In a message dated 3/22/99 3:47:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, [log in to unmask]
writes:

<< As recently pointed out to me, one consideration is that by using original
 materials it may also conserve the craft of using those materials. If you
want
 to retain stonemasons then replace with stone and not fiberglas or GFRC.
 Personal perspective... I want the stonemasons to be employed, but when the
 need fits I'll use whatever looks good and meets the budget. I would rather
 see preservation done less than perfect than a decision to not do it at all.
>>

Ridiculous!

I'm sorry, but when I go in for replacement of the finger I cut off while
fixing dinner, I don't want a fiberglas replacement just because it fit's the
budget. I want the best solution available to make me as close to whole again
as possible. Hopefully my own finger reattached, but at least the best
solution available.

In the case of stone vs. fiberglas, it would be hard to believe that stone
isn't available.  If the budget predicates substitution, maybe education is
the answer.

Two very real issues come to mind:

One being the loss of the true artifact by substitution of some of it's parts.
The artifact itself is a complete entity, made up of many parts. If we choose
to substitute the approved (budgeted) replacement whenever a part goes bad, we
eventually lose the artifact completely.

The second being the loss of historic record by replacement of fabric. If the
artifact eventually becomes the property of someone who believes in it's true
preservation, the decisions as to how to replace the worn out parts gets
extremely moot when no one knows what existed prior to the fiberglas.

Please excuse the philosophical wax.

Rudy