Please don't think I'm being contrary or adversarial, but I'm curious as to why you want to remove your wood windows.

Regarding replacements--my personal and professional opinion is that you will never recoup in energy savings the cost of installation. Chances are, no matter how "good" your replacements are, they aren't engineered to last the way old-growth wood does. Judging from your second question, the sash are actually in reuseable condition. Restore them, using the original glass, and use storm windows (my recommendation is exterior storms) if you have the need for additional protection.

About the insulated glass replacements: there is an article (I'll have to see if I can find it) published in a glass industry publication that notes that insulated glass is only good for probably 6-7 years before the insulating vapor escapes/fails. That's a lot of expense for 6-7 years, and I can almost guarantee that you won't recoup in energy savings the cost of replacing the glass.

Caulk and a good quality glazing job are your best friends when it comes to weatherizing your house where windows are concerned. Most of the cold air comes through spaces, not through the glass (unless the putty is failing, in which case it's replaceable).

Please consider repairing/restoring what you've got. Once they're out, they're out.

i would agree with that. i would say that insulated glass in your old sash sounds good. but.... do you know what is behind your window trim where the weights slide up and down? that's right. nothing. and you can't put insulation in there either. probably the best thing you can do is after you replace the weights (almost impossible to find around here, anymore) is to plaster over the holes in the wall to insert the weights. the sides of these things are so drafty it's virtually impossible to insulate. i replaced my glass with single pane, and i have very heavy drapries that keep out the cold. i have also thought about putting felt along the joining seam to seal them better. storm windows on the outside will do little to keep the draft from coming thru the walls where the weights hang, but the drapes do a very excellent job. part of the fun of living in an old wreck i'm afraid

I've put in quite a few replacements and regret it. The old windows had character. Where I had 3-light upper sashes, I now have single-light. They sell some fake dividers but it's not the same. Instead of weights, I have foam and plastic sash guides.

I'd invest in some really good wooden combination storm windows and have the old windows repaired.

One more thing: the new supertight houses have a number of problems your drafty old house won't have. My daughter had to have complete walls replaced in their 10-year-old house due to moisture problems.

Wow, thanks Oberon, and everyone else for the thoughtful responses. Finally made a decision to restore the windows and put on quality storms. Window rehab inludes weatherstripping the opening and routing weatherstripping into the sashes. Out my way in the Boston area, Harvey tru channel storms have a near cult following and protect many of the windows on the million dollar antiques in my town. I hate the triple tracks, but feel they're needed if I'm going to keep the original windows. As a compromise, I'm going to put wooden storm/screen combos in the front of the house.
Of course, all options are expensive. Rehabbing the 26 windows and adding storms will run about $19,000.

I'm so glad you decided to keep the original wood windows. In our Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (HPOZ), it's illegal to replace wood windows with aluminum or vinyl. And that's because, as others suggested, it can't help but detract significantly from the historic architectural fabric of the structure. They can always be repaired. We had to repair every window in our 1910 Craftsman house! That is, the contractor repaired them. And it's a big house and there were lots of windows. But they were all successfully done, and now all of them work properly. During earthquakes the weights kind of jingle inside the walls, and sound like bells.

We did go the sash replacement route because we had major rot in many of our sashes, although we kept 5 of our original windows--the ones that face the street. The 4 large ones on the first floor were under a porch, so they have been in very good shape. The second floor is an arch-top window, which would have been cost-prohibitive to replace. We did add storms to all of them--including the new sashes.

Our sash replacements are Kolbe & Kolbe, wood interior, clad exterior in exactly the same 2 over 2 configuration as the old sashes. Turned out to be just fine looks-wise and it is nice to have operational windows again. We do use them.

Cost-wise, our sash replacements ran roughly $350 per window--hubby installing. (Very easy) Our little $4000 investment didn't seem so bad--and it did actually improve the comfort level in our home. I still have some of the original wavy glass in our front windows, but I have all the practicality of the insulated windows in places like our upstairs bedrooms--which becomes rather important when your 2nd floor is unheated....LOL

I truly do implore you to keep your original windows. There are so many reasons to keep, and, for me anyway, any reasons for replacing do not come anywhere near good enough to warrant it.

