I live in an 1890s tenement flat, with all that entails. I've just had the bathroom redone and asked for the walls to be replastered.
The guy said fine, this side (where the old tiles were) needs replastering, a skim coat will do the rest.
Ok, I said, assuming he knows what he's doing.
I assumed that I would end up with smooth-as-glass walls. Er, no. Where there were raised bits or slightly indented bits or slightly protruding bits at the edges of beading, these still exist. The raised bits I can probably best describe as saying it looks as if once upon a time someone had a bit of plaster left on their knife so they roughly scraped it off on the wall. Now I know that given the age and condition of the flat perfection isn't possible (eg I'm perfectly accepting of the slight bow to the wall where the tiles are) but should I have got better than this? Unfortunately it's only now that it's all been painted over that I've really noticed these things. Is the plasterer at fault, or should the painter have smoothed them over, or am I expecting too much?
TIA
The guy said fine, this side (where the old tiles were) needs replastering, a skim coat will do the rest.
Ok, I said, assuming he knows what he's doing.
I assumed that I would end up with smooth-as-glass walls. Er, no. Where there were raised bits or slightly indented bits or slightly protruding bits at the edges of beading, these still exist. The raised bits I can probably best describe as saying it looks as if once upon a time someone had a bit of plaster left on their knife so they roughly scraped it off on the wall. Now I know that given the age and condition of the flat perfection isn't possible (eg I'm perfectly accepting of the slight bow to the wall where the tiles are) but should I have got better than this? Unfortunately it's only now that it's all been painted over that I've really noticed these things. Is the plasterer at fault, or should the painter have smoothed them over, or am I expecting too much?
TIA