Hopewell Furnace Ironmasters Analysis of Historic Finishes- Final_0001.pdf

IRONMASTER’S HOUSE AT

HOPEWELL FURNACE NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE

ELVERSON, PA

ANALYSIS OF SELECTED HISTORIC INTERIOR FINISHES

PREPARED FOR:

MILLS+SCHNOERING ARCHITECTS, LLC

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

PREPARED BY:

KEYSTONE PRESERVATION GROUP

FINAL REPORT: JUNE 12, 2020

Keystone

Preservation

Group

Historic Preservation

Architectural Conservation

J. Christopher Frey

President/Principal Conservator

Keystone Preservation Group

P.O. Box 831

Doylestown, PA 18901

267.261.8929 www.keystonepreservation.com

Ironmaster’s House at Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site Analysis of Selected Historic Interior Finishes – Final Report

Table of Contents

Keystone Preservation Project #19-024 Page | i

Table of Contents i

Project Team ii

Section A Analysis of Historic Finishes A.1 Introduction 1 A.2 Historical Considerations 9 A.3 Summary of Findings 13 A.3.1 Objective 13 A.3.2 Physical Evidence, Interpretation and Conclusions 13 A.3.3 Possibilities for Additional Study 41 A.4 Color Placement 42 A.5 Analytical Methodology 44 A.5.1 Sampling 44 A.5.2 Sample Preparation 44 A.5.3 Optical Microscopy and Color Matching 44 A.6 Analytical Data 46 A.6.1 Sample Locations 46 A.6.2 Analytical Datasheets 47 A.7 Color Matches 163

Ironmaster’s House at Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site

Project Team

Page | ii

Project Team

Project: Analysis of Selected Historic Interior Finishes Ironmaster’s House Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site Elverson, PA

Owner: National Park Service

Project Architect: Mills+Schnoering Architects, LLC Anne Weber, FAIA, FAPT, Partner

Materials Analyst: Keystone Preservation Group:

Christopher Frey

Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site

Page | 1

Section A: Analysis of Selected Historic Finishes

A.1 Introduction This section constitutes an analysis of selected historic architectural finishes from the Ironmaster’s House at Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site (Figures 1-12). As consultant to Mills+Schnoering Architects LLC, Keystone Preservation Group has completed the following:

• An initial site visit on August 23, 2019 - during which representative paint samples were removed from selected architectural features from interior spaces which were identified in the RFP (Rooms 004, 005, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 204).

• One supplementary site visit on January 10, 2020 – during which supplemental samples were removed from Rooms 101, 102, 103, 104, 105 and 204.

• One supplementary site visit on March 13, 2020 – during which supplemental samples were removed from Rooms 101, 103, 104, 105 and 204.

• Microscopic analysis of 85 paint samples deemed to contain information that might be considered useful when interpreting the chronology/evolution of the building. Analysis included cataloguing samples, cross-sectioning all samples manually, embedding a portion of most samples in clear stable resin, evaluating samples microscopically at various magnifications up to 200x in color-corrected reflected light and longwave ultraviolet light; matching the shade of early finishes to standards within the Munsell System of Color and within the Benjamin Moore line of architectural paint finishes will be included by the end of the study.

• Submission of an initial report on findings on November 13, 2019.

• Submission of an interim report on findings on February 18, 2020.

• Submission of a pre-final report on findings on April 14, 2020.

• Installation of exposure windows to reveal historic graining on May 20, 2020.

• Submission of a final report on findings on June 12, 2020.

Page | 2

Figure 1. West façade (August, 2019).

Figure 2. Study Area, Ground Floor: Rooms 004, 005.

Page | 3

Figure 3. Study Area, First Floor: Rooms 101, 102, 103, 104, 105.

Page | 4

Figure 4. Study Area, Second Floor: Room 204.

Page | 5

Figure 5: Study Area, Ground Floor: Room 004.

Figure 6: Study Area, Ground Floor: Room 005.

Page | 6

Figure 7: Study Area, First Floor: Room 101.

Figure 8: Study Area, First Floor: Room 102.

Page | 7

Figure 9: Study Area, First Floor: Room 103.

Figure 10: Study Area, First Floor: Room 104.

Page | 8

Figure 11: Study Area, First Floor: Room 105.

Figure 12: Study Area, Second Floor: Room 204.

Page | 9

A.2 Historical Considerations History Although the scope of work did not include an evaluation of primary research, information pertaining to the evolution of the building has been obtained from sources including an Historic Structures Report, Ironmaster’s House, Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site (National Park Service, 2014), Historic Structures Report Architectural Data Section, The Ironmaster’s House, Hopewell Village National Historic Site (Dessauer, 1984) and Hopewell Village: A Social and Economic History of an Iron-Making Community (Walker, 1966). An Historic Structures Report authored by Norman Souder in 1965 (Souder 1965) has also been noted, but not directly reviewed as part of this study.

Declarations of Historic Significance

• 1938: Hopewell Village National Historic Site established by Presidential Proclamation, Departmental Order 3FR 2039. “[E]stablishment… began with the thematic significance that revolved around the contribution of Hopewell Furnace in supplying iron goods for the American Revolutionary War – specifically cannon, shot and shell used to equip the Continental forces.” (NPS 2014, 1).

• 1957: Ironmaster’s House documented by Historic American Buildings Survey (NPS 2014, 15).

• 1965: Historic Structures Report authored by Souder recommends restoring the Ironmaster’s House to its ca. 1820-1840 appearance.

