Trying to catch up and the delete finger needed a break.

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.

(Just once I'd like to make the case that a painter and his apprentice were of
such significance that we have to preserve their work and tell the public about
it.  Wouldn't conservarators get a kick out of preserving intact the work of a
house painter, injecting epoxies to keep it from peeling and ever so carefully
painting the infill with itsy bitsy little brushes and funky lights and
magnifying helmits?)

Any suggestions?

-jc

Met History wrote:

> >From a recent article in The New York Times:
>
> "The McIntyre Building is in the Ladies Mile Historic District.  Its windows
> are now painted black and Terri Rosen-Deutsch, Press Spokesperson for the
> Landmarks Preservation Commission says that the agency will require the new
> work to be painted with the original colors, determined by microscopic
> examination.   To judge from historic photographs, the original windows were
> a light color, perhaps buff, matching the original limestone and light brick."
>
> Any personal experience out there with this policy?  Is it followed in every
> case?
>
> Christopher Gray
> Office for Metropolitan History
> 246 West 80th Street, #8, NYC  10024
> 212-799-0520  fax -0542
> e: [log in to unmask]