Is this the right way to fit this skirting?

Linto

While it is a straight plane skirting, im just not sure its the best way to fit it. it be at 45° cut or like the picture and butted together?
any advice before the rest if the house is done?

sydthebeat

A plain skirting like that should be mitred for both internal and external corners.

topcatcbr

I would say either way is right. If you prefer it to be mitred then say so as your paying.

I'd prefer it done as shown as if or when the timber shrinks it won't leave a noticeable gap as can happen sometimes. (This does not happen as much with hardwood).

Linto

topcatcbr wrote: »

I would say either way is right. If you prefer it to be mitred then say so as your paying.

I'd prefer it done as shown as if or when the timber shrinks it won't leave a noticeable gap as can happen sometimes. (This does not happen as much with hardwood).

Ours is an oak vanered board

brophis

I prefer it the way it's done also and have it done the same way myself. Mine is white though so join not as obvious

the keen edge

Regardless of the skirting profile internal corners should always be scribed, similar to joint the photograph(which is more of a butt joint); external corners mitered.

It is difficult to achieve a good fit using a mitering joint on internal corners due to a whole lot of factors.
In addition to this (as mentioned above) shrinkage and movement in the skirting, or even the wall to which its nailed, would have a worse effect on a internal mitered joint; than a scribed joint.

sydthebeat

Lambs tongue etc type skirting should be scribed.

Plain Skirts like the one in the photo should be mitred.
You cant scribe a plain skirting, you end up with a butt joint like the photo.

topcatcbr

sydthebeat wrote: »

Plain Skirts like the one in the photo should be mitred.

Why?

The only skirting I cave seen mitred is bull nosed skirting as it is thinner in section and less obvious to shrinkage and movement.

Even then it is better scribed in my opinion.

Quite often the bottom of walls are not as plumb as the rest. The reason for skirting is to cover the plaster finish joint between wall and floor. It also gives a more durable edge proud of the wall to help protect the wall finish from damage when moving furniture. For these reasons it can prone to movement and a scribed (or butt in this case) joint allows this movement or irregularity to remain concealed better.

sydthebeat

topcatcbr wrote: »

Why?

The only skirting I cave seen mitred is bull nosed skirting as it is thinner in section and less obvious to shrinkage and movement.

Even then it is better scribed in my opinion.

Quite often the bottom of walls are not as plumb as the rest. The reason for skirting is to cover the plaster finish joint between wall and floor. It also gives a more durable edge proud of the wall to help protect the wall finish from damage when moving furniture. For these reasons it can prone to movement and a scribed (or butt in this case) joint allows this movement or irregularity to remain concealed better.

my reasons would actually be this, i cant agree that a butt joint would allow for movement AND irregularity to remain concealed. The butt joint has NO resistance to movement and is much likely to fail than a mitred joint.
the mitred joint can absorb impacts while still remaining a closed joint.

By your logic the external corner should be butted too?

The main reason profiled joints are scribed is because mitring them would expose gaps. The scribing follows the profile and is the correct way to close a profile skirt. In this case however, the skirting is not profiled therefore a mitre, in my opinion, is a more robust joint.

the keen edge

sydthebeat wrote: »

my reasons would actually be this, i cant agree that a butt joint would allow for movement AND irregularity to remain concealed. The butt joint has NO resistance to movement and is much likely to fail than a mitred joint.
the mitred joint can absorb impacts while still remaining a closed joint.

By your logic the external corner should be butted too?

The main reason profiled joints are scribed is because mitring them would expose gaps. The scribing follows the profile and is the correct way to close a profile skirt. In this case however, the skirting is not profiled therefore a mitre, in my opinion, is a more robust joint.

Firstly the practicality of producing a internal skirting joint of satisfactory quality is very difficult near impossible using the mitering method.

In a scribed joint, only one of the two components of the joint have a crafted edge. The first piece of skirting making the joint can be fully nailed to the wall and when fixed all accuracy and adjustment to finesse the joint can be wholly concentrated on the second length of skirting.

In a mitered joint, achieving a satisfactory joint requires each components of the joint to be cut at the bi-sected angle of the wall corner. To achieve fine accuracy of the joint both components must be adjusted equally.

