When in process of hewing poplar beams for a certain friend's house the 
hewer & I got into a discussion of terminology and determined that the 
folks who seemed to have a penchant for sitting on the beams during 
their idle times were leaving an "assina".

I have seen similar marks of workboot shoe treads in black oil impressed 
on surface of fresh GFRC limestone when left out where ironworkers felt 
a need to walk (they like to walk on things especially if it gets them 
higher than the sidewalk). Impressive marks when upside down on a window 
header installed like there had been ancient moonwalkers. Though the 
artichoke was a bit upset and wanted the prints removed. It takes a 
teamwork of idiots to get this sort of architectural effect.

I increasingly encounter situations where a less-is-more approach to the 
work, as in NOT removing surface coloration to a pure new finish in 
masonry cleaning maintains the character of the existing 
structure/materials and in some cases requires doing good work then 
messing it up to make it look like bad work or outright doing bad work 
in order to blend with existing. There has to be a terminology for bad 
work that is not bad work but is in fact a transcendence of good work. 
One problem with an approach of less-is-more is if the end client is 
sophisticated enough to realize that anything at all has been done. 
Whatever anyone wants to assume as to objectivity there is a social 
politics to masonry cleaning. Howard Golden, past Brooklyn Borough 
president got Brooklyn Borough Hall blasted overall w/ glass beads in 
order to blend the Georgia marbledutchmen with the existing  Tuckahoe 
marble because he did not like the building looking like it had a rare 
form of white measles. It has been over 20 years, I should go look again 
and see what they have got. Though the Georgia marble & Tuckahoe marble 
when clean look similar enough the Tuckahoe marble had been cleaned then 
got dirty before they got donw putting in the freshly white dutchmen.

We are working on a Tuckahoe marble church in the Village and made a 
point that the cleaning would 1) not remove the black carbonation, 2) 
would not remove the inherent rust (from inclusions in the stone itself) 
and 3) would be gentle to not remove surface area (sugaring in 
particular) and 4) would be intended to only brighten up the facade and 
in no measure make it look new. The end client got it perfectly when we 
proposed this approach, and it fit their budget close enough. The idea 
being that a 19th century building should look used and weathered. The 
repointing was similar in effect to only repoint where mortar was 
missing and in fact to do a rather rough job of it. If the repointing 
was done in the manner that most mechanics are familiar with, thorough 
and smoothly slicked, then the work would have looked off and instead of 
doing less work more work would need to be done in order to maintain a 
harmony of effect.

I am curious to read John Waite's book on Tweed Courthouse (I was 
present at his first presentation to the city, a rather obscure honor, 
as I was involved in a Robert Meadows' project on the building to remove 
dead pigeons, guano and do some cleaning tests) as the similar material 
of a Tuckahoe marble facade as to the church we are currently working on 
that the Tweed Courthouse got a treatment that I doubt ever will be 
applied to any other facade made of this material (other than possibly 
Grace Church where Tom Thumb married Lavinia Warren). The Westchester, 
NY quarry, sporting a rather unfortunate building material, was owned by 
Boss Twead... so there is this legacy of a particular building material 
used in the 19th century in NYC that was not as I know it used elsewhere.

The hardest part of the church project was communicating and controlling 
the mechanics to NOT do more, to not do what they might think was a 
better or more perfect job of it. Several years ago I ran into this 
problem on the Barnes & Noble on Union Square, another 19th century 
bldg., where there was a miscommunication internal to the company as to 
the extent intended in the repointing work and there was a major cost 
over-run as a result of the crew going overboard repointing what was 
never intended to be repointed... if dumb-shit managers yell and scream 
enough the effect is like buffalo stampeding.

We were asked recently to look to deconstruct/conserve/reconstruct a 
Stamford White designed/ personal contributed fireplace and I 
particularly appreciated the cautious manner in which the conservator 
wrote up to not remove existing dents/spalls etc. and to underclean 
rather than overclean the stone. I think even despite how a spec is writ 
the end result depends on the understanding and appreciation of the 
mechanics.

As to biological patina... I am in favor of removing algae and moss. 
Patina is not necessarily always a preservative coating.

I would also - not being a conservator - extend the use of the term 
'patina' towards a connection with maintaining a harmony of appearance 
suitable to age of the materials, structure and surrounding environment.

Lastly, considering assinas in restoration of a '73 Triumph Spitfire 
1500 should one worry about the sag in the seats?

][<

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