and the ease of cutting. I've seen some attractive
old-style bricks with some interesting colours in them, but I'd have to buy
them for top dollar at Jewsons. I feel that the colour of bricks gives give
a welcome impression or warmth even when there is no fire in place -
whereas white limestone arguably has a colder look. My cottage is old -
built in 1850s, so any modern brick (no matter how rustic-looking) is going
to end up looking contemporary. The room where the fireplace is, has heavy
oak beams in the ceiling, so perhaps the stone would look more natural
authentic, as it's ubiquitous to the area.

I was once a trained brickie and used to build houses with rough stone, so
either material woild be a synch to work with for me.

Any input would be much appreciated. I thought I'd ask here first, rather
than just toss a coin ......and then wish I'd chosen the other option!

Regards,

JakeD

On 04/12/2013 10:00, JakeD wrote:
Hi all

I've long had a notion to rip out the ugly brick fireplace in my old
cottage and rebuild it to my own design, in either a more-rustic-looking
brick or alternatively, white limestone.

I wondered if anyone had any comments on the pros and cons of either
material. If I use the limestone (which I can get for next to nothing where
I live, because it's lying around all over the place, due to the geology of
the area) it'll be very irrgular sized pieces, which will mean that the
stone and its joints will tent to collect dust and perhaps be a chore to
keep clean.

Obviously, brick would be an easier material to work with due to the
uiniformity of shape and the ease of cutting. I've seen some attractive
old-style bricks with some interesting colours in them, but I'd have to buy
them for top dollar at Jewsons. I feel that the colour of bricks gives give
a welcome impression or warmth even when there is no fire in place -
whereas white limestone arguably has a colder look. My cottage is old -
built in 1850s, so any modern brick (no matter how rustic-looking) is going
to end up looking contemporary. The room where the fireplace is, has heavy
oak beams in the ceiling, so perhaps the stone would look more natural
authentic, as it's ubiquitous to the area.

I was once a trained brickie and used to build houses with rough stone, so
either material woild be a synch to work with for me.

Any input would be much appreciated. I thought I'd ask here first, rather
than just toss a coin ......and then wish I'd chosen the other option!


Is the building listed?


--
Peter Crosland

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
o.uk...

Is the building listed?

Nah, it's straight and level. Ba boom
--
Dave Baker

Peter Crosland wrote in
o.uk:

Is the building listed?

Hi Peter - No, it isn't listed.

JD

"JakeD" wrote in message
...
Hi all

I've long had a notion to rip out the ugly brick fireplace in my old
cottage and rebuild it to my own design, in either a more-rustic-looking
brick or alternatively, white limestone.

I wondered if anyone had any comments on the pros and cons of either
material. If I use the limestone (which I can get for next to nothing
where
I live, because it's lying around all over the place, due to the geology
of
the area) it'll be very irrgular sized pieces, which will mean that the
stone and its joints will tent to collect dust and perhaps be a chore to
keep clean.

Obviously, brick would be an easier material to work with due to the
uiniformity of shape and the ease of cutting. I've seen some attractive
old-style bricks with some interesting colours in them, but I'd have to
buy
them for top dollar at Jewsons. I feel that the colour of bricks gives
give
a welcome impression or warmth even when there is no fire in place -
whereas white limestone arguably has a colder look. My cottage is old -
built in 1850s, so any modern brick (no matter how rustic-looking) is
going
to end up looking contemporary. The room where the fireplace is, has heavy
oak beams in the ceiling, so perhaps the stone would look more natural
authentic, as it's ubiquitous to the area.

I was once a trained brickie and used to build houses with rough stone, so
either material woild be a synch to work with for me.

Any input would be much appreciated. I thought I'd ask here first, rather
than just toss a coin ......and then wish I'd chosen the other option!


You can buy a precast refactory cement fireplace/firebox and build on what
you like in front of it..
This sort of thing:-
http://standardfireboxes.com/

On 04/12/2013 10:00, JakeD wrote:
Hi all

I've long had a notion to rip out the ugly brick fireplace in my old
cottage and rebuild it to my own design, in either a more-rustic-looking
brick or alternatively, white limestone.

If you are going to do it with the intention of really having a fire why
not go the whole hog and install a wood burning stove instead?

I wondered if anyone had any comments on the pros and cons of either
material. If I use the limestone (which I can get for next to nothing where
I live, because it's lying around all over the place, due to the geology of
the area) it'll be very irrgular sized pieces, which will mean that the
stone and its joints will tent to collect dust and perhaps be a chore to
keep clean.

We had one of those monstrosities in the house when we bought it except
that it was rough cut light sandstone and yes it was a PITA and trapped
the dirt and ash and discoloured at the edges with smoke.

