Fireplace

[Flyfisher]

In my recent 'Wall Feature Mystery' topic, Kearn spotted half a fireplace and asked . . .

What I am hoping though is that fireplace in the through room is on the plans...?

After a couple of days of very dirty and dusty work, I can answer that with the following photos . . .

 

[Feltwell]

Ahh, but what is to go in there FF?

 

[Flyfisher]

Almost certainly a multi-fuel stove, perhaps a boiler stove linked into the exsting CH.

The opening to the left was a surprise - you can see how the bressumer above was previously covered in plaster, leaving the stained section central to the room. Well, I say 'plaster' but it's a very hard cement-like render. Fortunately easy to remove in large slabs with little or no underlying damage. There'll be a lot of lime lastering to do, that's for sure.

Also unfortunately, the brickwork at the rear of the fireplace has been pretty much ruined when external repairs were made to the stack back in the early 80s I think. I knew about the repairs but was hoping they hadn't intruded too deeply into the original opening, but alas they had. And what's worse is that the repairs were done with hard fletton bricks and even harder cement mortar :evil: A similar fireplace at the other end of the house still had all original brickwork and a lovely herringbone pattern but this one is pretty much ruined so I think the only option is to lime plaster over all of it. I think I'll keep the left-hand opening as a wood store.

It's a sobering reminder, as if one were needed, about how destructive inappropriate materials can be. Most of the fireplace removal was dead easy, having been mostly built of soft brick and lime mortar and required little more than a pry bar to loosen the bricks before pulling it apart by hand . . . until I got to the fletton/cement repairs, which required a lot of judicious brute force with club hammer and bolster to achieve a near smooth finish (the repairs were done from the outside so a clean internal finish would have been the last thing on the minds of the perpetrators - they just pushed flettons and cement mortar into any holes they could find!). I didn't dare use my SDS hammer drill for fear of the vibration loosening the original brickwork.

 

[Feltwell]

It's a sobering reminder, as if one were needed, about how destructive inappropriate materials can be.

Yes, I've been finding that here. On my chimney sagas, the tall chimney at the side of the house that needed lots of bricks replacing due to spalling had been repointed in cement, and the top 10' or so had been rebuilt completely with cement mortar.

So, firstly the only way to get the mortar out from between the bricks was with a grinder and a diamond disc - try using hand tools and the mortar would come out in lumps bringing bits of brick with it, ruining them. The grinder is great but needs very, very careful use, so easy to cause damage to the bricks with it. It's unbelievably filthy and dusty in use though.

Secondly, the spalled bricks were due I'm sure to the use of cement mortar. The central stack had badly eroded lime pointing but had never been repointed in cement - no bricks needed to be replaced, despite it being more exposed to the north than the side stack.

Thirdly, the section that had been rebuilt completely with cement mortar, just no way of getting it apart without doing terminal damage to the bricks. So, I took the decision to grind about an inch of cement pointing out and repoint in lime and hope that does the trick to give somewhere for moisture to escape from and stop the bricks from spalling. Only time will tell.

Luckily, on much of the rest of the house that has been repointed in cement they did a really bad job of it, raking out was minimal, the cement pointing is so shallow that it comes out OK.

 

[Zebra]

But you should have guessed there was something behind there, because clearly the smaller left-hand bressumer is what has kept the light fitting upright, whereas the other one fixed to the brick has fallen sideways! :lol:
Lovely find, that smaller opening. Bet you're thrilled with it.
I'm confused though (easily done) about where these flettons and cement are relative to this picture. The other side of the rear of the large opening?

 

[Flyfisher]

Ah yes, the wall lights. Haven't quite decided what to do with them yet :wink: :wink:

The flettons are not easily visible in the second photo but are mainly in the area marked below.
They were added from the outside when the gable wall containing the flues was repaired and extend right up to the first floor and roof.
In the area marked they were mostly end-on and sticking out beyond the line of the original rear of the fireplace, which is why I had to cut them back to give a fairly flat surface for plastering, otherwise I'd have had to build out the rear of the fireplace to bring it level with the flettons, which would have made the fireplace 5-6 inches less deep.

 

[Gothichome]

What was the left opening used for originally?

 

[CliffordPope]

I don't think a mixture of bricks matters too much - I'd clean them all up and let the history speak for itself.

The left-hand opening looks very smoke-blackened, so presumably once had a fire in it too? For smoking ham, fish, etc?
Why does the big lintel stop short and not extend over the smaller opening? It immediately makes one ask, what holds up the masonry above?

There looks like a lot of charring on that big lintel, as if the chimney didn't draw very well and the fire regularly burst out at the top?

 

[Flyfisher]

Well there's history and there's a right old mess . . . :wink:

I assume the left hand opening was some sort of bread oven, though I'm not exactly sure how these were used. I've read that some were just used for proving and some for baking. It is certainly very sooty so there must have been many fires in there originally.

The 'big lintel' does indeed extend over the smaller opening, but that part had been plastered over and therefore not stained like the main section over the large fireplace. No idea why, but the main fireplace is central to the room so I guess there was an aesthetic reason.

There is a lot of charring on the main lintel, but only to the rear where quite a bit has been burned away, though nothing worrying from a structural perspective. The front of the wood is not charred, though I see what you mean - it's not a very good photo. The 'rise' near the added circle looks like the natural shape of the wood and the vertical marks are, I think, burn marks probably from hot pokers. I believe these sort of 'witching marks' were commonly made to ward off evil spirits.

 

[Me!]

