I don't mind whether you broadcast in Times Square, publish in APT Bulletin, or simply capitalise in the subject line of an email ....

.... I think you said something along the lines of "better lost detail than fake reconstruction" .... 

I have an fundamental problem with stone restoration in Australia, where the prevailing attitude is that if a detail or a portion of a detail has been lost, then it must be reconstructed, irrespective of the condition of the rest of the detail or piece of stone.

What I think will happen is that the repair will outperform the rest of the stone that the repair is in, or the newly indented stone will perform longer than the original stones on either side.  So consequently building owners are spending buckets of money on access systems to permit full 'restoration' to their stone facades ... and they will be back spending the same money in 20-30 years time.  

But of course that is outside the professional timeframe for most consultants, so they don't worry about that.  My career plan has me still consulting in this field in 30-40 years time, so I am going to have to deal with any mistakes I make now. 

Boy, am I looking forward to that!!

To get back to the point ... I would rather record the detail (engrave it on a bronze plaque with dimensions and fix to the stonework nearby if need be), redress back to stabilise and make it safe, and then when the majority of that particular element has deteriorated (as it will in another 20-50 years), replace the full length.

Our buildings are lucky if they are 100-150 years old ... so are problems are nothing compared to those of the Europeans ... yet we get very precious about every single piece of stone on the damn facade.

Sorry, you've got me started on one of my pet topics.

david

>>> <[log in to unmask]> 7/05/99 7:55:41 >>>
In a message dated 5/6/99 3:59:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
[log in to unmask] writes:

<< Will you say that a bit louder please? >>


PLEASE CLARIFY.

christopher gray