dpb wrote:
On 5/30/2012 4:43 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
dpb wrote:


As CW notes I've also spent a lot of time in refurbishing pre- and
postbellum houses in Lynchburg, VA, that were built from the early
1800s to mid- to late 1880s.

Virtually every one of them had wide pine flooring that was
virtually the same as any conventional flooring today excepting for
the width.

They weren't tongue and grove though - were they? Around these
parts, most of the old stuff was just butted along the edges and the
ends.
They were laid to be close-joined and flat and were finished

Help me out here... close-joined? I think I can figure out what you
mean but I'd prefer to really understand that term.
....

They were laid w/ no gap and generally hand-planed in the oldest (SYP
almost always; some northern white pine but not often).


That's what I figured you meant. That's how my floors are laid, but there
are gaps now...

--

-Mike-

CW wrote:

They were definitely planed. Smooth right up to the comers. I saw a
lot of corners as I was rodent control (our lazy ass cat didn't
help).

High class barn! Around here - definitely more low class...

--

-Mike-

CW wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

CW wrote:

So, the house that the floor is to be installed in was built in the
1700s ?

Nope. It's about 200 years old and has been almost totally
remodeled/rebuilt. But - the original "rebuilders" did a good job of
trying to maintain the character of the original house. It sits on
exactly the same footprint, and that kind of thing.

It is probably noteworthy that while the experiences of folks in VA
represent very valid experiences, up here was a lot different 200
years ago. I haven't been fallowing this thread from the beginning so
I don't know where "up here" is.

Sorry - Central NY - around Syracuse. The eastern part of the state is a
lot older than the central and western parts, but there's some pretty old
stuff around here. I grew up outside of Albany and there is some very old
architecture around the Hudson Valley. Lots of pre-Revolutionary War stuff.
Really neat architecture there.

--

-Mike-

On 5/30/2012 6:26 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
....

So, you're not the first to raise that point. As I said in a different
post, my floors are put down with adhesive and cut nails, and I've been able
to lift them with a bar, with not much effort. Did I just get lucky, or is
adhesive usually more of a trouble than what I experienced?

Given some of the stuff I ran into in the aforementioned refurb's (these
were all essentially reclamation projects after quite a long time of
having been rentals) where all kinds of shortcuts were taken including
liberal use of construction adhesive I'd say you were very lucky,
indeed, to be able to remove things w/o destroying everything else in
sight (and more).

--

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

CW wrote:

They were definitely planed. Smooth right up to the comers. I saw a
lot of corners as I was rodent control (our lazy ass cat didn't
help).

High class barn! Around here - definitely more low class...
================================================== ===========================================

I wouldn't call that low class. I would call it smart. If I were building a
barn, rough sawn would be my choice.

On 5/30/2012 6:28 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
....

That's what I figured you meant. That's how my floors are laid, but there
are gaps now...

Some of them although terribly scratched, dented, and otherwise abused
still were so tight it would have been difficult to slip much more than
a playing card between the largest gaps. (As you may tell, that part of
the time in Lynchburg I recall w/ great fondness... ) Nothing like
it in Oak Ridge, TN, the town that wasn't until the Manhattan Project
era altho it did take a while to get used to the fact that there is
something other than faux=colonial for residential construction...

--

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

CW wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

CW wrote:

So, the house that the floor is to be installed in was built in the
1700s ?

Nope. It's about 200 years old and has been almost totally
remodeled/rebuilt. But - the original "rebuilders" did a good job of
trying to maintain the character of the original house. It sits on
exactly the same footprint, and that kind of thing.

It is probably noteworthy that while the experiences of folks in VA
represent very valid experiences, up here was a lot different 200
years ago. I haven't been fallowing this thread from the beginning so
I don't know where "up here" is.

Sorry - Central NY - around Syracuse. The eastern part of the state is a
lot older than the central and western parts, but there's some pretty old
stuff around here. I grew up outside of Albany and there is some very old
architecture around the Hudson Valley. Lots of pre-Revolutionary War stuff.
Really neat architecture there.
================================================== =================
I was in Massachusetts.

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
CW wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...


Sorry - Central NY - around Syracuse. The eastern part of the state is a
lot older than the central and western parts, but there's some pretty old
stuff around here. I grew up outside of Albany and there is some very old
architecture around the Hudson Valley. Lots of pre-Revolutionary War
stuff. Really neat architecture there.

