Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

Description/Examination:

E. Chappell noted that most of the stair is original, as is the single architrave to the entrance door (although the leaf is 20th century). The double architrave to the front room from the passage is also early, and matches the double architrave in the adjacent front-right (northwest) room leading to the rear-right (southwest) room. The door leaf between the passage and the front room appears old but much reworked.

In this space, the chair rail back boards are original, but the bolections were added during the restoration. On-site, the chair rails were examined by E. Chappell, who suggested making micro-excavations at strategic locations to determine if the present bolections were modeled after the originals. Numerous micro-excavations suggested that the earliest paint on the back boards was a gray base coat with a verdigris green finish (confirmed via cross-section microscopy).

Front passage, west wall, chair rail

Early verdigris-based paints were seen both above and below the bolection, but there were no verdigris-based paints on the section that would have been covered by a longer applied molding, suggesting that the present bolections might be shorter than the originals. This was confirmed repeatedly in other locations in this space.

On-site micro-excavations found the first generation verdigris-green finish on all of the chair rails, including the chair rail on the south wall (leading to the present kitchenette). This dividing wall was believed to date to the restoration (the Architectural Report is vague on this point), so this finding suggests that this wall is original or that original chair rails from elsewhere in the space were re-used on this wall when it was constructed in the early 20th century.

Summary of Analytical Results:

The chair rails (OH 21), door architraves (OH 24, OH 44), door leaf (OH 31), and stair samples (OH 26, OH 27, and OH 28) contained good early paint evidence from which the early decorative history of this space could be extrapolated. The results suggest that in the first period, the front passage was painted in a polychrome scheme consisting of verdigris-green trim with dark brown stair and door leafs. This scheme was repainted once (generation 2), and appears to have been exposed for a very long period of time, allowing it to crack and wear down, before being repainted with a zinc-based paint that dates to the mid-19th century at the earliest.

In the first generation, the chair rails, door architraves, and tall stair newel post on the south wall were sealed with shellac (generation 1a) and painted with a gray base coat (generation 1b) made with lead white, carbon black, and possibly a small amount of red earth pigment (PLM) in an oil medium (DCF+).This was finished with a green verdigris-based finish (1c). This finish appears to be an opaque bright green paint in cross-section containing large, coarse particles of verdigris pigment. However, actual particles of verdigris were not found via PLM, which identified only a green copper resinate glaze with lead white pigment. (For clarity in this report, this finish (generation 1c), is designated a verdigris paint). During this same period, the door leaves and stair (with the exception of the newel) were painted dark brown with a coarsely ground paint made with red earth and carbon black pigments (PLM) in an oil medium (DCF+).

In generation two, a deeper verdigris green glaze (PLM identified copper resinate glaze only, no verdigris pigment particles. In addition, no verdigris particles were observed in the cross-section). This glaze was applied over the previous green on the trim and stair newel, and a resinous dark brown paint was applied over the previous dark brown on the door leaves and stair. The surface of this paint is very disrupted and cracked, suggesting it was exposed for a very long period of time.

In generation three, the door architraves were painted dark brown and the leaves were faux-grained in a reddish-colored wood in imitation of mahogany. The rest of the woodwork in the passage was not painted. Generation four is a zinc white paint on the trim (identified by its bright "twinkling" particles of zinc white pigment in UV light), which must date to c.1845 or later, when this pigment was introduced commercially. In this period, the door leaves were again faux-grained, in imitation of a lighter wood, possibly oak.

On-site micro-excavations did not find 18th-century paints on the east wall window architrave and baseboards. However, some early finish evidence was found, so it is possible that these were early additions or that the first period finishes were lost from these surfaces. The samples were so disrupted that it was not possible to align the finishes to determine an installation period, if these were indeed additions.

Front Passage, Sample Locations:

West wall

East wall

North wall

North wall, entrance door

West wall, door leaf to front-right (northwest) room

West wall, door architrave to front-right (northwest) room

South wall

Stair at landing between 1st and 2nd floors

Stair landing

Chair rails

OH 21a, visible light, 200x

OH 21a, UV light, 200x

The first generation finish on the chair rails was a shellac sealant (1a, suggested by the orange-colored autofluorescence in the wood), a thin gray base paint (1b), and an opaque bright green paint made with coarsely ground verdigris pigments (1c, suggested by its lack of autofluorescence).

In the next generation, another verdigris green finish was applied, this time a glaze of a much deeper color (2). Although it is in relatively good condition in sample OH 21, this finish was very disrupted in most samples, suggesting it was exposed for a very long period of time. These same early finishes were also found on the door architraves in the front passage (sample OH 24).

In generation three, only the door architraves were painted dark brown, and the door leaves were faux-grained in imitation of a reddish wood, possibly mahogany. Therefore, this sample from the chair rail is missing the third generation paint.

