In a message dated 06/01/2000 9:12:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

> I have no experience with this policy, but have a house in need of paint.
>  Analysis gives us three schemes, roughly, original 1872, 1900 and 1920.
> Simple
>  enough, except that there were additions in 1900 and again in 1920.
Either
> of
>  the first two color schemes present a building than never existed.  But,
the
> site
>  manager interprets the building at about 1900.  But, the interior is all
>  1920ish.  Its tough to make the case for 1920 as a significant period,
since
> the
>  historical person was elsewhere, and there were no significant events.  The
>  architecture is pretty high style for the community its in, but not
exceptional
>  and there is nothing significantly outside the norm for any of the painting
>  schemes.
>
>
>  Any suggestions?

Sort of. I have the same problem here at the building where I work: earliest
existing section circa 1750, additions 1840, and 1940. Significance of
building relates to its age and relation to settlement and revolutionary war
history. But we can't chop off the 1840 section, which doubles the size of
the 1750 house, and was a replacement for an earlier circa 1710 structure.
What to do, what to do?

1) I don't interpret the building as a 'house museum'. I work the angles
differently and do local history displays rather than trying to fudge on a
period house museum. Perhaps wouldn't work in your example, but worth some
hard thought on interpretation and use. If the house relates to a significant
person, perhaps the curator could do more exhibits rather than room sets. If
the 1920s additions significantly change the atmosphere of the building,
perhaps the site managers could consider 'restoration' work to reverse the
changes. On the other hand, there's a lovely historic house museum down in
Delaware-- Rockwood-- which, to me, presented a great example of integration
of a variety of historic periods into a great package. The house had several
significant additions on the original 1840s Gothic Revival house, and I think
the staff there did a great job of integrating the full history of the
building into the tour.

2) Signage works wonders. Are there photographs that depict the house in its
various stages of additions? If you have photographs of the three distinct
stages of  additions, perhaps you could errect an interpretive sign in the
front to give visitors the ability to peel apart the layers. Then the paint
scheme can be chosen to reflect interpretation without "fooling" the visitors.

3) At my site, I've gone with the percentages. 98% of the current building
was built before1840, with a tiny 5 x 10 section of the porch having been
enclosed in the 1940s. In a perfect world, we may someday have the funding to
turn it back into a woodshed, but now, I just make sure I mention that change
in my tour. We had a paint analysis done, and chose one of the mid-19th
century brown colors with cream trim to use. The brown paint color also has a
lot of interpretative value.

-Heidi