aggietexan, if you send me pictures to my email address, I can set them up in one of the two photo sites I belong to that I have not used in a long time. I would add pictures and send the link here and clicking the link would allow the pictures to show. I do not know how to place pictures inside a post but I do know how to do links. I would love to see pictures. Just click my lynn2006 page and you will see a link to click my email. I am glad you are happy with your new floors. Do they have some red in them? I would love to see some close up of the knots since maybe they are tiny and will not bother me. I do love the pics of the Amendoim floors on the BR-111 website. How long have you had the floors? What color change can you see if you have a carpet on the floor?

My concern is the layers of vinyl underneath the hardwood. Hardwood doesn't like sitting on vinyl and vinyl doesn't like sitting on hardwood. The two do NOT like each other. If you think this is a good idea (which it is considered on the technical side of things a horrible approach to this) then you might have to add another layer of subfloor. A nice, fat, thick 1/2" plywood to cover those two layers of vinyl. Now you can go ahead and lay the hardwood. Technically, my suggestion is hideous. It is atrocious. It is so "unprofessional" that I could weep. But if you insist on leaving the vinyl in place, then you need to think of a way to separate the vinyl from the hardwood sitting on top....and one very sure way is with plywood. Again, my suggestion is a travesty. Then again so is laying hardwood over two layers of vinyl. In the flooring world, we 'allow' ONE layer of resistant flooring (like vinyl) to sit underneath another floor. For example: the first layer of vinyl was considered "OK" to lay another layer of vinyl over top. All good. No one in the technical department batted an eye. If a THIRD vinyl floor was proposed (or a laminate, or linoleum, or cork, or hardwood, or tile, or even carpet) it would be a "NOOOOOOOO! STOOOOOP! DON'T DO IT!" type of answer. So I will officially say: No. Stop. Don't do it. There. It has been said. That being said, if you as the homeowner choose to forgo the installation instructions and the "Best Practices" as set out by the National Wood Flooring Association (as homeowners your word is "law" when it comes to things like this), you are welcome to go ahead and lay hardwood over two layers of vinyl. If you do it, I suggest a new layer of plywood to help things along - because you need FLAT. And most "old hardwoods with two layers of vinyl sitting on them" are anything but flat. Good luck. You would be better off remediating the asbestos/vinyl and getting down to bare hardwood. Now a new floor (with the help of a layer of plywood) can go down. Or you remove the original hardwood with the vinyl (this is easier to do than scrape off the vinyl...and easier = cheaper) and start with a new layer of subfloor and go after it like it should be done. But as homeowner your word is "law". If you tell a professional to "just do it", they will say "yes ma'am/sir" and do it. But they will not warranty their work. You will be left holding the bag - and all the pit vipers that lay inside. It's your call.

The answer could be "Yes". It could be "No" or it could be "maybe...it depends". The trick with this is that new hardwood does not like sitting over top of OLD finishes...like polyurethane. And new hardwood needs FLAT. So the chances are VERY high that you need to SAND DOWN your old hardwoods (to remove the finish AND to flatten any obvious areas of concern). That should cost you $2/sf. Now the fun part...getting patch down where it is needed. It is possible but old hardwoods don't normally like to have concrete patch put down on them. They can. But they aren't fond of it. The cement patch often cracks and disintegrates as those old floors move. You will still need patch = $1/sf (on the LOW end). The other fun thing is: you probably have to install the floors perpendicular to the old floors....which will be AGAINST the installation instructions/warranty (most hardwoods must be installed perpendicular to the joists...which would be your OLD hardwoods...but the NEW one's would be perpendicular to THOSE = parallel to your joists = against all "Best Practices"). The way around this = DIAGONAL (lay it at a 45deg. angle). This should increase your WASTE into the 15% range = 15% more expensive than anticipated. So if you add up all the "trouble" you will go to, you will be paying about the same or MORE to do this. Of course you could throw down some plywood over top the old hardwood = go ahead as a normal install. But that puts you too high---so your ONE option to do this "cheaply" is not on your list. Go ahead and remove those old hardwoods (I'm assuming they are so OLD that they cannot be sanded and refinished). Lay new plywood and then install the new hardwood. The cost to do this properly should add $2-$3/sf (labour and plywood included). If you do this the "cheater" way, it should cost you $2-$6/sf (that includes the diagonal install with extra waste) and lose you your warranty. After all that money for the hardwood and install, that would be a sad state of affairs.

If the smell is unbearable after pulling one plank then I will hazard a guess the stain is either rather NEW or it has obtained LONG TERM multiple soaks. Either way, the former homeowner KNOWINGLY covered it up. Here's my issue. The homeowner knew of the damage and, depending on how long ago your purchased the home, could be legally and financially responsible for the 'fix'. I don't know your state nor how long ago you purchased....but talking with your Realtor will help you understand what type of recourse you have. The 'fix' = rip out all the current hardwood to expose the layer underneath. Then you will need to investigate (ie. rip out a few planks in the worst places) to see how much the subfloor is damaged. The possibility of ripping out the old hardwood AND the subfloor is high. And that gets expensive. That's why you want to find out what your recourse is with the purchase and who is responsible for paying for the damage.