I guess on a 1963 house my usual recommendation about preserving historic windows is a bit premature. But even with only a 40 year old house you might give some thought as to why take out what's there.

Just because the storms and screens are missing? Why not just replace them?

I had Pella windows in a house I owned, and all I can say is its good thing you plan on leaving in about ten years because that's about how long they lasted. The problem was with the wood they were made of: unimaginably small pieces joined in illogical places with finger joints. Despite being carefully cared for and always painted the joints separated. They were a pain to take care of: plastic weatherstripping degraded and cracked and couldn't be replaced. Require the expensive services of official Pella service people from 75 miles away, only to be told the parts couldn't be had.

I doubt American Craftsman sold at the big box stores is any better.

You probably have better windows in place right now. Treat them to new storms and screens and you'll be good to go.

Besides, in another 75 years or so, those windows of yours will be genuine historical material, for someone else to prize.

Well, 1963 isn't exactly historical, but they are original and what was intended to be installed in your house. You can't get more accurate to the architect's visual aim than the originals. Besides, one of the advantages of keeping them is the money savings. Replacement windows save little energy compaired to restored windows with storms or secondary glazing, so it's generally more cost effective to save them where possible.

If however you do replace them I'd suggest a different method to what you're planning. Buying them one or two at a time from a store is going to be expensive. It would cost less to save up and buy them all at once from a warehouse type supplier, preferably getting a bulk buy discount. You don't have to install them all at once either, you can still do them one at a time when it's conveniant and keep the rest stored away. The other problem with buying them at different times is half way through your window replacement they might change the designs or stop making them entirely, leaving you with a house full of unmatched windows.

This is the wrong forum for talking about replacement :)

I'm with Housekeeping though as we considered replacing all our windows with double pane - and looked at Pella and Marvin windows. We have an 1890s Vic in an historic district, so situation is a little different. We also looked at the HD and Lowe's variety.

In addition to the cost of historically accurate windows being more than we can manage - the windows just didn't *look* right. I'm not sure what it was, but they looked like modern vinyl windows with wood....kind of like contemporary houses built to look like an old house. Just not really acccurate.

So we decided to fix the windows we have, and be happy :)

Bry84, I don't know where you were ever told about the energy savings from Single glass to an IG (insulated glass) unit. I don't know why so many people trying to restore homes come to this conclusion. There are so many studies out there to actually see what the diiference is in the different glasses today. You may have had a point 20 years ago but not today. Let me point out some of these misinterpretations

Single Pane Glass has a "U" factor of 1.04. U factor is the total insulating factor of the window instead of "R" factor which is only the center of the glass. The lower the number the better.
Standard Insulated glass with LoE/Argon (today's standard window) is 0.29
Triple Glazed is 0.14

SHGC (Solar Heat Gain Transmitted) for single glass is 0.86
Insulated is 0.71
Triple Insulated is 0.33

These are dramatic steps in U value. On the average a home receiving new windows in an older home with single pane glass is around 32% overall for heating and cooling. If you feel this is a minimum number then that's fine. But I find it a very good savings per year. Plus the fact that most of the bigger window manufacturers can custom make windows to pretty much match anything out there today. With a big price tag.

I do on the other hand respect your love of having the original look and feel of how it was made many years ago. The desire to keep things in their original format is a hard and never ending battle you endure. For that I tip my cap to all of you out there. It really is a personall preference on what you like and want!!!

I agree 100% with Guy on this one. Restoring older, historic windows, is much more an asthetic choice and not specifically an energy savings move. Older, single pane windows are not even close to the performance of the windows available today in terms of energy savings. That doesn't mean that restoring and repairing doesn't help...it will help a great deal, but that is only because the old windows in poor shape are a heck of lot more of an energy drain than are old windows in top shape!
If the primary concern is energy savings, with no concerns to what replacement would do to the character of the home, then replace them. If the primary concern is the character of the home, then restoration would be the first choice.
If the character of the home is important, but the windows cannot be restored, then there are companies that specialize in replacements that replicate the original windows, but also as Guy mentioned, they will be expensive.

