I'm in the midst of removing all the luvverly tiles which somebody
lovingly stuck all over every single vertical surface (and many
horizontal ones too) of our bathroom back in the 70's. Yes, you can
imagine. Anyway, the plan is to get a plasterer in to skim everything
flat and smooth once I'm done.

All down one wall, however, I have discovered another layer of tiles
underneath the 1970s set. Not so unusual in itself, except that this
comprises a band of tiles about 4 or 5 deep, at about waist height, all
set into the adjacent plaster, ie the surface of the old tiles is flush
with the plaster. The old tiles and the adjacent plaster are clearly
both very old (spot the horsehairs) and presumably date back to the
original build (1912).

Question - before I get stuck into into the next layer of tiles, which
will mean more work for me and the plasterer, can anyone tell me if it's
possible/reasonable to key or treat the surface of the tiles with
something appropriate to enable them to be skimmed over? They are
glazed white ceramic, and very sound. My gut feeling is 'no' but does
anyone know better?!

Thanks
David

Lobster wrote:
I'm in the midst of removing all the luvverly tiles which somebody
lovingly stuck all over every single vertical surface (and many
horizontal ones too) of our bathroom back in the 70's. Yes, you can
imagine. Anyway, the plan is to get a plasterer in to skim everything
flat and smooth once I'm done.

All down one wall, however, I have discovered another layer of tiles
underneath the 1970s set. Not so unusual in itself, except that this
comprises a band of tiles about 4 or 5 deep, at about waist height, all
set into the adjacent plaster, ie the surface of the old tiles is flush
with the plaster. The old tiles and the adjacent plaster are clearly
both very old (spot the horsehairs) and presumably date back to the
original build (1912).

Question - before I get stuck into into the next layer of tiles, which
will mean more work for me and the plasterer, can anyone tell me if it's
possible/reasonable to key or treat the surface of the tiles with
something appropriate to enable them to be skimmed over? They are
glazed white ceramic, and very sound. My gut feeling is 'no' but does
anyone know better?!


If you paint the tiles with melamine primer, then PVA, you might just
get the plaster to stick sufficiently - but I really wouldn't do this.
Just chisel them off.


--
Grunff

Lobster wrote:

I'm in the midst of removing all the luvverly tiles which somebody
lovingly stuck all over every single vertical surface (and many
horizontal ones too) of our bathroom back in the 70's. Yes, you can
imagine. Anyway, the plan is to get a plasterer in to skim everything
flat and smooth once I'm done.

All down one wall, however, I have discovered another layer of tiles
underneath the 1970s set. Not so unusual in itself, except that this
comprises a band of tiles about 4 or 5 deep, at about waist height, all
set into the adjacent plaster, ie the surface of the old tiles is flush
with the plaster. The old tiles and the adjacent plaster are clearly
both very old (spot the horsehairs) and presumably date back to the
original build (1912).

Question - before I get stuck into into the next layer of tiles, which
will mean more work for me and the plasterer, can anyone tell me if it's
possible/reasonable to key or treat the surface of the tiles with
something appropriate to enable them to be skimmed over? They are
glazed white ceramic, and very sound. My gut feeling is 'no' but does
anyone know better?!

Try and get them out, soak in bricak acid, and sell for a fortune on ebay?


Thanks
David

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Lobster wrote:

I'm in the midst of removing all the luvverly tiles which somebody
lovingly stuck all over every single vertical surface (and many
horizontal ones too) of our bathroom back in the 70's. Yes, you can
imagine. Anyway, the plan is to get a plasterer in to skim everything
flat and smooth once I'm done.

All down one wall, however, I have discovered another layer of tiles
underneath the 1970s set. Not so unusual in itself, except that this
comprises a band of tiles about 4 or 5 deep, at about waist height,
all set into the adjacent plaster, ie the surface of the old tiles is
flush with the plaster. The old tiles and the adjacent plaster are
clearly both very old (spot the horsehairs) and presumably date back
to the original build (1912).

