Plastering - before or after skirting/architrave?

[Lobster]

I've got a plasterer helping me with a refurb project at the moment - I'd ripped off old the old knackered 1950s door architraves and skirtings, and the plasterer is skimming my walls (mostly over the top of the old plaster) prior to me fitting new architrave and skirting once he's done.

I commented on one area he's done, where the new plaster didn't even cover the old at floor level, and would obviously be visible above the level of the 4" skirtings I'll be fitting. The retort was to the effect that I should have fitted them first, along with the architraves, and he would have skimmed up to them. That's how new-builds are done, he added.

Is that really right? ie, basecoat plaster, followed by joinery, followed by skim plaster? It's not how anybody's ever told me to do it before. Or is this just the idiosyncracy of one particular spreader?!

David

[Andrew Gabriel]

He's right that you should have fitted the architrave (possibly skirtings too -- that's less important) before the reskim. When you come to fit the architrave now, you'll presumably find the reskimed plaster stands proud of the door frames, which will make attaching architrave rather difficult.

However, that's not what's done in a new-build, but a reskim is quite different from initial plastering, where skirtings and architraves are part of second fix (after plastering).

[Graham]

We spent some time living in Germany and noticed that they nearly always use hard wood/stained softwood skirting and screw it to the walls. Thus when it comes to decorating, the skirting can be simply removed and the walls papered/painted without messing up the upper edge.

This always struck me to be a very sensible idea just like the rubber seals around the door frames and doors that can be lifted off their hinges, solid floors on the upper stories so transmitted noise eliminated, cellars under most houses and I could go on and on giving examples of how much better built their houses are.

Graham

[tiscali]

They bombed all our good ones.

[Graham]

Get real, the blitz was 65 years ago. Why do you still make such moronic comments?

Graham

[John]

Bring back cellars - put the C/H boiler and washing machines down there. They got a bad reputation in the olden days when used to store coal.

[tiscali]

It's a fact, and the effects are still here to see. Our Georgian/Victorian/Edwardian housing stock was largely destroyed in many cities and we are left with the monstrosities that the 1960's architects foisted upon us. I'm not anti-German, but I'm against what they did in the

1940's and what our town planners did since.

[tiscali]

I'd love to have a cellar. Fantastic storage space.

[Graham]

Thanks for your reply, you sound a reasonable person so I apologise if I upset you with my reaction.

Yes the Germans did a lot of damage in some cities. However from 1941 onwards the allies inflicted much more damage on German cities and the German people they ever did here.

The big difference, which you acknowledge, is that they were far more successful in rebuilding than we were. And that's down to us.

And finally they're still building much better houses than we do at prices equivalent or less than ours.

Graham

[Andrew Mawson]

They didn't have to repay the US for 'lend lease' which we have only just managed to do, and masses of funds were poured into Germany to rebuild by the US to stop a perceived communist threat from Russia. The US screwed us both during and after the war to try and break down the Commonwealth so that they could increase their sphere of influence, and they were entirely sucessful.

AWEM

[Dave Fawthrop]

|!> Yes the Germans did a lot of damage in some cities. However from |!1941 |!> onwards the allies inflicted much more damage on German cities and |!the |!> German people they ever did here. |!>

|!> The big difference, which you acknowledge, is that they were far |!more |!> successful in rebuilding than we were. And that's down to us. |!>

|!> And finally they're still building much better houses than we do at |!> prices equivalent or less than ours. |!>

|!>

|!> Graham |! |!They didn't have to repay the US for 'lend lease' which we have only |!just managed to do, and masses of funds were poured into Germany to |!rebuild by the US to stop a perceived communist threat from Russia. |!The US screwed us both during and after the war to try and break down |!the Commonwealth so that they could increase their sphere of |!influence, and they were entirely sucessful.

But we did not have to repay all the money for aid received in the Marshall plan

>>RepaymentThe Organization for European Economic Cooperation had taken the leading role in allocating funds, and the ECA arranged for the transfer of the goods. The American supplier was paid in dollars, which were credited against the appropriate European Recovery Program funds. The European recipient, however, was not given the goods as a gift, but had to pay for them (though not necessarily at once, on credit etc.) in local currency, which was then deposited by the government in a counterpart fund. This money, in turn, could be used by the ERP countries for further investment projects.

Most of the participating ERP governments were aware from the beginning that they would never have to return the counterpart fund money to the U.S.; it was eventually absorbed into their national budgets and "disappeared." Originally the total American aid to Germany (in contrast to grants given to other countries in Europe) had to be repaid. But under the London debts agreement of 1953, the repayable amount was reduced to about $1 billion. Aid granted after 1 July 1951 amounted to around $270 million, of which Germany had to repay $16.9 million to the Washington Export-Import Bank. In reality, Germany did not know until 1953 exactly how much money it would have to pay back to the U.S., and insisted that money was given out only in the form of interest-bearing loans ? a revolving system ensuring the funds would grow rather than shrink. A lending bank was charged with overseeing the program. European Recovery Program loans were mostly used to support small- and medium-sized businesses. Germany paid the U.S. back in installments (the last check was handed over in June 1971). However, the money was not paid from the ERP fund, but from the central government budget.