Regarding how the joint maintains in time: in this application the movement/shrinkage a mitered joint may be subject to is double that of a scribed joint.

sydthebeat

i certainly wouldnt be dismissing a detail because its "difficult" to do.

On a mitred joint both sections act against each other when met with movement forces. Thus its a far more robust detail than a butt joint.

the keen edge

This problem has two part:
Firstly creating a visual satisfactory joint.
Secondly that this joint maintains over time.

The first requirement is almost an impossible task with a mitered joint.
I must, respectfully, assume that you haven't fitted hardwood skirting boards as you seem to have equated my explanation of why a internal mitered joint is not used to that of being lazy of unable to construct such a joint because it is difficult.

sydthebeat wrote: »

On a mitred joint both sections act against each other when met with movement forces. Thus its a far more robust detail than a butt joint.

You'd have to expand on that point for me.


What should be pointed out here is that fitting skirting boards is aesthetic carpentry work; and not structural joinery. Talking about the robustness of the joint is somewhat irrelevant.
The structural element of skirting boards is provided for by the fixings; be that nails, screws, adhesives or a combination of these.

The role of the joint here be it mitered or scribed is to appear aesthetically neat and tight fitting and to remain so for years to come.
There should hopefully never be any forces acting upon a skirting board joint that would require a discussion of what type of joint to employ to be describe in terms of robustness.

Skirting boards in this instance are a facade and to achieve and maintain the highest class of craftmanship the internal joint should be scribed.

topcatcbr

sydthebeat wrote: »

i certainly wouldnt be dismissing a detail because its "difficult" to do.

.

Nor would I but there has to be an element of practicality.

sydthebeat wrote: »

On a mitred joint both sections act against each other when met with movement forces. Thus its a far more robust detail than a butt joint.

They don't need to. I still say in this case there is merit in both ways but if I was doing the work or having it done for me I would scribe/butt joint this. The reason the outside corners are mitred is to avoid end grain showing. This is not a concern on inside corners.

As said its not a structural joint. It should be about aesthetics in the longer term. On a mitred joint an inside corner will open when shrinkage takes place. On an outside corner is closes the joint.

sydthebeat

topcatcbr wrote: »

Nor would I but there has to be an element of practicality.



They don't need to. I still say in this case there is merit in both ways but if I was doing the work or having it done for me I would scribe/butt joint this. The reason the outside corners are mitred is to avoid end grain showing. This is not a concern on inside corners.

As said its not a structural joint. It should be about aesthetics in the longer term. On a mitred joint an inside corner will open when shrinkage takes place. On an outside corner is closes the joint.

it should absolutely, and thats even more of a reason to mitre them.

I dont agree that theres more chance a mitred joint would 'open up' under shrinkage than a butt joint. If the skirting is properly aired and properly fixed then shrinkage wouldnt be a problem. However twisting / warping can be a real issue in todays buildings due to air tightness levels. Butt joints would be very poor in that regard.

at the end of the day, i suppose its just opinion and as far as the OPs query goes, both can be acceptable once done correctly.

section4

I have fitted skirting for over 25 years both here and in london, we would mitre the top section down to the small rebate and then from there on down it would be butt jointed, then you have the best of both worlds.
Simply cut the mitres all the way down at 45 on the chop saw. turn it on its side and cut down at 90 up to the rebate to create a butt joint at that section.
you get a good stong joint which will not slide against each other when you have two 45 and you get the nice finish at top which makes it look like 45 all the way down.

Linto

section4 wrote: »

I have fitted skirting for over 25 years both here and in london, we would mitre the top section down to the small rebate and then from there on down it would be butt jointed, then you have the best of both worlds.
Simply cut the mitres all the way down at 45 on the chop saw. turn it on its side and cut down at 90 up to the rebate to create a butt joint at that section.
you get a good stong joint which will not slide against each other when you have two 45 and you get the nice finish at top which makes it look like 45 all the way down.

What's the difference between scribed and mitred joint? Is scribed the same as butt joint??
Forgive my ignorance...

sydthebeat

Scribed just means one section is cut to follow the profile of the other. it can be used to describe the cutting of any material to follow a profile, for example a worktop against a wall.