Restoring:
--Is more cost-effective. Replacements will cost much more than restoration, and you won't have replacements long enough (before you have to replace them again) to make up for any energy savings. Many, many people have replaced their windows and regretted it deeply within just a couple of years. Once your original windows are gone they are just that. Gone.
--Keeps the historic look of your house. Replacements will undeniably and forever change it.
--Is eco-friendly. Your original windows shouldn't end up at the landfill.

Replacements:
--Will never fit as well as the windows that were originally made for that space.
--Have a shelf life ("insulated" glass especially) of about 5-7 years and cannot be restored in the way that your 100-plus-year-old original wood windows can. Even wood replacements are not made with old-growth wood, which withstands quite a beating before it finally gives up the ghost. And even then, epoxies and consolidants are magic when it comes to preserving historic wood.
--Cost much more in the long run than restoration, especially considering their shelf life.

Lead paint is, yes, kind of a pain to deal with, but it can certainly be done. In a Victorian house, your whole house has lead paint, which isn't dangerous as long as it's encapsulated. If your old windows have peeling or cracked paint, you can have someone strip them and then repaint, but if the paint underneath is in good condition and you don't have latent moisture issues that will push a new coat of paint off, you can simply paint over the lead-based paint to encapsulate it. The EPA has a great publication about renovating within a home that has lead-based paint.

I think you'd be quite surprised at how much draftiness you can eliminate with proper restoration and weatherstripping. Most of your heat loss and/or drafts in do not come through your panes. It comes through gaps that occur because of loss of glazing putty, no weatherstripping, uninsulated walls, an uninsulated attic....I could go on.

I realize each side has its own positive/negative arguments, but let me just leave you with this. Do you think anyone's replacement windows will still be around, doing the job they originally were made to do, in 100-150 years or beyond? Not a chance. That alone makes it worth it to restore in my book.

This was a highly informative page to read, and I hope some of you would be willing to offer another 2 cents.
My wife an I live a largish-Victorian with original windows, and like many, we have significant draftiness to contend with in winter. Our concerns are compounded, however, by the fact that we just had a child, and it appears that many of our windows have old lead paint on them.

In light of this, we are strongly leaning towards replacing the upstairs windows, of which there are ten. We know that the original sashes could be taken down (they're in decent shape), the paint could be removed off-site, and then they could be re-painted and re-installed. However, from what I can gather, the minimum price would be around $500/per (possibly more), and even with some added weather-stripping this would still do little to improve the draftiness.

In light of this, I'm leaning towards replacement sashes of one sort or another (my wife is very undecided....). But I would appreciate hearing any thoughts or suggestions others might have.

We replaced our windows on our c1850 farmhouse. We did high quality vinyl replacements and they look nice.

now before anyone decides to yell at us for doing this I have to state that the original windows were long gone and were replaced with single pain aluminum windows with the storms that you pull down. The stupid windows were aweful, they didn't stay open, the storms were impossable to use and they leaked air so badly that ice would form on the inside of them in the winter. Also the windows were long and thin and were very close to the floor. I was just terrified of someone breaking them by mistake.

So.. our decision to get new windows was easy.

My take on our new windows is therefore as follows:
they made a HUGE difference in the comfort of our house. We feel so much warmer in the winter. They work sooooo easily and are so easy to clean and they stay up by themselves!!! We saw a huge improvement in the appearance of the house because the new windows have white sashes and grids while the old windows were aluminum colored and had no grids.

However, the replacement windows are slightly smaller than the aluminum windows so we lose some window space. At first it felt like a huge difference and now I am used to it but you need to be aware of this. The window is smaller because it is a replacement window and it is smaller because the frame is wider.

That said, I would replace the windows again with no second thought. Actually we are having two more replaced today.
However if we had original wood windows I KNOW I would keep them if I could. The new windows just aren't the same. They are nice but not as visually appealing.
In some ways I am kind of happy our windows were replaced with nasty aluminum ones because I don't have the problem of struggling with "replace or repair". I had an easy decision!! I do see houses nearby that have their beautiful old windows and feel a tinge of jealousy though. They really are beautiful!!!

maybe you could compromise though? maybe Repair all windows that can be easily seen (like the front ones) and replace windows in the back of the house. Has anyone done this?