Generation four is an off-white paint that contains zinc white pigment, suggested by the "twinkling" autofluorescent particles seen in the UV image (Travers 2011). This pigment was not commercially available before c.1845 (Gettens and Stout, 177). Therefore, generation 2 (the deep green verdigris finish), would have been exposed until at least the mid-19th century, when the zinc-based paint was applied. This could explain the severe deterioration of the verdigris finish in the other samples.

The olive-green zinc-based paint at the top of this sample fragment was also seen throughout the house. It appears to belong to a green and red polychrome scheme, and most likely dates to the late 19th-century.

OH 21b, visible light, 200x

OH 21b, UV light, 200x

The paint history of the front passage chair rails continues with an olive green paint in generation 5. This paint also contains bright, twinkling particles of zinc white, and was seen in other samples taken throughout the house. This is followed by approximately four generations of very disrupted varnishes (generations 6-9). The thin layer of grime on the surface of the olive green paint suggests this color was exposed for a long time and then varnished repeatedly rather than being repainted. However, these varnishes were not seen in all samples.

Generation 11 is a blue-gray paint that contains zinc white, followed by generation 12a, a white paint with a varnish coating (12b). Generations 13 and 14 are a cream-colored paints that also contain zinc white. The rest of the paints in this sample are finely ground coatings, sometimes with a dim autofluorescence, suggesting these are modern paints that were most likely applied by CWF in the 20th and 21st centuries.

Door architrave to front entrance

OH 24a, visible light, 200x

OH 24a, UV light, 200x

The early paint history of the door architrave (a single architrave) is the same as the front passage chair rails, starting with a shellac sealant (1a), a gray base coat (1b), and a coarsely ground bright green paint made with coarsely ground verdigris pigment (1c).

Generation 2, the deep green verdigris glaze, appears to be missing from this sample. Generation 3 is a dark brown paint that was also seen on the door architrave to the living room (OH 44), but not on the chair rails. Generation 4 is a white paint that contains zinc white pigment, dating it to the mid-19th century or later.

The remainder of the stratigraphy is found on the next page, and aligns with that found on the chair rails.

OH 24c, visible light, 200x

OH 24c, UV light, 200x

Door architrave to front room

OH 44b, visible light, 200x

OH 44b, UV light, 200x

The architrave to the front room (a double architrave), contains the same first two generations as the chair rails and the entrance door architrave, consisting of a gray base coat followed by a bright green verdigris paint. Generation 2 is a deep green glaze made with verdigris.

In generation 3, the door architraves were painted dark brown. It does not appear to be the same as the dark brown paints on the stair (generations 1 and 2), which is very coarsely ground and contains large red and orange particles. By contrast, the generation 3 dark brown paint seen here is thinner and much more finely ground. It is seen to flow into pre-existing cracks in the generation 2 verdigris glaze, suggesting it was applied when the previous finish was very deteriorated.

The fourth generation is a white paint that contains zinc white, as does generation 5, the olive green paint seen throughout the house. Both of these paints would date to the mid-19th century at the earliest.

The rest of the stratigraphy is shown on the next page.

OH 44c, visible light, 200x

OH 44c, UV light, 200x

The door architrave leading from the passage to the front room contained up to 19 generations of paint, although the most recent layers are missing from the sample fragment shown above.

These later paints align with those found on the chair rails and entrance door architrave.

Door leaf to front room

OH 31c, visible light, 200x

OH 31c, UV light, 200x

OH 31a, visible light, 200x

OH 31a, UV light, 200x

Approximately 22 generations of paint were identified on the door leaf to the front room. The leafs have a different paint history from the chair rails and architraves in the passage, but they were painted similarly to the stairs (see following pages).

The first generation is a dark brown paint that is very coarsely ground and contains large particles of orange and red pigment. This paint has a very dark autofluorescence. It is heavily worn and cracked, suggesting it was exposed for a long period of time. Generation 2 is another dark brown paint, possibly with a resinous media, based on its somewhat brighter autofluorescence. This paint flows into pre-existing cracks in generation 1, suggesting the latter was already quite 17 deteriorated when it was repainted for the first time.

Generation 3 is a faux-wood graining finish, consisting of an orange-red base coat (3a), and a thin red graining layer (3b), possibly in imitation of a red wood such as mahogany.

Generation 4 is another faux-wood graining finish consisting of a yellow base coat (4a), a thin orange-brown graining layer (4b), and a clear varnish (4c), possibly in imitation of a lighter colored wood such as oak. This paint was found to contain "twinkling" autofluorescent particles of zinc white, which dates this finish to c.1845 or later. Generation 5 is the olive green paint that was seen throughout the house and may date to the late 19th-century.

Passage, door leaf to front room
OH 31a, visible light, 200x

Front right room, door leaf to rear room
OH 34, visible light, 200x

As shown above, generations 1-5 on the door leaf from the passage to the front room (OH 31) align with those on the leaf in the front room leading to the rear room (OH 34). This suggests these leafs are contemporary.

