skirting boards/cornie?

anotherginger

I'm currently mid-renovation and having ripped out the skirting boards to prepare for a DPC and removed the cornice (coving!) to remove the wallpaper fully underneath, I've been deliberating whether or not to replace them.

I think the skirting board is still necessary because the original parquet floors are going to be restored, and this would give a nice edge. However I'm not sure of the need for cornice (coving!).

In your opinion, does a room without cornice (coving!) look unfinished/cheap, or with a good finish, do you think it could look modern? Any point of view welcome!

southcoastrgi

bth i've never seen a room (apart from bathroom maybe kitchen) that doesn't have skirting boards so i think their replacement is a given, are you sure you don't mean dado or picture rail rather than cornice ?

anotherginger

I have seen rooms without skirting, but only ultra modern, and as I'm renovating an original floor I don't think going with skirting would be a good idea.

I definitely don't mean dado or picture rail but thanks for the heads up that I might be using the wrong word! I mean the bit where the wall meets the ceiling - having now done a search it may be better known as coving?!

southcoastrgi

haha yes it's not better known as coving it is coving, well ultra modern or not i've still never seen a lounge/dining/hall/bedroom without skirting

anotherginger

I know, humour doesn't come across at all on the internet.

As in my first post, I think skirting is necessary. I want opinions about the coving!

Moomum

I've been in lots of houses without coving. It depends on the period of the house. We replaced ours as it was a Victorian house and seemed wrong not too but a more modern house might look fine.

penguingirl

I think it depends on your style of house- my house was built early 1990s and doesn't have coving, it looks ok but I think if you have a house with more character and higher ceilings it would look better with coving.

southcoastrgi

yes i agree, coving i think is personal preference, it always used to be coving & artex ceilings but these days most people seem to like the plain looks of a plastered ceiling, i still like a artex ceiling pain to paint but i like it, i guess it depends how old the house is & whether to want to keep it looking orginal or not.

Leif

I have no coving in the bathroom and the kitchen. The kitchen walls and ceiling are white, and it works well. The bathroom ceiling is white, and the walls are blue, and I found it hard to paint a good line between the two. It is surprisingly hard to see where the walls join. And the wall join is wobbly too, which does not help.

I like coving, as I think it finishes a room. Also I find it easier to paint. It is not hard to paint coloured walls up to the edge of coving. If you are concerned about cost, putting up coving (3m plaster) is not hard, if you are reasonably sensible, and don't mind getting messy. And it does not cost much.

Look at houses on RightMove.co.uk and you should find examples with and without coving.

phoebe1989seb

Our current house is Georgian and doesn't have coving, but it was partially renovated by the previous owner who more than likely just chose not to replace it when he replaced ceilings, joists, roof etc. The only part of the house that does have coving is an 80s extension - which we intend to rip apart and remove the coving anyway.

However, whilst some of the rooms have quite grand proportions, the lack of coving doesn't seem out of place. In the less grand rooms the previous owner left ceiling beams exposed so no coving would be required there anyway and the largest of the original rooms we are in the process of transforming (and extending) into a new kitchen so the lack of coving isn't an issue.

We are re-installing skirtings in all rooms though - including kitchen and bathrooms (and even the new utility as DH is a stickler for detail!) - and it does finish the rooms off nicely

Previously we have lived in houses ranging from Tudor - 1930s oak square-topped skirtings put in by a previous owner and no coving - to Victorian - with incredibly high moulded skirtings in every room except the old kitchen, scullery etc and very ornate covings, cornices and roses in the main reception areas.

It really does depend on your property and your taste

katejo

phoebe1989seb wrote: »

Our current house is Georgian and doesn't have coving, but it was partially renovated by the previous owner who more than likely just chose not to replace it when he replaced ceilings, joists, roof etc. The only part of the house that does have coving is an 80s extension - which we intend to rip apart and remove the coving anyway.

However, whilst some of the rooms have quite grand proportions, the lack of coving doesn't seem out of place. In the less grand rooms the previous owner left ceiling beams exposed so no coving would be required there anyway and the largest of the original rooms we are in the process of transforming (and extending) into a new kitchen so the lack of coving isn't an issue.

We are re-installing skirtings in all rooms though - including kitchen and bathrooms (and even the new utility as DH is a stickler for detail!) - and it does finish the rooms off nicely

Previously we have lived in houses ranging from Tudor - 1930s oak square-topped skirtings put in by a previous owner and no coving - to Victorian - with incredibly high moulded skirtings in every room except the old kitchen, scullery etc and very ornate covings, cornices and roses in the main reception areas.

It really does depend on your property and your taste

When i bought my current Victorian terrace, the front part of the living room had original moulded coving and a rose in the centre. The back half (originally 2 separate rooms) had no coving and it had not been painted that well. There wasn't a very clear line between wall and ceiling. I had coving put in when it was redecorated and it looks much better with it.