-renee

Renee, that's exactly what my husband and I did. All the windows on the street side of our house are original with the added storms.

Worked out well for us. (see above)

oops! I misunderstood your post. I guess I thought that "sash replacements" meant that you replaced the sash but kept the rest of the window, which now that I think of it, doesn't make much sense.

see your side windows look like the originals so I didn't even notice they were replacements!

I loooooove wavy glass. It is so neat.

Yes, if we had really fancy schmancy windows, it would be one thing, but we really don't. The replacements are a good match for the old ones.

Nyer, yes, at least in my overly expensive area, having the windows mechanically, structurally and cosmetically restored, and weatherstripped, will cost about $450-500. This price includes painting and new putty. A top notch storm can add another $190 a window installed.

Total price (rehabbed window + storm) is about $700, which is slightly cheaper than what it would cost to have a nice Marvin insert installed. While we decided to go the rehab and storm route, people we know have gone with the Marvins and have been very pleased with performance and aesthetics.

If you're looking to replace, I've found that many more people preferred the use of inserts (in a frame) to just replacing the sashes. Performance was much better since window frames need to be nice and square if you just replace the sashes.

Replacement windows are acceptable in our historic district. Our guidelines require that they match the old windows in size and all profiles. This does not apply to windows which were replaced and "grandfathered" in. These guidelines would seem to make sense for anyone choosing replacements for original windows and wanting to maintain that appearance. The exterior profile requirements include the muntin profile. This means that windows with a snap in interior grid are unacceptable and use of those alone detracts from the appearance of the home. There are companies that offer after market exterior muntins. I think these are a good alternative for those wishing to choose replacement windows.

I am restoring my 140 year old windows which are still in very good condition. The cost is minimal as is the skill level. Glazing compound and new weight cords amount to nothing when compared to replacements. I have collected old windows going to the dump to use as replacements for broken panes. Truly beautiful windows are going to the dump. It is simple to remove the original window, restore it, repair weight cords and replace the window. Waiting for the oil based primer to dry before reglazing takes longer than any other aspect of the process. I also try to muster the patience for the glazing compount to skim over before painting, though I have never seen any painters in my area allow time for skimming. I can usually complete three double hung, two over two windows in a week. At $500 per window, my husband should have a greater appreciation for me!

I am confused why anyone would buy an older home and then demonstrate concern for maintenance and energy costs. Were those changes in your plans at the time of purchase? That, to me, is akin to buying an classic Thunderbird and then retrofitting it as a hybrid. Okay, that may not be the best example, but seems similar. I would never use the term old home and low maintenace/energy efficient in the same sentence. We have a significant number of people who buy homes in our historic district and then complain about the established guidelines, including those about windows. They often use the same rational offered above as reasons for exceptions. This causes frustration for everyone.

I certainly understand replacing replacement windows or those truly beyond repair. I would suggest that any original windows be stored for future owners who may wish to restore the original appearance of the home. I think maintaining original windows on the street side is good compromise if you feel you must replace windows.

Debbie

One thing that gets me about replacements is that rarely, if ever, do folks get true divided light windows. Replacements completely alter the look of your home, even if you have single-pane, ordinary windows rather than "fancy" ones. They may resemble the originals from a distance, but there will always be something that nags at the eye--those missing divided lights. Snap-in muntins don't have the same visual depth. Muntins sandwiched in between two panes of glass look even less like their original counterparts.

Please seriously consider rehabbing your windows instead of replacing them. Or, if you absolutely must replace please take Debbie's advice and keep your old windows so the next people who own your house can put them back in!

I reiterate my comment from above--in 100-150 years, will your replacements still be doing their job? Nope. If you leave the original windows in and carry on basic maintenance, will they still be doing their job? There's a VERY good chance they will.

Good point, ginam. True divided light windows make a HUGE difference in the appearance. That is what we got.

Believe me when I say that we are big proponents of keeping the originals if possible, but we ended up having to do the 2nd best thing.