My last home, prior to the one I am in now, was built in 1905 and that house had some amazing and amazingly large double hung windows in the front areas. I really liked those old windows and I restored them because it was the right thing to do both for asthetics and for as much energy savings as I could squeeze out of them. But I did it knowing that I would not get anything near the same sort of savings that replacement would have done.
If this house had been built in the 50's or 60's with the windows available to the homes of that time I would have replaced them without a second thought...

Energy savings was part of the equation, but the character of the house was the primary consideration.

re: windows & energy savings, I believe the same thing can be accomplished cheaper & more esthetically thru higher quality storm windows (w isulated glass), and also insulating in cavities around the window. "This old house" had something the other day about keeping the windows & sashes but replacing the ropes & pulleys with a type of spring-operated cable (only $25 a pair). Then you can seal up the channels where the ropes and weights were with foam insulation.

Also you need to consider windows in context of whole house insulation-- is the attic insulated, are the air channels into attic sealed so that there is not an updraft effect which will actually PULL cold air in thru your windows.

I forgot to say in my above message-- you CAN have your cake and eat it too!

Actually, I am considering buying new windows for my PORCH --no, don't worry, Im not replacing anything:-), previous owners in the 50s already did the damage. What exactly are you paying for in a $500 window (vs a $250 one)?

Guy why do you say the windows have "evolved" in the past 10 yrs? What specifically was wrong with them and what specifically is now "right" about them?

I am mainly concerned with durability and Im afraid affordability too. Is there such a thing as an all-aluminum double or single hung window? Vinyl is OUT, but I don't mind aluminum so much..... Kolbe makes an all wood window too which is more "affordable"--what's a little more painting eh???

Ah, the window replacement quagmire... So many choices, so hard to decide... Window and Door magazine (see link below) just rated the top window mfgrs by volume ($$$). It's an industry rag, so most of them are vinyl replacments, but some of them do both (Pella, Marvin and Kolbe are all in there). I've been ordering a bunch of brochures and Weathershield looks like a good alternative to me. Pella has the advantage (if it's true) of being more green in their mfg processes than some of the other companies (though not sure how you'd verify that).

I would agree that I would not buy windows piecemeal. This is where a home equity loan would probably pay off. Our windows were unfortunately replaced less than 10 years ago w/ vinyl. Every time I open the southern facing ones, they fall on my head (a might irritating...). The vinyl is degrading that quickly. If you piecemealed this, then you could potentially be replacing windows every year for the rest of your stay in the house.

Though Pella may suck, I think American Craftsman sucks more. Kolbe (available through smaller builder's supply stores) may be just as good as those other brands and you have the added benefit of preventing the aggravation of shopping at a Big Box.

Here is a link that might be useful: Window and Door Magazine

Guy, thank you for your response and the explanation about the u-value for different glass. I was allready familar with u-value, but not for the most recent windows like tripple glazing. I have to admit they've lowered the u-value more than I realised, but still tripple glazing is not common yet. I believe the majority of the market is double glazing, increasingly with gas fills and coatings, but not allways. Here in the UK you still have to pay extra for these and many people just go for the regular sealed pane glass. It's still a lot better than the old single pane windows though.

Anyway, regardless of it's accuracy the opinion that secondary glazing gives performance similar to double glazing isn't all that far fetched. A lot of people seem to believe it and it's promoted by several historical groups I know. Here's a quick quote:

"Windows are a primary source of heat loss because they are both a poor thermal barrier (R factor of only 0.89) and often a source of air infiltration. Adding storm windows greatly improves these poor characteristics...This will result in a window assembly (window plus storm window) with an R factor of 1.79 which outperforms a double paned window assembly (with an air space up to 1/2") that only has an R factor of 1.72." Quoted from Preservation Brief Number 3, Department of the Interior.