• 1966: Hopewell Village National Historic Site listed (administratively) on the National Register of Historic Places.

• 1985: Documentation completed and signed by the Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places (National Register Number #66000645).

o Overall, the site was noted as significant due to “…its association with the American Revolution, as well as its long life as an industrial community, representative of the hundreds of charcoal ironworks which once flourished in the Eastern United States.” (National Register citation, in

NPS 2014, 2).

o The National Register submission also includes specific reference to the Ironmaster’s House, as “…an interesting example of the growth and formalization of a house, in which a century of change in the owners’ fortunes and tastes are recorded in its shape, size, arrangement, finishes and appointments.” (National Register citation, in NPS 2014, 2).

• 2013: Draft General Management Plan for Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site expands statement of significance to two periods – including 1) ironmaking period from start of furnace to last blast (1770-1883), and 2) and to its period from conceptualization as a historic park to early restoration (1934-1965).

• 2014: With respect to the Ironmaster’s House, the 2014 Historic Structures Report recommends adopting a preservation-oriented approach which would include repair and treatment of existing elements including post-1840 Victorian features – recognizing the “…holistic preservation of the structure [as a way] to exemplify both its contributions to the American Revolution, as well as a contributor to the iron industry of the United States.” (NPS 2014, 5).1

1 During the course of this study and pursuant to discussions with the project team, it was decided that ca. 1860-1880 would serve as the period of interpretation for this building, based on the fact that the fundamental form of the building as it stands today most closely resembles that period – especially considering that the front porch was built, windows on the 1st floor front lengthened, several window openings were altered, and decorative graining was installed on woodwork ca. 1860-1870, and likely remained exposed until at least 1880.

Page | 10

History, Documentation and Evolution of the Ironmaster’s House

• 1773: Earliest origins of the Ironmaster’s House are unknown. “It is possible that the foundation of the northwest core was extant during the last quarter of the 18th century, but there is no reliable evidence to support this conjecture.” (NPS 2014, 25)

• 1788: Advertisement for the public sale of property belonging to ironmaster Mark Bird at Hopewell Furnace includes a reference only to houses which were suitable to accommodate a sufficient number of workmen. It is noted that a residence of sufficient value, ostensibly such as an ironmaster’s mansion, would possibly/likely have been noted in tax records pertaining to the sale (NPS 2014, 26), and as such, the presence of a house/mansion cannot be confirmed for this date.

• Ca. 1800: Inventory taken during the transfer of the property from Benjamin Morris to the Brooke and Buckley families “presents no evidence of a family or complete household at Hopewell Furnace during this time.” Although it is not known whether any of the structure which is currently known as the Ironmaster’s House had been built, testimony given at a later date “has been cited as evidence for the existence of an Ironmaster’s House at Hopewell Furnace during this era.” (NPS 2014, 26) o Dendrochronology completed in 1980 concluded that beams from the northwest section were cut ca. 1799 – in theory supporting a possible ca. 1800 construction date. (NPS 2014, 29) o Earliest configuration of the Ironmaster’s House as a “three-bay, side-gabled two and one half story structure built on a sloping bank. This compact dwelling consisted of only the north section of the current structure.” (NPS 2014 27) This structure would have included, within the current study area, Rooms 102, 103 and possibly 204.

• 1809-1816: Hopewell Furnace is out of blast; no known alterations or additions to Ironmaster’s House (NPS 2014, 29).

• Ca. 1825: Construction of an east (rear) wing in conjunction with Hopewell Furnace’s increased prosperity and the growth of Clement Brooke’s family (NPS 2014, 17). East wing is referred to as containing a basement and first story with an attic story under a shed roof above (NPS 2014, 30).

This structure would have included, within the current study area, Rooms 004, 005, 104 and 105.

o Dendrochronology tentatively identifies white oak beams from this section as having been cut

ca. 1825 (NPS 2014, 45).

o Date “1826” is carved into plaster of south wall of basement Room 003 – possibly recording

“improvements made to existing basement while construction took place in the adjacent wing.”

(NPS 2014, 31)

• Ca. 1828: Addition of attic on east wing, construction of an extension to the south elevation of the original house, creating the extant T-shaped structure – creating a nearly symmetrical five-bay gabled house with a center wall (NPS 2014, 31). Records note an increase of skilled laborers who received meals from the house’s expanded kitchen, and in subsequent years, receipts for painting, papering and carpeting (NPS 2014, 17). This structure would have included, within the current study area, Room 101.

o Dendrochronology dates beams of south wing to having been cut no earlier than 1828 (NPS

2014, 32).

• Ca. 1860s-1870: Construction of front porch (west), replacement of earlier 6-over-9 window sashes with Victorian 2-over-2 sashes in enlarged openings, exterior doors updated.

• Pre 1868: Oral histories suggest construction of 2nd floor interior bathroom and installation of associated plumbing (NPS 2014, 38).

• Ca. 1957: Structural repairs and installation of electric heat (NPS 2014, 15).

• 1979-1980: Restoration of the house to its ca. 1870 appearance.

Page | 11

Finishes-specific references

• Menz finishes study references likely need for frequent papering given proximity to ironmaking activities.

• Moss+Winkler treatise references use of grained finishes with protective varnish ca. 1830-1850.

Similar finishes have also been noted by A.J. Downing as abrasion-resistant finishes which were easier to care for than paint finishes, due to the presence of a protective varnish layer.2

• Pre 1938: Removal of all traces of wallpaper, prior to acquisition of the property by the National Park Service (NPS 2014, 39).

