So - my son just called with an idea for floors in a house they just bought.
They've yanked out most of the carpet, and are getting ready to put down
some sort of wood floors. Nothing is decided yet. There is a long story
behind this all, but the short version is that the subfloors are rock solid
(floor joists, sub floor, etc.), dead flat, etc., etc., etc.

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.

He does not want a fully planed finish on the boards. He wants something
more rustic since the house is an old home and he wants to maintain some of
the old character, so whatever he takes down on the surface of the boards is
going to be fairly minimal. His plan is to lay down something like Liquid
Nails, and face nail with cut nails.

So with that background - though it may defy conventional wisdom, what are
various thoughts on laying down a floor that really only measures 3/8 - 1/2
inch? Heck - today's laminates don't measure that much real wood. I can't
see any problems with the idea, but then again...

--

-Mike-

On May 29, 6:57*pm, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:
So - my son just called with an idea for floors in a house they just bought.
They've yanked out most of the carpet, and are getting ready to put down
some sort of wood floors. *Nothing is decided yet. *There is a long story
behind this all, but the short version is that the subfloors are rock solid
(floor joists, sub floor, etc.), dead flat, etc., etc., etc.

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.

He does not want a fully planed finish on the boards. *He wants something
more rustic since the house is an old home and he wants to maintain some of
the old character, so whatever he takes down on the surface of the boards is
going to be fairly minimal. *His plan is to lay down something like Liquid
Nails, and face nail with cut nails.

So with that background - though it may defy conventional wisdom, what are
various thoughts on laying down a floor that really only measures 3/8 - 1/2
inch? *Heck - today's laminates don't measure that much real wood. *I can't
see any problems with the idea, but then again...

--

-Mike-


Good luck with the mill and installation. Most "real" hardwood
flooring is 3/4" thick. I laid close to 1,000 sf of it about 3 years
ago when we built our home. There are some engineered hardwood
alternatives that are thinner but they have their own properties and
installation techniques that have nothing to do with what your son is
considering.

When you arbitrarily think of slicing hardwood flooring thinner you
get into:
- Most hardwood flooring is 3/4" thick. This flooring sliced in half
will end up less than 3/8 inch thick.
- It will be flexible to a point of being flimsy and squeaky.
- I would think most mills are not set up to cut the tongue and
groove edges of wood that is barely 1/4 - 3/8" thick.
- How does he plan to nail through the tongue of a product that will
be so tiny it will split out.

Come on now. I suspect the miller will get a chuckle.

RonB

RonB wrote:


When you arbitrarily think of slicing hardwood flooring thinner you
get into:
- Most hardwood flooring is 3/4" thick. This flooring sliced in half
will end up less than 3/8 inch thick.

Precisely. Not really knowing what that would mean to him in the long run
is what prompted me to post my questions.

- It will be flexible to a point of being flimsy and squeaky.

So, that's a point I would really want to understand better. As I had
stated in my original post, conventional wisdom is to go with a 1x material,
but is that really necessary? Perhaps it is. Don't know. I am interested
in dialog that really understands what the movements are on a good subfloor.
I sure don't know. I'm open to the fears of people who have dealt with this
stuff a lot and I'm open to new ideas.

- I would think most mills are not set up to cut the tongue and
groove edges of wood that is barely 1/4 - 3/8" thick.

My fault - no tongue and groove on this flooring. Simple butt joints side
to side and end to end.

- How does he plan to nail through the tongue of a product that will
be so tiny it will split out.

Face nail - using cut nails for the old look. That's what is in my house,
though my floor boards are 16" wide, and they have held up very well over 27
years, so he's going for that same effect, but using narrower boards.


Come on now. I suspect the miller will get a chuckle.


Perhaps - and I did suggest that to him. But then again - this is a rural
area where people do work with people, so who knows? We experienced a lot
more strange things than that in the past.

--

-Mike-

RonB wrote:


Good luck with the mill and installation. Most "real" hardwood
flooring is 3/4" thick. I laid close to 1,000 sf of it about 3 years
ago when we built our home. There are some engineered hardwood
alternatives that are thinner but they have their own properties and
installation techniques that have nothing to do with what your son is
considering.

I should have also stated - but did not, in the interest of brevity, that my
son has laid over 10,000 feet of traditional hardwood floor, and finished
the same. Not that having done that makes him any sort of expert (or else
he would not be inquiring about this...), and of course, it was traditional
hardwood flooring. Not the same ya know...


When you arbitrarily think of slicing hardwood flooring thinner you
get into:
- Most hardwood flooring is 3/4" thick. This flooring sliced in half
will end up less than 3/8 inch thick.
- It will be flexible to a point of being flimsy and squeaky.

Should have included this question/thought in my previous reply - what about
backings such as tar paper, foam, etc.?
All simply to reduce any potential squeak. These will be face nailed every
16", to the floor joists. (I think...)


--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
So - my son just called with an idea for floors in a house they just
bought. They've yanked out most of the carpet, and are getting ready to
put down some sort of wood floors. Nothing is decided yet. There is a
long story behind this all, but the short version is that the subfloors
are rock solid (floor joists, sub floor, etc.), dead flat, etc., etc.,
etc.

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.

He does not want a fully planed finish on the boards. He wants something
more rustic since the house is an old home and he wants to maintain some
of the old character, so whatever he takes down on the surface of the
boards is going to be fairly minimal. His plan is to lay down something
like Liquid Nails, and face nail with cut nails.

So with that background - though it may defy conventional wisdom, what are
various thoughts on laying down a floor that really only measures 3/8 -
1/2 inch? Heck - today's laminates don't measure that much real wood. I
can't see any problems with the idea, but then again...


Solid wood is a different animal from engineered flooring... Face nailing
precludes ever sanding it so the refinishing issue is negated... Square edge
would seem to be the only option with solid stock that thin but glued and
face nailed into the joists it would probably stay in place OK. You don't
mention how wide the boards are to be but regardless use no more than two
nails across when nailing and make sure the cut nails are oriented correctly
to avoid splitting.

That all said, would I do it? Probably not... no opportunity to
refinish/sand due to the face nailing and gluing the flooring to the
sub-floor would make it nearly impossible to remove. I'd be inclined to go
thicker, nail only, and lay it over something like rosin paper as was the
practice in years past. Of course if your son doesn't plan to be in the
house for very long non of that matters either!

