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?
Question on tile and plaster
- Thread starter Skyline
- Start date
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 
blakeusa
In The Industry
I would wait on the tile as you want the new plaster to be flush with the tile -- where the tile and plaster meet.
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
So are you saying your pool has no plaster right now and will be sitting empty until next year when you can plaster?
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.
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.
- Nov 12, 2017
- 11,908
- Pool Size
- 12300
- Surface
- Plaster
- Chlorine
- Salt Water Generator
- SWG Type
- Pentair Intellichlor IC-40
+1 for do it all at the same time. What is driving you to do the tile and coping now, instead of waiting until you can afford the whole job?
Do you have a free source of fill water? If not, you're choosing to pay to fill it twice instead of once. I too vote for waiting until you can do the whole job at once.
- Nov 12, 2017
- 11,908
- Pool Size
- 12300
- Surface
- Plaster
- Chlorine
- Salt Water Generator
- SWG Type
- Pentair Intellichlor IC-40
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...
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...