• Post 1938: Repair and replacement of wood elements including door and window frames, window sashes, porch and interior floor boards, and possibly joists; exact scope is not known (NPS 2014, 40).

• 1954: “[T]here principal rooms on the first floor were stripped, painted and their floors refinished.”

(NPS 2014, 40)

• Ca. 1965: Four interior rooms painted and repaired (NPS 2014, 40).

• Ca. 1968: Four interior rooms painted and repaired (NPS 2014, 40).

• 1978: Extensive rehabilitation campaign undertaken. Work related to finishes included “painting of walls, ceilings and woodwork, and whitewashing of basement spaces. The stair hall balustrade was rebuilt with existing parts, stripped and repainted. Eighteen doors were refitted, repaired and repainted.” (NPS 2014, 42) All window sashes were removed for repair – which included replacement of glass panes, replacement of damaged muntins, replacement of broken/missing locks, application of interior solar film, installation of weather-stripping (NPS 2014, 72).

• 1980: Historic paint study requested “in order to give the first floor display rooms (Rooms 101-105) a more accurate 1840s appearance…” (Dessauer 1984, 155) Work included:

o Extraction of 36 samples from woodwork in principal (interior) rooms.

o Microscopic examination of samples at magnification from 7x-30x. Color matching within

Munsell System of Color.

o Earliest detectable finishes in “oldest” section of the house corresponded to Munsell 2.5Y 9/2 – referred to as “off-white,” and was judged to be white, lead-based paint with a linseed oil medium. (Dessauer 1984, 155-156) o The earliest detectable finishes on elements which dated to the Victorian era – particularly those in Room 103 – were “graining simulating wood.” The aforementioned graining “appeared to be contemporaneous with graining applied to the remainder of the house over the off-white paint.”

(Dessauer 1984, 156) Of note is the fact that graining was identified “…as a two-coat process with the first coat being either off-white or beige and the second coat being varnish.” In practice, and with higher magnification than was prevailing at the time of study, graining is often considered to be a three-coat finish consisting of a ground coat, a thin grain layer and then a protective varnish through which the graining can read.

o The Kitchen (Room 105) proved to be an exception, and different colors/finishes were historically employed.

Datasheets from the 1980 analysis indicate room numbers and elements from which samples were taken, but do not always which openings (e.g. Window 101, 102, etc.). Datasheets may not be accurate for Room 104 (notes graining as earliest). It does not appear that comparative chromachronologies are as accurate as is currently possible with higher magnification and ultraviolet fluorescence. Terms such as “original” and “earliest” may have been used interchangeably and do not necessarily take into account changes which have taken place over time. For instance, openings in the west wall of Room 103 may be in their “original” ca.

1800/1825/1828 location, but were lengthened vertically and new sashes installed ca. 1870. Therefore, the

2 In this building, graining has been determined to date to ca. 1860-1870, based on the fact that it is the earliest finish present on elements which were installed or altered during that period, and also that the same graining is present as a non-original, subsequent finish campaign on other elements that are believed to date to ca. 1825 or ca. 1828.

Page | 12

“earliest” finishes present on samples from these openings may qualify as the “earliest detectable finishes” on certain elements, but cannot be considered “original” to the space within the study area.

Analysis completed in 1980 is well-intended and reasonably well-defined. Advances in standards for technology, light and magnification have provided for more exacting standards than existed 35 years ago.

These are factors which may account for at least some differences in interpretation between the previous study and the one contained in this document

Page | 13

A.3 Summary of Findings

A.3.1 Objective This document constitutes a comprehensive analysis of historic finishes for specific spaces within the Ironmaster’s House – but a selective analysis overall given that the study area did not include all secondary/utilitarian spaces. By their very nature, selective analyses are intended to establish basic information about the history of a building/space or how a building/space may have looked at different points in time.

Depending on the complexity of design, the extent to which changes have taken place or the scope of study, selective analyses may form the basis for comprehensive analyses in which very specific questions regarding building evolution and/or the specific vintage of individual elements or finish layers may be based.

Comprehensive analyses generally include the assessment of one or more samples from each unique element on a building or within a study area and archival research to help correlate findings; such analyses may also include identification of binding media (e.g. distemper, mineral, oil, acrylic), analysis of pigments, and installation of exposure windows to reveal specific campaigns.

This analysis is thus intended to be comprehensive with respect to the most significant spaces in the Ironmaster’s House, and may be used to help clarify chronology and establish specific information on finishes dating to a single, pre-determined period of historic significance. It should not, however, be construed as conveying unequivocal, comprehensive interpretation for every single architectural surface in the building.

A.3.2 Physical Evidence, Interpretation and Conclusions

Analytical Terminology This study references different types of analysis which were required to properly interpret historic finishes:

• “Cross-sections” refer to cross-sectioned paint samples, which consist of fragments of material (paint on plaster and/or wood) which have been removed from the building, embedded in resin, and then cut (cross-sectioned) and polished so that paint campaigns are presented as a series of layers, one on top of another. Cross-sections are assessed microscopically in incident color-corrected visible light and also with incident longwave ultraviolet light.