I assume the left hand opening was some sort of bread oven, though I'm not exactly sure how these were used. I've read that some were just used for proving and some for baking. It is certainly very sooty so there must have been many fires in there originally.

Are you sure that the partition between the two sections isn't a later addition?
If it was all one big opening then the burnt / arched section of the bressumer would be central, and also the ratio of the width to height of the opening would look more like the fireplaces we have here.
It would also explain the soot in the left part.

Given the age, style and status of your house, I'd be looking very carefully at the way that dividing wall brickwork is bonded into the back wall to see if it looks like it was all built at the same time or not.
I'm certainly not saying you should take it out though, that is entirely up to you. The log store idea would make a good use of it as it is now, and that is very much part of its history even if it isn't original.

 

[CliffordPope]

That's a good point. If it was indeed a separate oven with a separate (smokey!) fire then there would presumably be a separate flue for a short length at the top before joining the main flue? That's how ours works, albeit with a series of separate chambers for ash, fire, bread and rising, one above another, with flue ducts round the sides so the bread didn't get smoked.

 

[Zebra]

Ah I see the flettons now. Yes, a bit of a mess, as you say. I think I'd be inclined to plaster over it too. Otherwise those would be annoying to look at.
Interesting about the witching marks on the timber (but I presume you've always bee able to see them). At least evil spirits are one less thing you'll have to worry about.

 

[Flyfisher]

The partition between the two sections could be a later addition, though it rises all the way up the chimney. It's not easy to see how it's bonded to the rear wall because of the extensive repairs. However, the right hand side of the main large opening has a 'pillar' of largely unbonded bricks (at the front at least) and is definitely not bonded to the rear wall as there's a finger-width gap there. I decided not to remove that 'pillar' because it would leave a very small bearing area for the bressumer.

The flue to the small opening is somewhat odd because it bears off to the left as it rises, which is away from the chimney pots. I suspect it has been blocked off at some time. It certainly doesn't look as if it re-enters the main chimney. At the other end of the house, the fireplace had a similar dividing wall but it only rose about eight feet, allowing both flues to re-join into the main chimney. In this fireplace, the design is completely different, perhaps unsurprisingly as this part of the house is supposed to be around 100 years younger than the other end.

The positioning of the bressumer within the wall is a little curious. The first photo shows where the stud wall has been removed, which made the stained section of the bressumer very off-centre. Even allowing for the previously hidded section of the bressumer, it would not have been central. With that stud wall now removed, the stained section of bressumer is central to the room, although the entire length of the bressumer is off-centre. Perhaps they were not overly bothered about symmetry.

 

[Kearn]

The flue is intriguing, as I would have initially guessed that dividing pillar was later - looks like two columns of non tied headers and possibly larger bricks? The right hand pier, looking at the photo, also seems odd given the inner section is separate. Maybe an historic repair/bodge to be plastered? What happens with the wall behind the existing plaster? The bricks on show under look larger also?

I’d imagine the raised hearth on the larger opening was maybe added with the dividing wall and you could be lucky if the bricks run under without having been messed with.

I’d almost certainly guess it started life as one large fireplace, given that lovely beam and the curvature. Central to room - I’m not convinced that was always an essential consideration; symmetry for things like nooks, seats and ovens never seemed to matter much either within the opening! Since restoring ours, the lack of symmetry is frustrating - the centre of the fireplace is slightly off from the centre of the room, not much, but about 6 inches or so!

 

[Kearn]

I’ve also just spotted what looks like a raised base at rear of the smaller aperture - any clues from shape etc what this may have been. Clutching at straws - are there horizontal markings higher up also - possibly traces of the compartments for a bread oven?

Reminded me a bit of this thread...

https://www.periodproperty.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16521&p=224669&hilit=bread+oven#p224669

 

[Flyfisher]

You're right about the raised section to the rear of the small opening, though I don't know if this has an obvious function. No obvious signs of horizontal markings further up.

The openings shown were definitely plastered, though most of it simply fell away it was so soft . . . unlike much of the 'plaster' on the walls :evil:

You're probably right about the original symmetry. Because the stained portion of the bressumer is central to the room (now that the stud wall has gone) I was expecting the final opening to also be central. The unexpected smaller opening has obviously changed things in that respect. I could easily brick-up the smaller opening but I'm not too fussed about the symmetry and current thinking is to retain both openings, one as a fireplace and one as a log store.

 

[Gothichome]

If this small segregated area was separated from the whole for cooking proposes there should be signs of iron fittings, (hanging rods, swing arms and the like) in the main fire box I would think. Any signs those Flyfisher?

 

[CliffordPope]

Reminded me a bit of this thread...

https://www.periodproperty.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16521&p=224669&hilit=bread+oven#p224669

Which I've just updated.

 

[Flyfisher]

If this small segregated area was separated from the whole for cooking proposes there should be signs of iron fittings, (hanging rods, swing arms and the like) in the main fire box I would think. Any signs those Flyfisher?

No sign of any fittings in the small opening. A few big, old nails in side walls of the large opening. I guess the lack of confirmed historical details is what makes old houses so interesting as the imagination can run riot. It would be fascinating if photography had been invented in Tudor times, though perhaps no one would have wasted precious film on domestic drudgery. Now, if there had been smartphones back then we'd have millions of 'selfies' covering every mundane aspect of everyday life. Good luck to future historians researching the late 20th century onwards. :lol:

 

[Gothichome]

Flyfisher, that kind of research can now be done from the comfort of your front room using Pinterest and Google. Kind of takes the fun out of discovery.