Black beam advice

Hi there, some advice, please. We have a small number of internal timbers, some of which have been plastered smooth, some seemingly painted in a thick semi-shiny goop. I had a pick at one timber as attached with a scraper, nd the over-plastered parts came away easily with the paint, however I am now stuck.

I have got some Peelaway 7 test patches on the go, they have been on 24 hours and have removed a layer or so but they're not back to the wood yet. I've read it can take up to 72 hours so am not entirely giving up yet...but am also aware that it may not be totally effective on pre 60's paint. Our property was renovated and listed in the early 50s. I understand Peelaway 1 can darken and stain oak so am steering clear.

So my question is, if the Peelaway doesn't work, what is my next option? I do not want to go down the blasting route. We only have 3 or 4 timbers on our landing so I don't mind if it's hard work/slow going. Is gentle sanding acceptable? I think I will need to sand anyway as the exposed timber is very rough.

I also wondered about Klingstrip - if Peelaway doesn't work does that mean Kstrip won't either? I have also read that it can stain/darken, which is why I'm avoiding Peelaway 1.

All advice gratefully received....

I've seen recommendations for soda "blasting", rather than sand blasting. Seems to remove the crud but leaves the wood intact (including things like carpenters marks) as long as the operator knows what they are doing. If you can bear Facebook, there's a group called Listed Building - Owner's Group whose members could probably recommend someone in your area.
I wouldn't sand, as you'll strip any features and leave the wood too smooth (my friend did their beams, badly).

Thanks. I was really hoping to avoid blasting as I know how much mess and disruption it can cause.

Am not worried about a long laborious manual process, just wondering how best to tackle it.

Will definitely check out the soda blasting just incase it can be done silently and without spreading any dust....what are the chances? :wink:

Get the beams ice blasted then. Nowhere near as much mess.

Box them in with some nice laminated MDF :twisted:

No matter what, get rid of the paint. It contributes to the decay of the timber and can cause major problems.

I would try to avoid basting, with any material, as this can and will remove the more delicate fibres of the wood from the surface grain structure and can leave surprisingly large grooves in the timber - think of a piece of driftwood you might find on a beach.. It can also do serious damage to the surrounding plasterwork. Its a pain in the rear by the best way I have found is to abraid the paint surface using a very coarse sand-paper and then to use a steam cleaner to dampen the wood surface below the paint. Having moistened the wood in this way the paint will be easier to remove with a scraper and if necessary a wire brush. You will need to be carful though as the wire brush can also strip out the softer wood fibres.

What about using a heat gun? Peelaway 1 is very effective, but is caustic. It certainly discoloured a sapele window sill and make it very dark so not to be recommended on oak. Good on pine though. Also old paint might have lead in it so avoid making too much dust.

fallschirmjager said:

Get the beams ice blasted then. Nowhere near as much mess.

Click to expand...

This^^^^^.

minimal if any damage. And not much mess either.

Do a search with my name and read previous threads on the subject, I cannot go through that again!

From a person who strips wood for a living starting in 1986 and who has seen the results of every stripping method possible!

There's always the easy option . . . . just paint them [ducks for cover].

I would never paint bare oak beams and we're fortunate to have many of them. However, where they were already painted (mainly bedrooms) I confess to having simply repainted them. Does that make me a bad person?

Probably sound advice for most previously painted timber! And technically the only legal remedy for listed properties without having a chinwag with your CO, which may or may not be a pleasant experience.

But if the paint is flaking and the surface is friable, then one may still desire to prepare a sound base for fresh paint, which necessitates removal of the old paint!

But yes, dobbing over with a large emulsion brush something matt in white and black is slot less hassle, if slightly less aesthetically pleasing.

And if the OP cannot find archived musings on the subject I have a very detailed multi-page multi-thousand word article on the subject on my website, which is very easy to find using predictable keywords.

I will not be drawn into another bun fight to be pelted by inexperienced and thin skinned people with an endless supply of buns.

Buns may be a viable option if they are stale enough.

But I suggest caution with any more abrasive method that purports to be safe, easy or cheap. I've been stripping for 37 years and have yet to find such a method!

(It is of course entirely possible I'm a part time idiot and have failed to spot the magic answer over the decades, in which case please advise but hurry, I start another strip job on Monday and am not looking forward to buying a fresh gallon of Paramose and organic respirator)

Toby Newell said:

I have a very detailed multi-page multi-thousand word article on the subject on my website, which is very easy to find using predictable keywords.

Click to expand...

Thanks, just googled. Very useful and informative.

Toby Newell said:

But yes, dobbing over with a large emulsion brush something matt in white and black is slot less hassle, if slightly less aesthetically pleasing.

Click to expand...

. . . which is an interesting discussion point in itself. When did bare timber become 'aesthetically pleasing'? I'm pretty sure that, historically, most beams would have been painted with something, probably limewash externally or distemper internally. All our C16 attic room timbers are painted with distemper (which is fortunately fairly easy to remove with nothing more than a wet brush, so far 'kinder' than modern paint). Stripped pine certainly seems to be a relatively modern fashion and I suspect most Victorians would have been horrified to have their 'cheap' pine furniture exposed for what it was by leaving it bare instead of covering it up with paint.

There's a parallel thread running about the merits or otherwise of stripping pine doors by dipping in chemical baths and the damage that can inflict on both the wood and the joinery itself, yet that never seems to be raised as a concern when attacking paintwork on beams, architraves, skirting etc by variously aggressive forms of mechanical and chemical warfare.