John

John Grossbohlin wrote:


Solid wood is a different animal from engineered flooring... Face
nailing precludes ever sanding it so the refinishing issue is
negated... Square edge would seem to be the only option with solid
stock that thin but glued and face nailed into the joists it would
probably stay in place OK. You don't mention how wide the boards are
to be but regardless use no more than two nails across when nailing
and make sure the cut nails are oriented correctly to avoid splitting.


Good points - thanks John. To address them...

Face nailing and the refinishing issues are moot. He wants the same cut
nail effect that we have in our house, since his house is almost 200 years
old. Well... not really. A small part of his house is that old and the old
farmstead is that old. Most of the house is about 30 years old, rebuilt to
look like it was the original. Excellent construction, anal retentive in
fact... but very current, very solid and very true. But - he wants to
maintain that 200 year old character.

Square edges are the order of the day. Don't have to worry about T&G, or
any other similar issues.

The boards are probably going to be a nominal 8" wide. Not quite sure on
that part. The sawyer does have some stock up to 16" wide, but that's not
my son's decision - if you know what I mean...

I like the recommendation not to use more than two across. I just walked
out of the den and looked at my own floors and low and behold - no more than
two nails across, and these run from 14" to 16" wide. Never noticed that.
John - you are a good man!


That all said, would I do it? Probably not... no opportunity to
refinish/sand due to the face nailing and gluing the flooring to the
sub-floor would make it nearly impossible to remove.

Understood. That said - my floors are 27 years old and they do need
refinishing. The cut nails are set so the flooring can be sanded down. I
have pulled some of my boards up over time as I have changed rooms around
and a good bar was all I needed to lift the boards. I was actually
surprised how easily a board seated in liquid nails would come up. I
expected a lot more trouble.


I'd be inclined
to go thicker, nail only, and lay it over something like rosin paper
as was the practice in years past. Of course if your son doesn't
plan to be in the house for very long non of that matters either!

Oh hell - this is my son. Of course he plans to be there forever! Thanks
for the rosin paper idea. Valuable.

Your input is particularly valuable John because I know you live in the
mid-Hudson valley where houses were build a different way 200 years ago and
they are still standing and functional today - albeit with some issues...
That said, your frame of reference is different from the carte-blanche
technology of today, and that's what makes a forum like this very
worthwhile. Having grown up in that same area, seen the survival of those
old homes, and to a lesser degree the same thing here in the center of the
state, I genuinely appreciate the basis upon which your recommendations are
made. Thanks.

--

-Mike-

On 5/29/2012 6:57 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
....

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.

He does not want a fully planed finish on the boards. He wants something
more rustic since the house is an old home and he wants to maintain some of
the old character, so whatever he takes down on the surface of the boards is
going to be fairly minimal. His plan is to lay down something like Liquid
Nails, and face nail with cut nails.

So with that background - though it may defy conventional wisdom, what are
various thoughts on laying down a floor that really only measures 3/8 - 1/2
inch? Heck - today's laminates don't measure that much real wood. I can't
see any problems with the idea, but then again...

Agree w/ the other poster on the problem if face nail and w/ adhesive
mounting--if don't care about those issues it's workable as far as a
dimension but would seem self-limiting and essentially self-defeating in
the long run for the up front potential savings.

But, I'd guess the mill won't resaw 3/4" stuff even if asked; a sawmill
bandsaw is going to take a pretty good kerf compared to a resaw in a
typical woodworker shop and I doubt seriously if they have any good way
to feed the material already sawn--they slice it off a log at probably
4/4 and then surface to 3/4.

If you want to try to save a little on material by going thinner, if it
is a relatively small mill used to custom work your better chance will
be to ask them to saw some to finished 5/8 or 1/2 from the git-go but
don't expect to save half; they're going to charge on the bd-ft basis of
the raw stock it took to get the finish and you'll probably only save a
quarter or a little over.

All in all, I'd bite the bullet and go conventional I think...there's a
reason it's been that way lo! these many years.

--

dpb wrote:


But, I'd guess the mill won't resaw 3/4" stuff even if asked; a
sawmill bandsaw is going to take a pretty good kerf compared to a
resaw in a typical woodworker shop and I doubt seriously if they have
any good way to feed the material already sawn--they slice it off a
log at probably 4/4 and then surface to 3/4.

That remains the outstanding question, and the one my son has to take up
with the mill. As far as the kerf goes - it's farily negligible when one is
talking about a rough cut, full 1" plus dimension lumber - but I don't think
I mentioned that.


If you want to try to save a little on material by going thinner, if
it is a relatively small mill used to custom work your better chance
will be to ask them to saw some to finished 5/8 or 1/2 from the
git-go but don't expect to save half; they're going to charge on the
bd-ft basis of the raw stock it took to get the finish and you'll
probably only save a quarter or a little over.

A very real possibility -- which I had mentioned to him. It seems the guy
has stock stickered and will kiln dry what you order. That's what got my
son thinking about asking to have the stock resawed. As for the custom mill
aspect - that is very much the case here. Perhaps different from the more
metropolitan areas, getting custom work like this done around here is a lot
easier and a lot cheaper than most might be accustomed to. Still not sure
if we are stretching the definition of this though.

All the same, my questions are more around the matter of whether this idea
would pose any real problems.

All in all, I'd bite the bullet and go conventional I think...there's
a reason it's been that way lo! these many years.

Not a bad thought in its own right. I'm just finding myself now asking if
that is because of some conventional thing, or if there is a real reason.
To be fair - a lot of standards became standards simply to standardize.
Modern engineering knowledge has revealed a lot since those standards were
established.

--

-Mike-

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


Your input is particularly valuable John because I know you live in the
mid-Hudson valley where houses were build a different way 200 years ago
and they are still standing and functional today - albeit with some
issues... That said, your frame of reference is different from the
carte-blanche technology of today, and that's what makes a forum like this
very worthwhile. Having grown up in that same area, seen the survival of
those old homes, and to a lesser degree the same thing here in the center
of the state, I genuinely appreciate the basis upon which your
recommendations are made. Thanks.

I think my time working at Colonial Williamsburg, VA, on face nailed wood
floors, probably has a strong influence on my thoughts too... We had a lot
of foot traffic through those buildings and the floors were well worn...
except around the nails where little mounds of wood remained that showed the
original thickness. I saw a lot of traditional carpentry performed there too
under Roy Underhill's guidance. We've got a lot of houses around here that
date from the 17th and 18th century and maintenance is the key... that and
rebuilding them after the British burned them!