Yup... just took a walk amongst stone houses dating from the 17th and 18th
century and frame houses from the Federalist Period up to recent years....
one intersection has stone houses on each of the four corners. The British
burned the place during the first war so there are no pre-war wooden
structures around nor the fort.

There is still a contingent of the Queen's 16th Light Dragoons (Red Coats)
camped not far from here... the buggers come back and torch the place every
few years for fun. We had the Commander, Don Beale, and one of his Privates
attend our woodworking club banquet a couple years ago to give an award to
the Woodworker of the Year. http://www.lobsterback.org/

Around here stone houses were common in the early days of the Colonies and
country and many of them survive to this day. When I worked in Williamsburg,
VA I noted that frame and brick structures were common in the same period.
To Mike's point, local materials and affluence dictated what was built and
how.... Now, via factories and 18 wheelers you can get what you want...

John

CW wrote:

I was in Massachusetts.

Cool - so you understand old architecture.

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
CW wrote:

I was in Massachusetts.

Cool - so you understand old architecture.

Just came across what is described as distressed hemlock barn board... I
think the texture is along the lines of what you described though the size
is clearly not.
http://catskills.craigslist.org/mat/3004997194.html

John Grossbohlin wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
CW wrote:

I was in Massachusetts.

Cool - so you understand old architecture.

Just came across what is described as distressed hemlock barn
board... I think the texture is along the lines of what you described
though the size is clearly not.
http://catskills.craigslist.org/mat/3004997194.html

That may be what he's after. I've sent the link off to him. I'm anxious to
see if that's what he has in his mind.

--

-Mike-

On Wed, 30 May 2012 17:28:55 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:



What my son is thinking about is what I might describe as half planed - or
what I believe they call skip planed. Run through the planer or through a
double drum sander, but not to the point of being nicely smoothed.

Sounds horrid to live with. He may think it looks nice, but keeping
them clean will be a bitch unless sealed well to take out the
recesses. It is nor really a period thing either. We have plenty of
200+ houses around here with original floors and they are pretty
smooth.

You may find rough flooring in some of the peasant cabins and such,
but the better larger houses are much more refined. My son's house is
up the street from Jonathan Trumbull's war office from the Revolution.
Some of the original flooring is equal to that done today.

On Wed, 30 May 2012 21:55:22 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
That may be what he's after. I've sent the link off to him. I'm anxious to
see if that's what he has in his mind.

I missed the beginning of this thread, but if someone is looking to
intentionally distress wood, then I have a home made solution for him.
http://festoolownersgroup.com/festoo...he-850-planer/

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 17:28:55 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:



What my son is thinking about is what I might describe as half
planed - or what I believe they call skip planed. Run through the
planer or through a double drum sander, but not to the point of
being nicely smoothed.

Sounds horrid to live with. He may think it looks nice, but keeping
them clean will be a bitch unless sealed well to take out the
recesses. It is nor really a period thing either. We have plenty of
200+ houses around here with original floors and they are pretty
smooth.


He is planning to seal it well with poly. A lot of poly. I thought I had
said that earlier, but maybe I didn't...

You may find rough flooring in some of the peasant cabins and such,
but the better larger houses are much more refined. My son's house is
up the street from Jonathan Trumbull's war office from the Revolution.
Some of the original flooring is equal to that done today.

Not contesting that there was some nice finish work back then, but there was
also a lot (and perhaps a lot more) lesser finish work back then. My son's
idea may not suit many people, but it is (if nothing else) refelctive of
what did exist 200 years ago.

--

-Mike-

Dave wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2012 21:55:22 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
That may be what he's after. I've sent the link off to him. I'm
anxious to see if that's what he has in his mind.

I missed the beginning of this thread, but if someone is looking to
intentionally distress wood, then I have a home made solution for him.
http://festoolownersgroup.com/festoo...he-850-planer/

Nope - just the opposite Dave. He's looking for a certain look and feel by
going with a more rough cut (though not just a simple rough cut) board. The
original post was intended to talk about how thin one could/should really go
with a wood floor plank.

--

-Mike-

On Tue, 29 May 2012 19:57:28 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

(snipped)

They went to a local mill and got prices, which really are not bad. My son
came up with the idea of asking the mill to simply run the lumber through
the band saw again, taking it from 1x8 to 1/2x8. His thought is that he can
end up with more lumber for less money, and enough savings to buy a planer
to touch them up with - or a double belt sander.

