Kahrs>Oak London 'vs' Oak Linnea -opinions / experiences

[wozville]

Currently trying to decide what floor to lay in my living / dining room, which measure 7.6m x 4.2m (32 sq. m) approx. The house was built in 1990, has a concrete subfloor and all skirting boards have been removed. Intend to lay an engineered floor, floating with a tuplex DPM & underlay.

Decided to go for an Oak veneer and the Kahrs range seems quite good ..... reasonable cost, quality & uses a glueless 'woodloc' joining system.

My dilemma is whether I go for the 'Kahrs Oak London' (15mm thick with a 3.6mm veneer, approx cost £30 sq.m i.e.£1300) or the 'Kahrs Oak Linnea' (7.2mm thick with a 0.5mm veneer, approx cost £18 sq.m i.e.£720) ......

1) Does anyone have any experiences, views or opinions on which would be the better one to go for ?

2) Would the extra cost of the 'Oak London' be money well spent or is it a case of you won't really tell the difference once fitted ?

3) Anyone recommend any other floors worth considering ?

[At a later date intend to do the hallway (approx 10sq.m) in the same flooring ...... so any additional cost here will also mean more expense when I get round to doing the hallway!]

Thanks.

 

[WFRN]

depends on traffic. linnea is more for light traffic one or two people and cannot be resanded and sealed unlike oak london suitable for heavier wear and can be sanded and sealed. Add value to the property and go for London plus the plank length is 2.4m compared to linnea's 1.2m.

Other products that are similar and just as high quality are Boen and Tarkett. But cost sounds like an issue so shop around theres plenty of manufacturers doing specials - ask your local retailer.