I'm mildly surprised the liquid nails pulled apart that easily... the film
thickness must be sufficient that the glue fractured when you pried upon it.
That kind of reinforces what I'd read about construction adhesives creeping
and that they shouldn't be used for things like torsion box beams and the
like...

I'm familiar with most of the building techniques used over the past few to
three hundred years.... right up to the latest and greatest modular, SIPs,
steel, etc. That said, I prefer the aesthetics of the old ways but prefer
the building efficiencies of the newer. I've been thinking about what I'd do
if I built another home and SIPs with a precast concrete foundation system
appeals to me for the structure... low-e glass, geo-thermal heat pump, air
to air fresh air heat exchanger, radiant floor heating,... blah blah blah..
Energy efficiency has become a major concern over the years. The finishing
materials would be more traditional... The shop would have a raised wood
floor over a concrete floored crawl space and have at least 10 feet of head
room. The raised floor is so that dust collection, vacuum system, air,
electric, water, etc. can be routed and moved easily and the wooden floor
would be more comfortable to walk and stand upon. That's my wish list...
reality is something else. ;~)

John

"dpb" wrote in message ...
On 5/29/2012 6:57 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
...

Agree w/ the other poster on the problem if face nail and w/ adhesive
mounting--if don't care about those issues it's workable as far as a
dimension but would seem self-limiting and essentially self-defeating in
the long run for the up front potential savings.

But, I'd guess the mill won't resaw 3/4" stuff even if asked; a sawmill
bandsaw is going to take a pretty good kerf compared to a resaw in a
typical woodworker shop and I doubt seriously if they have any good way to
feed the material already sawn--they slice it off a log at probably 4/4
and then surface to 3/4.

Yup... a resaw bandsaw would be the only way to deal with this on a
production level... While I'm sure it could be done on a bandsaw mill (e.g.,
place the board on top of and clinch to a mounted log that has had slices
removed already) it would be a chore. Doing it by hand on a vertical bandsaw
would be a chore too.


All in all, I'd bite the bullet and go conventional I think...there's a
reason it's been that way lo! these many years.

Yup again... course back in the way old days the finish floor was often the
sub-floor too in many structures so the thickness was needed. Note, that the
boards didn't have to be uniform in thickness as they were often fit to
match the other boards, and variance in the joists, by removing material
from the bottom of the floor boards. In the more recent old days, where a
finish floor was installed over a sub-floor, the thickness was there with
sanding and refinishing in mind. The new laminates are a different animal...

John

John Grossbohlin wrote:


I'm mildly surprised the liquid nails pulled apart that easily... the
film thickness must be sufficient that the glue fractured when you
pried upon it. That kind of reinforces what I'd read about
construction adhesives creeping and that they shouldn't be used for
things like torsion box beams and the like...


Yeah - I can't speak quantitatively about it - only experientialy. I only
know that when I pried them up, it was much easier than expected. Others
might be able to speak more authoritively about what one should expect. For
me - I was happy they came up as they did!



--

-Mike-

John Grossbohlin wrote:
"dpb" wrote in message
...


But, I'd guess the mill won't resaw 3/4" stuff even if asked; a
sawmill bandsaw is going to take a pretty good kerf compared to a
resaw in a typical woodworker shop and I doubt seriously if they
have any good way to feed the material already sawn--they slice it
off a log at probably 4/4 and then surface to 3/4.

Yup... a resaw bandsaw would be the only way to deal with this on a
production level... While I'm sure it could be done on a bandsaw mill
(e.g., place the board on top of and clinch to a mounted log that has
had slices removed already) it would be a chore. Doing it by hand on
a vertical bandsaw would be a chore too.


Ahhhh... the stupid observation! Thank you sir. Wrapped up in the thought
of simply cutting a board to a half dimension. I had not even thought about
how to do it and providing some sort of carrier for it. It all looks like
magic until you you look at it...


All in all, I'd bite the bullet and go conventional I
think...there's a reason it's been that way lo! these many years.

Yup again... course back in the way old days the finish floor was
often the sub-floor too in many structures so the thickness was
needed. Note, that the boards didn't have to be uniform in thickness
as they were often fit to match the other boards, and variance in the
joists, by removing material from the bottom of the floor boards. In
the more recent old days, where a finish floor was installed over a
sub-floor, the thickness was there with sanding and refinishing in
mind. The new laminates are a different animal...

Yeah - that's kinda where I was going with the question about just how thick
a floor board really needs to be today (on a good sub floor).

--

-Mike-

On 5/29/2012 9:18 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
John Grossbohlin wrote:
....

Yup... a resaw bandsaw would be the only way to deal with this on a
production level... While I'm sure it could be done on a bandsaw mill
(e.g., place the board on top of and clinch to a mounted log that has
had slices removed already) it would be a chore. Doing it by hand on
a vertical bandsaw would be a chore too.


Ahhhh... the stupid observation! Thank you sir. Wrapped up in the thought
of simply cutting a board to a half dimension. I had not even thought about
how to do it and providing some sort of carrier for it. It all looks like
magic until you you look at it...

What I was driving at expounded so it hit home...

....

Yeah - that's kinda where I was going with the question about just how thick
a floor board really needs to be today (on a good sub floor).

Well, to support you, not much.

The issues come more into the longterm--if it's just get a few years out
of something cheap as possible, sure; go for it. But if it is really a
home and intended to be there for the duration or a sizable fraction
thereof, even hardwood floors eventually need refinishing and the face
nailing pretty much eliminates that from ever being doable other than
perhaps you could manage to use a coarse enough paper to grind them down
flush, too, altho I'd guess it would be a chore. You wouldn't have much
left to try to reset them below grade and have any material left for
them to have purchase on to attack it that way.

The laminates are thin because the wear surface is _very_very_ hard and
expected to hold on w/o refinishing. The point in wood is for it to
actually look like wood not fake wood printed on plastic.

But, it'll have to be his call; I just doubt he'll save enough to make
up for the drawbacks.

--

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


His plan is to lay down something like Liquid
Nails, and face nail with cut nails.


So he will never have to remove it for a repair?

I can see the "save a buck now" being costly down the road.

On Tue, 29 May 2012 22:11:48 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

John Grossbohlin wrote:


I'm mildly surprised the liquid nails pulled apart that easily... the
film thickness must be sufficient that the glue fractured when you
pried upon it. That kind of reinforces what I'd read about
construction adhesives creeping and that they shouldn't be used for
things like torsion box beams and the like...


