Seth
New Member
- Messages
- 11
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Thanks for the replies. Tom, your assumption is correct -- the tile in question does not run all the way to the ceiling. The room has a ten foot ceiling, and there is about three feet of plaster (on metal lath) above the top of the tiled area. It is in very good shape, and it seems to me that since I'm going to have to identify/create an end point to the destruction somewhere, that end point might as well be as close to the top of the tile as possible, saving as much of the plaster wall (above the tiled area) as possible. No matter where I choose to make the end point, I'm going to have to cut the metal lath horizontally, so I don't see an advantage in going higher. The only issue seems to be creating a starting point (trench) where you can get behind the tile/mud/lath with the pry bars and get some leverage to pry the stuff off. I can see that creating that entry point may necessarily result in wasting some of the plaster above the tiled area (unless I can remove the top row of tiles and, through time-consuming effort, no doubt, create the trench in the area previously occupied by this row of tiles). Since I will be doing this as a homeowner restoration job, rather than as a contractor for a customer (where time = money), I'm thinking that by taking more time I might be able to limit the extent of destruction of the plaster above the tiles. I imagine that this is one of those cases (like many) where you simply have to start at it and find out what's there, how stubborn it will be, etc. Seth.