Stair, baluster

OH 26b, visible light, 200x

OH 26b, UV light, 200x

OH 26a, visible light, 200x

OH 26a, UV light, 200x

There was no verdigris found on the stair. Instead, the earliest paints appear to be dark browns that would have matched the door leaves in generations 1 and 2. The first generation is a coarsely ground dark brown paint which contains large particles of red, yellow, and brown pigments. This paint was exposed for a very long period of time, evidenced by the deep cracks in its surface. The second generation is a resinous brown paint, whose orange autofluorescence suggests it may be shellac-based. The grime layer on top of this finish suggests that it, too, was exposed for a long period of time. The third generation is a pinkish-beige zinc-based paint that would date to the 19th-century at the earliest. This appears to be the same as the first generation paint applied to the front passage baseboard (OH 45, p.22), confirming that the baseboard is comparatively later, or that the earliest paints are missing.

Stair, newel post

OH 27, visible light, 200x

OH 27, UV light, 200x

The early finishes on the newel post are the same as those on the baluster (previous page). The first generation is dark brown paint that was exposed for a long period of time and allowed to crack and wear down. The next generation is a resinous brown paint that flowed into pre-existing cracks in the first generation. The grime on the surface of generation 2 suggests it was also exposed for a long period of time. The third generation is a zinc-based paint that would date to the mid-19th century at the earliest.

Stair, handrail

OH 28b, visible light, 200x

OH 28b, UV light, 200x

The handrail shares the same early finish history as the newel post and balusters. The first generation is a very deteriorated dark brown paint. The second generation is a very grimy resinous brown paint that has flowed around and under the fragments of earlier paint. The third generation is a zinc-based paint that would date to the mid-19th century at the earliest.

The rest of the handrail paint history is shown on the following page.

OH 28c, visible light, 200x

OH 28c, UV light, 200x

Approximately thirteen paint generations on the handrail were identified (the first three generations are shown on the previous page).

The evidence suggests that after the fourth generation (mid-19th century), the handrail was usually picked out in deep red finishes and dark brown colors, in contrast to the rest of the passage trim (which was white, cream, or greenish-gray). The remaining paint history of the handrail includes a fourth generation decorative finish, possibly a wood grain, consisting of a deep red-orange base coat (4a), a dark red transparent graining layer (4b), and a varnish (4c).

Generation 5 is a zinc-based paint. The layer of grime on the surface suggests this was exposed for some time before being repainted. Generation 6 is another wood graining finish consisting of a red-orange base coat (6a), a dark brown graining layer (6b) and a resinous coating (6c), possibly shellac, based on its orange autofluorescence. Generations 7-13 are finely ground dark brown paints and appear to be industrially prepared paints that were applied by CWF.

Baseboards

OH 45a, visible light, 200x

OH 45a, UV light, 200x

There were no 18th-century paints on the baseboard. The earliest paint contains "twinkling" autofluorescent particles of zinc white, which post-dates c.1845. This generation appears to be the same pinkish-beige paint that is identified as generation 3 on the stair (see pp. 18-20). However, sample OH 45 was taken from an area that had the most paint evidence, following extensive in situ examination. This would indicate that even baseboard areas that have significant paint accumulations do not contain 18th-century finishes.

These findings could suggest that the baseboard is an early addition; or that the first-period finishes have been removed from the baseboard through abrasion and wear.

Binding media analysis

The earliest generations in sample OH 21 (front passage, chair rail), were stained with biological fluorochromes to characterize the binding media. The results are summarized in the table below.

Description/Observations:

Most of the woodwork in this space is new, but samples were taken from the door leaf and architrave leading to the rear room, which had substantial paint accumulations and appeared to be original. This double architrave that leads from the kitchenette/pantry (rear passage) to the rear room matches the double architrave on the same wall that leads from the front passage to the front room. This suggested to E. Chappell that the present front and rear passages might have been originally continuous and this space was sub-divided to create the kitchenette in the 20th century. The door leaf presently leading from the rear passage to the rear room appears to be reversed, as the passage-side has the inferior construction. The room-side of the same leaf has been crudely re-crafted with a replaced stile and panel, and cyma moldings replacing some originals (Chappell, 2012, sample memo).

Sample locations

Door architrave from kitchenette to rear bedroom

Door leaf from kitchenette to rear bedroom

Summary of Analytical Results:

The early finish history of the door architrave to the rear room (OH 36) is the same as that found on the door architrave from the passage to the front room on the same wall (OH 44), which suggests that the passage did originally extend to the rear wall (see below for comparison), and that the present dividing wall was a restoration-era addition. However, this theory is complicated by the fact that the first period verdigris was found on the chair rails on the partition wall, which would suggest that this wall is first period, and that the passage was originally split into two separate spaces. The reason for this discrepancy is not clear. One theory is that the chair rails were re-used from the passage.

