Could you describe exactly what's wrong with the current wood sashes and glass? I know you said you can see daylight thru some, but what else is wrong?

If the gaps and air flow are the ONLY things really "wrong" with the windows, I'd suggest not getting new windows and instead just buy some spring bronze weather stripping to weatherproof the window. That will be your most economical solution.

However, if the wood is disintegrating, why not check into window restoration? I'm an old house lover and would hate to see you scrap wood windows just to fix gaps...if that's the only real problem.

I don't have advice about vinyl windows.

Here is a link that might be useful: kiilian spring bronze

Thanks for the comments. Wood on many sashes is damaged-- cracks, gashes out of it. A few look like they've been planed off almost as if someone did a quick-and-ugly fix to remove bad spots, then painted over. Glass itself looks horrible though might be salvaged except for one w/ a small hole in it. Sure, wood windows are nice. But all in all I think these need to go. I'd like something low-maintenance, holds in heat better.

Does anyone have answers to my questions about vinyl, as posted above? Please?

Certainteed is a well known nation wide brand, i would probably use them if i had t he choice and make sure the model and or series number is written in the contract.

Have you ever thought of buying new windows from Home depot and save some money. Then find a contractor or handyman to istall them. So much cheaper Get a low e glass at least double paned and argon gas filled. Will save you much in energy bills

Thanks for your response. No, I'm not going the Home Depot route. I now have a distributor/installer in mind that I believe will do a good job. I need to decide on a window and get them ordered. Looking at Certainteed Bryn Mawr, VPI Quality Windows, or CDI. (possibly a Simonton window, but those seem to be more in East Coast / Midwest; one of the others is most likely in my case). At this point I'm trying to get recommendations or feedback re: the first three windows I've listed. Thank you.

Ninavee, before you take the plunge, check out these restoration sites. There are pros who work to save wood windows. To me, the bad thing about vinyl is that once you take out your original windows, you'll be repacing vinyl periodically but regularly in the future.

http://www.windowrestorationne.org/topten.pdf

Here is a link that might be useful: heartwood

Patser, I know you are a big advocate of keeping the original windows, but you are being extremely misleading by insinuating that someone who buys vinyl windows will be replacing them periodically but regularly in the future.

With the exception of the uninformed who goes to HD and buys the weekly special, low end window and fools themselves into believing they have purchase a product good enough for their immediate usage, the truth is that most vinyl windows made by better manufacturers last just as long as new wood windows.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and I'm sure many here appreciate it. What you are not entitled to is to make up facts and put out misinformation about vinyl windows.

skydawggy, Your comment "the truth is that most vinyl windows made by better manufacturers last just as long as new wood windows" is exactly my point. I'm not talking about NEW wood windows. Keeping OLD wood windows, which have lasted 70+ years, and repairing them, will most likely insure that they last another 70+ years.

So I'm not making anything up nor am I misinformed.

Patser... Apparently, you missed the main point of my post.You are using anecdotal evidence to preaent a one -sided view. It does not follow that if something has lasted seventy means it will last another seventy. Nor does it mean a good quality vinyl window will not last seventy years. In fact there are fewer wood windows installed in houses seventy years ago that are still in use than not.

Here's where I take the biggest issue with your post.

Quote: "To me, the bad thing about vinyl is that once you take out your original windows, you'll be repacing vinyl periodically but regularly in the future".

My father has vinyl windows that were installed in 1972 and he hasn't had any issues with them at all. How much longer will they last according to your calculations?

Your dad is one lucky man.

Even the glass industry allows that replacement windows are just that....windows that will need replacing. Note Charles Cumpstom's comments.

I don't think you and I, skydawggy, will every agree on the benefits of maintaining original wood windows from 1)an historical accuracy standpoint and 2)the economics of good maintenance on original windows.

The OP mentioned that she needed to be conscientious with how she spends her money given that her home has other project needs. My comments have been addressed to a cost sensitive solution that's good for an older home. That's all from me on this one.

Here is a link that might be useful: window glass

It's really not a question of whether I agree on the benefits of maintaining original wood windowsor not. I think if someone wants to spend the time and money involved, that's great. It's their home. It's a question of putting out false information. Since you don't want to discuss it any further, I won't refute almost every point in the article you posted as it is as full of the same misleading info and tactics we always hear from the Hysterical Preservationists.

