Hi
I'm thinking of having my kitchen updated. All the exposed walls are tiled but I hate the colour and the design on them so I want to re-tile the walls.
Ive been told its best to tile on top of the old as they provide the perfect surface. Ive also been told that old tiles must be removed first.
So now I'm confused.
I'd be grateful for your views on which is best and why.
Thanks
Rob
IMHO tiling on old tiles is a bodge. Best to knock them off and replaster if necessary. If you tile on top,the tiles will be twice as deep on the wall and will look orrible!!
you can have it fast or you can have it right!
Remove antispam and add 670 after bra to email
Be a good Global citizen-CONSUME>CONFORM>OBEY
Circumcision- A crime and an abuse.
Either could be best under different circumstances. Personally, I'm a much too recent convert to the cult of "Whatever's Easiest". Having been thus corrupted, I'd definitely say leave the original tiles on if at all possible. You can guess the rest.
-- Regards, Mike Halmarack
Drop the EGG to email me.
On 26 May 2005, Rob wrote
Horses and courses, assuming the existing tiles are both sound and level. Hacking tiles off inevitably means replastering or boarding-out the wall -- maybe a good purist's route, but a bit of overkill in my view. I[ve had perfectly good results tiling over tiles. (The only rule I can think of is a glaringly obvious one: to avoid aligning the new tiles with the old.)
The main drawback of tiling over tiles, of course, is that you're making the wall thicker. That's not a huge concern in most cases, but it can screw up fine tolerances -- like refitting sockets where there's insufficient leeway in the cabling.
If any old tiles are loose, then your knew ones are going to be loose too because of that. Any tiles that meet a door might well sit proud of the doorframe. You *might* need longer faceplate screws for any outlets/sockets on the tiles.
Ditch the old tiles. they're easily removed with a bolster or similar, or a large flat screwdriver at a push.
Disclaimer: I'm not a tiler. But I've done lots of tiling.
tiles are the worst surface to tile onto, smooth and slippery. You can do it either way, but Id tile personally. Old tiles have a habit of being or coming loose.
NT
You can tile over old. A bit like you can paint over old gloss paint. It's possible, but its cheap bodge and better results can be had from removal.
Christian.
I really do *not* think that in the majority of cases it is necessary to strip the old gloss off something before re-painting. Where did that idea come from?
In my student days the tiles in the kitchen of the "newly refurbished house", came away from the existing tiles and fell off, after about 6 months. This was because the new tile adhesive had not stuck to the layers of fat and grease on the old tiles near the cooker and layers of soap and other yuck around the sink. Just pulled new tiles off, cleaned up old tiles and landlord never noticed.
Tiling over old tiles..
Old tiles make a good base for new tiles.. So things to bear in mind... how well do the old tiles adhere as your new tiles will only be as good as the old adhesive! As above are they clean, how will corners, cupboards etc work out with the increased height of the new tiles if placed on the old. Do a test to check that adhesive used works well on old tiles.
If you decide to remove the old tiles then a flat even surface will improve the final result so will you need to replaster, can you replaster or afford a tradesperson otherwise.
I personally remove old tiles most of the time but nearly always end up re-skimming the surface.. David
Perhaps you might like a little reading?
Exactly. It isn't necessary, but it looks much better. Have you not seen 100 year old architrave looking like a blobby mess because all the delicate fine mouldings are encased in 20 layers of gloop.
Christian.
Of course, but that has not very much to do with your statement that it is a "cheap bodge" to paint over old gloss. It isn't in the large majority of cases. Your 100 y.o. architrave probably looked fine intil about 1975.
I'm just used to houses built around 1880-1910. They ALL have/had blobby mess architraves. Even my "old" 1986 built hutch had issues with overpainted gloss, with the crevices looking less than sharp.
Christian.
I can't quarrel with you, it does happen - much of the problem is due to poor/no preparation, and more is due to the use of "one coat" and acrylic paints, and poor technique. I've spent a fair time "burning off" paint from from mouldings; the finished effect is quite satisfying.
Perhaps I've been posting this way on usenet since 1991
(wrongly)
Wow! Irritating people & getting killfiled for 14 years! What was your posting ID then?
So where do you get the "wrongly" from then. There ain't no right or wrong. A bunch of "rules" made up by some arbitrary bunch doesn't pass for right or wrong. If there was a "right" way of posting, news posting apps wouldn't let you do it the "wrong" way.
Personally, I much prefer the way I do it. Obviously, otherwise I wouldn't do it this way. I'm not alone either. As i recall, these were "the rules" before the arbitrary bunch came along. I think it's easier to read. I think it's easier to follow. I don't have to spend half my life wearing out my finger scrolling my mouse wheel up and down. I don't have to read down any further than the last post.
If you're uppity about the "rules", then find yourself guilty of posting off-topic!
I'm absolutely amazed that you can have been on Usenet for so long and still crosspost. It is in every newbie guide. The fact that Microsoft produces bad programs that don't comply with the rules is hardly news.
Context posting is not arbitrary. It has been the standard for decades.
Christian.
I meant toppost, not crosspost!
Christian.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.