I don't understand how you are obviously being picky. Sounds pretty bad. Can you post photos?

Well i'm going by the information provided. Supposedly the owner is unsatisfied. What else can the Homeowner do to get this problem resolved? It sounds like the contractor made a bigger problem

I am not saying he didn't but in my opinion there is no where near enough info available from the op to make an informed decision.

You picked the original person for a reason. He should be given a chance to address the issues. Nobody is infallible. My feeling is that one difference between a good contractor and a bad one is that the good one can fix his own problems.

While it is reasonable to let this contractor address any issues, let's see a series of pictures of the workmanship in order to judge his capabilities, standards of acceptable workmanship and ethics. This could be another case of not wise to let the person work on your house anymore or you will be in deeper trouble.

How did you select this company? What did you pay for the work and what part of the country are you in? Have you talked to them at all yet about the issues?

Wow. Thanks for the great feedback everyone. I'll add photos tonight or first thing tomorrow to provide more details.

Here you go. Hope these help. Comments by order of photo:

photo 1. Maple floor. Not bad.

photo 2. Angle #1 of poor stain and sanding

photo 3. Angle #2 of same area of poor stain and sanding

photo 4 and 5. examples of sloppy and excessive putty

photos 6 and 7. examples of dinning room (notice the wood difference and same color and sloppy putty)

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

Thanks again for your feedback!

What exactly was he contracted to do? What does the contract state the extent of his scope to be? Just trying to get an image of the big picture.

The contract was pretty weak. It was to sand, stain and finish the floors. We also identified historical patches that would need to be stained. I paid extra for those areas.

I agree that the putty work is somewhat inconsistent. Other than that, for being 125 years old, they're not bad. If you wanted a more consistent color, darker stain would have been a better choice as it would disguise the differences in wood species better.

I think they did a pretty good job on the floors. The only thing I'd have an issue with is the putty...it's a bit sloppy in areas but looks fine in others. There is only so much you can do with floors that old. As far as the inconsistent stain color, that's what happens when you have multiple species of woods and likely various ages of wood as well.

The putty work looks plain strange. He does not have a good eye for stains either. They can be stained to match. It's important to find someone who has that talent rather than go with someone who says they'll never match.

I don't understand the picture of the large expanse of floor and can't see sanding marks. I do believe they are there, as you say, and they should not be.

You have examples of his abilities. You could get an estimate for someone to fix things and deduct it from his last payment or discuss reimbursement. What does he think of the finished floor?

I think I have to agree with daveho. Overall the floor looks quite good. It looks flat, even in sheen and free of debris/puddles/drips/holidays and such. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask that the putty either be removed or painted over with something that would match the floor better. The orbital scratches are unfortunate but in the whole scheme of things, don't amount to a failing grade. Keep in mind that floors are judged from a standing position. Judging by the closeup, the patch could be darker but in the other picture it looks better.

Considering the character your floor has, I think that the putty is the only thing I'd recommend addressing. Darkening all or some of the light patched boards might end up making the floor look worse.

Thanks everyone. I feel that on these floors, filling the gaps with putty (especially sporadically) looks much worse than leaving the gaps.

snookums2 - The orbital sanding marks are visible when you click on image #3.

In any case, the majority of the work was good. Of the 8 rooms and stairs that were done, these are the areas that concern me. So what I'm hearing is that I shouldn't be too concerned. However, being a bit of a perfectionist, I'll have the putty in the major areas fixed.

I've never known orbital marks to be acceptable but you are lucky they are old floors so it seems to blend in. You know, you are there. I find it difficult to really gauge things from the photos. The staining does not seem to match well on my monitor.

Thanks again. As I mentioned before, I just din't know what to expect. The owner seemed like a really good guy and that's why I was struggling with what to do.

mmacintosh, filling large gaps with putty is standard in refinishing so your contractor should have either mentioned this to you ahead of time when he described the process of refinishing your floors, or you should have specified you wanted to maintain the character of the floors and not fill any holes or gaps. It looks like he just tried to fill the largest gaps and leave the smaller ones which is good, but the putty color does stick out quite a bit and agree that you should try to have the worst areas fixed.

I've seen quite a few old floors with large gaps that did not have fill. They looked great. Of course some people might prefer no gaps. The fill on these not only does not match but it looks erratically sloppy and hit or miss. Were there small pieces of old fill here and there before so that all of it is not his work?

None at all. The fill is from this recent work. I believe that because the floors are on their last sanding, the integrity of the wood might have exposed more damage. Not sure though.

Just ribbing you mmacintosh, but if you're a perfectionist, you may be living in the wrong house.