I found the "window glass" article of some interest. I'd also be interested in hearing the refutes to the article, as noted in the previous post. I think the idea of retaining the original wood windows has valid points, but it sounds like this owner is experiencing problems with original wood windows that have been manipulated to the window's detriment.

It is entirely too difficult to make the judgement of whether the original windows are salvagable from the written description. It is also very likely that seeking out a window restoration company to make a local assessment of this home would be troublesome. Replacing the windows requires far less effort on the homeowner's part, and there are probably numerous new/replacement window agents in the vicinity that would love to increase their profits in a slow building industry. Unless an owner has some appreciation for aesthetic value, charm, or future resale value, the prospect of retaining original wood windows has very low odds. It just appears to be too difficult or troublesome to fix things anymore, and the service industry has moved more towards disposable products due to this mindset.

By the way, my personal opinion on "replacement" style windows is that they are a short-term band-aid. If I am defining "replacement windows" correctly, these are the type where the original window frame stays in place and new components are added to the side jambs, which then allows new sashes to be installed. This might be comparable to taking a new car body and placing it on a Model T chassis; the components weren't designed to precisely mate together. It might look pretty, but the performance is surely lacking, so just buy the whole new car.

Like all building products replacement windows are sold in manny grades.The best have life time warranties the worst have 90 days.The same is true with new construction windows.Also any window or restoration only as good as the install or repair.

OK lets do a few easy ones.

"Insulated glass-seals tend to fail in 2 to 6 years allowing condensation between
the panes."

Absolute Bunk. I don't know of anyone who promoted this false and misleading information other than the high price, high pressure window salesmen. And apparently Hysterical Presevationists.

" Most insulated glass panels cannot be replaced once they fail. The entire window
must be replaced."

More misleading bunk. the glass units can be removed and replace by either the manufacturer or on the case of a slider or double hung, the factory can simply make a new sash. Most manuf. offer at least a 20 year warranty non-prorated warranty on the seal which further debunks the 2-6 years lifetime.

" Primary window sashes were never intended to take a direct hit from the weather.
In early years they had shutters then storms to protect them."

This addresses wood windows and I couldn't agree more of the importance of storm windows with old wood windows. Storms are actually the reason older wood windows last longer than newer wood windows.

"Air infiltration is the biggest energy issue with windows. Vinyl windows, by their
nature, have weep holes in their bottom rail to let the moisture seep out which
allows massive air infiltration.

Huh?? Air infiltration is not the biggest energy issue with any windows. Conduction is. The statement that weep holes allow massive air infiltration is quite frankly laughable and shows a complete lack of understanding of the structure and design of vinyl windows.
" PVC or vinyl is the most toxic substance manufactured today. It cant be recycled;"

It most certainly can and is recycled.

" excessive contraction and expansion issues. It
fades, cracks and has a maximum lifespan of 16 to 18 years."

Again complete bunk. The expansion rate of vinyl is almost the same as wood. This is more cheap hype that mainly comes from thos who sell wood windows and has apparently been adopted by the preservationists.

" The vinyl jamb liners that are needed for tilt-in windows have cheap spring
balances and cheesy foam backing that have a lifespan of about 6 to 10 years.

I really don't know where you people get this stuff from. I know of one manuf. who has produced a high quality balance system for almost 30 years and has only had about 60 failures out of over 400 million. This as opposed to the spiral and spring or rope balances used in wood windows which we know the spotty history.

" Double hung windows were invented in the 1400s as an air conditioning system.
Lower the top sash and raise the lower sash. This lets the hot air and humidity out
the top and brings the breezes in through the bottom. Most replacement units
dont have a full screen to allow for this process."

All vinyl window manufacturers offer both 1/2 and full screens.

" Aluminum, self-storing storm windows are not even a good windbreak. Metal
conducts heat and cold while wood insulated against heat and cold."

Aluminum storm windows are attached to wood frames. How does this contribute to conduction?

" ¼ ", laminated glass has better UV protection than all the low-e coatings. It also
approaches similar thermal capabilities as insulated glass, is more soundproof, is
safer and cost less than insulated glass.

More bunk from the hysterical preservationists. Compare the energy efficiency and STC of a triple pane IG unit with krypton gas and laminated glass. I mean you gotta be kidding with this comparison.