Obviously, brick would be an easier material to work with due to the
uiniformity of shape and the ease of cutting. I've seen some attractive
old-style bricks with some interesting colours in them, but I'd have to buy
them for top dollar at Jewsons. I feel that the colour of bricks gives give
a welcome impression or warmth even when there is no fire in place -
whereas white limestone arguably has a colder look. My cottage is old -
built in 1850s, so any modern brick (no matter how rustic-looking) is going
to end up looking contemporary. The room where the fireplace is, has heavy
oak beams in the ceiling, so perhaps the stone would look more natural
authentic, as it's ubiquitous to the area.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but these days I'd be a lot more
inclined to install a stove rather than an open fire. We did seriously
consider an Arts&Crafts era cast iron insert open fire which would have
been more in keeping with the building but opted for energy efficiency
and convenience in the end.

I was once a trained brickie and used to build houses with rough stone, so
either material woild be a synch to work with for me.

Any input would be much appreciated. I thought I'd ask here first, rather
than just toss a coin ......and then wish I'd chosen the other option!

Regards,

JakeD

White limestone might be a bit too prone to showing the dirt even when
it is fairly clean. Like white cars - OTOH it would give the room a
brighter focus whether the fire was lit or not.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

Martin Brown wrote in news:FcEnu.12690
:

White limestone might be a bit too prone to showing the dirt even when
it is fairly clean. Like white cars - OTOH it would give the room a
brighter focus whether the fire was lit or not.


Thanks to all for the input. Yes, I think that the limestone has some
appeal. But then, so does brick. I should mention that the fireplace (and
surround) is only going to house a gas fire - so there won't be oodles of
soot to contend with. I'm only going to rebuid the outer surround - nit the
inner part where the appliance goes.

I have an idea of incorporating an old railway sleeper as the mantlepiece.

JD

On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 10:28:16 AM UTC, JakeD wrote:
Peter Crosland wrote in


Is the building listed?

Hi Peter - No, it isn't listed.

notice there is no further helpful advice forthcoming now you've told Peter Panic that?

Thankfully he can't now do his party piece & say "oooh noooo you can't do that without planning permission, Listed Building consent,,,,,, yadad yada yada"

it's his "thing" you know?

some mothers etc;)

Jim K

On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 1:26:04 PM UTC, Jim K wrote:
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 10:28:16 AM UTC, JakeD wrote:
Peter Crosland wrote in

Is the building listed?
Hi Peter - No, it isn't listed.

notice there is no further helpful advice forthcoming now you've told Peter Panic that?

Thankfully he can't now do his party piece & say "oooh noooo you can't do that without planning permission, Listed Building consent,,,,,, yadad yada yada"

it's his "thing" you know?

Peter's comments are usually very much to the point and useful, IMHO.

What about Building Control?

Robert

"JakeD" wrote in message
...
Martin Brown wrote in news:FcEnu.12690
:

White limestone might be a bit too prone to showing the dirt even when
it is fairly clean. Like white cars - OTOH it would give the room a
brighter focus whether the fire was lit or not.


Thanks to all for the input. Yes, I think that the limestone has some
appeal. But then, so does brick. I should mention that the fireplace (and
surround) is only going to house a gas fire - so there won't be oodles of
soot to contend with. I'm only going to rebuid the outer surround - nit
the
inner part where the appliance goes.

I have an idea of incorporating an old railway sleeper as the mantlepiece.

JD

Will the sleeper not smell of creosote as it warms up ??

Also, is there a possibility of forming quicklime with the lime stone
surround??

Baz

Chris Hogg wrote in
:

Not so sure about cracking due to expansion/contraction
though.


That's something I hadn't thought of. I think the joints would crack before
the stone, as the limestone is extremely tough. The previous brick surround
didnlt crack, so I guess the limestone would be even less likely to. Still,
it might make sense to use a weak mix mortar.

JD

"Baz" wrote in newsqmdnZKJftsA0ALPnZ2dnUVZ8q-
:

Will the sleeper not smell of creosote as it warms up ??

That's something I hadn't thought of - thanks. I presume that any such
vapours given off would lessen as time passess. I have seen creosote-free
railway sleepers for sale, but but they appear to be freshly sawn, whereas
the cresoted ones seem to have been in use and have become dented, gnarled
and battle-scarred, which is the sort of look that fits my vision of a tuly
"old" looking cottage fireplace.

I used to do a lot of fake aging of wood in a past career, so I could
probably do some fake wear & tear on a freshly-sawn sleeper at a pinch.

JD

On 04/12/2013 13:43, RobertL wrote:
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 1:26:04 PM UTC, Jim K wrote:
On Wednesday, December 4, 2013 10:28:16 AM UTC, JakeD wrote:
Peter Crosland wrote in

Is the building listed?
Hi Peter - No, it isn't listed.

notice there is no further helpful advice forthcoming now you've told Peter Panic that?

Thankfully he can't now do his party piece & say "oooh noooo you can't do that without planning permission, Listed Building consent,,,,,, yadad yada yada"

it's his "thing" you know?

Peter's comments are usually very much to the point and useful, IMHO.

What about Building Control?

Quite. Thanks for your kind comment. All JK can ever do is criticise,
and he never offers any constructive information which I why I have kill
filed him. Many people don't realise the consequences of breaching the
rules on listed buildings particularly the fact that it can be a
criminal offence.