Obviously it gives performance similar to plain double glazing, not the latest versions with coatings and argon, but still if I can make my old windows (circa 1871) perform to the same energy standards as fairly modern windows I think that's quite an improvement for very little cost. They're huge windows at about 6 foot tall and there's a lot of them, thus replacement would cost a fortune, the energy savings would never pay for them. I'm actually installing the secondary glazing to make the house more comfortable and because it's good for the environment, and to reduce noise, the reductions in fuel usage are just a bonus and I hope in time I will save back the costs as they're quite reasonable. I'm using a good brand with thermally broken aluminum frames and dual pane glass with a low-e coating to reflect some of the heat back inside before it's lost through the old windows. I should mention the quoted energy saving figures above are for regular ones without a thermal break and just one pane of glass, so these modern units will work even better. Like replacement windows secondary glazing is also a changing market and these aren't the units being sold ten years ago either. I think you'd be quite impressed with these, they're practically windows in themselves that you fit behind the original ones. The bonus is that they're far cheaper than all new windows and don't spoil the look of the house. I installed them as a test in one room and the improvement was huge, I've turned down the radiators really low and it's still the warmest room in the house, which is good considering it used to be one of the coldest. Even if I lived in a fairly modern house, for example 1963 I'd probably buy secondary glazing instead of entire replacement windows.

Bry84, good post! I admit I really enjoy friendly debates like this one, so it is my turn to comment ;-)

Actually, I really like what you are doing with your house. The idea of adding that additional glazing layer that includes an IGU with a LowE coating is probably as close to an ideal solution as I could think of.
And you will note a great deal of savings as well with the route you are taking as well as preserving the integrity of the house. I don't think anyone would suggest that it isn't worth the time or trouble to upgrade and repair exisiting windows and doors, but just that often a decision on how and where to take the upgrade is as much a personal preference as not. Overall, newer windows will outperform an upgrade...are they worth it in terms of cost payback? In some cases yes, and in some no. Are they going to pay for themselves in terms of coast savings? Eventually, but that could take a very long time.
Realisitically, people change windows for the same reasons you mentioned for upgrading...and those reasons make sense.

A bit of technical stuff for anyone who is reading this far down in the thread and is curious...R value comparisons are normally confined to center-of-glass measurements. As such, they really don't give the whole story of energy performance of a window system.
U value measurements were developed by engineers to measure heat loss thru a barrier. R value measurements were developed by insulation folks to sell their products. U value does give a better indication of performance, but R values are easier for most people to understand. When folks talk about R value computations for figuring energy losses, they are actually using U value figures (whether they know it or not), but U value figures "improve" as the number gets smaller and U value figures are more like .49 versus .57. R value figures improve as they get larger and seeing a comparison of 2.05 versus 1.75 just seems more intuitive to most people.

A dual pane clear-glass IGU with with 1/4" airspace has a U value of .57, or R value of 1.75...very similar to the quote from the Dept of the Interior that you listed. As the airspace is widened, the energy performance of the unit improves until at about 1/2" a dual pane clear-glass IGU has achieved its peak performance of U =.49 or R = 2.05.

As the airspace becomes wider yet, the values remain unchanged until it reaches about 7/8" width (airspace, not overall IGU width) and then the performance begins to gradually fall off.

Note that these are for clear glass units. When the manufacturer starts to add things like LowE coatings and gas infill, these numbers change as well.
And also remember that we are talking about center-of-glass IGU measurements and not specifically window performance.

As you noted Bry84, your add-ons have both dual pane glass and LowE coatings. Although I can't speak for Guy, I suspect that like me, he thinks automatically of new windows in terms of LowE and gas fill using warm edge spacers. It becomes almost automatic because the energy savings attributed to using the coatings and infills actually improve over an "ordinary" dual pane IGU by several orders of magnitude and it is difficult to imagine anyone installing windows that are not so equipped; if they can actually "see" the comparisons in front of them.

Kashka Kat, good question, and I am also waiting for Guy's reply, but in the meantime I will add a few cents to the mix.

In the past 10 years or so there have been a number of significant improvements to the IGU package.
10 years ago, it was still common that if you bought a window with an IGU it would be much less likely to have a LowE coating or gas infill. If it had a LowE coating, it would have been either a single-silver softcoat or a hardcoat. It would be almost certain to have an aluminum spacer often with a single seal using polysulfide (or potentially worse) as the sealant...I should say that some folks still use polysufide as a sealant, although statistically the performance isn't near the more "modern" materials.