The lumber supplier I deal with sells "thin stock". Due to the labor
cost to mill the thin boards, along with the loss due to relieving the
stress in the thicker stock the thin stock is much more expensive (the
thinner the high the cost per bd/ft). An example, the current price
on 4/4 red oak is $3.30 bd/ft. 2/4 red oak is $6.50 bd/ft. I think
he would end up spending more.
--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

"Nova" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 May 2012 19:57:28 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

(snipped)

They went to a local mill and got prices, which really are not bad. My
son
came up with the idea of asking the mill to simply run the lumber through
the band saw again, taking it from 1x8 to 1/2x8. His thought is that he
can
end up with more lumber for less money, and enough savings to buy a planer
to touch them up with - or a double belt sander.

The lumber supplier I deal with sells "thin stock". Due to the labor
cost to mill the thin boards, along with the loss due to relieving the
stress in the thicker stock the thin stock is much more expensive (the
thinner the high the cost per bd/ft). An example, the current price
on 4/4 red oak is $3.30 bd/ft. 2/4 red oak is $6.50 bd/ft. I think
he would end up spending more.
--


Makes me wonder if they are just running the 4/4 through the thickness
planer to get it down to 2/4...

John

Nova wrote:
On Tue, 29 May 2012 19:57:28 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

(snipped)

They went to a local mill and got prices, which really are not bad.
My son came up with the idea of asking the mill to simply run the
lumber through the band saw again, taking it from 1x8 to 1/2x8. His
thought is that he can end up with more lumber for less money, and
enough savings to buy a planer to touch them up with - or a double
belt sander.

The lumber supplier I deal with sells "thin stock". Due to the labor
cost to mill the thin boards, along with the loss due to relieving the
stress in the thicker stock the thin stock is much more expensive (the
thinner the high the cost per bd/ft). An example, the current price
on 4/4 red oak is $3.30 bd/ft. 2/4 red oak is $6.50 bd/ft. I think
he would end up spending more.

That'd very interesting. Good input - thanks. I have not talked to my son
since the weekend, but I suspect that if he has talked to the sawyer, he's
probably already heard that his ideas aren't going to work.

--

-Mike-

On 5/31/2012 10:06 AM, John Grossbohlin wrote:

"Nova" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 May 2012 19:57:28 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

(snipped)

They went to a local mill and got prices, which really are not bad.
My son
came up with the idea of asking the mill to simply run the lumber
through
the band saw again, taking it from 1x8 to 1/2x8. His thought is that
he can
end up with more lumber for less money, and enough savings to buy a
planer
to touch them up with - or a double belt sander.

The lumber supplier I deal with sells "thin stock". Due to the labor
cost to mill the thin boards, along with the loss due to relieving the
stress in the thicker stock the thin stock is much more expensive (the
thinner the high the cost per bd/ft). An example, the current price
on 4/4 red oak is $3.30 bd/ft. 2/4 red oak is $6.50 bd/ft. I think
he would end up spending more.
--


Makes me wonder if they are just running the 4/4 through the thickness
planer to get it down to 2/4...

That would be the typical for small quantities...for large bundles they
may actually saw to 3/4 rough but a retailer probably just recoups the
cost of the rough stock and does just what you say...

--

My nails, either, but they start about 1/2" below the surface. These
nails will not be 1/2". I can see if it gets sealed on top and not
vapour barrier to the subfloor, the moistures would share and perhaps
equal expansions coefficients might prevent some splitting.

I have spent a lot of my life fighting standard ways on some issues and
it mostly gets revealed why the standard ways are tried and true.

Geeezz. I am in a town where raw oak flooring is sold for $1.25 per
sq.ft. Fresh sawn lumber is going to shrink and pull lots.

---------------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
You may be right on the splitting - that wood would be quite thin. As
for
the rusting - nope. My floors have been in 27 years and not a single
sign
of rust from the nails. Of course - gravity does do its thing and if
there
is rust, it's likely to be below the nail - not above it.

--------------
m II wrote:
Expect lot of splitting to the point the whole floor will likely be
replaced in a few years. Rusty nails may show through with staining
too.

--

-Mike-