• “Bulk samples” consist of loose fragments of material which are not embedded but are retained for supplemental analysis and/or color matching. Sample size permitting, portions of each paint layer are selectively revealed and removed one at a time so that their optical characteristics can be assessed and each layer color-matched. Selective removal allows for an assessment of physical characteristics – such as whether a paint layer is stable, or whether it is more or less fragile than another layer. Whereas cross-sections allow examination of only one portion of each fragment, it is possible to examine a greater amount of surface area in bulk samples; doing so sometimes uncovers information which is not always detectable in cross-section.

• “Exposure windows.” The installation of exposure windows employs a process known as destratification, which is essentially the removal of subsequently-installed paint layers to reveal large areas of a specific, targeted finish layer. Exposure windows were not originally proposed for this project.

However, as it became clear that graining had been installed on woodwork throughout the study area during the building’s period of significance/interpretation, it was recommended that exposure windows be installed to reveal the aesthetic intent of the graining and to clarify colors/materials used in one or more locations. Exposure windows were completed in Rooms 101 and 104 in May, 2020.

Page | 14

Paint Terminology This study refers to several different classes of paint finishes, referenced below:

• “Whitewashes.” Traditionally, whitewashes are a coating made from slaked lime and water. Whitewashes may sometimes contain other pigments such as zinc oxide or additives such as sizing. Whitewashes are among the earliest finishes installed in certain parts of the building – and particularly in Rooms 004 and 005 (and to a lesser extent, on concealed surfaces elsewhere). In general terms, they are thinly applied, moderately opaque to somewhat translucent, possess a chalky appearance and fluoresce brightly in ultraviolet light.

• “Distempers.” Distempers are typically classified as protein-based paints in which the whiting material and the coloring pigments are suspended in a traditional size such as hide glue. Distemper paints are extended with water but protein is the classifying component. They are typically opaque, matte, and are visually recognized in cross-section for its somewhat amorphous edges, slight translucency, and dull or minimal fluorescence in ultraviolet light. Distempers are considered soluble in water – meaning that they could be removed rather easily before a new finish was applied. However, solubility depends on the type of size which was used, meaning that some classes of distemper may have been easier to remove than others. In this building, evidence of surviving material which appears to be distemper was found only in Room 105. This study has not uncovered evidence of distemper finishes in other areas.

• “Wallpapers.” Documentation refers to the historical use of wallpapers for this building. Although no intact papers were found during this analysis, fragments of what appear to be wallpaper were found embedded in subsequently-applied paint layers, and evidence of what might be wallpaper adhesive were also noted on several plaster samples. Noting that the building is proximate to heavy industry (iron production, blasts) and prolonged use, it is possible that papers were installed and subsequently removed in at least some spaces throughout the 19th century.

• “Oil paints.” Traditional oil paint is a finish which consists of pigments suspended in drying oils, such as linseed oil. In traditional oil paints, whiting pigments were typically lead white, but after 1850, zinc white was sometimes used instead of or in conjunction with lead white. Lead-based oil paints are visually indicated in cross-section by opaque layers that when viewed under ultraviolet light will usually fluoresce in the light yellow to dull yellow range, depending on age of the oil, exposure, additives and pigmentation.

Zinc-bearing paints often appear opaque in simulated daylight, but present phosphorescent characteristics in ultraviolet light. The presence of zinc- bearing layers was noted in many samples during this study, and is considered a benchmark reference/marker for finishes that could not have been installed before ca. 1850.

• “Graining.” Graining is a treatment which is intended to both beautify and protect – by using a series of coats to imitate the appearance of natural wood grain, often finished with varnish which is resistant to abrasion and dirt collection.3 The presence of graining which dates to the ca. 1860-1870 period of significance/interpretation was found on woodwork in many primary spaces during the analysis of cross-sectioned paint samples under magnification. In general terms, graining was found to be based on a

3 Andrew Jackson Downing, The Architecture of Country Houses, Dover Publications, NY, 1969, p. 367-370. “The most satisfactory wood-work or wainscot for the interior of a cottage is that composed of the native wood of the district where the house is built

– such as maple, birch, ash, black walnut or oak. This requires no painting, simply a coat or two of varnish, and the effect is excellent. But, in most cases, the extra cost of working hard wood will render its employment rare in economical cottages. As a substitute, however, we would recommend that the wood-work be… grained, in imitation of these woods… The greatest advantage which grained wood-work has over that which is simply painted white or any plain neutral tint is that it is so easily kept clean. The surface of painted wood is always somewhat rough and catches dirt readily, and white-lead (or other light shades of which it is the base) always oxidizes or changes color, more or less. The grained surface, on the contrary, being made smooth by varnishing, does not readily become soiled, and when it does, a moment’s application of a damp cloth will make all clean and bright: - while, if the same surface were painted only, it would require frequent and most vigorous scrubbing by the house-maid, to restore it to its original condition. Every one who has made a trial of grained or stained and varnished wood-work will agree with us that it is great economy of time and labor in housekeeping, while the addition of the cost to plain painting is very trifling.”

Page | 15 primer, a primer/ground coat, a thin pigmented grain pattern and a protective varnish. Cross-section analysis identified the presence of graining, but exposures were required to clarify the graining type.

• “Modern paint.” Modern refers to synthetically manufactured paints which are believed to have been employed during and after the middle of the 20th century. Modern paints are visually indicated by homogenous, smooth, opaque layers with small, evenly ground and dispersed pigments and when viewed under ultraviolet light will typically appear dark, or have very dull fluorescence colors, depending on the filler materials.