Kudos to you on going with the true divided lights. That says a lot about your sensitivity toward your house. :)

I had one thought about your windows. I live in New England and own two old houses one from 1844 and the other from 1809. I've used interior storm windows for over 20 years, which cut most all the drafts and give you an insulating dead air space. They work great plus you keep your old sash in place. The costs range from about $50 to $100. Most glass shops can make them for you in just a few weeks. There are clips that hold them in place and the windows when clean are virtually invisible. Good Luck

We decided to go the rehab route because I was afraid of losing the genuine look of the muntins, even though the windows are only two over one. Main concerns for keeping and rehabbing were their awful condition and our energy guilt.
Our house had been negelected for nearly 30 years before we bought it and the windows have suffered. All putty is gone, a bit of rot, some joints loose, all lead paint needing to be scraped and repainted, some planing needed, etc... I did a few windows and the repairs took about 15 hours each. Granted I would get better and quicker, but they were still drafty and were not weathertight. With the needs of our house and my time constraints, there was not way they would get done if they were left to me. Many people simply do not have the time or always the skill with sashes that and frames that have become problematic.

I once had a 1964 Chevy that I loved. The mechanics are simple enought that it could be kept running forever, if that was my philosophy. But at 10 miles a gallon and no safety features keeping it going seemed a bit self-indulgent. I had similar thoughts with the windows. Despite some of the claims, a single pane, double hung window with a storm, will not have the performance of a quality replacement. And a quality replacement with a quality install will last quite some time. My furnace is 60 years old and I could keep it going by replacing simple mechanisms, but I am choosing an energy efficient replacement.
Another signifcant concern was getting rid of the nasty metal triple tracks. Old houses did not have their windows clad with aluminum storms. The trade-off seemed to be having an aesthetically sympathetic energy efficient replacement or a rehab cloaked in metal. Wooden storms were not only expensive, but an unsatisfactory energy choice along with the single panes in not so square frames. In the end, we decided to compromis and will put wooden storms on the front and Harvey tru channels storms, incomparable in performance, on the rest of the windows.

Having worked through the process, I can see that a variety of choices are realistic for people in differing circumstancs, predilections, funding... All opinions are valuable but it would be nice if some came with less of a holier than thou judgementalnesss.

I agree with you too, Booksat. Everyone's circumstances are different. What's good for one isn't so good for another....

And one more thing,....we LIVE in our house. It's not a museum. We've changed a lot of it over the years--including a major addition to the back and cutting a big ol' hole in the back end for atrium doors off of the dining room to the new deck. We have never tried to restore our house, but we have renovated.

Now how 'bout coming over to help paint.....? LOL

I don't know about all this. I moved into my home, which is more than 100 years old, about 12 years ago. At that time, I reglazed all the windows, rehung them using new cords, and insulated where I could. We also have storm windows on every window. Still, we have drafts coming in through the windows (enough that the curtains blow in the breeze) that make it so cold in the winter. The energy bill is one thing - but I'd at least like to be comfortable since I'm paying through the nose.

I also hate the fact that my windows are never, ever clean. I clean them on the inside, but have no idea how to clean them on the outside, especially the ones that are three stories up. (No, I will never, ever get on a ladder that high.)

So, despite all the nay-saying, I'm thinking of doing what just about everyone else in my neighborhood of "historic" (read, old New England) houses has done, and get replacement windows. With all their problems, and I'm well-versed in the problems, at least I'll be warm in winter and will be able to see outside.

Wow.

Lot of strongly held opinions on this one. I will only say that while I certainly have a preservationist instinct, it is tempered by recognition of the fact that (as Vivian31 put it) the house, for all its charm and grandeur, is not a museum.

Let me clarify that my main concern at this point is the old paint. Thus, when Corgilvr asks why we bought an old house, the answer is that at the time we did not have children (or expectations thereof), whereas now we do. What was an entirely moot issue then looms large now.

Moreover, I realize that people have different opinions on the threat posed by old paint to kids. I've read up, discussed it with people whose opinions I trust, and come to the conclusion that the windows need to be remediated one way or another. Period.

As I said in my original post, I do know that the paint can be stripped from the original sashes (as well as the stops, etc.) as part of a general repair process. But this is not cheap, and my concern is that even though it would take care of the paint issue, it would still do relatively little to address the fact that the original windows are still likely to be quite drafty (and in upstate New York, that matters). At least this is what some of the testimony above suggests.

