Thanks for that. Very interesting!

You see those cues clearly in the Georgian houses on plantations and the Federal town houses in the center of old cities built in the 18th and 19th centuries - elaborate trims descending in complexity to the simplest planks in the workrooms and storage areas. The trims reinforce the hierarchy of space that rules the progression from most public to most private areas of traditional houses.

Having lived in two 19th century houses (1838 and 1840) with a complete hierarchy to mouldings, doors, door hardware, window sizes etc., I am on board with this.

The caveat is that the not matching still has to follow some kind of "order". This can be an order that you establish on your own, but it should have a pattern that can be discerned by the casual viewer in your house even if they can't articulate it --but it has to be orderly enough that you can "feel" it.

It also becomes more difficult in open plans. The two houses I lived in like this had doors on every room that were probably kept firmly shut all the time. There are some unusual changes between mouldings where one stops dead and another starts in some secondary hallways, but there is still a visual clue as to why it does so and an intentional transition between the two.

My parents had an 1880's Victorian and this was true throughout the house.

Front hall, living room and dining room had large crown molding and baseboards. The kitchen had much smaller ones. The front stairs up to the second floor matched the front hall, but once you were in the hallway up there, everything became smaller--ceilings were lower, the baseboards and crown molding were narrower. Head on up to the attic, and they were narrower still.

Even the doorknobs changed. They were all the same vaguely Asian style, but the back plates were much larger on the ground floor, a bit smaller on the second floor and tiny up in the attic where the servants would have slept. And the knobs themselves went from ornate on the first two floors to very plain up attic.

I always thought it was a way to save money by putting the showier pieces in the public rooms. But having read this article, I can see how the doorways into the kitchen and back hall were much less prominent than the doorways into the dining room and living room. The kitchen door especially sort of faded into the background of the dining room, camouflaged in part by the wainscoting and the built-in china cabinet doors.

I guess it is 'correct', but I always think it looks odd when the trim ends before the end of the wall, or when the trims do not connect. I've seen trim ('subordinate crown' in the link) stop and re-start to avoid HVAC grilles in the wall.

If it looks "odd" they didn't do it right. Moldings should end at a logical place and have an end point that makes sense. You have to look at where the gotchas are and plan around them.

They should have designed a trim that could be altered a bit in the grille area, but that went seamlessly past it on at least one spot. Or did a bit of a box like this and painted it to match the wall.

============
It also indicated the status of the occupants of the rooms. The higher the status, the higher the baseboards :)

The servant's entrance to a formal dining room, for example, would be almost invisible (if not completely hidden) and the guest entrance would be elaborate.

Here is a link that might be useful: Neat molding tricks

There's two aspects of the above picture that bother me though, even thought it's carefully done.

I would have moved the vent rather than do that elaborate jog around it. (or done something simpler that didn't conflict. )That calls attention to the last thing a classicist of the old moulding-hierarchy days would call attention to.

Also, the elaborateness of this moulding is out of sync with the unit-brick wall.

A simpler moulding would have been better all around because of those two elements, imo, so this just looks like a parlor trick: I am good at mouldings so I have to show you how good.

It's technically very good work but the decision making process leaves something to be desired, in my opinion, in that picture.

Vents can be painted, why doesn't anyone do this?

Interesting. But isn't it a pain to switch out the detailing depending upon your level of esteem for the guests of the evening? ;-) [Since you receive and entertain guests here, the level of architectural detail should reflect your esteem for them.]

debrak2008, I, for one, dislike painted vents. Not because of the look so much, but because the task is rarely done without runs and missed areas. And, especially if the vents are painted with a flat paint, they are more difficult to keep clean. With every color change, there is another layer and opportunity for it to look messy. I prefer clean, white contrast to messy-looking vents. Done properly, it could look nice. The problem is, they are so rarely painted properly.

They actually aren't too easy to paint well. because it takes rolling and brushing, and then they are a bit more maintainable if done with alkyd paint.

