In a message dated 12/14/2000 5:53:43 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< 1.  Gee, Ralph, the cleaning on the limestone base of the NY Athletic Club
[a
 high rise clubhouse in New York on Central Park South] - it seems kind of ...
 harsh.  Is it?
>>>>>>>>>>>Uh. Er. Mmmm. Well, let me say this about that: We had the best
advice money could buy (from Mr. Pepi and his minions at BCA) trying  to get
the LS base and trim, and the brick walls, clean, without damaging the
masonry, flaying passersby and their horses and cars, or bankrupting the
Owner and/or the Contractor.  We did the best we all could, and the cleaned
building is beyond a doubt better off than it was, given the potential for
physical deterioration of the stone if the encrusted soil (which had
developed physical thickness)  had stayed on longer.  As you observed, better
results were obtained in some areas than in others; I would've liked to have
gotten the last of the soil off, but we got to the point where some of this
was so encrusted that it wouldn't come off without abrasion, which we wanted
to avoid for fear of further damage.  Most of the variations in cleanliness
results from due to inconsistencies in the accumulations of schmutz
(primarily airborne soil, but also verdigris from bronze light fixtures,
grease from kitchen exhausts, combinations of this crud, differing
thicknesses, etc) from one area to the next;  but there are also variations
in the porosity and occlusions within the stone which affect how effective
the cleaning is going to be.  The result is that an effective technique on
one stain in one area (or a range of techniques on a range of stains) may be
less effective-- or overly aggressive-- in another area.  [Note to Pinhead
Technogeeks: support me on this, will ya, instead of telling Chris I'm full
of shit. He's  trying to make us {alright, me} look bad just so he can sell
more of his fly-by-night newspapers.]<<<<

 2.   Who's working on the Long Island Historical Society?  I want to find out
 more about those very tight brick joints, which I have heard are
 "unrepointable" without damage to the brick.  But if they're so tight and
 protected, why do they have to be repointed at all?
      Dunno whose baby that one is, but there are all manner of possibilities
here, ranging from there's-nothing-wrong-with-the-mortar, but-the- asshole
(excuse me, anal compulsive)-architect-decided-it-needed-pointing, to the-
asshole- (excuse me, cheap and/or stupid corner-cutting)
original-contractor-used-a- mortar-so-lousy (alright ][<en, maybe the
original architect spec'd the lousy mortar and wouldn't listen when the
contractor told him it was NFG) that-it-couldn't-even
survive-being-placed-in-a-goddam-butter-joint-for-a-measly-100-years.  If the
brick  has  too-high rates of absorption, the water can leach out the good
stuff in the mortar; I've seen buildings where there was no bond left between
the mortar and the brick, and you could lift the bricks out of place with
your bare hands; the mortar in some cases looked like beach sand, and in
other cases like runny clay.<<<<<<<<

 Christopher Gray
 Day #1, of the Bush Presidency-Elect
  >>
>>>>>>>>Ralph.
Anybody heard yet from david about our mass application for political asylum?
Are preservationists as welcome in Australia as Filipino nurses and Indian
doctors are here?<<<<<<<<