Yeah - I can't speak quantitatively about it - only experientialy. I only
know that when I pried them up, it was much easier than expected. Others
might be able to speak more authoritively about what one should expect. For
me - I was happy they came up as they did!
Liquid tacks would be more accurate.

PL Pro holds a bit better.

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


Solid wood is a different animal from engineered flooring... Face
nailing precludes ever sanding it so the refinishing issue is
negated... Square edge would seem to be the only option with solid
stock that thin but glued and face nailed into the joists it would
probably stay in place OK. You don't mention how wide the boards are
to be but regardless use no more than two nails across when nailing
and make sure the cut nails are oriented correctly to avoid splitting.


I know I was thinking it but it doesn't look like I keyed it.... Applying a
finish to flooring is a relatively recent thing in history. It would have
been quite common for floors to be unfinished in a 200 year old
building/home. Wear would have been an issue due to the lack of finish and
the fact that a lot of dirt was tracked in... no blacktop or concrete walks,
roads or driveways and no vacuums. This situation too would demand thicker
flooring for longevity.

John

Mike Marlow wrote:
So - my son just called with an idea for floors in a house they just
bought. They've yanked out most of the carpet, and are getting ready
to put down some sort of wood floors. Nothing is decided yet. There
is a long story behind this all, but the short version is that the
subfloors are rock solid (floor joists, sub floor, etc.), dead flat,
etc., etc., etc.
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.
He does not want a fully planed finish on the boards. He wants
something more rustic since the house is an old home and he wants to
maintain some of the old character, so whatever he takes down on the
surface of the boards is going to be fairly minimal. His plan is to
lay down something like Liquid Nails, and face nail with cut nails.

So with that background - though it may defy conventional wisdom,
what are various thoughts on laying down a floor that really only
measures 3/8 - 1/2 inch? Heck - today's laminates don't measure that
much real wood. I can't see any problems with the idea, but then
again...

I'm thinking he would be much better off using unsplit lumber. Elsewhere,
you said he was planing on 8" wide boards. If they are split, there isn't
much meat under the nail head to keep them down and in place when they cup.
And they they WILL cup.

You didn't mention what kind of wood he was considering. Used to be a lot
of softwood floors and those wear pretty fast. When they do, nails are left
proud. Less a potential for that with hardwood or even SYP.

Then there are the cracks. He would be hard put to lay 8" boards and get
the board edges chock-a-block. The cracks will fill up with crud.

My wife wound up with a rustic log house last year. The second floor has 1
1/2 T&G SYP floors. Planks are about 8" wide, maybe a bit less. There are
cracks up to 1/2" wide between boards; most are 1/8" or so. Even though
they are T&G, the boards were faced nailed and the heads set down a bit.
All the nail holes are torn, look like hell. So do the cracks. Top was
made rustic via whatever the coarsest grit is for a drum floor sander. The
dings left by it add to the "rustic" flavor. The whole thing looks like
hell.

Depends on what one wants I guess but if it were me I'd split the width of
the boards but not the thickness. I'd have T&G milled into at least the
edges and the bottoms relieved..

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

Despite anyone's experience laying hardwood floor, laying thin boards
is a recipe for trouble, IMO.

You didn't say if the milled boards will be kiln dried. If they are
not, then the thin boards will be subject to even greater issues with
expansion and contraction or checking, than with thicker boards. If
they are not kiln dried, a resaw will release more tension, within the
boards, likely causing more distortion. Further dressing (planing)
would likely result in additional distortion. If they will be kiln
dried, then some of these issues may not be so pronounced.

My rationale: For non-kilned lumber, if ripping a 1" board on the
tablesaw can release tension or show a moisture issue, by bowing as
you saw, then resawing and planing an 8" wide non-kilned board will
likely show similar and/or more distortion effects. There may end up
being more waste lumber, than with using thicker lumber.

Sonny

dadiOH wrote:


I'm thinking he would be much better off using unsplit lumber. Elsewhere,
you said he was planing on 8" wide boards. If they are
split, there isn't much meat under the nail head to keep them down
and in place when they cup. And they they WILL cup.

You didn't mention what kind of wood he was considering. Used to be
a lot of softwood floors and those wear pretty fast. When they do,
nails are left proud. Less a potential for that with hardwood or
even SYP.

I'm pretty sure he said the boards were Hemlock, but I'll have to double
check on that. Mine are Hemlock I believe and as I said in a different
reply, they run 14-16" wide. Ours are 27 years old and they don't cup at
all, but they do grow and shrink in the different seasons, as you might
expect. When the wood stove is burning the cracks between them are double
the size they are in the summer time.

Then there are the cracks. He would be hard put to lay 8" boards and
get the board edges chock-a-block. The cracks will fill up with crud.

You definitely put up with that if you butt the edges of floor boards
together - they do move in the seasons. The vacuum pretty well clears the
crud out, although there have had to get down there and work some of the
stuff out. Not often - but it's certainly an occassional requirement.
Because our cracks can be pretty significant in the heating season, it may
actually be easier for us to keep them cleaned out with the vacuum.


My wife wound up with a rustic log house last year. The second floor
has 1 1/2 T&G SYP floors. Planks are about 8" wide, maybe a bit
less. There are cracks up to 1/2" wide between boards; most are 1/8"
or so. Even though they are T&G, the boards were faced nailed and
the heads set down a bit. All the nail holes are torn, look like
hell. So do the cracks. Top was made rustic via whatever the
coarsest grit is for a drum floor sander. The dings left by it add
to the "rustic" flavor. The whole thing looks like hell.


I remember you mentioning the log home acquisition. My second floor is the
same as yours. I hate it. It has moved over time, much more than the
floors downstairs. Huge movement in some places. I'm still thinking about
what I am going to do to ultimately address that, but it's so far down the
road in our plans right now, that I only casually think about it. When the
time comes, I may just rip it all up and lay something new. But... that's
way out in the future for me.



Depends on what one wants I guess but if it were me I'd split the
width of the boards but not the thickness. I'd have T&G milled into
at least the edges and the bottoms relieved..