General Observations This analysis has produced the following general material observations which have been incorporated into the interpretation of historic finishes for each space in the study area:

Wall and ceiling surfaces (plaster) In general terms, analysis of samples from wall surfaces provided less overall information that could be used for chronological interpretation and color placement than did woodwork.

• The earliest wall finishes found in this study are whitewashes which were found in utilitarian spaces such as Room 004 and 005 (Figure 13), and on plaster wall surfaces concealed within cabinets in Room 104 (Figure 14). These are mineral-based layers which were typically light in shade, but could take on a slight yellowish hue depending on content, or a saturated color if pigmented. Little evidence of whitewashes, if any, was found in more formal spaces or on exposed wall surfaces in public areas – suggesting that such whitewashes were reserved as an inexpensive, maintainable, and sometimes sanitary treatment mainly in secondary or ground-level spaces. The optical characteristics of whitewash layers are virtually indistinguishable from one another – which makes identification of individual layers vintage somewhat difficult.

• Several layers of distemper were noted in Room 105 (Figure 15). Pigmented in shades of blue and yellow, evidence of these finishes is limited to a few samples only. No evidence has been found to suggest that distemper layers were used in other spaces within the study area.

• Documentation refers to the use of wallpapers throughout the 19th century. Analysis did not uncover evidence of any intact wallpapers. However, the presence of what appears to be a wallpaper fragment embedded in a subsequent paint layer was noted in one sample, and the presence of what appears to be residue from what may be a wallpaper adhesive was noted at the boundary of finish plaster and paint in several samples (Figures 16-17). These observations would appear to support the hypothesis that wallpaper may have been installed throughout the early/late 19th century, but was removed before paint was applied. Further supporting this hypothesis is the fact that wall surfaces in Room 104 (the most formal space in the study area) display no evidence of whitewashes used as a finish, but a concealed plaster surface inside the cabinet in the northeast corner displays evidence of at least six layers; the difference in treatment between exposed walls and concealed surfaces is notable because it raises the possibility of hierarchical treatment of formal walls (wallpaper) versus those which would rarely be seen.

• There is possible evidence of oil-based paint that may have been applied to at least some wall surfaces in conjunction with alterations that were completed in ca. 1860-1870 (Figures 17-18). Although not unequivocal, a moderate yellow paint layer was found on plaster surfaces which may have been repaired or stripped in Rooms 101 and 103 during that period.

• Documentation indicates that radiant plaster was installed on ceilings in the 1970s. As such, sampling of ceiling surfaces was limited. Limited analysis confirms the presence of what appears to be modern plaster with only modern paint finishes.

Page | 16

Door and window elements, trim (architectural woodwork) Samples from architectural woodwork comprised the majority of this analysis for three reasons: 1) architectural woodwork requires maintenance/repainting, and often provides a reliable chromachronological record, 2) woodwork modifications are common as a building evolves – in this case, window openings being changed into door openings, window openings being modified to accommodate larger sashes, or window openings being infilled to accommodate the installation of cabinets. In general terms, analysis of architectural woodwork provided information which was not only useful to the interpretation of chronology/alterations, but also pertinent to the hierarchical and different treatment of utilitarian versus informal spaces.

• There is no evidence of finishes which date to the earliest period of construction ca. 1800. The earliest detectable finishes found in the study area may date to the ca. 1825 construction of the east wing (found in Rooms 004, 005, 104, 105 and 204). Early finishes dating to the ca. 1828 construction of the south extension are similar or identical, possibly/likely because the extension was built just a few years later (Room 101). Analysis suggests that Room 103 may have been completely renovated ca. 1860-1870;

evidence of possible earlier finishes is limited to a fragmentary layer on one sample only – evidence which could be considered inconclusive at best. There is no evidence of historic finishes from samples in the 1st floor hall (Room 102); rather, this space appears to have been extensively renovated, with finishes removed and/or materials replaced during renovations that were completed in the 1970s.

• Finishes which are believed to date to ca. 1825 were found in cellar Rooms 004 and 005. Evidence of some UV-autofluorescent material in wood pores at the surface of some samples raises the possibility that woodwork in these spaces was oiled or varnished before being painted, but the absence of consistent films makes such a hypothesis difficult to prove. These finishes appear to be dark brown oil paint in which coarse pigments are visible under magnification (Figure 19). Thinly-mixed, likely mixed by hand and thinly applied, these are paints whose unrefined nature might be considered representative for utilitarian spaces such as the Moulders’ Dining Room and Moulders’ Kitchen.

• Evidence of finishes which are believed to date to ca. 1825 construction of the east wing were found in Rooms 104, 105 and 204 (Figures 20-21). These finishes are more refined yellowish white paint layers which autofluoresce yellow in ultraviolet light (a characteristic of oil paints). It should be noted that kitchens were often treated differently than formal spaces and public spaces. Although the earliest layers on woodwork in Room 105 match those in Rooms 104 and 204, subsequent layers do not (Figure 22).

• The earliest detectable finishes found on samples from Room 101, the sole space in the study area that dates to the ca. 1828 construction of the south extension, are similar or identical to those found in the ca.

1825 section (Figure 23). These are refined, oil-based layers that present as yellowish white and autofluoresces yellow in UV.

• Documentation indicates and analysis confirms that the Ironmaster’s Mansion experienced extensive alterations ca. 1860-1870, including:

o Construction of the front porch (west façade) o Alteration of window openings on the 1st floor west façade (Rooms 101 and 103), and specifically the vertical extension of window openings to floor level and installation of new sashes.

o Alteration of several window openings to become door openings or cabinets.

o Comprehensive renovation of Room 103.

o Installation of graining on woodwork in Rooms 101, 103, 104 and 204.