Interior storms are something that I hadn't thought about. So my thanks to Chester525. I will have to research this option.

And thanks to everyone else, as well. I very much appreciate the comments--whatever position they take. I hope everyone will free to follow-up, if so inclined.

I really like old windows. I believe that in the correct circumstance they are so much a part of the charm of an older home that it is worth the effort to try to save them.

I understand the desire of many people to try to do everything possible to save the original windows in a classic home. In my earlier post I discussed a bit of this idea.

But, there is a flip side as well.

First a disclaimer - I AM NOT under any circumstances trying to flame anyone. I AM NOT under any circumstances attacking anyone else's personal feelings or tastes. I AM NOT sneering or looking down on anyone else's opinions. What I am doing is offering numbers and ideas that are based on actual measured and documented facts. I totally respect other opinions in this matter and I thoroughly enjoy a FRIENDLY debate be it politics, religion, sex, or windows.

There - disclaimer out of the way! In all seriousness, there are a lot of misconceptions about old windows versus new windows and many opinions - most of which are based on feelings and opinions and not on facts (just as there are in those other areas I mentioned!)...

Okay,

Fact, new windows ARE substantially more energy efficient than old windows, despite the claims to the contrary of a good part of the window restoration world.

Fact, folks in the window restoration world like to claim that old windows have lasted 50, 75, 100 years and that new windows will fail in short order - 5, 10, 15, 20, whatever. (Again, I AM NOT slamming anyone who has posted in this thread - this is a COMMON claim in the restoration world). Yet there are many millions of dual pane windows performing quite nicely 20 or 30 years after they were produced. I can get into why and how windows "fail", and how the latest versions of windows are technically well beyond what was available even 20 or 30 years ago, but that would make this thing even longer than it already is so I will avoid getting too deeply into that morass.

As an aside, I am curious how restoration folks define a window failure? It is quite common to claim that newer windows will fail, but not what failure actually is.

If we are discussing seal failure, then that is really just a cosmetic flaw and it doesnt affect the energy performance of the unit the unit is still at least as efficient as a single pane with storm even with a breached seal.

If we are calling a failed window the escape of the gas infill, again, it will make the window less efficient than it was with the fill, but even with air replacing the gas, the window is at least as efficient as a single pane with storm, even with the "failure" of the unit to keep the gas in place.

Again, many of these issues have been corrected for a long time now. Comparing a good window made today with a window made 20 years ago would be like comparing the computer you are using now to a Commodore 64 no comparison.

Fact, new dual or triple pane windows with LowE and argon will make your home more comfortable in both summer and winter. Yep, and there are plenty of studies to prove itas well as anecdotal evidence as noted in a couple of posts in this thread.

Fact, restoring old windows is good for the environment and helps with energy performance. This is certainly true, but it isnt the whole story. Restoring old windows to the best they can be is absolutely a good idea! It is certainly a good move to not throw away everything that we can save. Yet there is another side to it. California Department of Energy recently released a study concerning home energy efficiency and usage and the impact of replacing conventional single pane, and even dual pane without LowE/argon windows, with dual pane windows with LowE and argon.

Without going into all the minute details (which I can't because I don't have the report in front of me), the California DoE projected that changing every window in the state from "clear" glass to LowE (and NO other changes - just the windows) would result in statewide energy savings equivalent to building THREE new electrical power plants over the next 15 years...at a total cost to change every window in the state of less than two of the new plants.

No one will actually do that of course. They will build those three new plants (and probably a couple more) over the next 15 years because that is how we do things, but an interesting extrapolation nonetheless.

The CA-DOE based these figures on actual measured savings measured in actual houses that had actual window changes and also in new energy-efficient houses that were specifically constructed and monitored to see the type of energy savings possible if any.

Again, this was an extrapolation of the results and a big one in my opinion but despite comments from folks who love their old windows (and there are good reasons for that in many cases, but those reasons are aesthetic, not efficiency), replacing windows WILL save energy. This has been shown in study after study.