You are right in that it really does depend on what one wants. I love the
floors in my first floor. They are a perfect fit for the feel of our home.
The gaps between boards are just part of that. They would be an awful fit
in a different type of home though. I'm going to be knocking out some walls
and opening areas up soon, as well as changing the layout of rooms, etc. At
that time, I'll probably invest a few days and pull all of the flooring up,
re-lay it tight, and go on from there. It will still move, but we can
minimize some of those gaps. The floors need refinishing now - 27 years of
traffic. Mostly, we're talking about finish issues and not about wear of
the wood itself. I'm very surprised at how well the wood has held up to
traffic over all these years. The amount of wear to the wood is very, very
minimal. But again - I say that because some things look perfectly in place
in a log home, that would look perfectly out of place in a raised ranch.

--

-Mike-

Sonny wrote:
Despite anyone's experience laying hardwood floor, laying thin boards
is a recipe for trouble, IMO.

You didn't say if the milled boards will be kiln dried. If they are
not, then the thin boards will be subject to even greater issues with
expansion and contraction or checking, than with thicker boards. If
they are not kiln dried, a resaw will release more tension, within the
boards, likely causing more distortion. Further dressing (planing)
would likely result in additional distortion. If they will be kiln
dried, then some of these issues may not be so pronounced.

Sorry - I thought I had included that in one of my responses. Yes - the
boards are kiln dried, after the purchase. They are stickered until the
time of purchase.


My rationale: For non-kilned lumber, if ripping a 1" board on the
tablesaw can release tension or show a moisture issue, by bowing as
you saw, then resawing and planing an 8" wide non-kilned board will
likely show similar and/or more distortion effects. There may end up
being more waste lumber, than with using thicker lumber.


Very good. This is exactly the kind of thought that I was hoping to
generate with this thread. Granted - it's wood and none of us can know for
sure how any piece of wood is going to act or react, but generating
different thoughts and considerations is very valuable. Some of the
thoughts might be "obvious", and some might be reflective of experiences,
but all are worthwhile when talking about something that is unconventional.

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Sonny wrote:
Despite anyone's experience laying hardwood floor, laying thin boards
is a recipe for trouble, IMO.

You didn't say if the milled boards will be kiln dried. If they are
not, then the thin boards will be subject to even greater issues with
expansion and contraction or checking, than with thicker boards. If
they are not kiln dried, a resaw will release more tension, within the
boards, likely causing more distortion. Further dressing (planing)
would likely result in additional distortion. If they will be kiln
dried, then some of these issues may not be so pronounced.

Sorry - I thought I had included that in one of my responses. Yes - the
boards are kiln dried, after the purchase. They are stickered until the
time of purchase.


My rationale: For non-kilned lumber, if ripping a 1" board on the
tablesaw can release tension or show a moisture issue, by bowing as
you saw, then resawing and planing an 8" wide non-kilned board will
likely show similar and/or more distortion effects. There may end up
being more waste lumber, than with using thicker lumber.


Very good. This is exactly the kind of thought that I was hoping to
generate with this thread. Granted - it's wood and none of us can know
for sure how any piece of wood is going to act or react, but generating
different thoughts and considerations is very valuable. Some of the
thoughts might be "obvious", and some might be reflective of experiences,
but all are worthwhile when talking about something that is
unconventional.

Then again... if it's run through the thickness planer without jointing
first, so that you end up with parallel (co-planer) faces though not
necessarily flat faces, that is about all that matters. Why? Because you are
nailing it down every 16 (or 24 inches) to a flat sub-floor and the flooring
can be forced straight and flat as it's nailed. As such uniform thickness
and maybe parallel edges are the most important considerations. I'm not
convinced parallel edges matter all that much if the boards extend all the
way across the room without butt joints...

Look at floors in real old buildings and you will see edges aren't always
parallel and boards nailed to joists aren't the same thickness as they are
adjusted in thickness at the joists to compensate for varying joist
thickness and floor thickness.

John

John Grossbohlin wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Sonny wrote:
Despite anyone's experience laying hardwood floor, laying thin
boards is a recipe for trouble, IMO.

You didn't say if the milled boards will be kiln dried. If they are
not, then the thin boards will be subject to even greater issues
with expansion and contraction or checking, than with thicker
boards. If they are not kiln dried, a resaw will release more
tension, within the boards, likely causing more distortion. Further
dressing (planing) would likely result in additional
distortion. If they will be kiln dried, then some of these issues
may not be so pronounced.

Sorry - I thought I had included that in one of my responses. Yes -
the boards are kiln dried, after the purchase. They are stickered
until the time of purchase.


My rationale: For non-kilned lumber, if ripping a 1" board on the
tablesaw can release tension or show a moisture issue, by bowing as
you saw, then resawing and planing an 8" wide non-kilned board will
likely show similar and/or more distortion effects. There may end
up being more waste lumber, than with using thicker lumber.


Very good. This is exactly the kind of thought that I was hoping to
generate with this thread. Granted - it's wood and none of us can
know for sure how any piece of wood is going to act or react, but
generating different thoughts and considerations is very valuable. Some
of the thoughts might be "obvious", and some might be
reflective of experiences, but all are worthwhile when talking about
something that is unconventional.

Then again... if it's run through the thickness planer without
jointing first, so that you end up with parallel (co-planer) faces
though not necessarily flat faces, that is about all that matters.
Why? Because you are nailing it down every 16 (or 24 inches) to a
flat sub-floor and the flooring can be forced straight and flat as
it's nailed. As such uniform thickness and maybe parallel edges are
the most important considerations. I'm not convinced parallel edges
matter all that much if the boards extend all the way across the room
without butt joints...
Look at floors in real old buildings and you will see edges aren't
always parallel and boards nailed to joists aren't the same thickness
as they are adjusted in thickness at the joists to compensate for
varying joist thickness and floor thickness.


Thanks again John. Your input is extreemly valuable as you have the eye and
the appreciation for the old stuff. It really does take a different
perspective to think through this kind of question. So many of the things
that we might do in contemporary times just lose their validity when talking
about period stuff. Of course, the effect my son is looking for is not for
everyone, but I do appreciate the persective you bring.

--

-Mike-

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

John Grossbohlin wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Sonny wrote:
Despite anyone's experience laying hardwood floor, laying thin
boards is a recipe for trouble, IMO.

You didn't say if the milled boards will be kiln dried. If they are
not, then the thin boards will be subject to even greater issues
with expansion and contraction or checking, than with thicker
boards. If they are not kiln dried, a resaw will release more
tension, within the boards, likely causing more distortion. Further
dressing (planing) would likely result in additional
distortion. If they will be kiln dried, then some of these issues
may not be so pronounced.

