Met History wrote:

> In a message dated 11/29/04 9:46:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
>> Question:  But the new cast-iron of the 1860's can be made to look
>> just like the stone of other mid-1850's commercial buildings.  Why
>> can't I use cast-iron and retain the architectural integrity that
>> makes it special?
>>
>> Answer:  Because real stone facades of the 1850's, just as any other
>> historic building material, possesses a richness of quality and
>> texture developed over the years that is impossible to manufacture in
>> modern mass produced material, like James Bogardus' cast-iron.  This
>> is especially true of  stone with special details such as tooling or
>> chasing.   Modern, mass produced cast-iron imparts a hard, opaque
>> surface to a building that is especially evident when surrounded by
>> the mellow richness of historic building materials.   Also, bolts may
>> rust away, and the cast iron may trap moisture inside, causing rot.
>> If, say, the Soho area had been built of cast-iron buildings, they
>> would certainly have fallen down by now.
>
>
>
Sharpshooter,

LMAO!
Not fair... not fair... cast iron was not used by Bogardus as a faux
cladding over existing masonry or wood structures.

Which reminds me of once being asked to walnut shell blast a cast iron
facade in Soho and to only remove as much paint as would leave the
original first layers of paint. And yes, to make sure that not even a
teaspoon of walnut shells would get lodged in behind the cast iron,
between the ci & the rough brick back-up/infill lest the material
fester, rot and provide just one more micro-climate of deterioration in
a dark place.

][<

--
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>