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 but most are somewhere in between. But, they have made it this far - that is a positive and a given.

Fact, most (but not all) older windows are made with old growth lumber which is inherently better than most lumber available today. Absolutely true.

Fact, older single pane windows with sash cords are inherently energy inefficient. Also absolutely true that open spot where the weights hide is a huge energy waster.

Fact, older windows have lasted as long as they have because they are simple, uncomplicated, construction that had the advantage of using a material (old growth lumber) that is no longer available. The pyramids will easily outlast a modern skyscraper - that doesn't make a pyramid superior, it is simply different.

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 is technically a flaw in the manufacturing process - but it was the best that could be produced for mass production at the time. For higher-end folks they could produce glass without the waviness, but it was expensive and few folks could afford it. That doesn't mean that it doesn't add charm and character to the window and subsequently the home, however - lots of flawed items have charm and character of their own - but they are still flawed. And btw, I very much like "flawed" wavy glass.

Ultimately, to change windows is a personal decision.but there are very valid reasons for both sides of the discussion.

Oberon, thank you for your eloquent summation. Yes, choosing to keep the old windows is a bit of an indulgence and should be understood in that context. Not a bad thing at all, but I am finding that too many ardent window presevationisits fool themselves by looking at the facts regarding energy and performance rather selectively.

Remarkable how emotional the issue of window choice is. I am at the point of feeling guilty either way: guilty for not making a more energy conscious choice or guilty for not maintaining the historic aesthetic. I am currently replacing my dying 60 year old furnace with a high efficiency model and am also getting the attic, walls, and basement insulated. If were not financially able to take these measures, I would not feel comfortable indulging myself on the less energy efficient windows.

There is also information available in the National Parks Service Preservation Briefs about windows and many other aspects of preservation. I never discouraged anyone from changing their windows if there are no guidelines in their district for doing that. Actually I think lots of good information has been provided here by homeowners who are not working in the preservation business and speak from personal experience in either keeping or replacing windows. My frustration comes from people who buy homes in our historic district because they love the charm the guidelines have maintained and then decide they need to change protected aspects. No one has forced them to choose to live here. Appropriate energy efficient windows are not inexpensive. Anyone living here may choose to have those windows. Most requests here are for inappropriate windows and cost is the argument given. Shortsightedness at the time of purchase is not a justification here.

We all "LIVE" in our homes and I would like to belie the insinuation that those of us who choose to maintain the architecture, including windows, are living in a "museum". That may be your perspective, but it is not my experience.

Oberon works in the window industry. He provides lots of useful information and his opinion is valued. Many of us who choose to practice preservation are responding from personal experience and the outcomes we have had. In my neighborhood, there are guidelines for preservation and it has been proven to increase property values in this historic district. There are larger studies with similar quantified results. Most homes are under contract in less than two weeks. Therefore, it seems Oberon and I each have positve financial reinforcment for our opinions. I will not deny that my decisions also have an aesthetic factor.

For those of you expressing concern for the environment I need you to know that by living in town and being able to walk to most destinations means I use less than one tank of gas a month. I also do not have air conditioning. I open my energy inefficient windows when it is warm. Imagine how much energy that would conserve if everyone did that. My point is moot for many because it is not realistic that the majority of people can, or are willing, to do that. I have noticed that brownouts and blackouts occur more during hot summer months than at any other time of the year. Is air conditioning and that comfort level also a drain on power? I don't have figures for how many less power plants the elimination of air conditining would result in. But, brownouts would seem to suggest use during hot weather does strain those resources. If we are truly concerned about energy consumption we should all get new windows and eliminate, or restict, air conditioning. There will always be some compromise. Comfort level is very individual.

Windows are only one source of lead paint in older homes. I'm sure I'll be corrected, but the greatest issue with lead and windows is in the areas where there is any rubbing that could produce dust from the paint. Flaking paint on any surface should be a concern and abated or encapsulated especially if you have, or plan to have, children. If lead paint is the only concern with windows, the rub areas can be stripped and therefore eliminate the dust caused by the friction of opening and closing windows. Or, new tracks can be installed and the weight pockets can be insulated at the same time.