The first generation on the door architrave in the rear passage (see below, left), consists of a shellac sealant (1a), a gray base coat (1b), and a coarsely ground verdigris-green paint (1c). Generation 2 is a deep verdigris-green glaze that is very deteriorated and cracked, suggesting it was exposed for a long period of time (when the third generation dark brown paint was applied to the door architraves, it flowed into pre-existing cracks in the earlier finishes). Generation 4 is a white paint that contains zinc white, which dates this paint to c.1845 or later.

Kitchenette, door architrave to rear room
OH 36b, visible light, 200x

Front passage, door architrave to front room
OH 44b, visible light, 200x

Furthermore, the paint evidence confirmed that the door leaf leading from the rear passage to the rear room is reversed: the paints on the present passage-side (inferior construction) align with those found on the interior of the room; while the paints on the present room-side align with those in the passage (see p. 30 for further discussion)

Door architrave to rear room

OH 36b, visible light, 200x

OH 36b, UV light, 200x

OH 36a, visible light, 200x

OH 36a, UV light, 200x

The early paint history of the door architrave leading from the current kitchenette to the rear room is the same as the early paint history of the door architrave leading from the passage to the front room (sample OH 44), on this same wall. The first generation is a shellac sealant (1a), a gray base coat (1b), and a verdigris-green paint (1c). This is followed by a second generation deep verdigris-green glaze (2), which has deep cracks in its surface that extend all the way down to the substrate, suggesting it was exposed for a very long period of time. The third generation dark brown paint is seen to flow into these cracks and deposits on the wood. The rest of the stratigraphy is shown on the next page.

OH 36c, visible light, 200x

OH 36c, UV light, 200x

At least seventeen generations of paint were found on the door architrave to the rear room from the present kitchenette.

Generations 9 and 10 are 20th-century deep blue-green paints that were not seen on the sample taken from the door architrave to the front room, which would reflect the more modern period when the front and rear passage were treated as separate spaces.

Door leaf to rear room (lower left panel)

OH 38c, visible light, 200x

OH 38c, UV light, 200x

OH 38a, visible light, 200x

OH 38a, UV light, 200x

This paint history of the passage-side of the door aligns with the leaves from the rear room, not the passage. Furthermore, the paint history of the present room-side aligns with the passage finishes. This confirms that the leaf is reversed from its original orientation (see next page for further images and discussion).

Generations 1-3 are very degraded dark brown paints. Generation 4 is a pink-beige paint that contains zinc white pigment, which post-dates this paint to c.1845 or later. Generation 5 is an olive green paint that was found throughout the house and most likely dates to the late-19th century.

Rear room, room-side of leaf to passage
OH 39, visible light, 200x

Passage, door leaf to front room
OH 31a, visible light, 200x

As shown in the two photomicrographs above, the paint history of the present room-side of the rear room passage door leaf (OH 39), is the same as that found on the door leaf leading to the front room from the front passage (OH 31). This confirms the on-site observation that the rear room door leaf is reversed from its original orientation.

Passage, door leaf to rear room
OH 38c, visible light, 200x

Rear bedroom, door leaf to front room
OH 40a, visible light, 200x

Further proof confirming that this door leaf is reversed is provided by comparing the paints on the present passage-side (OH 38), to the paint history from the door leaf to the front room from the rear room (OH 40). Generations 1-5 clearly align, suggesting this side of the leaf originally faced the rear room interior.

Summary of Analytical Results:

The paint evidence in the second-floor passage was very fragmentary. This confirmed the in-situ observation that very little paint evidence survived on this floor.

Remnants of the same first generation dark brown paints used on the stairs and the door architraves in the first-floor passage were seen on some elements on the second floor, notably the small linen closet door leaf (OH 52), the door leaf to the southeast chamber (OH 53), the baseboard at the stair landing (OH 55), and the door leaf to the southwest chamber (OH 57). There were no early verdigris finishes found, as on the first floor. In addition, none of the door architraves (OH 54, OH 56), contained any early paint evidence. This would suggest that in the first period, the door leaves and baseboards were painted dark brown, corresponding with the brown-painted woodwork in the passage downstairs, but the color scheme of the second-floor trim is uncertain.

Second-floor, passage, sample locations

Small closet leaf

Door to southeast chamber

Door to southwest chamber

Small linen closet, door leaf (passage-side, lower right panel)

OH 52b, visible light, 200x

OH 52b, UV light, 200x

OH 52a, visible light, 200x

OH 52a, UV light, 200x

The finish history of the door leaf to the second-floor linen closet begins with the same two generations of very deteriorated dark brown paints found on the first period stair and door leaves in the front passage (generations 1, 2). This suggests that this leaf dates to the first period.