A typical IGU today will be much more likely to have a LowE coating and that coating is much more likely to be a dual-silver softcoat...also sometimes called a spectrally selective LowE. Whereas a single-silver softcoat or a hardcoat do have improved performance numbers over a window that is not coated, the dual-silver lowE has greatly improved SHGC (solar heat gain) and overall U value performance numbers over the other coatings. Now some folks in the north still want either a hardcoat or a single-silver softcoat because of the SHGC numbers - in otherwords, more of the sun's energy can penetrate that coating which may be an advatage in winter - at least in south-facing windows. But, there is no doubt that in the south or central regions, or in the north-facing windows in the north, having the dual silver coating is far superior than the alternative.

Many companies still use aluminum spacers, and in the right environment that isn't a problem. But, in the harsher environments there are now a number of "warm-edge" or WET spacers available. These spacers block substantially more heat conduction between the two lites in an IGU than will an ordinary aluminum spacer.

Almost all manufacturers now use a dual seal in their IGU's as well. Specially developed silicones have often replaced polysulfides (for example), and/or a few other sealants as the secondary sealant of choice in many (but not all) cases. Many manufacturers now use either polyisobutyline or other thermoplastic product as the primary seal to keep the air out and the inert gas in the unit and a silicone as the seconday or structural seal.

Many times you will read on sites like this that getting the inert gas infill in an IGU is a waste of money because it will leak out in 5 to 7 years. With single seal systems or even dual systems sealed with some of the older materials this was almost a given. But the dual seal units now available are several generations removed from that issue and testing today indicates that 50 years or more for gas retention is realistic.

I addressed only the IGU. There are also improvements in window hardware and construction and mounting techniques which Guy is much better able to answer than I am...

Something to consider, 10 years ago, imagine "chatting" on the internet as we do today. Imagine DSL or cable modems. Imagine a forum like this!
Now also consider that many technologies have improved over the past 10 years, not just computers.

I've got 26 custom sized replacement Pella's. HATE THEM!
They have the worst screen set up, flimsy and readily broken. The customer service stinks! I've contacted them on several occasions about different issues and it's always the installers fault! On every single one of 26 windows? NOT! Pricey and crappy IMHO.

Pella Thermastar windows aren't real Pella windows. Theyre a low quality line that shouldn't be affiliated....

As for replacing the original windows on a 1963 cape cod, anyone who is telling you to keep the original windows hasn't seen a 60s-70s cape with the original windows. Aluminum, with storms blah... not really charming...

There are good replacement manufacturers out there, I'm not really qualified to know, but I've heard good things about Certainteed. I recently replaced my windows with Farley's they're made in Canada, supposedly really nice, haven't moved in yet, but they seem nice.

Hoping someone out there can answer in the next couple of days...

Im confused about the low-e glass. Do I have to have low e coating? I dont want heat reflecting outward and I dont care about ultra violet, since porch is on northwest side and would only get late afternoon light. Does it affect the color of the glass, does it look tinted at all?

I did read the post above comparing r's for all the different types of windows, but I'm not sure what that means in real-life. Guess my question is what's the difference if any in insulating value between double paned glass with low e coating, and without?

Also, related to what Bry wrote about storm windows (that is what "secondary glazing" is, isn't it?) Ive been thinking that having only 200-250 to spend per window, maybe it would make more sense to get top of the line highest quality storm windows, instead of cheaper budget double hung windows. The Larson Gold storm windows actually look pretty good (much chunkier and more attractive than the cheap model flimsy aluminum gray things) and the display says "recommended for porch enclosures." Whatya think??

No, I do not plan on heating this room, now or ever. But it does need to be reasonably air tight, and cut the drafts and have SOME insulation value.