The aforementioned graining is a characteristic benchmark reference for alterations that date to this period. In cross-section, this graining campaign sometimes includes a pale yellow primer, a light pinkish brown ground coat which served as the basis for a thinly-applied dark brown application that created the desired pattern of wood grain, and a moderate brown varnish to saturate color, add depth and protect the graining. In cross-section, the graining campaign is present as a subsequently-applied non-original finish on elements that date to ca. 1825 or ca. 1828 (Figures 20-21, 23). Graining is present as the earliest detectable finish on elements that were installed ca. 1860-1870 (Figures 24-27). Exposure windows installed on multiple surfaces in Rooms 101 and 104 confirmed the presence of graining. However, exposures also suggested that the graining may have severely degraded, perhaps due to exposure in an

Page | 17 unconditioned building for a period of many years; exposures displayed evidence of severe cracking within the grained campaign, through which subsequently-applied paint had penetrated, thus resulting in an “alligatored” appearance to the exposures. Although not entirely unequivocal due to the effects of previous degradation, the grain pattern appears to be that of oak, and possibly quarter-sawn oak or tiger oak (in Room 101 and other areas where ca. 1860-1870s graining has been indicated, such as Rooms 103 and 204). It seems clear that the grain pattern followed the orientation of the element to which it was applied; for instance vertical window trim appear to have featured a simple vertical grain pattern, while at least some horizontal elements received a sawn pattern, with rays (Figures 28-33). Exposures were able to confirm the presence of graining in Room 104, possibly a different pattern or in a lighter shade, but due to degradation, the grain pattern was not fully resolved; colors for the ground coat and grain/finish, however, have been provided. Additional exposures may be installed if additional clarification is required; however, degradation within the graining campaign may complicate such exposures. If additional exposures are not completed, or if such exposures do not yield clarification, it may be possible to make a curatorial decision on placement/pattern based on evidence which has been provided herein.

• Documentation suggests and analysis confirms that many window sashes were removed, paint stripped to the greatest degree possible, repairs completed and new paint applied in conjunction with work that was completed in the 1970s; exceptions appear to include one transom sash window in Room 104 and one window in Room 204 (Figures 37-38). Cross-sections of samples taken from window sashes in other locations display very fragmentary evidence of paint layers that were not completely removed during the stripping process, but as often as not, contain only modern finishes (Figures 39-41).

• Abbreviated chromachronologies which present evidence primarily or solely of modern finishes were noted on all elements in Room 102, and also for limited fireplace samples in Room 104. Treatment of these elements during periods of historic interest and significance/interpretation is not known.

Page | 18

Figure 13. Sample 004.05/wall, Room 004 @~100x in color-corrected incident light (left) and incident ultraviolet light (right).

Whitewashes present as individual layers in color-corrected light and autofluoresces bluish white to bluish gray in UV.

Figure 14. Sample 104.13/wall inside cabinet, Room 104 @~100x in color-corrected incident light (left) and incident ultraviolet light (right). Whitewashes present as individual layers in color-corrected light and autofluoresces bluish white to bluish gray in UV. These washes were found only on a concealed surface which was utilitarian and not easily visible.

Page | 19

Figure 15. Sample 105.10/wall, Room 105 @~100x in color-corrected incident light (left) and incident ultraviolet light (right).

Multiple layers of distemper found only in kitchen. Distempers were sometimes considered ephemeral because they were water-soluble, inexpensive, and could be removed before new paint was installed.

Figure 16. Sample 104.21/wall, Room 104 @~100x in color-corrected incident light (left) and incident ultraviolet light (right).

Although no intact surviving historic wallpaper was found during this study, a fragment of wallpaper (19th c) was found embedded within a subsequently-applied paint layer.

Page | 20

Figure 17. Sample 101.09/wall, Room 101 @~100x in color-corrected incident light (left) and incident ultraviolet light (right).

Although no intact surviving historic wallpaper was found during this study, the presence of what appears to be wallpaper adhesive residue was found at the boundary of the plaster substrate and what is possibly a ca. 1860-1870 paint layer.

Figure 18. Sample 103.07/wall, Room 103 @~100x in color-corrected incident light (left) and incident ultraviolet light (right).

Although no intact surviving historic wallpaper was found during this study, the presence of what is possibly a ca. 1860-1870 paint layer was noted in some samples.

Page | 21

Figure 19. Sample 104.01/window trim, Room 104 @~100x in color-corrected incident light (left) and incident ultraviolet light (right). Earliest finishes could date to ca. 1825 – unrefined oil paint with coarse pigment, likely hand mixed. Limited number of layers suggests infrequent repainting.

Figure 20. Sample 104.03/door rail, Room 104 @~100x in color-corrected incident light (left) and incident ultraviolet light (right). Characteristics of layers found on woodwork. Early oil paint: yellowish white, with light yellow autofluorescence in UV.

Two graining campaigns in this room with primer, light pinkish brown ground coat, grain coat (varies in depth and color), and moderate brown varnish.

Page | 22

Figure 21. Sample 204.11/door rail, Room 204 @~100x in color-corrected incident light (left) and incident ultraviolet light (right). Characteristics of layers found on woodwork. Early oil paint: yellowish white, with light yellow autofluorescence in UV.