The third generation is a faux wood graining finish consisting of a light yellow base coat, a thin red graining layer, and a clear varnish, possibly in imitation of oak. This aligns with generation 4 on the passage door leaf leading to the living room (OH 31). This paint contains zinc white pigment and would therefore date to the mid-19th century at the earliest.

Door leaf to SE chamber (bottom right panel)

OH 53a, visible light, 200x

OH 53a, UV light, 200x

OH 53a, visible light, 200x

OH 53a, UV light, 200x

Approximately twenty-five generations of paint were found on the door leaf to the southeast chamber, which begins with the same series of very deteriorated early dark brown paints used on the ground floor leafs in the first period, suggesting this leaf is original.

Door surround to SE chamber

OH 54b, visible light, 200x

OH 54b, UV light, 200x

OH 54a, visible light, 200x

OH 54a, UV light, 200x

Most of the extant paints on the second-floor door surround to the southeast chamber are modern. Remnants of what could be an early lead white-based paint are visible at the bottom of the sample and in the cells of the wood substrate, but this evidence is too fragmentary to make further conclusions.

Baseboard at top landing of stairs

OH 55b, visible light, 200x

OH 55b, UV light, 200x

OH 55a, visible light, 200x

OH 55a, UV light, 200x

The baseboard at the top of the stairs appears to contain the first period dark brown paint that was also used on the stairs. This paint contains very large, coarsely ground red, orange, and black pigment particles. This evidence would suggest that this baseboard dates to the first period.

In the following generations the baseboard appears to have been painted independently of the trim, making it difficult to align the paints with other elements in this space.

Door architrave to SW chamber (bedroom #3)

OH 56a, visible light, 200x

OH 56a, UV light, 200x

OH 56b, visible light, 200x

OH 56b, UV light, 200x

Most of the extant paints on second-floor door architrave to the southwest chamber are modern paints.

There are remnants of an oilbound lead-based paint on the surface of the wood, but this evidence is not intact enough to make further conclusions.

Door leaf to SW chamber (bedroom #3, lower left panel)

OH 57a, visible light, 200x

OH 57a, UV light, 200x

The sample from the door leaf to the southwest chamber contained mostly modern paints (not shown). However, remnants of an early dark brown paint were seen in the wood cells. This paint is so disrupted it is unclear if this is the same as the first generation paint on the passage stair, or the third generation paint on the passage door architraves. However, this evidence does suggest that this leaf is early, if not original, to the house.

Description/Observations:

The chair rails in this room have never had bolections. The door leading to the passage has a single architrave, while the door leading to the rear-right (southwest) room has a double architrave. However, the level of finish on the architraves does not align with their associated leaves. The leaf to the passage is smaller and plain on the room-side; while the leaf to the rear room is larger with superior finishes and hardware. Two theories have been suggested to explain this condition: that the door to the passage is not original to the house and was re-used from another site, or that the superior finish on the door to the rear room was deliberately intended to communicate the higher status of the front-right (northwest) room over that of the passage (E. Chappell, 2012, sample memo). It was hoped that the paint evidence would shed light on this question.

Summary of Analytical Results:

The woodwork in the front-right (northwest) room was painted up to thirty times, and some of the earliest finishes on the trim appear to align with those found on the passage trim (see next page for comparisons), with the exception of the first period finish.

The first period finish on the trim is a shellac (generation 1a), followed by a pale yellow paint (1b) that was found on the chair rails (OH 29), the door architraves (OH 46, OH 43), and window architraves (OH 30). This paint is extremely grimy and deteriorated, suggesting it was exposed for a very long period of time. The earliest paint on the door leaf to the rear room (OH 34) is a dark brown paint that is very deteriorated, which is most likely contemporary with the pale yellow on the trim (the door leaf to the passage (OH 32, 33), seems to be missing some of its early paint on the room-side). This looks like the same dark brown paint used in other rooms in the house in this period.

In the second generation, the door leafs were re-painted dark brown, and the door architraves 40 were painted dark brown, as well. The rest of the trim in the room appears to have been left unpainted.

Front room, door architrave to rear room
OH 43a, visible light, 200x

Front room, door leaf to rear room
OH 34, visible light, 200x

In the third generation, all of the trim in the room was painted white, with what appears to be the same zinc-based paint that was designated generation four in the passage. In this period, the leaf to the rear room was faux-wood grained to imitate a reddish wood such as mahogany, although this faux-mahogany finish was designated generation three on the passage door leaves. The reason for this discrepancy is unclear. The leaf to the passage was either painted less frequently, or is missing some of the early paint evidence found on the door leaf to the rear room. It is important to note that none of the samples from the leaf to the passage contained the mahogany finish.

In generation 4, the trim was again painted zinc white and the leaves were faux-wood grained to imitate a lighter wood such as oak. This scheme was also seen in the front passage, albeit as generation four. In generations 5 and 6, the trim was re-painted with the zinc white paint but the faux finish on the doors was left exposed.

