Trim used to be a lot thicker. Baseboards a full inch were not uncommon, and together with full size shoe mold (1/2 inch) or quarter round (3/4 inch) would cover a lot of the floor at the wall. Older trim was often made up of multiple pieces, so a 6 inch tall baseboard might be 5 inches of 1 inch thick wood (back coved to save shipping weight) and a pieces of ogee or ogee hook applied to the top edge. Door and window casing was similar. By using two pieces of wood 5/4 inch wood could be used to make a molding almost two inches thick at the edge. Most modern molding is machined from boards that have already been surfaced to 3/4 inch net meaning the final molding is under 5/8 inch net thickness.

Wow, there sure area lot of opinions about shoes on shoes off. As an agent, sometimes we are requested to remove shoes. Typically it is on meticulously clean homes. Most buyers don't mind, some grumble, but I have never had a buyer say they refuse to take their shoes off. It is the sellers home. They have the right to ask people to remove their shoes. When my children were babies and crawling around on the floor, no one was allowed to wear shoes in my house. I simply didn't want my babies crawling around in what was on the bottom of people's shoes, it could be anything! Being in thousands of homes in my career, I can tell you, I have seen floors that have been damaged because of a woman's high heel. There is no doubt about the mark. It looks like a nail head path of holes. It is from a heel where the little rubber thing has come off the shoe . Most people don't ask you to take shoes off because they are afraid you will damage the floors,they don't want the outside dirt on the floor. There are some cultures where it is a must. But the bottom line is,if there were signs and most likely this agent was told when making the appointment to please remove shoes, it should have been done.

I'm curious to see the replies. My son almost bought an older house, 1951, the wood under the carpet is about 2"wide strips looks like solid wood, but seems to have a lot of nails. Is that how it was done back then? I wondered how it would look if he had them finished, but he backed out of the deal after the inspection. We are about to tear out decent wood because the sun has faded it and since it is not a big area it would cost a lot to refinish, and I hear the refinished floor would need to be done again much sooner than a new prefinished. I wish I could take out the old wood in a way that it could be used by someone, but I think it will get wrecked. The store I am using charges $3 sf to install it, the wood price obviously varies. They use their own employees, no subs, and did a nice job on our mbr and hall, so I will use them even though I dont know what an independent installer would charge. My maple will cost $5.54 sf, plus install.

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.