Zinc-bearing layer from 1850 or later with phosphorescence in UV. Graining with primer, light pinkish brown ground coat, grain coat (varies in depth and color), and moderate brown varnish.

Figure 22. Sample 105.01/door trim, Room 105 @~100x in color-corrected incident light (left) and incident ultraviolet light (right). Characteristics of layers found on woodwork. Early oil paint: yellowish white, with light yellow autofluorescence in UV.

Subsequent finishes do not correspond to or match finishes found elsewhere in the study area.

Page | 23

Figure 23. Sample 101.13/door trim, Room 101 @~100x in color-corrected incident light (left) and incident ultraviolet light (right). Characteristics of layers found on woodwork. Early oil paint: yellowish white, with light yellow autofluorescence in UV.

Zinc-bearing layer from 1850 or later with phosphorescence in UV. Graining with primer, light pinkish brown ground coat, grain coat (varies in depth and color), and moderate brown varnish.

Figure 24. Sample 101.10/door trim to porch (D104), Room 101 @~100x in color-corrected incident light (left) and incident ultraviolet light (right). Graining as earliest detectable layer indicates that this element was installed and first finished ca. 1860- 1870.

Page | 24

Figure 25. Sample 101.18/cabinet door (D103), Room 101 @~100x in color-corrected incident light (left) and incident ultraviolet light (right). Graining as earliest detectable layer indicates that this element was installed and first finished ca. 1860-1870 – the point at which this cabinet was installed in a former window opening.

Figure 26. Sample 103.03/casing surrounding window opening to front porch (W106), Room 103 @~100x in color-corrected incident light (left) and incident ultraviolet light (right). Graining as earliest detectable layer indicates that this element was installed and first finished ca. 1860-1870.

Page | 25

Figure 27. Sample 103.14/casing surrounding window opening to front porch (W105), Room 103 @~100x in color-corrected incident light (left) and incident ultraviolet light (right). Graining as earliest detectable layer indicates that this element was installed and first finished ca. 1860-1870.

Figure 28. Exposure window locations within Room 101/Window 102.

Page | 26

Figure 29. Exposure window locations, in progress within Room 101/Window 102. Initial use of chemical solvents to remove subsequent layers, and use of both solvents and scalpels to expose target layer.

Figure 30. Exposure window, Room 101/Window 102, horizontal window casing. Note both alligatoring within graining campaign, and apparent “rays” which may suggest quarter-sawn oak or tiger oak.

Alligatoring/ cracks in graining

Rays suggest oak graining

Page | 27

Figure 31. Exposure window, Room 101/Window 102, vertical window casing. Note both alligatoring within graining campaign, and apparent “rays” which may suggest quarter-sawn oak or tiger oak.

Figure 32. Exposure window, Room 101/Window 102, horizontal window casing. Graining present, but pattern unclear.

Alligatoring/ cracks in graining

Page | 28

Figure 33. Exposure window, Room 101/Window 102, vertical window casing. Note apparent “rays” which may suggest quarter-sawn oak or tiger oak.

Figure 34. Exposure window locations within Room 104/Door 104.

Page | 29

Figure 35. Exposure window, Room 104/Door 104, door rail. Graining present (which could not be properly exposed); pattern is not discernible (top half). Earlier finish also exposed (bottom half).

Figure 36. Exposure window, Room 104/Door 104, door panel. Graining present (which could not be properly exposed) pattern is not discernible (right half). Earlier finish also exposed (left half).

Page | 30

Figure 37. Sample 104.02/transom sash, Room 104 @~100x in color-corrected incident light (left) and incident ultraviolet light (right). Although most sashes were stripped in the 1970s, this sample suggests that graining may have been applied ca. 1860-1870.

Figure 38. Sample 204.07/window sash, Room 204 @~100x in color-corrected incident light (left) and incident ultraviolet light (right). Although most sashes were stripped in the 1970s, this sample suggests that graining may have been applied ca. 1860-1870.

Page | 31

Figure 39. Sample 103.02/window sash, Room 103 @~100x in color-corrected incident light (left) and incident ultraviolet light (right). Although most sashes were stripped in the 1970s, fragmentary evidence in this sample suggests that graining may have been applied ca. 1860-1870.

Figure 40. Sample 101.04/window sash, Room 101 @~100x in color-corrected incident light (left) and incident ultraviolet light (right). Most sashes were stripped in the 1970s, with evidence in this sample of only modern finishes.

Page | 32

Figure 41. Sample 104.07/window sash, Room 104 @~100x in color-corrected incident light (left) and incident ultraviolet light (right). Most sashes were stripped in the 1970s, with evidence in this sample of only modern finishes.

Page | 33

Room 004 – Moulder’s Dining Room History/evolution:

• Construction: Ca. 1825.

• Constructed as part of the east wing basement level, with an earthen floor.

• Historically unfinished and referred to as the “Moulder’s Dining Room.” (NPS 2014, 80)

• Historic baseboards removed and replaced with CCA-treated baseboards during 1978 rehabilitation (NPS 2014, 81)

General observations:

Samples display evidence of a limited chromachronology – maximum of 4 layers for woodwork. Limited number of paint layers may be due to the fact that this was a utilitarian space which was not regularly painted while in its greatest period of use.

Absence of decorative finishes or polychrome is consistent with what would be expected within a basement-level utilitarian space.

Presence of a limited number of layers may make it difficult to align or date campaigns by comparing with evidence from other spaces. Earliest consistent detectable finish on woodwork appears to be a dark brown oil paint layer with coarse pigments – the characteristics of which could be consistent with what would be expected ca. 1825.

