Ruth suggested:

"Was lime mortar around first, before Cement?  If so, maybe that's the
reason it was used, not because it was better.  This preservation stuff can
only go so far before it becomes totally impractical."


Sounds like we're back to the old question of the "authenticity" of
Grandpa's original axe, which has had the handle replaced six times and the
head twice.

I'm not sure we want to allow too much practicality to direct our
conservation practices. If, for example, a park system decides to replace a
beech post in an early "scribe rule" barn with another species of wood (say
white oak) because it will last longer, and they have the park maintenance
staff "do their best job" of "fitting" it in, what have we done?

We have replaced a post (tangible), but we have lost the history
(intangible?).

We have saved the barn as a tangible artifact, but we have also changed it.
If the process were to continue unchecked would we not eventually have
replaced the history of the scribe rule, hand hewn, beech barn with a modern
reproduction that is still a .... barn? Worse yet, if during the process of
replacing the deteriorated pieces, we loose the original markings left by
the "race knife" of the old master carpenter haven't we cut short his
teaching future carpenters how he did his work?

I'm not saying practicality should be thrown out the window (with hand blown
pains set in hand planed dividers in a tulip sash with pegged joinery) but
that we should be careful first and practicle with even greater care.

I repeat the story (hopefully someone hasn't heard it) of the tallest
covered bridge in Ohio, the Hune Bridge near Marrietta. I was asked to
survey the bridge to determine how badly damaged the timbers were. It had
been closed primarily due to "infestation". As it turned out it was built
entirely of heart tulip poplar (yellow poplar) and the infestation was
simply carpenter bee holes. No structural threat at all. The real problem
was the rotting bottom chords on the trusses (total lack of maintenance)
which were being held vertical (nearly) by a large iron turnbuckle rod
attached to a deadman.

To make a long story short (you're welcome) the "practicle" decision to
replace the tulip bottom chords with Douglas fir of greater depth of section
was based on the need to meet greater loading requirements than the bridge
had originally been designed for (and that tulip can handle). The
"impracticle" decision to leave the turnbuckle in place was based on the
fact that the trusses were never able to stand on their own due to their
height, and re-engineering them and removing the rod would have changed the
too tall Hune bridge into a ....bridge.

Sign me "Still trying to figure out the Interior of the Secretary Standards"

Rudy

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>