The louvered things that were painted in my apartments were all kind of clumpy with wall paint and hard to clean (as welll as looking sloppy with the slots clogged) They had to be stripped to the bare metal before they could be painted again.

But I agree, they blend in if you paint them so why not make the effort.

When doors are hierarchically different it even acts as a signal for people who are not familiar to the house to "open this door, but Not that one". This was a lot more important in large houses when people had staff, but it can still make sense today.

I usually try to deemphasize closets and such with simpler doors or by painting them out the same color as the walls for myself, but this is a hard sell for clients, who've had it drummed into their heads that all of it needs to match.

Great information. Thanks for sharing it, Lazygardens! I bookmarked the website.

Pal did a post on this topic when AtticMag was still a discussion board; I found it informative then. Good to see the topic addressed again.
Gyr_Falcon, that is why one retains house staff. ;

This post was edited by kitchendetective on Thu, Jun 6, 13 at 10:27

The thinking about homes with separate areas to show off for visitors has changed somewhat. The idea now is since the family spends more time in the home than anyone else, the majority of budget should be spent on their spaces and comfort. II agree with that completely. It's almost laughable when you see young couples looking for their first house who want "space for entertaining" when it's obvious that they've probably never entertained and are not likely to. If you entertain groups once a month--- which I think is a lot for most people---- you're still ordering your home budget and structure for events that take up 1/12 of your time in the home, not the life you live the rest of the 11/12s of the time.

That said, we have "standard" crown molding in the laundry room and in the basement with far more substantial moldings elsewhere. But I think the ideas like "doing whatever you like in the master bedroom because no me but you will see it" is made from an absurd premise. The article in that link sounds like a molding advertisement.

The young people I know have a very different idea about what "entertaining" is than we do. They need the space because their version (and ours, when we were young) involves a whole bunch of their friends, lots of drinks and snacks and music, and general horsing around.

We are more sedate about the whole business.

But I disagree that just because you do things only once a month, you shouldn't have a house that supports them. I have four people at my table as often as once a week, six once a month, and eight or ten three or four times a year. Then there's the occasional cocktail party for 20 or so, which is about all this house can handle. I want all those groups to be comfortable, and to feel that we made an effort on their behalf. I want to be able to handle them all relatively easily, which keeps it fun for me.

But back to the molding - I don't think it's necessarily about showing off. It's about an old-fashioned level of formality, and a signal that life is lived a certain way in the house. And it's also a pleasure to look at. I don't think anyone should feel uncomfortable in beautiful surroundings, even if they aren't part of one's everyday life.

The best advice I ever heard given to a young person about to be entertained in a place that scared her to death was this: "Don't worry about not fitting in. Just stand up straight, smile at everyone, and speak clearly, softly, and rarely."

"The article in that link sounds like a molding advertisement."

It is an advertisement. He's selling trim. And the more complicated things are made, the more expensive it becomes. More income for both him and the carpenter or builder who has to figure it out and install it. Probably one important reason things have been simplified over the years, affordability.

Bronwynsmom mom, i was addressing the content of the article---or advertisement. The molding salesman used the terms "showy," I didn't come up with it myself. :-)

And to quote:, "Since you receive and entertain guests here,(foyer, dining room, and parlor) the level of architectural detail should reflect your esteem for them.".

On the subject of guest bedrooms and baths: " While you donâÂÂt have to be showy in these secondary rooms, the moldings in these rooms should give a polite nod to your guests while they are not in your presence." But moldings are not a necessity for family bedrooms since you don't have to impress them?

That's completely backwards, IMO. We have a lot of weekend company and events, family and business and friends, and I really don't think our 12" moldings are a sign of respect to them, but rather a reflection of how we choose to live ourselves. If i were in a situation in which the budget would not allow both, I'd definitely put crown molding in my children's bedrooms before a guest bedroom.