" Original window sashes are a part of the footprint of your old house or building."

Yeah, right..whatever that means.

One more thing. The hysterical preservationists where I live have started to go beyond preserving their own houses. They believe they have the right to dictate to the entire neighborhood by having local politicians zone their neighborhoods as historical. This is generally done by newer residence to the neighborhood. Once the neighborhood has been deemed historical, it means all the residence now have to comply with the new zoning rules and no longer have a choice of what materials they are able to use as siding, windows, roofing etc. In effect the neighborhood now has a historical Home Owners Association.

I've typed enough for now but I may decide to debunk the rest of these bogus claims later.

I was going to write much the same type of reply that skydawggy already did, but his reply made that unnecessary.

I went to replacement window link and I was amazed at how much misinformation was posted there, which is a shame, because I happen to agree that in the right circumstances restoration is the way to go. But, there is so much about the information on that link that is either way outdated or was simply never true at all.

One example from the preservation article is comments on laminated glass ---- " ¼ ", laminated glass has better UV protection than all the low-e coatings. It also
approaches similar thermal capabilities as insulated glass, is more soundproof, is
safer and cost less than insulated glass".

Safer? Yep, it is.

More soundproof? Again, that is a yes versus either single pane or standrad dual pane windows. If someone is specifically interested in sound blocking ability, then that is another issue entirely.

Less expensive than an IG? Not typically, but there are exceptions.

More energy efficient? Nope. A laminated glass lite has pretty much identical thermal or energy characteristics as a monolithic lite of the same thickness. There is no energy advantage to using laminated glass in place of monolithic glass.

Better at blocking UV? Yep. But while laminated glass does block over 99% of UV light from coming thru a window - which is more than any LowE coating will block and which I assume is specifically referencing fading protection - fading is also related to visible light as well as UV and while laminated glass will provide extensive UV protection, the correct LowE coating may be even better at fading protection.

And, my take on restoration versus replacement, if anyone is interested...............

First, when the "restoring versus replacing" argument comes around to the energy performance differences (if any) between the restoration window and the replacement window, they will eventually be lost in the rhetoric of the aesthetic reasons for restoring versus replacement. And these are often very valid reasons by themselves.

Second, because no matter what the numbers show about individual unit performance, ultimately the individual window is still part of the overall structure of the home and its performance as part of that overall structure is what is important - not necessarily how well does it perform in the lab environment.

As I mentioned previously, I happen to really like old windows when they are a significant part of the architecture of a home.

I believe that they are so much a part of the charm of an older home that it is worth every possible effort to try to save them. I certainly understand the appeal of replacing older windows for the potential improvements that replacements will bring in energy consumption, comfort, and the potential ease of maintenance; but I also understand the desire of many people to try to do everything possible to save the original windows in a classic home.

There are a lot of misconceptions about old windows versus new windows and many opinions often based on opinions and feelings and not on facts that come up in discussions like this one.

I would offer a few for consideration:

FACT if a homeowner was to opt for top-quality replacement windows, he or she could get them made in any style that they wanted in wood, fiberglass, aluminum, steel, and yep, even that old villain vinyl. There are available styles that would fit their home and that would be virtually indistinguishable from the original windows in the home and, these windows could last every bit as long as the home. But note that I said "top-quality" spelled $$$$$$$$.

FACT a low end replacement window doesnt come close to meeting the same sort of standards as does a top-quality product from the materials used, to the glass used, to the hardware used it could be like comparing a Yugo to a Ferrari (and whatever happened to Yugo BTW?) and from a performance standpoint a good restoration will almost always be a much better investment of time, trouble, and money than changing to a junk replacement.

The guy in the Sunday paper who promises to replace every window in a home at "$99.95" with his "sooper-dooper-highest-quality" vinyl or aluminum window likely has neither the highest quality window nor does he have the homeowners long term interest at heart. He needs to get in and to get out and what happens in five or 10 years? Thats no longer his problem.

A very common comment from folks who favor restoration over replacement is that restoring a single-pane window and storm window combination will result in energy performance numbers that are comparable to any new window on the market regardless of any glass coatings or gas used with the new window.