I did some research into low e and I'm not convinced that it's worth it. I can't remember the technical details (see the National Fenestration link below, but you'll have to do some searching, sorry, no time to pinpoint the exact link), but it just doesn't seem to provide that much energy savings, unless you live in a climate that's really hot and you need the insulation value. IMO, which many will argue w/ it does affect your ability to see out the window (though in some cases it's probably not noticeable), but I've yet to see one that just looks like glass and on an old house, it just looks odd to me. Like I said, if I lived in a hot climate and I used AC, then I'd probably consider it my civic duty, but us northerners can do other stuff to save the planet (like never turning on the AC in the first place).

My experiences have led me back to prefer double hung simgle pane windows with interior storms. I grew up with double hung wood windows with exterior aluminum storms. In winter we froze from drafts and the metal storms frosted solid. Metal storms are heat sinks. They stop drafts but feed heat to the outside. However grandma's house with wooden double hungs and exterior wood storms grandpa built himself was cozy and warm. The best thing about double hungs is the ability to lower the upper window. On a hot day you raise the lower window on the shadey side of the house, and lower the upper window on the sunny side of the house creating a natural convection current. Later I lived in an apartment with pre WWII steel casement windows retrofitted with inside acrylic storms. That system was great. The casements opened out to scoop breezes, while the inside storms stopped casement air leaks in winter. No one needed air conditioning in that building with the great breezes. Then the owner got the idea to throw away those fabulous antiques and install central air. He put in sliding double pane thermal windows with an E coating. The acrylic storms were ripped out too. First thing I found I could no longer hear the birds singing. In summer, we could hear the lovely sounds thru the old glass. Now I was in a muffled recording studio. Many people prefer this, but I missed it. The sliding windows did not catch any breeze so the air never moved. The old casements had screens inside so the casements could swing. The slider window exterior screens collected dirt and tree seeds but were hard to clean. The E coating made the light we recieved dimmer and grayer. I know because I had trouble reading and my fabulous houseplant collection shriveled. I had been growing masses of flowering pansies, and rose moss in my windows in winter. I never realized the importance of quality sunlight for flowering annuals. My luxury greenhouse was gone. Instead of wood, fiberglass, or vinyl coated metal the thermal panes were inset in painted metal frames. The window glass was thermal but the frames were a heat sink causing huge drafts in winter. The frames often had ice on the inside. Our heating bills went way up but in summer with no air circulation the double pane glass trapped heat in so we had to use the central air to survive. Because I was unlucky enough to live with the worst of all worlds, I now know I how much I enjoy the perks of single pane glass: hearing the sound of birds, brighter more natural light for reading and houseplants. I can set double hung or casement windows to alter air currents. And the inside storms work ok when its cold. Now for me that is real luxury. But then I prefer to hang my clothes on the line in summer; sweeter smelling, saves energy, kills germs. Havent convinced many people on that either

Good post flowerkitty, I enjoyed reading it.
Obviously the replacement windows you described were junk. Unfortunately, like any other "new" industry the dual pane window industry suffered thru years of experimentation and flawed products and start-up companies that barely lasted long enough to waste whatever money they had and leave a load of dissatisfied customers in their wake (kind of like the computer industry 20 years ago or the dot-coms not so long ago!).
I have some older books (early 70's) that talk about the best ways to save energy in the home and while some of those ideas were innovative and worked, a great many of them were absolute nonsense that simply never performed as advertised and disappeared after a very short life expectancy.
I think that you have come to a window compromise that works great for you and that is always a good thing...enjoy it and thanks for sharing.

I am in the process of replacing ugly, ugly, ugly ill-fitting aluminum sliders with Pozzi (Jeld-Wen) aluminum clad replacements. (The GC and his assistant are on lunch now.) This is basically a restoration job to return my late 1920s Tudor back to its original look. The new windows are dark brown on the outside. I originally went in wanting Marvins, but Pozzis better fit the house style. They are gorgeous!

The GC has been installing windows for over 20 years; it is his specialty and he enjoys the exacting work more than the occasional kitchen and bathroom jobs he does for old clients. When I look at the botched job in my old windows, versus the current ones where he restored posts and made aesthetic calculations regarding window sizes, there really is no comparison. Am I paying a pretty penny? Ye$, ye$, YES. Will I get my money back in lower utility bills? Probably not for a long, long time. But I know I have added significantly to the value of my house.

