Tom,

I think I agree with you.  I too enjoy seeing the evidence that the building
has been around a few years, has been maintained by various hands with various
skills.

But...in historic sites where the period of interpretation is the period when
the building is brand spanking new, what then?  This is not a constant issue,
but one that I have in the last few years had to deal with much more
frequently.  Just thought I'd get your take.

-jc

"Gray, Tom" wrote:

> Sorry, gonna have to inject my two cents worth here!  If "someone" wants
> new, go build it in suburbia (or as in-fill at worst)!  If it's historic and
> not endangered, better to leave it the F___ alone than to try to make it
> "clean" and totally obliterate the signs of how it got from its origin to
> the present.  I personally don't care if its an "A", a "C", or a "P"; the
> damage and loss are all the same.  That said, I'm not against maintenance
> and care, I'm just against trying to make something with a history to share
> look too sanitary.  Buildings develop patina just like furniture, and that
> needs to be maintained without destroying it.
>
> Tom Gray