Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

ARCHITECTURAL REPORT
TALIAFERRO-COLE SHOP
Block 13 - Bldg. 35

Copy 1

The Research Report on the Taliaferro-Cole House and also the review of events related to the history of the house in the House History (Architectural Report) show that the house was built during two definite periods. The Shop appears also to have been added to and variously modified. Examinations of foundations indicate the original existence of a small building, shown as A. This building conforms rather closely with the house plan size and shape of the Frenchman's Map, 1782. Examination of the stripped frame of "The Shop" made reasonably clear that three separate additions to the original building were made. These we indicate as B. C. and D. The conclusion that there were three additions was supported by the nature and level of foundations revealed by preliminary excavations. See Archaeological Report for a detailed discussion of these foundations. Here is a summary of assumptions made during the archaeological-architectural field examination.

Building A was believed to have been a complete and possibly original building because -

• 1.There are no bond joints in the foundation between A. and C., and between A. and B.
• 2.Double corner posts occur at 1 and 2. This doubling of corner posts would not have been necessary if A. and B. or A. and C. were erected at the same time.
• 3.Slots in corner posts 1, 2, and 3 of A. show that original wind braces had been removed. (Windbracing at the side would only be essential if the building stood alone. It was unnecessary with an addition.
• 4.Brickwork and nature of mortar of A. have earlier characteristics.
• 5.Nails in interior sheathing and laths are of wrought type (nails) and hand split oak (laths) - both of an early period. The evidence of nails and lath can only indicate approximate age.
• 6.Plaster and lath on the second floor of A. have characteristics of earlier work than in the case of B. or C.
• 7.There are indications in the basement of A. of an inside chimney on wall 2.

Building B (Believed to have been an addition.) This building is assumed to be the first addition. There was agreement on the part of the observers that this small building was moved to this position and adapted to fit the then existing building for these threads of evidence:

• 1.Insurance policy of 1815 shows a building of same dimensions, namely, 18 ft. by 27 ft. and with plan outlines in position of A. and B.
• 2.Rafters of B. rest on old hand-split round-butt shingles on roof of A. There were no shingles under rafters of C. and D.

Building C. Building indicated as C. is believed to be later than either A. or B. It likewise gives evidence of having been an early and separate building moved in its entirety to this location because (quoting findings of observers):

• 1.Of information of insurance policies as shown in Research Report.
• 2.Brick characteristics earlier than A.
• 3.Chimney later.
• 4.Basement Grilles early but differ from those of A.
• 5.Trim of one door and one window early but unlike trim of A. shown by a fragment remaining at second floor window of A.

Building D. was the fourth addition but with possibilities that it may have been built at the same time as C. Herewith are data on this fact:

• 1.There is evidence of a foundation for steps at west door between present C. and D.
• 2.Framing is of later character and of careless workmanship - unlike anything else in the building.
• 3.Brickwork and nails are of late^* date.

TALIAFERRO-COLE SHOP
Architectural Report
Block 13 - Bldg. 35

COPY 2

Note: It is suggested that the reading of this report on the Taliaferro-Cole Shop is preceded by reading of the Archaeological Report, Research Report and Architectural Report on the Taliaferro-Cole House. Photographs made of the house and shop before, during, and after the restoration will also be helpful.

The Research Report on the Taliaferro-Cole House and also the review of events related to the history of the house in the House History (Architectural Report) show that the house was built during two definite periods. The Shop appears also to have been added to and variously modified. Examination of foundations indicate the original existence of a small building, shown as A. This building conforms rather closely with the house plan size and shape of the Frenchman's map, 1782. Examination of the stripped frame of "The Shop" made reasonably clear that three separate additions to the original building were made. These we indicate as B., C., and D. The conclusion that there were three additions was supported by the nature and level of foundations, revealed at the time of preliminary examinations. See Archaeological Report for a detailed discussion of these foundations:

BUILDING A was believed to have been a complete and possibly original building because

• 1.There are no bond joints in the foundation between A. and C., and between A. and B.
• -2-
• 2.Double corner posts occur at 1 and 2. This doubling of corner posts would not have been necessary if A and B or A and C were erected at the same time.
• 3.Slots in corner, posts 1, 2, and 3 of A show that original wind braces had been removed. (Windbracing at the ride would only be essential if the building stood alone. It was unnecessary with an addition.
• 4.Brickwork and nature of mortar of A have earlier characteristics.
• 5.Nails in interior sheathing and laths are of wrought type (nails) and hand split oak (laths) - both of an early period. The evidence of nails and lath can only indicate approximate age.
• 6.Plaster and lath on the second floor of A have characteristics of earlier work than in the case of B and C.
• 7.There are indications in the basement of A of an inside chimney on wall 2.