Sorry - I thought I had included that in one of my responses. Yes -
the boards are kiln dried, after the purchase. They are stickered
until the time of purchase.


My rationale: For non-kilned lumber, if ripping a 1" board on the
tablesaw can release tension or show a moisture issue, by bowing as
you saw, then resawing and planing an 8" wide non-kilned board will
likely show similar and/or more distortion effects. There may end
up being more waste lumber, than with using thicker lumber.


Very good. This is exactly the kind of thought that I was hoping to
generate with this thread. Granted - it's wood and none of us can
know for sure how any piece of wood is going to act or react, but
generating different thoughts and considerations is very valuable. Some
of the thoughts might be "obvious", and some might be
reflective of experiences, but all are worthwhile when talking about
something that is unconventional.

Then again... if it's run through the thickness planer without
jointing first, so that you end up with parallel (co-planer) faces
though not necessarily flat faces, that is about all that matters.
Why? Because you are nailing it down every 16 (or 24 inches) to a
flat sub-floor and the flooring can be forced straight and flat as
it's nailed. As such uniform thickness and maybe parallel edges are
the most important considerations. I'm not convinced parallel edges
matter all that much if the boards extend all the way across the room
without butt joints...
Look at floors in real old buildings and you will see edges aren't
always parallel and boards nailed to joists aren't the same thickness
as they are adjusted in thickness at the joists to compensate for
varying joist thickness and floor thickness.


Thanks again John. Your input is extreemly valuable as you have the eye and
the appreciation for the old stuff. It really does take a different
perspective to think through this kind of question. So many of the things
that we might do in contemporary times just lose their validity when talking
about period stuff. Of course, the effect my son is looking for is not for
everyone, but I do appreciate the persective you bring.
================================================== =================
When I was a kid, I lived in a couple of houses that were built in the 1800s
and been in lots more. All had fully planed smooth floors. Even the old
farmhouse we lived in, the attached barn had smooth hardwood floors.

They went to a local mill and got prices, which really are not bad.

The first site with prices, $3.00/bd ft for 1X8 kiln dried rough cut
hemlock: http://www.sawbiz.com/products/1_inch_lumber.html

*His thought is that he can
end up with more lumber for less money,

Half as much lumber for half the price of 1" stock!


Just some figures -
For a 2000 sq ft house, buying 1" boards @ $3/ bd ft = $6K

Buying 1000 bd ft and resawing @ $0.30/ bd ft (guessing) would total:
$3K + $350 = $3,350. *Planing boards cost $0.60/bd ft, so I guessed
resawing would be half as much as planing.

For hardwood flooring to cost only $6K to cover the whole house is
pretty darn cheap. Saving $2650 and have a subpar(?) floor may not
be a good deal. If the house and its flooring is in great shape, why
not keep it that way? Don't sacrifice your home's quality, in order
to have a new planer.

Sonny

A new 1" hardwood floor will be used EVERY day! The planer will not.
A new 1" floor will be much more appreciated, than any planer will
ever be.

Sonny

On 5/30/2012 10:16 AM, Mike Marlow wrote:
....

... It really does take a different
perspective to think through this kind of question. So many of the things
that we might do in contemporary times just lose their validity when talking
about period stuff. Of course, the effect my son is looking for is not for
everyone, but I do appreciate the persective you bring.

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 were laid to be close-joined and flat and were finished (generally
shellac) well. Of course, over the intervening years most of these had
seen very rough usage and damage from all sorts of causes but the basic
flooring installation had nothing particularly different than a
"contemporary" hardwood floor would have.

A few of the really upscale Federal-era houses had more expensive
material than the local pine; northern white pine or various native
hardwoods. Interestingly enough, in that area until very late 19th or
early 20th century, walnut was pretty much considered a 'trash' wood
rather than a prized cabinet wood as we think of it. It was often used
as the construction lumber in houses from trees cleared off the land
where the house/building was constructed. I bought about 40,000 bd-ft
from the salvage demolition of an old school house in which the bulk of
the floor beams and joists were walnut or oak. They varied from full
dimension 8/4 to 16/4 by 8 to as wide as 12 and up to 20-ft in length.
I paid $1000 for the lot...

--

"CW" wrote in message
...


"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

John Grossbohlin wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Sonny wrote:
Despite anyone's experience laying hardwood floor, laying thin
boards is a recipe for trouble, IMO.

You didn't say if the milled boards will be kiln dried. If they are
not, then the thin boards will be subject to even greater issues
with expansion and contraction or checking, than with thicker
boards. If they are not kiln dried, a resaw will release more
tension, within the boards, likely causing more distortion. Further
dressing (planing) would likely result in additional
distortion. If they will be kiln dried, then some of these issues
may not be so pronounced.

Sorry - I thought I had included that in one of my responses. Yes -
the boards are kiln dried, after the purchase. They are stickered
until the time of purchase.


My rationale: For non-kilned lumber, if ripping a 1" board on the
tablesaw can release tension or show a moisture issue, by bowing as
you saw, then resawing and planing an 8" wide non-kilned board will
likely show similar and/or more distortion effects. There may end
up being more waste lumber, than with using thicker lumber.


Very good. This is exactly the kind of thought that I was hoping to
generate with this thread. Granted - it's wood and none of us can
know for sure how any piece of wood is going to act or react, but
generating different thoughts and considerations is very valuable. Some
of the thoughts might be "obvious", and some might be
reflective of experiences, but all are worthwhile when talking about
something that is unconventional.

Then again... if it's run through the thickness planer without
jointing first, so that you end up with parallel (co-planer) faces
though not necessarily flat faces, that is about all that matters.
Why? Because you are nailing it down every 16 (or 24 inches) to a
flat sub-floor and the flooring can be forced straight and flat as
it's nailed. As such uniform thickness and maybe parallel edges are
the most important considerations. I'm not convinced parallel edges
matter all that much if the boards extend all the way across the room
without butt joints...
Look at floors in real old buildings and you will see edges aren't
always parallel and boards nailed to joists aren't the same thickness
as they are adjusted in thickness at the joists to compensate for
varying joist thickness and floor thickness.


Thanks again John. Your input is extreemly valuable as you have the eye
and
the appreciation for the old stuff. It really does take a different
perspective to think through this kind of question. So many of the things
that we might do in contemporary times just lose their validity when
talking
about period stuff. Of course, the effect my son is looking for is not
for
everyone, but I do appreciate the persective you bring.
================================================== =================
When I was a kid, I lived in a couple of houses that were built in the
1800s and been in lots more. All had fully planed smooth floors. Even the
old farmhouse we lived in, the attached barn had smooth hardwood floors.