Single wall sample displays evidence of nearly 40 layers of whitewash and pigmented wash. Earliest washes likely date to ca. 1825, and are white/yellowish white in color.

Period of historic interest (ca. 1825 construction)

• Architectural woodwork: dark brown, Munsell 7.5YR 2/4

• Walls: white/yellowish white whitewash, Munsell 5Y 9/1

• Ceilings: not sampled, possibly white/yellowish white whitewash, Munsell 5Y 9/1

Period of significance/interpretation (ca. 1860-1870 finishes, likely remined exposed until ca. 1880) Finishes in this space do not correspond with those found in public and formal spaces on the first and second floors. As such, it is not possible to unequivocally identify their treatment during this period. Given the presence of dozens of layers of whitewash on plaster surfaces, and limited repainting of woodwork, the following is possible:

• Architectural woodwork: dark brown, Munsell 7.5YR 2/4

Room 004.

Page | 34

Room 005 – Moulder’s Kitchen

• Construction: Ca. 1825.

• Constructed as part of the east wing basement level, with a mortar floor.

• Historically referred to as the “Moulder’s Kitchen.” (NPS 2014, 81)

Samples display evidence of a limited chromachronology – maximum of 7 layers for woodwork. Limited number of paint layers may be due to the fact that this was a utilitarian space which was not regularly painted while in its greatest period of use;

noteworthy, however, that it was painted more frequently than adjacent Moulder’s Dining Room – possibly needed due to heavier use from cooking activity. Presence of a limited number of layers may make it difficult to align or date campaigns by comparing with evidence from other spaces. Earliest consistent detectable finish on woodwork appears to be a yellowish brown oil paint layer with coarse pigments – the characteristics of which could be consistent with what would be expected ca. 1825.

Single wall sample displays evidence of nearly 20 layers of whitewash and pigmented wash. Earliest washes likely date to ca. 1825, and are white/yellowish white in color.

Period of historic interest (ca. 1825 construction)

• Architectural woodwork: dark brown, Munsell 7.5YR 2/4

Period of significance/interpretation (ca. 1860-1870 finishes, likely remined exposed until ca. 1880) Finishes in this space do not correspond with those found in public and formal spaces on the first and second floors. As such, it is not possible to unequivocally identify their treatment during this period. Given the presence of dozens of layers of whitewash on plaster surfaces, and limited repainting of woodwork, the following is possible:

• Architectural woodwork: dark brown, Munsell 7.5YR 2/4

Room 005.

Page | 35

Room 101 - Study

• Construction: Ca. 1828, south wing constructed which directly overlooked furnace operations.

• Commonly referred to as the “Study.” (NPS 2014, 83)

• When built, this room had a window on the south side of the east wall – currently the location of a built-in cabinet (NPS 2014, 31). Interior soffit of cabinet retains paneling that matches other window reveals.

• Fireplace is believed to date to construction of this section ca.

1828 (NPS 2014, 85).

• Window openings on west wall (W101, W102) are believed to have been enlarged and 2-over-2 sashes installed ca. 1870

(NPS 2014, 83).

• It had been unknown whether door to east wing (Door 104) was originally a window or door. Door 108 updated ca. 1870 (NPS 2014, 35), as confirmed by analysis.

• Ceiling is radiant plaster (1978) – historic finishes not present.

General observations:

Evidence presented by samples taken from elements in this room varies by location. Some present evidence of comprehensive chromachronologies with layers that span ca. 1828 construction to the present day, while others start ca. 1860-1870 and yet others possess only modern finishes. Window openings on the south wall are ca. 1828; sashes have been stripped. Window openings to the front porch on the west wall were modified

ca. 1860-1870, but some trim may be earlier. The cabinet in the southeast corner was a window opening ca.

1828, but was converted into a cabinet ca. 1860-1870; Trim surrounding the cabinet is ca. 1828, with pieces spliced in to complete a full run; cabinet doors were installed ca. 1860-1870. The door opening to the side porch in the northeast corner dates to ca. 1860-1870, as does the surrounding trim.

Period of historic interest (ca. 1825 construction)

• Architectural woodwork: yellowish white, Munsell 2.5Y 8.5/2-4

• Walls: unknown, possibly wallpapered

• Ceilings: unknown (replaced 1970s)

Period of significance/interpretation (ca. 1860-1870 finishes, likely remined exposed until ca. 1880)

• Architectural woodwork: Grained o Ground coat: Light pinkish brown, Munsell 5YR 6/4 o Grain coat: Dark grayish yellowish brown, Munsell 10YR 2/1 o Varnish: Moderate brown, Munsell 5YR 3/4 (transparent)

• Walls: Light yellow, Munsell 2.5Y 8/4-8/6

Room 101.

Page | 36

Room 102 – Center Hall

• Construction: By ca. 1800, as part of a three-bay, two and one half story structure.

• Commonly referred to as the “Center Hall.” (NPS 2014, 85)

• Main stair in present location, although design was more compact – either a winder stair or open stair (NPS 2014,

28) Stair is believed to have been modified in conjunction with construction of the east addition ca. 1828 (NPS 2014, 85).

• Front door updated ca. 1870 (NPS 2014, 35)

• Balustrade of main stair rebuilt, stripped and refinished in 1978.

• Ceiling is radiant plaster (1978) – historic finishes not…