BUILDING B (believed to have been an addition) - This building is assumed to be the first addition. There was agreement on the part of the observers that this small building was moved to this position and adapted to fit the then existing building for these threads of evidence.

• 1.Insurance policy of 1815 shows a building of same dimensions namely 18 ft by 27 ft. and with plan outlines in position of A and B.
• 2.Rafters of B rest on old hand-split, round-butt shingles on roof of A. There were no shingles under rafters of C and D.

BUILDING C. Building indicated as C is believed to be later than either A or B. It likewise gives evidence of having been an early and separate building moved in its entirety to this location because: (quoting findings of observers.)

• 1.Of information of insurance policies as shown in Research Records.
• 2.Brick characteristics earlier than A.
• 3.Chimney later.
• 4.Basement Grilles early but differ from those of A.
• 5.Trim of one door and one window early but unlike trim of A - shown by a fragment remaining at second floor window of A.

Building D. - was the fourth addition but with possibilities that it may have been built at the same time as C. Herewith are data on this part:

• 1.There is evidence of a foundation for steps at west door between present C and D.
• 2.Framing is of later characteristics and of careless workmanship - unlike anything else in the building.
• 3.Brickwork and nails are of late date.^*

NOTES: E wall of A has early horizontal, shiplapped sheathing as facing. There is no evidence of any plaster having been applied to this wall or on E side of wall between A and B. Studs of W wall of A cut and cased openings made - possibly when B was added and with the remaining possibility of it having been done later. This was later plastered over, and still later sheathed. -4- The bulkhead doors have been variously done over and repaired. There is no bond joining west wall and wall of building.

Stairs seem to have had many changes - at one time on N wall of A and B. Also in D through dormer into C and in C - at joint of A and B.

Submitted herewith is an archaeological drawing showing old foundations found by excavation on Colonial Lot 18. The small plot plan shows the old foundations found on lots 18 and 19.

At "A", below the foundation walls of the recently removed modern building, colonial brick paving, evidently the basement floor of a colonial building, was found. Some of the walls of the modern building, which was built of old bricks, were built on the old colonial floor and others were built on a fill over the floor.

Only a part of one foundation wall, the south wall, of the colonial building was found, but the straight edges of the paved floor showed clearly the lines of the other walls. (See Plan).

Thus determined the size of the house at "A" was 38'-2 ½" x 20'-1 ½".

Because of the existing small frame house adjacent to the foundation of Dr. William Carter's brick house, complete excavations could not be made between it (the Carter foundation) and foundation "A". No foundations were Page 2. found in the vacant part of that area, but a deep fill of debris indicated that there had been a building with cellar there. The records in the research files show that it was a brick building, fronting 40 feet of Duke of Gloucester Street and was 34 feet deep. (See research report on Colonial lot #18, dated January 7, 1932 and page 30, photostats of insurance policies). The building, then, evidently occupied the whole area between the Carter foundation and foundation "A" for the recorded length of the building. The Frenchman's map shows that the complete frontage of lots 18 and 19 was occupied by buildings. The records show also that 2 1/2 feet of lot 19 was sold to the owner of lot 18, which suggests that above ground the Carter house probably measured exactly 30' 0", (the colonial lots usually measuring 32' - 6") and the adjacent house 40 feet, as recorded in the insurance policy.

Remains of basement steps were found near the South West corner of foundation "A", but they were built apparently later than the original building, for the bricks are smaller than those in the fragment of wall and in the paving. (See schedule of brick sizes on plan).

A colonial smoke house or dairy probably stood at "B". The bricks are like those in the paving at "A".

At "C" a covered brick drain (flat brick bottom and arched top - similar to the main Palace drain) was found. An inlet was found at the eastern end of it. A smaller drain of similar construction was also found, running from foundation "D" to the main drain.

Foundation "D" apparently is contemporary with "A". The large chimney indicates a kitchen stood there. The inlet found at the south end of the small drain, mentioned above, was evidently in the north west corner of the building, and therefore must have been used in disposing of waste water, which also suggests that the building was the kitchen.

At "E" part of another old chimney foundation was found. It was probably built later than chimney "D", as it is built on a fill and "D" is on original ground.

Foundations "F", "H" and "J", built also on filled ground, apparently are contemporary, as the walls are parallel or at right angles. As a part of "F" is built on a part of "E", walls "F", "H" and "J" are later construction that "E". The Frenchman's map shows a long building approximately at site "F" - "H".

Foundation at "G" also built on filled ground appears to be the remains of a double chimney. The 9" walls of foundation "I" are parallel or at right angles to "G", and therefore "I" and "G" are probably contemporary. Evidently the 13" wall at "F" once extended where the 9" [...]