It is always worth asking BC. I have never understood those who don't
see the advantage in establishing a good rapport with BCO. It is basic
psychology to follow the advice in Matthew 5.25. to agree with your
adversary early. BCOs can make life easy, or difficult, for you but as
human beings, most of them, respond positively to a civilised approach.
Many have lots of experience and may be able to offer suggestions that
the applicant has not thought of.

--
Peter Crosland

On Wed, 04 Dec 2013 11:18:51 +0000, Martin Brown wrote:

We had one of those monstrosities in the house when we bought it except
that it was rough cut light sandstone ...

There was a 70's "thing" he

http://www.flickr.com/photos/allsorts-60/6189925049

Behind which was the original fire opening, now fitted with a
woodburner:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/allsorts-60/6370269929

... and yes it was a PITA and trapped the dirt and ash and discoloured
at the edges with smoke.

If you are at all sensitive about a bit of muck having a real fire is
probably not a good idea. B-) Discolouration is patina of use.
White limestone might be a bit too prone to showing the dirt even when
it is fairly clean. Like white cars - OTOH it would give the room a
brighter focus whether the fire was lit or not.

White as in really very pale probably wouldn't be a good idea. But is
this cottage brick built or stone built? I'd go for what ever the
building material has be used for the main construction. Ours is
random stone, the stone you see above are the inside of the real
walls.

The reveal is to accomodate 50 mm of PIR foam and 12.5 mm of PB to
stop said solid stone walls haemorrhaging heat...

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in
ll.co.uk:

But is
this cottage brick built or stone built?

It is actually built of the same white limestone I'm considering using for
the fireplace. However the cottage was rendered years ago, so you can't see
the stonework any more.

JD

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in
ll.co.uk:

There was a 70's "thing" he
http://www.flickr.com/photos/allsorts-60/6189925049

That 70s thing looks quite decent to my eyes! Id much rather have that than
a bare, plastered wall to look at. Obviously, not everyone has the same
tastes, and styles come and go ...and often come back again. Funnily
enough, the brickwork I intend to replace, has plinths on either side,
similar to the one in your photo. However, I intend to make the thing look
more 1870s than 1970s, despite the stone plinths, which I've found
extremely huseful for siting stereo system, table lamps, TV etc.

JD

On Thu, 05 Dec 2013 01:13:21 +0000, Dave Liquorice wrote:

There was a 70's "thing" he

http://www.flickr.com/photos/allsorts-60/6189925049

Oh, my lawdy... That is truly hideous.

On 04/12/2013 12:10, JakeD wrote:
Martin Brown wrote in news:FcEnu.12690
:

White limestone might be a bit too prone to showing the dirt even when
it is fairly clean. Like white cars - OTOH it would give the room a
brighter focus whether the fire was lit or not.

Thanks to all for the input. Yes, I think that the limestone has some
appeal. But then, so does brick. I should mention that the fireplace (and
surround) is only going to house a gas fire - so there won't be oodles of
soot to contend with. I'm only going to rebuid the outer surround - nit the
inner part where the appliance goes.

If it is a gas fire then you don't have soot and blowback issues to
consider. I'd probably try the limestone in that case.

I have an idea of incorporating an old railway sleeper as the mantlepiece.

JD

I suspect the warmth will make it smell rather of creosote.

Our new mantlepiece is a large piece of green oak beeswaxed to seal it
that was set into the wall in front of the RSJ that really holds up the
opened out hearth. It has shrunk a bit but looks very nice.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 5 Dec 2013 08:16:47 GMT, JakeD wrote:

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in
ll.co.uk:

There was a 70's "thing" he
http://www.flickr.com/photos/allsorts-60/6189925049

That 70s thing looks quite decent to my eyes! Id much rather have that than
a bare, plastered wall to look at. Obviously, not everyone has the same
tastes, and styles come and go ...and often come back again. Funnily
enough, the brickwork I intend to replace, has plinths on either side,
similar to the one in your photo. However, I intend to make the thing look
more 1870s than 1970s, despite the stone plinths, which I've found
extremely huseful for siting stereo system, table lamps, TV etc.

JD

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 5 Dec 2013 08:16:47 GMT, JakeD wrote:

There was a 70's "thing" he
http://www.flickr.com/photos/allsorts-60/6189925049

That 70s thing looks quite decent to my eyes! Id much rather have that
than a bare, plastered wall to look at.

Ha, at the other end of that room it was a bare flat plain
plasterboard wall. Behind that was:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/allsorts-60/6189925057

I know which I prefer...

Obviously, not everyone has the same tastes, and styles come and go
...and often come back again.

Of course, there does appear to be a lot of demand for "retro" but
all the stuff I look at only has a nod to the style of the period.
Like "rotary" dial phones but with lightweight buttons instead of
holes. Real push button phones from that period were quite chuncky
and solid, even on the trimphone.

As your building is notionally stone I'd go for stone but not the
neat cut 1/3rds ratio brick like blocks that the 70 things here was
made from but truely random stone.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Adrian wrote in news:l7pepk$dhv$2
@speranza.aioe.org:

Oh, my lawdy... That is truly hideous.

Hideousness exists only in the mind of the beholder... which doesn't say a
lot for yours, really, does it?