Booksat makes a good point in taking into consideration many energy consumption aspects of older homes. Energy audits have been suggested a number of times on this forum. Windows are one aspect of loss and there are many ways to increase R-values in homes and windows.

Window Guy is also in the window industry. He is sensitive to the window needs of historic districts and energy efficiency. I hope he will join this discussion to explain that you can maintain both aspects. Solutions may require compromise, but they should not be viewed at an either/or decision based on emotion. Also, energy conservation is multifaceted in older homes and in general consumption practices. If you are truly concerned about energy please look at all aspects of personal consumption.

I agree that this is a sometimes emotional discussion. People on this forum will tend to lean toward conservation. Many would not have purchased older homes or participate on this forum if they did not like the qualities those homes possess. You will find lots of information about replacement windows on the Window Forum. Oberon an others involved in the window industry also offer their advice about new windows on that forum. We all have our passions.

"We all "LIVE" in our homes and I would like to belie the insinuation that those of us who choose to maintain the architecture, including windows, are living in a "museum". That may be your perspective, but it is not my experience."

I was certainly not suggesting that everyone who is trying to be sensitive to their home's architecture lives in a museum. I was merely talking about my own situation. (That's all I have since I'm no expert.) Yes, we live in an old house. No, it is not fancy in any way, shape, or form and had already been extremely modified by previous owners/renters. We all do the best we can with whatever options we have at our disposal. We tried to be appropriate with our addition and renovation, but in the end it's still just a house. Just a building we happen to live in.

I'm sure that comes off as callus to some, but we use every square inch of our house every day and by golly it has to work and in its previous mutation it didn't. It was just practical to do the project that we did (and if you saw the housing stock in this town, you'd understand why we didn't sell and buy a larger home--choices were extremely limited).

You're right that people shouldn't buy homes in historic districts and then use cost as a means of skirting the association requirements. Obviously it wasn't practical to buy that home in the first place and the associations need to take a hard stance in that respect. In the same vein, it wouldn't be practical for my husband to live in an apartment or condo since he spends every waking moment that he isn't working his paying job working on this house....LOL. He truly LOVES this place.

As is often stated on these forums, the written word does not always reflect the intended message. Your message came across to me that restoration people didn't understand "LIVE"ing in houses. Your use of caps emphasized that. That caused my response indicating that we all live in our homes. Please be careful in your use of caps as that indicates sreaming on the computer. If you scream, I read that as being emphatic. You are certainly entitled to live in your home. When you state that you "LIVE" in your home it comes across in a very different way.

I suppose I was being emphatic. I've heard the argument so many times that one should not modify an old house that it gets to me sometimes. Truth is, sometimes new products are superior to the old things, and although I respect my home's character, I am certainly no slave to its quirkiness. If something doesn't work for us, it's really not above me to change it.

The whole window argument bears that out. Like I said before, if I had fancy leaded glass I surely wouldn't change them, but my plain old 2 over 2s with their water damaged sashes are replaceable. The new ones did change the house much for the better. In this building sometimes what's old and full of "character" oftentimes just looks old and broken down. It's why I could never decorate in shabby chic and certainly don't use a lot of distressed painted finishes on furniture.

I have been restoring my 85 yrs old windows one by one. They had been painted a bajillion times and looked awful, but there is nothing about them that makes not worthy of being saved. In fact, the old windows were built in such a way that they anticipated that someone down the line would want to work on them.

I strip them down, repair, reprime, reglaze & repaint. I have replaced the ropes and added bronze weatherstripping. If there is any rot, I remove it and replace it with a two part epoxy. I have been doing the same to my old wood storm windows. It takes some time and effort. But it is not difficult by any stretch of the imagination and actually is kind of relaxing. I do it in between other projects. Cost per window is about $15. Once done, they slide up and down as smoothly as any new window and are very weather proof.

