Question on tile and plaster

Skyline

Active member
Jun 17, 2016
26
PA
Just a quick question. I have a 50 yr old poured concrete pool that is basically painted over the concrete. I'm planning on having the waterline tile and coping replaced this year. I was planning on having the pool plastered with quartz next year once the budget allows. Will waiting till next year (i.e. using the pool this year after the tile and coping is replaced) to do the plastering have any adverse affect on the newly installed tile that I am planning on having done this year?
 

kimkats

Mod Squad
LifeTime Supporter
Jul 10, 2012
47,061
Tallahassee, FL
Your plaster guys will need to use great care when they chip out the tile. I almost think it would be better to wait until you can do it at the same time. Sure would not want to mess up your new tile :(
 

Skyline

Active member
Jun 17, 2016
26
PA
I think maybe I wasn't clear, especially since what I have going on probably isn't common. There really is no plaster on the pool, but there is a 6" waterline of 6"x6" tile which sticks out past the pool shell by essentially the thickness of the tile and thinset. I'm have the tile replaced this year and it will be basically ready for plaster (i.e. it will stick out about 1/2"). But I wanted to wait a year till the budget allows for a plaster job. I hope that makes more sense
 

Skyline

Active member
Jun 17, 2016
26
PA
Yes and no. It's a 1960's poured concrete shell pool, which may of had a light skim coat of plaster at some time but probably most of it is long gone. It's been painted several times over the years from what I can tell. But it basically seems like a few layers of paint, which is flaking in many spots, right on the concrete. I've only been in the house a few years, so I don't know much about the history.

But I'm having the tile and coping done soon. I was planning to fill the pool after that was done and then get a full plaster job next year when it fits in the budget.
 

Dirk

Gold Supporter
TFP Guide
Nov 12, 2017
7,209
Central California
No expert here on the subject, but another possible reason to do this all at once:

While I suppose it's possible that you're looking at painted gunite, it's equally possible you're looking at painted plaster, plaster that was so trashed that it now looks more like gunite than plaster (which some would use paint on to get by). So if you chip off tile, and reapply new tile, to old plaster, when they go to remove the paint, and find old plaster instead of gunite, then they're going to want to (or rather you're going to want to have them) chip out all the old plaster down to the gunite, taking the paint with it. But with your new tile sitting on old plaster, they're going to have a time of it: chipping it out and then getting the new plaster level to match the old plaster+tile level. Additionally, if you do have new tile set on old plaster, and the new plasterers can somehow make this work, you'll still end up with old plaster behind the new tile. And that can't be good. The tile should be set on fresh mortar (or whatever is used for that), adhered to the gunite. Then the new plaster run up to that. Not old plaster. See what I'm getting at? You may or may not be making correct assumptions about the pool and how it's going to get resurfaced next year. If you tile now, you could very well be setting up a scenario where you'd have to bust that all out to do a proper resurfacing job next year...

Again, I'm just not seeing the advantage to doing this job in two halves, a year apart, but I can see several potential disadvantages...