That is reasonable for post industrial revolution construction where
water/steam driven machinary, including planers, were in use. The Victorian
era with all the factory made ginderbread, windows, doors, etc. was where
such fabrication became very noticeable. Visit say a Shaker site and see
that they had water driven saws, jointers and planers and took full
advantage of those tools by the mid to late 1800s.

Go back another hundred years plus to the 1700s and before when pit saws,
perhaps water driven reciprocating saws, and hand surfacing was the norm...
Visit say Williamsburg, VA, and look at the buildings they are building
using 18th century technology. I know recent work was done at the blacksmith
shop location but if the building they put up in their 1980s is still on
that site look at the way the boards were fit to the ceiling/floor joists
for the ceiling/upstairs. Note that the floors throughout town were not
finished.

Figuring out what is period-correct for a home is somewhat dependent upon
what technology was available at the time it was built and the transpiration
available to move finished or raw materials. I've been in 18th century
homes in which modern oak strip flooring had been installed... looked
completely wrong next to the hand made doors, windows and trim.... though
someone obviously thought it was an upgrade somewhere along the way.

John

John

"John Grossbohlin" wrote in message
m...


"CW" wrote in message
...


"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

John Grossbohlin wrote:
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Sonny wrote:
Despite anyone's experience laying hardwood floor, laying thin
boards is a recipe for trouble, IMO.

You didn't say if the milled boards will be kiln dried. If they are
not, then the thin boards will be subject to even greater issues
with expansion and contraction or checking, than with thicker
boards. If they are not kiln dried, a resaw will release more
tension, within the boards, likely causing more distortion. Further
dressing (planing) would likely result in additional
distortion. If they will be kiln dried, then some of these issues
may not be so pronounced.

Sorry - I thought I had included that in one of my responses. Yes -
the boards are kiln dried, after the purchase. They are stickered
until the time of purchase.


My rationale: For non-kilned lumber, if ripping a 1" board on the
tablesaw can release tension or show a moisture issue, by bowing as
you saw, then resawing and planing an 8" wide non-kilned board will
likely show similar and/or more distortion effects. There may end
up being more waste lumber, than with using thicker lumber.


Very good. This is exactly the kind of thought that I was hoping to
generate with this thread. Granted - it's wood and none of us can
know for sure how any piece of wood is going to act or react, but
generating different thoughts and considerations is very valuable. Some
of the thoughts might be "obvious", and some might be
reflective of experiences, but all are worthwhile when talking about
something that is unconventional.

Then again... if it's run through the thickness planer without
jointing first, so that you end up with parallel (co-planer) faces
though not necessarily flat faces, that is about all that matters.
Why? Because you are nailing it down every 16 (or 24 inches) to a
flat sub-floor and the flooring can be forced straight and flat as
it's nailed. As such uniform thickness and maybe parallel edges are
the most important considerations. I'm not convinced parallel edges
matter all that much if the boards extend all the way across the room
without butt joints...
Look at floors in real old buildings and you will see edges aren't
always parallel and boards nailed to joists aren't the same thickness
as they are adjusted in thickness at the joists to compensate for
varying joist thickness and floor thickness.


Thanks again John. Your input is extreemly valuable as you have the eye
and
the appreciation for the old stuff. It really does take a different
perspective to think through this kind of question. So many of the things
that we might do in contemporary times just lose their validity when
talking
about period stuff. Of course, the effect my son is looking for is not
for
everyone, but I do appreciate the persective you bring.
================================================== =================
When I was a kid, I lived in a couple of houses that were built in the
1800s and been in lots more. All had fully planed smooth floors. Even the
old farmhouse we lived in, the attached barn had smooth hardwood floors.

That is reasonable for post industrial revolution construction where
water/steam driven machinary, including planers, were in use. The Victorian
era with all the factory made ginderbread, windows, doors, etc. was where
such fabrication became very noticeable. Visit say a Shaker site and see
that they had water driven saws, jointers and planers and took full
advantage of those tools by the mid to late 1800s.

Go back another hundred years plus to the 1700s and before when pit saws,
perhaps water driven reciprocating saws, and hand surfacing was the norm...
Visit say Williamsburg, VA, and look at the buildings they are building
using 18th century technology. I know recent work was done at the blacksmith
shop location but if the building they put up in their 1980s is still on
that site look at the way the boards were fit to the ceiling/floor joists
for the ceiling/upstairs. Note that the floors throughout town were not
finished.

Figuring out what is period-correct for a home is somewhat dependent upon
what technology was available at the time it was built and the transpiration
available to move finished or raw materials. I've been in 18th century
homes in which modern oak strip flooring had been installed... looked
completely wrong next to the hand made doors, windows and trim.... though
someone obviously thought it was an upgrade somewhere along the way.
================================================== =======================
So, the house that the floor is to be installed in was built in the 1700s ?

dpb wrote:
I bought about 40,000
bd-ft from the salvage demolition of an old school house in which the
bulk of the floor beams and joists were walnut or oak. They varied
from full dimension 8/4 to 16/4 by 8 to as wide as 12 and up to 20-ft
in length. I paid $1000 for the lot...

You sure know how to hurt a guy

--

dadiOH
____________________________

dadiOH's dandies v3.06...
....a help file of info about MP3s, recording from
LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that.
Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico

On 5/30/2012 2:43 PM, dadiOH wrote:
dpb wrote:
I bought about 40,000
bd-ft from the salvage demolition of an old school house in which the
bulk of the floor beams and joists were walnut or oak. They varied
from full dimension 8/4 to 16/4 by 8 to as wide as 12 and up to 20-ft
in length. I paid $1000 for the lot...

You sure know how to hurt a guy

Yeah; I wish I still had some of it...I suppose there may be a good
fraction still in the basements of the old warehouse/storefront building
we used as a shop in downtown Lynchburg by gratis from the owner. My
partner at the time ran the shop but converted to making high platform
shoes for the Craddock-Terry shoe plant in the heyday of those
abominations being so popular and they were all soft maple. Then he got
a debilitating case of arrthur-itis that laid him up entirely even after
hip transplants and I moved to TN and life intervened and have never
managed to get there to retrieve it...we sold a sizable fraction to
finance the initial shop setup.

But that $1000 seemed like a tremendous amount of money to a young punk
right out of school in the very early '70s...It took some real
stretching to cover that check before getting some of it back!