In generation 7, the trim was painted in a polychrome scheme, with olive-green fascias and orange-red backbands. This scheme was seen throughout the house and most likely dates to the late 19th-century at the earliest, based on the numerous zinc-based schemes that precede it. This scheme was designated generation five in the passage.

The sample from the mantel (OH 41) did not contain any historic paints. The cross-section suggests there are remnants of what appear to be a lead-based paint embedded deep in the wood cells, as well as a fragment of early plant resin varnish and a thin black paint, but this evidence is too fragmentary to make more definitive conclusions.

First floor, front right (northwest) room, sample locations

north wall

west wall

door to passage

Door to rear room

Mantel, far right edge

North wall, window architrave

Binding Media Analysis

Sample OH 30 was stained with biological fluorochromes to characterize the binding media. The results are summarized in the table below.

Description/Observations:

This room has a narrower chair board and no bolection, indicating lower status than the front room and passage. The door architraves leading to the rear passage and front room are single architraves, as is the original window architrave on the west window.

As described in the previous section of this report, the door leaf to the front room is original and has a superior finish.

The original door leaf to the rear passage appears to have been reversed, as it presently has its superior finish on the room-side.

The exterior (south) doorway, south window, cornice, and mantel in this room are modern.

Summary of Analytical Results:

Approximately twenty-two paint generations were found in the rear-right (southwest) room. Early paint sequences were found in samples taken from the chair rail (OH 35), the door architraves (OH 50, OH 47), and the window architrave (OH 51). The findings suggest that this room might have been re-painted more often than other rooms/elements in the house. For instance, the third generation deep-green verdigris finish on the chair rail appears to align with the second generation deep green verdigris in the passage (see below).

Rear room, chair rail
OH 35a, visible light, 200x

Front passage, chair rail
OH 21a, visible light, 200x

In this room, generation 1 is a coarsely ground gray paint on the trim and dark brown on the door leaves. Comparison of the two samples on the previous page suggests that the first generation gray paint in this room could be the same as the gray base coat seen in the stair passage. Their pigment dispersions (PLM) were very similar, as were their appearances in cross-section and their color matches, which suggests that these are actually the same paints. The dark brown on the door leaves appears to be the same dark brown paint used in the passage and second-floor woodwork in this sample period.

Generation 2 is a light yellow paint on the trim that appears to be the same color as the first generation yellow paint in the adjacent front room. Uncast portions of both of these paints from both rooms were compared at low magnification (30x) and they visually appear to be the same. In fact, their color matches (visual only, too disrupted for colorimetry reading) were also the same, suggesting these were either the same paints, or at least the same color executed in different paints. During this same period, the door leaves were coated with a dark brown varnish.

Generation 3 is another coarsely ground gray base coat (3a) followed by a deep green verdigris green glaze (3b). This verdigris generation is very worn and uneven, similar to the third generation verdigris in the stair passage.

In the fourth generation, the door architraves were re-painted dark brown (see sample OH 47). The other trim was not painted in this period, and would have remained deep green. The same scheme was seen in the passage, as well.

First floor, Rear-Right (Southwest) Room, Sample Locations

north wall

door to present kitchenette (passage)

door to front right (northwest) front room

west wall, window architrave

Binding Media Analysis

Sample OH 50 (first floor, rear room, door architrave to front room), was stained with biological fluorochromes to characterize the binding media. The results are summarized in the table below.

OH 50: First floor, bedroom, door architrave to living room

Binding Media Analysis

Sample OH 48 (first floor, rear room, door leaf to front room), was stained with biological fluorochromes to characterize the binding media. The results are summarized in the table below.

Pigment Identification Results

Color Matching Results

First-floor Front Passage:

In the first generation, the chair rails, door and window architraves, and the stair newel were sealed with shellac and painted with a gray base coat made with lead white, chalk, and carbon black (PLM) in an oil medium (DCF+). This was followed by a verdigris-green paint made with coarsely ground verdigris and lead white in an oil medium (DCF+). In this same period the door leaves and rest of stair were painted dark brown using red earth and carbon black pigments (PLM) in oil (DCF+). Verdigris is a costly pigment that yields a vivid green color but is also prone to discoloration over time. Its use communicates that the front passage was finished to impress visitors. In most samples, this first generation paint was worn and cracked, suggesting a long period of exposure.

In the second generation, the woodwork was re-painted in the same manner as the previous generation, in a green and dark brown scheme, although the verdigris-green paint was replaced by a copper-resinate glaze made with verdigris pigments heated with resin. This finish was very cracked and grimy suggesting a long period of exposure.

The south wall was believed to be new (restoration-era), but the first and second generation paints were found on the chair rails on this wall, suggesting two theories: that either this wall is indeed original to the house (additional physical examination to be carried out by CWF architectural historians), or that original chair rails from elsewhere in the house were re-used on this wall.