Would it have been easier to yank them out and replace them? Sure. But these are made of old growth wood that is hard as a rock....the glass is old an wavy...the panes are ture divided light....the corners are mortise & tenon and done by hand. It would be a shame to add them to some landfill just because they are old. After all, this is exactly the reason I bought an old house :-)

I just ran across this thread - I'm currently in the process of rebuilding a few of my double-hung windows in my 1876 fold victorian. Just finished stripping all the paint off the sashes, which is extremely slow and tedious work, even using an infrared paint remover. I've got to reglaze all the sashes and re-rope the weights. I've ordered window weatherstripping kits from Advanced Repair Technologies, Inc., (www.advancedrepair.com) which essentially consist of weatherstripped stops and other weatherstipping that you set into slots you rout into the sashes.
I've also looked into the Harvey Tru-Channel storm windows (which, as much as I hate storm windows, are probably a necessity) - but unfortunately I'm located in NJ, and the nearest Harvey installer/warehouse is out in Pennsylvania. It's doubtful that it's worth the contractor's time to come all the way out here for just 3 or 4 windows, which is what I'd like to start with. I've installed run-of-the-mill storms before (NOT Harvey - from Home Depot), and it's a simple job. Unfortunately, HD got the size wrong about 4 times, despite very accurate measurements provided to them. Anyone else use the Harvey storms that're not within a dealer/installer's vicinity?

wkneis, I've read that Harvey's are hard to get outside of New England. In general, I think they only sell through dealers who install Harvey products. They have a website where you can find contact info.
This Old House did a piece on storm windows: http://www.thisoldhouse.com/toh/print/0,17071,476717,00.html
At the end of the article, which focuses on installation, there is a diagram elaborating on "What to look for in a storm." If you can't find Harveys, which is what This Old House is using in the article, perhaps you could use their criteria when picking out a storm. Unfortunately, these are not cheap. The piece suggests that you'll have to spend around $160 a storm. After shopping around, I found a good installer who is coming next week to put in 26 Harvey Tru-channels at $205 a window with low-e glass ($190 without).
At the end of July, I'm having a window restoration company pull out double hungs and restore and weatherize them. Suzyq2 and wkneis, it's great that you're doing the windows yourself. After doing 3 last summer, I realized that I just didn't have the time to get them all done or the patience to get them as right as you seem to be doing!

booksat - Thanks for the response. I feel my motivation quickly draining away on the window project - but I finally got all the sashes stripped and sanded today. NOT a fun day to be working in the sun with a respirator on, but gotta be a bit careful with the lead paint. Hopefully time tomorrow before our BBQ to do a bit of tightening up (the tenons are a bit loose) and filling with Abatron. I've found these windows much more difficult to do than the 12 storm windows I stripped, reglazed and painted on our sunroom a few years back, as the storm frames were just assembled from flat stock, while the windows in the breakfast room, which are close to 6ft tall have a bit of detail - 2 grooves that are damn near impossible to get the paint entirely out of. I've got them about as good as they're going to get (which isn't so good), but I doubt you'll see it much when they're repainted.
I'd love to get some Innerglass Window System storms for the front of the house so I could take off the old aluminum triple tracks. The first floor windows have got arched sashes (flat top), but you can't see any of that detail with the storms on them. That, however would lead to a whole other project.
I think I might touch base with the Harvey Installer out of PA to find out if they've got a minimum order that he'd come out for. I don't have a problem with the price - you get what you pay for (except those Innerglass storms mentioned above are damned expensive - $2.50/sq inch +!, and as I mentioned, I'd rather have the contractor deal with the problem if the storms don't quite fit right.
booksat - where are you located, and if you don't mind me asking, what are you paying per window for having them pulled and rebuilt by a restoration company? (haven't found one around here yet....)

wkneis, I'm in the Boston area. Rehabbing the windows - like everything around here - is expensive. Cost is about $450 a window. This includes complete mechanical, structural, and cosmetic rehab. There are a number of window restoration companies in the area; to see a description of what they do you can see: http://www.restorationwindows.com/

In the end I decided that I'd rather spend for the rehab and the new storm than spend $770 for a Marvin insert.

I am new to this blog and have found some informative information related to keeping the original windows. My house was built in 1790. the windows are old, but I do not think they are the originals. They are in really bad shape broken panes, very, very thin glass. Most of the windows are painted shut. I have a friend who has given me all wood windows from his home that he is replacing with vinyl (I know). Anyway I want to replace with the newer wooden windows but they are not in a frame. Is this a difficult project, should I hire a professional??