My point: If you have a really old house, and/or are not replacing like kind windows (eg, are going from sliders to double-hungs and casements like I am), think seriously about using a professional to avoid a nightmare. For example, did you know that replacement casements and double-hungs need different window depths, and some brands won't even work (or will stick out and look stupid) in some openings due to their depth? I sure didn't. The greatest energy efficient window won't be if the installation is crummy.

I have installed 30 american craftsman windows and every 1 of them has a problem with them. They are without a doubt the junkiest windows I have ever installed.

Well I came across this post because i'm debating between Pella and Craftsmen windows and my house is in Maine.... I'm doing a full reno cause it's a foreclosure so with everything adding up i'm narrowing things down. My lowes quote was like 11,000 and my Home depot quote was like in the high 13000 range. With my updating my electric, heat, kitchens and bathrooms plus floors I'm leaning towards lowes and pella to save the 2000. I'd like everyone's input so let me know... Owe and i have about 22 windows

Neither window is really very good at all in terms of quality or performance. I would suggest perusing the window forum and looking into some of the brands they list most often such as, Softlite, Okna, etc. In the NE most if not all of the good brands should be available to you.

Replacement windows should be measured and custom made for your openings. I don't think it is a good plan to buy stock windows and put them in yourself. For a Cape you should have mullions in the upper and lower sash (usually 6 over 6) or at least the upper sash (6 over 1) to avoid the appearance of a low budget modern window upgrade.

As for brands, Pella is the only window I would not use for any purpose even if they were free.

"Replacement windows should be measured and custom made for your openings."

This guy disagrees and saves his customers lots of money.

That advice is from an experienced window installer who knows how to efficiently and accurately shim all four sides of a rough opening so stock windows and new trim will fit without a lot of unnecessary fuss. Buying stock windows a few at a time from a retail store will add to the expense and the windows will have no mullions which I think is an important consideration for resale of a Cape style house.

If the primary purpose of this renovation is a quick flip and maximum profit, it doesn't make much difference which brand is used. Both are low end and will not last much beyond 10 years. If you want something of higher quality in keeping with the house's style, fix the existing windows. These are undoubtably much better than the replacements you're considering.

Its too bad OP couldn't just stay on the remodeling forum - why did he feel compelled to come here? This forum was set up specifically for the preservationist/restorationist (vs remodeler) so we wouldn't have to be bogged down with this and the vinyl siding issue every other post. Ughhhhh enough already.

It's a lot like debating politics and religion. There are beliefs you are either on board with - or you're not. Re: old house windows, the beliefs we preservationists/restorationists operate from are a) there are very little energy savings with new windows (ie most heat loss is via gaps, air leaks, lack of insulation in basemen and attic and very little through the panes of glass/windows themselves); and b) when you add up costs of manufacture and shipping, short operating life, inability to repair them, etc. the "green" alternative really is repair/restoration of old double hung wood windows and c) cost - huge expense, short operating life & inability to repair adds up to not a very wise purchase

Unless original windows are missing or too hopelessly trashed - some original windows from 1940s onward weren't great quality to begin with.

I have a 1908 house in Colorado with original windows and storms. I would never consider changing them out. However, my mom's 1963 home has metal (aluminum?) windows and those are junk. I would have replaced those long ago.

Diane

I cannot post this too many times. He's a member here, and an industry expert when it comes to old homes. Please...education is the best tool. Best of all...he's not selling you anything, he's educating you for FREE!!!

http://www.oldhouseguy.com/windows/

Reading thru all this window commentary, there is one word that is, to my mind, missing. And that is ANDERSEN. I am a carpenter with 40 years of experience with Andersen windows and I have never replaced one. Their 400 line is made of wood with PVC cladding. They have a proprietary treatment system that does a fine job of preventing decay. And they have a price point that sets them just a little lower than Pella or Marvin. Both of those are good windows too, in my estimation, but Andersen is still the best choice.