Furthermore, paint investigations carried out on-site determined that the present bolections (known restoration-era) on the chair rail are shorter than the originals. The reason for this discrepancy is unknown.

First-floor Rear Passage (present kitchenette):

The door architrave in the rear passage has the same early paint history as the architraves in the front passage, which would suggest that the present dividing wall between the front and rear passages is later, and that the passage was originally continuous from north (front) to south (rear). However, the chair rails on the dividing wall were found to contain the earliest paint generations (see Front Passage discussion), which complicates the interpretation, but further suggests that the chair rails on this wall were re-used from elsewhere in the house, although their original location is uncertain.

The paint evidence confirmed that the door leaf to the rear room is reversed- the side with the inferior finish presently faces the passage, and the side with the superior finish (raised panels) faces the room-side.

Second-floor Passage

The evidence from the second floor woodwork was disrupted and fragmentary, but appears to suggest that in the first generation, the door leaves and baseboards on the upper floor were painted with the same dark brown as in the front passage. The paint colors for the door leaves are unknown, and there was no evidence for other early generations.

First-floor Front Room

In the first generation, the chair rails and architraves were painted a pale yellow color made with lead white, chalk, and yellow earth pigments (PLM) in an oil medium (DCF+), while the door leaves were painted dark brown (using the same paint in the front passage and second floor). This first generation was very worn and disrupted, suggesting a long period of exposure. In the second generation, the trim was left unpainted (pale yellow), while the door leaves were repainted dark brown, as were the architraves (unlike the previous generation when they were painted pale yellow like the trim).

The paint evidence on both door leaves in this room suggest they are first period, but the door leaf leading to the rear room appears to have been painted more frequently than the door leaf leading to the passage, possibly communicating the higher status of the front room over that of the passage.

First-floor Rear Room:

The paint evidence suggests that this room was painted more frequently in its early history than the rest of the house. In generation one the trim was painted gray with the same paint used in the front passage, while the door leaves were a dark brown, again using the same paint as that seen in the passage. In the second generation, the trim was painted the same light yellow color as the adjacent front room, and the door leaves were coated with a dark brown pigmented varnish. The light yellow in this room might have matched the pre-existing light yellow in the adjacent front room to create a chromatic link between the two spaces in that was not there in the first generation.

In generation three, the trim was painted with a gray base coat and finished with a verdigris glaze that appears to be the same as the second generation verdigris glaze in the passage. And like the passage, the door leaves were also painted dark brown at this time.

Sample Preparation:

The samples were cast in mini-cubes of Extec Polyester Clear Resin (methyl methacrylate monomer), and polymerized with the recommended amount of methyl ethyl ketone peroxide catalyst. The resin was allowed to cure for 24 hours under ambient light. After cure, the individual cubes were removed from the casting tray and sanded down using a rotary sander with grits ranging from 200 - 600 to expose the cross-section surface. The samples were then dry polished with silica-embedded Micro-mesh Inc. cloths with grits ranging from 1500 to 12,000, lending the final cross-section surface a glassy-smooth finish.

Microscopy and Documentation:

The cross-section samples were examined using a Nikon Eclipse 80i microscope equipped with an EXFO X-cite 120 fluorescence illumination system fiber-optic halogen light source. Samples were examined and photographed under visible and ultraviolet light conditions (EX 380-330 nm, BA 420 nm), at 100 to 200x magnifications. Digital images were captured using a Spot Flex digital camera with Spot Advance (version 4.6) software. All images were recorded as 12.6 MB tiff files and stored in a folder titled "Orrell House Interior" on Susan Buck's laboratory computer, as well as on a hard drive owned by the author. A separate set of images will be stored on the CWF digital database, accompanied by a digital version of the final report.

Information Provided by Visible and Ultraviolet Light Microscopy:

When examining paint cross-sections under reflected visible and ultraviolet light conditions, a number of physical characteristics can be observed to assist with the interpretation of a paint stratigraphy. These include the number and color of layers applied to a substrate, the thickness or surface texture of layers, and pigment particle size and distribution within the paint film. Relative time periods for coatings can sometimes be assigned at this stage: for instance, pre-industrial-era paints were hand ground, lending them a coarse, uneven surface texture with large pigment particles that vary in size and shape. By contrast, more "modern", industrially-prepared paints have smoother, even surfaces and machine-ground pigment particles of a consistent size and shape. Furthermore, he presence of cracks, dirt layers, or biological growth between layers can indicate presentation surfaces and/or coatings that were left exposed for an extended period of time.

Under UV light conditions, the presence and type of autofluorescence colors can distinguish sealants, clear coatings, and binding media, from darker dirt or paint layers within the stratigraphy. For instance, shellacs exhibit a distinct orange-colored autofluorescence, while natural resins (such as dammar and mastic), typically fluoresce a bright white color. Oil media tends to quench autofluorescence, while most modern, synthetic paint formulations (such as latex) exhibit no fluorescence at all. Some pigments, such as verdigris, madder, and zinc white, have distinct fluorescence characteristics, as well. UV light microscopy is critical to help distinguish otherwise identical layers often found in architectural samples- such as successive varnishes, or multiple layers of unpigmented (white) limewash.