Question - before I get stuck into into the next layer of tiles, which
will mean more work for me and the plasterer, can anyone tell me if
it's possible/reasonable to key or treat the surface of the tiles with
something appropriate to enable them to be skimmed over? They are
glazed white ceramic, and very sound. My gut feeling is 'no' but does
anyone know better?!


Try and get them out, soak in bricak acid, and sell for a fortune on ebay?

!! Well I decided to lay into them actually; Grunff rather confirmed my
suspicion that it was the Right Thing To Do. (No way were the tiles
going to come off in one piece anyway though!)

Very odd - the original layer of tiles were stuck direct to the
brickwork with mortar, then evidently the plaster was applied, bringing
it up to the same level as the tiles (you could see where mortar had
splayed out from under the tiles, and was concealed by plaster). I
think this stretch of tiles was probably running the length of the
original bathtub; that's my theory.

Anyway... moving on, what's even more strange is that around the bottom
of two walls which are external, there is solid wood let into the wall,
up to about 6-7" up (ie looks a bit like skirting, but is flush with the
skimmed plaster. FWIW original skirting in this house was about 5"
deep). Furthermore, there is similar wood visible all the
way up the wall on the one corner which is external (a band about 1.5"
wide all the way up, again flush with the plaster). I can't tell how
'structural' this wood might be without attacking it. All this was
hitherto concealed under the 1970's tiles.

Can anyone hazard a guess as to what these timbers might be? If they
stay put they are going to cause me grief since AIUI it's a no-no to
apply plaster on top of wood, right?

Thanks

David

In article ,
Lobster writes:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Lobster wrote:
Question - before I get stuck into into the next layer of tiles, which
will mean more work for me and the plasterer, can anyone tell me if
it's possible/reasonable to key or treat the surface of the tiles with
something appropriate to enable them to be skimmed over? They are
glazed white ceramic, and very sound. My gut feeling is 'no' but does
anyone know better?!

Yes, you can plaster a sheet of glass if you PVA it first.

!! Well I decided to lay into them actually; Grunff rather confirmed my
suspicion that it was the Right Thing To Do. (No way were the tiles
going to come off in one piece anyway though!)

Very odd - the original layer of tiles were stuck direct to the
brickwork with mortar, then evidently the plaster was applied, bringing
it up to the same level as the tiles (you could see where mortar had
splayed out from under the tiles, and was concealed by plaster). I
think this stretch of tiles was probably running the length of the
original bathtub; that's my theory.

The original tiles may have been providing a moisture barrier.
Check the wall behind to see if it's damp. If it is, then when
it is replastered, that area should be done in sand and cement
with a waterproofer added, to prevent the moisture coming through
to the plaster finish coat.

Anyway... moving on, what's even more strange is that around the bottom
of two walls which are external, there is solid wood let into the wall,
up to about 6-7" up (ie looks a bit like skirting, but is flush with the
skimmed plaster. FWIW original skirting in this house was about 5"
deep). Furthermore, there is similar wood visible all the
way up the wall on the one corner which is external (a band about 1.5"
wide all the way up, again flush with the plaster). I can't tell how
'structural' this wood might be without attacking it. All this was
hitherto concealed under the 1970's tiles.

Can anyone hazard a guess as to what these timbers might be? If they

Could the horizontal one have been a wall plate (timber which joist
ends would have sat on) -- are there filled holes where joists might
once have gone into the wall on top of the wall plate?

stay put they are going to cause me grief since AIUI it's a no-no to
apply plaster on top of wood, right?

Providing it's not too thick, I think most plasterers will just
plaster over it. You could nail plasterboard strips over the
timber beforehand if you want.

--
Andrew Gabriel

Very odd - the original layer of tiles were stuck direct to the
brickwork with mortar, then evidently the plaster was applied, bringing
it up to the same level as the tiles (you could see where mortar had
splayed out from under the tiles, and was concealed by plaster). I
think this stretch of tiles was probably running the length of the
original bathtub; that's my theory.

our kitchen was like this - tiles bonded to the bricks with mortar about an
inch thick (about halfway up the wall), then plastered the rest of the way
up to the ceiling. A right pain getting it level after taking the tiles off!