- Thread starter Dianne1
- Start date
Dianne1 said:
I think it depends on the decorative style of your walls. Is it traditional to have bare wood doors in a victorian house?
My plan is to remove all my doors and give them a light sanding outside (lead paint) before painting. If I was going to strip them I'd probably get them dunked.
They were intended to be painted, presuming they are standard pine/softwood panel doors.
I had some of mine dipped back in the early 1990s as a prelude to painting them. The dipping was a big mistake, it loosened mouldings, joints and panels and made the wood very unhappy. Please don't dip them!
I didn't get round to paintng them for a decade or two; I've now stripped the rest myself and I have just two left to paint.
Having lived with some stripped for a long time, I find the difference when they are painted is amazing. They suddenly take their place in the house as part of the overall design, rather than shouting 'look at me'; the panels show up properly, the flaws vanish, the architraves and skirtings complement them. They somehow suddenly look 'at home'.
But it does depend on your taste and the style - keeping the doors is the important bit. If you really like the stripped effect, go for it, they can be repainted by a future owner.
As I've said, I'd never suggest anyone dip an old panelled door, though. Too many component parts...
ETA Of course, depending on the date of the house, the woodwork may have originally been decorated to look like bare wood. Mine were clearly carefully finished to imitate much more expensive dark wood, though it was too battered and overpainted to be retained. It's an 1840 house and the hall and stairway walls were painted drab, an olive-y colour. With dark woodwork and dark walls, going up to bed with a candle on a winter's night would have been a bit spooky. My bright walls and paler woodwork are about as far from the original feel as it is possible to be.
I had some of mine dipped back in the early 1990s as a prelude to painting them. The dipping was a big mistake, it loosened mouldings, joints and panels and made the wood very unhappy. Please don't dip them!
I didn't get round to paintng them for a decade or two; I've now stripped the rest myself and I have just two left to paint.
Having lived with some stripped for a long time, I find the difference when they are painted is amazing. They suddenly take their place in the house as part of the overall design, rather than shouting 'look at me'; the panels show up properly, the flaws vanish, the architraves and skirtings complement them. They somehow suddenly look 'at home'.
But it does depend on your taste and the style - keeping the doors is the important bit. If you really like the stripped effect, go for it, they can be repainted by a future owner.
As I've said, I'd never suggest anyone dip an old panelled door, though. Too many component parts...
ETA Of course, depending on the date of the house, the woodwork may have originally been decorated to look like bare wood. Mine were clearly carefully finished to imitate much more expensive dark wood, though it was too battered and overpainted to be retained. It's an 1840 house and the hall and stairway walls were painted drab, an olive-y colour. With dark woodwork and dark walls, going up to bed with a candle on a winter's night would have been a bit spooky. My bright walls and paler woodwork are about as far from the original feel as it is possible to be.
88v8
Well-known member
- Messages
- 2,944
- Location
- Glorious Gloucs
Stripping is a modern idea.Dianne1 said:
Paint.....
The exception as Drayton says is that some woodwork was stained & grained over scumble, to imitate oak or other woods. This persisted through to the 1930s. But in general, painted.
In our previous house the doors were the unifying element in the colour design; every room was painted (and wallpapered - as a rule I do not approve of painting walls) anyway as I say, painted a different colour, but all the doors were cream.
When painting doors, do not try to use water base. It dries much too fast, so one cannot cut in the overlaps. Stick to oil.
You know the order of painting.... first the mouldings with a fitch, https://paintwell.co.uk/slant-cut-lining-fitch-brush-1-inch?msclkid=185582a8792c137dbfa9e0068a42afe1&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Adapt%20%7C%20Smart%20Shopping%20All%20Products&utm_term=4588674345031812&utm_content=All%20products then the panels, then the muntins, then the rails, and then the hinge stile and finally the lock stile.
Use a tack rag before you start. https://www.toolstation.com/prodec-tack-cloths/p27935?mkwid=s_dc&pcrid=&pkw=&pmt=e&msclkid=0f5a1b6b84c81c8c831379c577840990&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=April+2021+New+PLC+Painting+%26+Decorating&utm_term=4578297745343201&utm_content=Painting+%26+Decorating&gclid=0f5a1b6b84c81c8c831379c577840990&gclsrc=3p.ds
Ivor
CliffordPope
Well-known member
- Messages
- 745
88v8 said:
I agree. The Victorians were ashamed of displaying cheap deal timber - that was for servants' sculleries and so on, or the meanest peasant hut.
Only proper wood was displayed bare - rosewood, mahogany, walnut etc. Even oak was pushing it a bit.
Unless your bare wood has fine inlay or linenfold panelling.
With paint however you can let your imagination rip - and change it later if you feel like it.
worms
Well-known member
- Messages
- 1,964
- Location
- ultima Thule
Before we get too carried away with the thought that paint is the only genuine Victorian look, remember that very often the wood would have been dark stained/varnished rather than painted. Also in rural Scotland (and the OP appears to be in Aberdeenshire) varnished pitch pine was a common interior-design feature.