Binding Media Analysis using Fluorochrome stains:

Fluorochrome stains adapted from the biological sciences were used to characterize the paint binding media (oils, proteins, carbohydrates), in layers within the cross-section sample. The following stains were used in this analysis:

• 2,7 Dichlorofluorescein (DCF): 0.02% w/v in ethanol. Fluorescent labeling reagent for lipids, particularly drying oils. One drop of stain was applied to the surface of the sample, blotted immediately, and cover-slipped with mineral spirits. The reaction was observed with the B2A filter cube (EX 450-490nm, BA 520nm). This stain exhibits a yellow-green fluorescence where lipids are present.
• Triphenyl tetrazolium chloride (TTC): 1.0% w/v in ethanol. Labeling reagent for carbohydrates (gums, starches, cellulosic thickeners). One drop of stain was applied to the surface of the sample, blotted dry, and allowed to sit for approximately 45 seconds before cover-slipping, (must be allowed to react with atmospheric moisture for reaction to move forward). The reaction is observed under reflected UV light conditions (EX 330-380nm, BA 420nm). A dark red-brown color is seen where carbohydrates are present.
• Fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC): 0.02% w/v in anhydrous acetone. Fluorescent labeling reagent for proteins. One drop of stain was applied to the surface of the sample, blotted immediately, and cover-slipped with mineral spirits. The reaction was observed using the B-2A filter cube (EX 450-490nm, BA 520nm). A positive reaction is a bright yellow-green fluorescence.

First-Floor Passage

The beaded chair board in the passage and front right (northwest) room is original. A bolection was added in the passage c.1932 and I am eager to know if there was evidence for this, because it would suggest superiority for the passage, unusual in a building of this status. We saw what resembled some horizontal ghosts on the passage chairboard beyond the bolections, but they are inconsistent and far from clear. Unless the report explains whether or not there is evidence, the best answer would be to remove a small section and check the paint below it.

The single-architrave frame of the front exterior door looks substantially early. The leaf is 20th century.

There is a nice double architrave on the recycled door to the front room matching the frame of door from that same room into the rear room. The former door leaf is old but much reworked, almost certainly before the restoration. It is a conventional six-panel door with ovolos and raised panels confined to the passage side, but the outer stiles were replaced, cutting into the rails and different moldings applied.

Most of the stair is original, including its stringer, newel, balusters, and rail. The present door under the stair is 20th century, and perhaps its longitudinal partition.

Front-Right (Northwest) Room, First Floor

The best room contains the same beaded chair board and clearly never had a bolection. The door to the passage has a single architrave on this side. The door to the rear room likewise has a double architrave facing out (north) and single one facing in (south), so one could read these as following a straightforward approach to single-facing doors with superior finish on the side away from the 97 door swing. However, the leaves and size complicate the story. The outer door is smaller — 2' 8¼" by 6' 3" versus 2' 10" by 6' 5" — and the inner door (between the rooms) is superior: its raised panel fields have ovolos, and the stiles and rails have cymas and ovolos. The back of the inner door has flat panels and ovolos while the outer door is entirely plain. The inner door is thicker — 1½" versus 1-3/16" — and it lacks the tall (8") lock rail on the inferior door, and the rebates match the respective door thicknesses. The inner door has oversized HL hinges (1' 1¼" tall by 1' 2" wide) secured with flat head screws, much superior to the skimpy and mismatched hinges on the outer leaf. In short, the doors do not match, and I wonder if the outer door may have been brought in before or during the restoration. The alternative explanation is a more interesting one, that the inner door was intended to punch up the quality of the front room over that of the passage. The frame sizes tend to support this, but I suspect the mundane explanation of salvage is more likely. Your paint analysis may provide the answer.

Single-architrave window frames in the front room appear original, more in line with the simple chair boards and plainer door than the snazzy door in the longitudinal partition. The cornice looks 20th century.

We have not yet looked at the mantel.

Rear-Right (Southwest) Room, First Floor

There is a narrower original chair board here indicating lower status than the front room and passage. Here the fine six-panel door in the longitudinal partition has an original single architrave, as does the end (west) window.

Parts of the single architrave to the door opening into pantry and back passage (on the east) are early, contrasting with a double architrave facing the pantry. This suggests the stair passage probably extended to the rear wall and was sub-divided to create new rear spaces in the 20th century. The door leaf here resembles that between the front room and passage, crudely re-crafted with an old replaced stile and panel, and cyma moldings replacing some original ovolos. The leaf now faces the room, with raised panels and ovolos confined to this side. Twentieth-century trim includes the exterior (south) doorway, rear (south) window, mantel, and cornice.