Fact the newest dual or triple pane windows made with LowE2 or LowE3 coated glass and argon or krypton fill are substantially more energy efficient than old windows single or double pane. A triple pane window with LowE2 coating on surfaces 2 and 5 combined with krypton gas infill and a low conductance spacer system can achieve energy performance numbers as much as 10 times better than an original single pane window and as much as six times better than a single pane with storm (or a low-end dual pane window as well).

R-values aside, since they measure only conductive thermal transfer, and any discussion of windows has to include radiant performance (60% plus of total window performance), the primary advantage of multi-pane windows over dual panes is the ability of a multi-pane window to include LowE coatings. The coatings improve both conductive and radiant performance of the window over clear glass. If one wants to discuss R-values in window systems, then the current "highest" measured R-value glass currently on the market has an R-20. A good triple pane window with LowE2 coatings on glass surfaces 2 and 5 can achieve an R-10. A dual pane with a single LowE on surface 2 can theoretically achieve an R-5. But, again, that is ONLY a measure of conductive performance and it is far from the full story.

Comment old windows may have lasted 50, 75, 100, or more years and new windows will always fail in short order only lasting 5 or 10 years.

Fact quality products will outlast non-quality products no matter when produced. For all of the older windows that are on homes today and that deserve the chance to be around even longer, there are tens-of-millions of windows that were made in the last few centuries that didnt make it into todays world for a wide variety of reasons including simple window failure often as a result of poor or non-existent maintenance. The ones that have made it thru are often the best that were produced and they likely had a good bit of maintenance at some point. These are all very good things that make the idea of keeping them around even longer worth serious consideration.

Ultimately, older windows have lasted as long as they have because they are of simple, uncomplicated construction that has had the distinct advantage of using a material (old growth lumber) that is no longer widely available. The pyramids will easily outlast a modern skyscraper that doesn't make a pyramid inherently superior than the skyscraper - it is simply different. Old growth lumber can be worth preserving if only for itself.

And as an aside, when I am talking about "older" windows, I am not necessarily talking about much of the junk that popped up during the post WWII building boom. I am considering classic houses with architecturally classic windows. Obviously there is quality and there is junk from any era. Just because something is old, there is no reason to consider it "better".

The better, newer, dual and triple pane window systems now on the market and installed all over Europe and North America should easily reach 50 years life expectancy - many will go well beyond that time. There are vinyl windows in Europe that were installed over 50 years ago that are performing flawlessly today.

Comment restoring old windows is good for the environment and helps with energy performance.

Fact while this is certainly true, it isnt the entire story. Despite comments from folks who love their old windows and there are a variety of very good reasons for that feeling those reasons are primarily aesthetic, not primarily efficiency. Replacing older windows with available higher-end energy-saving products will directly save energy over restoration.

But, restoration and the addition of a good storm window can still be a huge improvement over windows that are stuck, painted-over, drafty, and without storms and it will keep those windows out of the landfill.

Fact many old houses have their original windows and some of these windows (if they have had adequate maintenance for their lifetime) are in very good shape. And some are also in very poor shape, most are somewhere in between. But, they have all made it this far and if they are worth restoring, then by all means that should be considered as a very definite option. Again, most (but not all) older windows are made with old growth lumber which is inherently better than almost any lumber available today - which while being absolutely true and rather sad in some ways - in the end this is what our ancestors left us with. Makes me wonder sometimes what we will be leaving our descendents?.

Fact older double hung windows with sash cords are inherently energy wasters because that open spot where the weights hide is an energy black-hole. There are alternatives to the sash-weight pocket that can improve this energy dump, but while replacing the sash cords and weights will improve energy performance, not everyone would consider that to be a viable option. And there are other options involved with keeping sash cords that will help as well.

Fact many people like the look of wavy glass which was the norm in windows made long ago; yet the waves and bubbles in glass are technically a flaw in the manufacturing process. Glass producers did their best to avoid such embellishments, but it was the best that could be mass produced at the time using the sheet glass process.

Actually, for higher-end (spelled $$$$) folks they could produce glass with much less waviness, even back at the turn-of-the-century, but it was expensive and few folks wanted to, or could afford to, spend the money for it, which of course doesnt mean that such ornamentation doesn't add the charm and character of the window and subsequently the home. Lots of "flawed" items have a certain charm and character of their own. And btw, I very much like "flawed" wavy glass and it is available today, made in the exact same process that was used 100 years ago, only today it is considered decorative and is therefore expensive.

Finally at the end.