Thanks, Michael, and you are right.  This is "above grade service,
exposed on one side, unlikely to be frozen when saturated, not subject
to high wind or significant lateral load."  The mix is 1/4 part cement
to 2 parts lime, and 7 parts sand, and we weren't trying to match any of
the Types, since we only wanted to match the original.  It seems
surprising to me that they bothered with the cement at all.  

And Ralph, only the bad guys "had teeth that seemed to be discarded
mason's tools and mumbled in Eskimo."  That was how we could tell them
apart, but admittedly it was a fine point.  The bad guys were champion
belchers, too.

We used GFRC for the cornice of an addition to Lane Hall on U of M's
campus that complemented the terra cotta cornice of the original
building.  There was plenty of terra cotta where the addition abutted
the original building to salvage for repairs, but not enough to go
around the addition.  We didn't want the addition to exactly match the
original building anyway, and this allowed us to cast the profile
without dentils, and match the color.  From the ground the difference is
subtle.  No fuzzies, but  it doesn't get a lot of sun, either, except in
the morning.  The addition is built on a structural steel frame.  The
shell of the GFRC is about an inch thick.  It looks more like Indiana
limestone than terra cotta, but somewhat lighter because of the shell
construction.

Ilene R. Tyler

--
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>