--

CW wrote:

When I was a kid, I lived in a couple of houses that were built in
the 1800s and been in lots more. All had fully planed smooth floors.
Even the old farmhouse we lived in, the attached barn had smooth
hardwood floors.

Our barn also had very smooth hardwood floors in the haymow - but that was
from years of use, not from having been planed. Were yours the same, or had
they been planed? Ours were almost slick from all of those years of having
hay moved about on them. A lot of the wood in the barn was not subject to
this kind of friction over the years and was very clearly simple rough cut.

I've seen a lot of old farm house floors that were either not planed, or
perhaps not fully planed. Rough texture to them - some amount of the rough
surface remaining. You could see it in the less traffic'd areas of the
floor (in the paint). Of course, where it was heavily traffic'd, it was
quite smooth.

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.

--

-Mike-

Sonny wrote:
They went to a local mill and got prices, which really are not bad.

The first site with prices, $3.00/bd ft for 1X8 kiln dried rough cut
hemlock: http://www.sawbiz.com/products/1_inch_lumber.html


The price he got yesterday was $2.40 per square foot. Not a mistake - he
asked for square foot pricing. That was a kiln dried, planed price.


His thought is that he can
end up with more lumber for less money,

Half as much lumber for half the price of 1" stock!

Well - he is hoping to end up with a better price by not planing the wood.
It is quite possible that even if the sawyer would do the resaw for him, it
would not end up any cheaper.


Just some figures -
For a 2000 sq ft house, buying 1" boards @ $3/ bd ft = $6K

Buying 1000 bd ft and resawing @ $0.30/ bd ft (guessing) would total:
$3K + $350 = $3,350. *Planing boards cost $0.60/bd ft, so I guessed
resawing would be half as much as planing.

For hardwood flooring to cost only $6K to cover the whole house is
pretty darn cheap. Saving $2650 and have a subpar(?) floor may not
be a good deal. If the house and its flooring is in great shape, why
not keep it that way? Don't sacrifice your home's quality, in order
to have a new planer.


The existing flooring is just subfloor. It had been carpeted throughout.
And... in an ugly 1970's carpet! Maintained immaculately - you would not
believe how clean everything that they tore up was. But - new floors are
certainly in order.

He priced new carpet and he can do floors in wood for what the carpet guys
want - if he goes the route of the local mill and installs it himself. He's
very capable of installing and finishing the floors - including sanding
them, so he has lots of great options.

--

-Mike-

Sonny wrote:

A new 1" hardwood floor will be used EVERY day! The planer will not.
A new 1" floor will be much more appreciated, than any planer will
ever be.


Clearly you have figured out that he is married...

He would appreciate that new planer every day, but...

--

-Mike-

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.



A few of the really upscale Federal-era houses had more expensive
material than the local pine; northern white pine or various native
hardwoods. Interestingly enough, in that area until very late 19th or
early 20th century, walnut was pretty much considered a 'trash' wood
rather than a prized cabinet wood as we think of it. It was often
used as the construction lumber in houses from trees cleared off the
land where the house/building was constructed. I bought about 40,000
bd-ft from the salvage demolition of an old school house in which the
bulk of the floor beams and joists were walnut or oak. They varied
from full dimension 8/4 to 16/4 by 8 to as wide as 12 and up to 20-ft
in length. I paid $1000 for the lot...

I was going to snip the last bit (above), but it's just too cool to snip.
Good historical narative, and a really rotten story to go with it. You
clearly suck...

--

-Mike-

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.
This was a farming area, not blessed with the wealth of VA, 200 years ago.
So - while Lynchburg might have been doing some things with their
architecure back then, not all of those same things were being done by the
"simple folks" around here at that same time. We do have the other end of
the spectrum - the real wealth, as this area has been settled since Hendrick
Hudson sailed up the Hudson River. But - most farm houses don't fall into
that category, and they employed different techniques than the upscale
(sorry Dave...) stuff which didn't make it into their homes.

What my son is after is not a period restoration. He's looking to do
something that he likes, and that fits (in terms of character) with the
house/farm as a whole.

--

-Mike-

On 5/30/2012 4:55 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
....

What my son is after is not a period restoration. He's looking to do
something that he likes, and that fits (in terms of character) with the
house/farm as a whole.

I missed that the house really was old--I thought it was just an attempt
to create a look.

You/he'll have to suit yourselves but to me it seems almost sacrilege to
put something like this down w/ adhesive...if the structure is worth
anything as far as its heritage it is worth not doing something
essentially irreversible.

--

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).

By the Federal period, indeed there was a fair amount of T&G altho not
always.

Some of the most impressive in those were the staircases and the
paneling in the entryways--one, in particular had 24" wide white pine
raised panels in the wainscot out of single boards; all perfectly clear
stock.

I was going to snip the last bit (above), but it's just too cool to snip.
Good historical narative, and a really rotten story to go with it. You
clearly suck...

OK, I snipped it for you...

It was a find, indeed. Of course, I was buying white oak from the local
mills for $100/M and walnut for $150 for tree-run and $200 or a little
over for 1C/2C. Times have changed...

--

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...

CW wrote:

When I was a kid, I lived in a couple of houses that were built in
the 1800s and been in lots more. All had fully planed smooth floors.
Even the old farmhouse we lived in, the attached barn had smooth
hardwood floors.

Our barn also had very smooth hardwood floors in the haymow - but that was
from years of use, not from having been planed. Were yours the same, or had
they been planed? Ours were almost slick from all of those years of having
hay moved about on them. A lot of the wood in the barn was not subject to
this kind of friction over the years and was very clearly simple rough cut.

I've seen a lot of old farm house floors that were either not planed, or
perhaps not fully planed. Rough texture to them - some amount of the rough
surface remaining. You could see it in the less traffic'd areas of the
floor (in the paint). Of course, where it was heavily traffic'd, it was
quite smooth.

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.
================================================== =================================
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).

"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.

dpb wrote:
On 5/30/2012 4:55 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
...

What my son is after is not a period restoration. He's looking to do
something that he likes, and that fits (in terms of character) with
the house/farm as a whole.

I missed that the house really was old--I thought it was just an
attempt to create a look.

You/he'll have to suit yourselves but to me it seems almost sacrilege
to put something like this down w/ adhesive...if the structure is
worth anything as far as its heritage it is worth not doing something
essentially irreversible.

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?

--

-Mike-