Wooden exterior door help pls

R

RobAMerc

Registered User
Messages
79
Hi,

I hate the look of our house and we think its because of the crappy looking PVC front door (which both I and the missus hate)

So - a proper wooden door it is.
A quick search tellsme Mahogany is almost extinct so thats a no.

Can someone then advise on the following:

Whats a quality sustainable wood?
Who are any good in the west Dublin area D15 or anywhere that will do it?
What can we expect to pay (we will need a frame with about 30cm's each side of the door too.)?

Thanks
ROb
 
Most wood doors are teak (Iroko). I guess it's because of it's resistance to the elements. A multipoint locking door is advisable to help prevent warping and draughts.
 
We've just ordered a mahogany front door. Do you think we should change our minds and order Teak?
 
TillyD said:
We've just ordered a mahogany front door. Do you think we should change our minds and order Teak?
Click to expand...
I would doubt if that is what will be supplied. Mahogany's primary use (as a veneer in latter years) was for indoor furniture.
 
Sapele is commonly sold as Mahogany... from the same family apparently. 'Proper' Mahogany isn't commercially available anymore (in large quantities).

Similar to how Iroko and Teak are considered the same.... even though Teak is commercially available but is a lot more expensive than Iroko.
 
Iroko has gone up in price in the last few years. It was once seen as a cheaper alternative to mahogany but the rise in demand has driven the price up.
 
Yes, make sure that your door is Iroko and not 'mahoganny' as it is not suitable for outdoor use.
 
We got a new Teak front door last September. It was 500euro for the door and frame. Ordered it from a local joinery. Paid 250 for the glass and 200 for the carpenter to put it in. The lock was 80.
 
The door is costing us 2600e. Standard size door with two glass panels either side. I will get on to the builder today and tell him to check out what wood it is exactly.

So is it Iroko or teak I should be looking for or are they both the same. And does the above quote sound about right?

Thanks for the advice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register