Historic HomeWorks Forum

[Jeremy Ballard]

OK, here's my take on things:

I think this is getting too complicated. The classifications and definitions need to be simple enough to remember without sub-classifications.


Standards classification:
Repair
Restoration
Conservation
Replacement


Repair: spot glaze, paint, tune up, epoxy, L brackets, whatever works

Restoration: remove glass/paint, epoxy, dutchman, dowels, element replacement(any species), sealer coat, reglaze original glass(antique or not), oil prime, 2 coats finish paint, install, weather strip(if requested) and tune openings.

Conservation: museum quality, remove glass/paint, dutchman, in kind element replacement, sealer coat, reglaze original glass(antique or restoration glass), oil prime, 2 coats finish paint, install, weatherstrip(could be debated for museum quality) and tune opening.

Replacement: sash is missing or has badly damaged no less than 2 edge elements and 25% of mullions/muttons, or glazing bed is inadequate, or profiles are non-existent. Basically you have to so much work to the sash that it's just not worth the effort. Replacement is really a judgement call and we all have different thoughts on when a sash is beyond repair.


These are minimum standards, one can always choose to do more. Short of Repair, there aren't really any steps(besides finish paint) that can be removed without not completing the project or impairing your ability to stand behind the product.

I personally think the "trade secret" thought is rubbish. We employ all the same methods to restore windows, in a nut shell what I wrote above. Weather stripping only comes in so many varieties that will work for our application. A good glazer can only glaze so fast. I doubt that the trade secrete will shave an hour off my hour count per sash to make my price more competitive. Yes, there are ways to gain an edge but none of them are secretes, it comes down to how you run your business.

[sschoberg]

i agree with almost everyting your saying.

We don't want things to get too complicated at all. Simple is best!

But I think the end result will be simple and fairly short. it's going to take a little while to get organized to the point of actual wording and listing of the standards.

I agree with your thinking on the secret thing.

Steve S

[Randall]

Hi everyone,
I been reading the various suggestions and the only issue I have is being careful not to create an organization that eventually creates bureaucracy. I seen this happen, I sure we all have examples and have seen this before.
Keep it clean and simple. Let keep our focus on the craft.
Another suggestion to keep the training in the hands of the craftsman, (I have said this to John) create a guild. Create Guild Masters.
If you wish to see who I am and what are my experiences visit my website for more info (see below)

Thanks
Randall

[johnleeke]

Hi Randal, thanks for stopping by.

[Randall]

The standards should be reasonably flexible so homeowners have options to choose from. If the standards are to strict, we could lose old windows to the new windows due to the expense.

[johnleeke]

[johnleeke]

[sschoberg]

I think the natural order will be/is to be over complicated, at least at first.

And once we have the all inclusive thoughts brought out, at that time we'll be able to edit and make simpler. The goal is not to dictate how things must be done, only to offer a guidlines as "the doers" see it. Not everyone will agree and there will always be those that won't agree no matter. But as long as these standards are true, basic and of value everyone one will bennefit. How good is that. So we need to keep things movin. Input, and disagree, but keep contributing.

Steve S

[johnleeke]

As my history teacher in high school used to say, "Out of Confusion arises Understanding."

[sschoberg]

Is it feasable to suggest a maximum percentage use of epoxy on any given sash to be restored?


Steve S

[johnleeke]

Steve S writes:

[sschoberg]

1. Assess Condition

Describe in a paragraph or by a check list the condition of each sash,
to include, moisture content, percentage of visible deterioration, glass
type, Do sashes need to be dissassembled, meeting rail replace,
with a corresponding picture of both interior and exterior.

Note: we all know what we look for prior to restoring. This allows us
to decide how we're going to do it and with what materials.

2. Complete repairs

Duplicate parts if warranted; parts replacement is justified when
a part is rotted more than 20% or it's bowed. Duplicated parts should
be exacting to the original, and should be made of like kind wood.

Use of Repair Epoxy; The use of epoxy for repairs should be limited
to 20% of the toal mass of a particular part. Epoxy should not be
used to form tenons, unless it is used with doweling.
Epoxy should not be used to form a connecting mortise. Epoxy repair
dough should only be used in conjuntion with an Epoxy Consolidant.
The use of any Epoxy should be done per MFG. instructions.

Traditional Wood Repair: Dutchman, scarf joints and other traditional
wood repairs should always be considered first when restoring window
parts.


3. Documentation of Restoration procedure and labeling.

A report should be given to the owner either in paragraph form or as
check list for each window giving the date of completion, products
used, and what parts were replaced and with what type of wood
used. Company's name will be on this report.



These are only standards guidelines and are not intended to dictate a certain procedure. In the end it is ultimately up to architects and owners to decide on the quality that they want. And if asked or if they need guidance than as in Jade's experience we'll be there to help them. And of course John has spent a lifetime, gathering, testing and publishing on just this subject.

These three points gives us an Assessment of each wiindow, a plan of action for each window and documentation of work completed on each window. And we will be putting our name on our work.


Short and sweet and allows us to still do it our way (as long as we document it)


Steve S

[sschoberg]

I've condensed my thinking of how the standards should be read. And it seems from the input, here on the forum and what Ive received through my email, that most think this way also.

In order for the standards (I do like the word standards as well as guidelines) to be accepted they need to be short and understandable with some flexability so we can still have room to have individual preferences (or in house secrets), on how we tackle some tasks.
After some thought Bob Yapp was very correct when he said that some will not want to reveal their trade secrets for everyone to use. I know, in our shop we have a few special considerations we use that I wouldn't reveal.

The intent after all is too have a set of guidelines to help building owners and homeowners understand The basics of sash restoration, as well as new to the trade restorers to understand what is and what isn't acceptable when repairing a sash. this will go a long way to keeping out the "goopers" from doing harm to a perfectly good sashes.

So, in this context the guidelines will need to be very simple.

Once these simple to read and simple to understand guidelines are written we can or maybe should go to the next step of defining a more thorough execpted standards as deemed necssary bu a National Coalition or Historical Window Restorers. In this contect the standards could be more through in the definiation of accepted methods using pictures and examples. We could even offer "a seal of Approval Stamp" to be placed on restored windows stating that this sash was restored according to strict stands of the Coalition.
Another stage could be continued education and training for Restorer.

I personally would love continued education and in particular training and in particular to that training in some of the more advance wood joinery techniques.
Although , we might need to lobby one of the bigger preservation groups to pursue this idea.

Steve S

[johnleeke]

Steve, this is a very good summary of the discussion so far. This crystallizes my thinking on it as well. A step-by-step progression:


1. Guidelines, brief, flexible, understandable and usable by us and the greater "public."

2. Standards, accepted methods with detailed descriptions, usable by workers, businesses, trainees, trainers, specifiers and project managers.

3. Organization, to promote, control and certify use of the standards.

4. Education, and training in window work, one aspect would be the use of the guidelines and standards.


That's Great!

So, let's refocus here, on #1., and say that we are developing Guidelines. We can make sure the guidelines are useful in themselves, and also suitable for the further steps when we move along to them.

I like it.

I think the Guidelines will need examples. Examples are a strong tool to help people understand how to interpret and apply the guidelines.

[sschoberg]

You have a good way of editing and adding to my thoughts while still keeping the main them or value.

I appreciate that a bunch. thanks

For now thogh I must go see my new granddaughter. Born just yesterday, Vivian is her name and restoration may be in her future. Surely preserviation will.

Steve S

We need continued involvement from others as well.