I'm not particularly advocating one treatment or another because 'aesthetically pleasing' is obviously in the eye of the beholder and I wouldn't dream of telling anyone how to decorate their own home, but it's interesting to consider how much fashions change over time and influence such things. For contemporary properties it matters not if they seek their own modern style, even if draws on historical periods, but if striving for authenticity in our genuinely period properties then perhaps all this paint stripping is misplaced? Having said that, the same argument could apply to other modern 'fashions' such as indoor sanitation, electric lighting and central heating - and who amongst us would be prepared to be THAT authentic? :wink:

Flyfisher said:

who amongst us would be prepared to be THAT authentic? :wink:

Click to expand...

Oh I don't know, I'm doing my bit to be authentic to the past right now - I need a haircut so badly I'm starting to resemble a caveman!

:lol: :lol: :lol:
I know exactly what you mean,

Not that I mind the long hair particularly, but the way it's also rapidly thinning on top I'm more likely to resemble Bill Bailey than a caveman :lol:

The problem with replying to pp email links... They often evaporate your extended diatribe if you wander off page...

What is authentic? Totally subjective. You can strive for 'more authentic'.

I suspect most historical timbers were left bare due to cost.

There is a large disparity between more humble rural dwellings and the larger Manor Houses and Townhouses that tended to slavishly follow fashion.

Most exterior timber was left bare until the late 1700's when large scale coke production produced vast quantities of creosote and bituminous like by products which one can expect were plentiful in supply and cheap in cost. Having excellent opacity, waterproofing and antifungal and antimicrobial properties it is no wonder timber framed buildings from this period were 'stained' black, as were the perimeters of internal suspended floors. This is probably why EH generally stipulates all exterior timberwork to be stained black. Although not with the authentic bituminous creosote which contains all manner of wonderful carcinogenic compounds.

In modest rural dwellings during the annual spring clean the white lime painted walls were washed down with a hot lime solution and so any bare timber work soon took on a 'limed' appearance, being both darkened and bleached by the caustic reaction of the alkaline lime with the wood tannins and lightened by the semi opaque wash of white pigment that persisted in the grain. Take note Osmo and 'lime' lovers, your finish is not authentic at all, simply a white pigment in a modified tall oil varnish that loves to go yellow and patchy, don't do it!

What we would call paints (as opposed to limewash and distemper) were available from after the first quarter of the 1700s although were relatively expensive until pigment grinding techniques improved. The use of these on interiors was as much to improve the efficiency of candlelight as it was for aesthetic reasons. (Dwellings affluent enough to afford these new 'paints' were wood panelled and the off white colours were high gloss to reflect as much candlelight as possible) Still rural cottages used distemper and limewash right into the early 1900s.

Most townhouse interiors were wood panelled and painted off white until the mid 1700s when Robert Adam et al introduced a more sophisticated plaster and molding structure. The plaster was often coloured pale blues, greens and sometimes pinks.

With the invention of gaslight in the late 1700s colour became more fashionable pioneered by the reduction in pigment cost and coloured paints were more widely available.

Throughout this time most softwood was painted with 'show wood' most often oak 'wainscotting' (after the Dutch for 'wagon wheel' which was also made of the denser quarter sawn cut of oak) being oiled or later on shellacked. Pitch pine and occasionally walnut were also used as show woods, mahogany not being widely available for interiors until the early 1800s, although used extensively for furniture by Adam, Sheraton, Shearer and Chippendale from the mid 1700s. (Notable mahogany rooms being the Common Room - The Law Society 1832 and The Moses Room - Palace of Westminster 1841, the doors of both to which I have had the good fortune to French polish).

At the turn of the century gilding and trompe l'oeiling became popular and proceeded right up through the Victorian era so that many interiors, not just the poor who imitated the rich, had softwood woodwork that was grained to resemble oak, mahogany or marble.

Show wood, now including Douglas fir along with pitch pine and oak had a revival under William Morris, George Gilbert Scott, Hugh Thackeray Turner et al from the early 1900s until the 1930s and partially up until the 1960s. When all interior woodwork was ensconced in plywood sheeting and painted white to make it more space age.

And here we are with a mixture of styles and preferences. Personally I don't like (sorry Mother) the stripping of all interior non show wood, it's very unauthentic and very busy. I much prefer polishing the floors (obviously heavily biased here!) and the handrails, if oak or mahogany, and repainting the skirtings, stairs and doors and fitting a runner. I think less is more. Obviously applying a fresh coat of black-brown to the room perimeter and suggesting my customers stump up for a prodigiously expensive massive rug in the middle would be the most authentic. But then hard floors are nice and centuries old, slow grown virgin timber is quite pretty when treated with sympathy.

Side note. I find the listing planning rules intellectually challenging in that they somewhat defy logic, which I am a great fan of.

If you live in an early Georgian property that has a lovely, crusty, 1960s aluminium crittall window that has been set in aspic via a listing in the 1970s then fine. That reflects, as EH might say, the use and history of the building. But that's totally arbitrary, illogical and somewhat arrogant.

What about the lack of reflection of the history of the current incumbent? Or their employed workmen? What happens in 2160 or 2260 when future history is lost due to being frozen in time? Just a thought!

So, what is authentic is whatever you want it to be, unless you are lucky enough to have provenance and can get hold of traditional materials.

So. Oh yes, black beams. Just be gentle with them.

Fascinating Toby. I enjoy reading your postings.

Some of them are partially true.

Anyone on the forum tried this Chalk paint and wax technique.? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tapQdqgtBG8&ab_channel=MikeMcGibney