mgbinspect

Well, Bill, it gets even more difficult to decipher: according to the young farm manager, who manages two estates (this being one of them), this is not the original site. The structure was purchased and relocated, at some point during its long life.

I tell folks, "If the sparks are coming from me, would you be so kind as to knock me clear of the panel?" [:-party]

Yeah, so far in 19 years I"ve hit the main service entrance twice - once putting them back in (careless) and once taking them out (It's one heck of a ligh show, kinda sounding just like an arc welder kicking in), and I've hit 110s a couple times too. I always write 'em up.

The whole house is polyester!... [:-weepn] (Sheesh, It must be tough holding your tongue as well as you do, Bill, in a world so eager to pass off smoke and mirrors for authenticity. In my case, it gives blissful ignorance an added appeal, because I'd definitely go crazy...) [:-banghea (Whispering - Now you've completely peaked my curiosity - Is the house age in question?..[:-sonar] Surely the soil dates back that far... [:-bigeyes [:-hspin])

You no doubt heard that from blue-haired tour guides clad in polyester "colonial" costumes. That bit o'folklore is right up there with every spring cellar around here was an "entrance to the Underground Railroad". Mike, dig a hole anywhere near that house and you'll find some of the best brick-making clay in the Mid-Atlantic. For some of the very earliest colonization attempts, in the first quarter of the 17th century, there were some building materials brought by ship. Since that time, no one has ever produced any primary documentation that brick, stone, "chalk" (lime or gypsum) or any other building material was used as ballast in ships headed to this colony from Europe, and used for building construction. The colonies were a vast resource of quality building materials. There is plenty of documentation however, that brick, stone, glass, timber, etc. was always being exported FROM here to Europe since the mid 1600s. For inbound ships, there was little need for ballast due to the amount of goods being transported to supply the colonists/Americans. If there was ever a need for ballast, it's always been coarse sand or rocks, that would be of no use in buildings. Now that's hilarious, because that's EXACTLY where I heard it - Jamestown, I believe (if that's the settlement they've been excavating for years and have only discovered foundations). Back then (probably five or six years ago on a tour of the excavation and foundations) I was shocked to learn: 1. that portions of the settlement were townhomes... Townhomes?... Really?... [] I just couldn't imagine townhomes in Jamestown or Yorktown. 2. in the renderings, the townhomes were all brick. So I asked where the bricks came from, and the "blue-haired tour guide clad in that polyester "colonial" costume" claimed they were ordered from England, which seemed like a lot of weight, but... OK, what did I know?... Funny... Yeah, of course I know Virginia is teaming with clay, but I doubted that, early on, we could properly fire them in the wilderness. I knew that later we started making our own here. It STILL cracks me up to imagine Jamestown as a townhome community... How 70ish... Now the Chalk point deal - when I was a kid, friends of my folks (and fellow members of our local Lutheran church) owned a really cool cottage on the water right on the tip of chalk point. They had a great dock complete with a cabin cruiser and a really cool racing sailboat - a Penguine I think. (He used to do the Indian River sail boat race. I got to go with him one year.) That was where the Chalk Point story came from... I was probably twelve, and had no reason to doubt it.. So, I took a leap and married that twelve year old kid revelation with the blue haired polyester "colonial" garb guide story... But, I did fully expect you to correct me, if I was wrong, which you did. Thinking is dangerous business... [:-snorkel Well, like Mark Twain said, "Education consists mostly of what we unlearn." [:-graduat Bill, do you think ANY of the hardware or doors shown are original? I'd ESPECIALLY like to hear your thoughts about the brown wood-like door knob. (I've never seen one before!) And, the double doors to the front side porch - (equally unusual, for me). And, for that matter, what are your thoughts about the cast iron or wrought iron fire-screen? I assume that came on the scene much later?

Believe it or not, most of the early homes in Virginia (once you get past wilderness settlers), have brick foundations. I imagine the brick was ordered and came over serving a double purpose, as necessary ballast on the sailing ships. I'm sure Bill K might correct me a bit. But, I know sailing ships needed ballast to help stay upright. (Near Annapolis Maryland, on the South River, is a point called Chalk Point - where chalk used for ballast was apparently dumped. At any rate, brick was the material of choice for the well to do, probably due to being user friendly. Having laid up a lot of brick and stone, I can assure you that stone goes up about three to four times slower than brick. One can lay up about thirteen vertical feet of brick in a day, and only about three to four feet of stone. Stone is a very slow process, through which you hind the closes possible piece of the puzzle and "dress it" (make if fit with a hammer and chisel, if needed). As in the last home I inspected from 1799, the original foundation was brick and all the addition foundations were field stone. The stone was most likely laid up by slaves. The brick foundation was fantastic, and the stone foundations were in miserable shape - literally deteriorating and taking the additions down with them.

Indeed - second time I've seen this setup in the last forty-five days or so. I don't know how or why, but I'm not complaining. I love these old homes, from top to bottom. [:-wiltel]

Cool! (an android phone never does these photos justice). So, the two silver tabs limit travel?

Here are some architectural and hardware highlights of a home I inspected yesterday built in 1764. The average height of the doors was about 73" +/- Click to Enlarge 72.76 KB Click to Enlarge 81.17 KB The old hand dug and brick lined well. She's slowly caving in. Click to Enlarge 59.28 KB The kitchen fireplace in the basement with a crane and a brick oven on the side: Click to Enlarge 42.81 KB Click to Enlarge 53.19 KB Click to Enlarge 32.75 KB Click to Enlarge 36.13 KB Floor framing: Click to Enlarge 27.09 KB Click to Enlarge 73.14 KB Click to Enlarge 33.75 KB Click to Enlarge 57.02 KB The front door and Foyer, which extends through the center of the home from the front to the back door and out to an english garden: Click to Enlarge 59.48 KB Click to Enlarge 52.09 KB Click to Enlarge 111.42 KB Random cool hardware: Click to Enlarge 35.68 KB Click to Enlarge 153.8 KB Click to Enlarge 53.46 KB Click to Enlarge 46.17 KB Click to Enlarge 24.65 KB Click to Enlarge 19.3 KB The door to the side porch: Click to Enlarge 64.73 KB Click to Enlarge 36.83 KB And some random interior shots: Click to Enlarge 30.89 KB Click to Enlarge 53.93 KB Click to Enlarge 36.82 KB Click to Enlarge 44.7 KB (Wood valance) Click to Enlarge 62.12 KB Click to Enlarge 41.83 KB Click to Enlarge 57.96 KB Click to Enlarge 34.68 KB Views from the upper windows: Click to Enlarge 45.01 KB Click to Enlarge 67.33 KB

Actually, it's a fine product. The CPSC is the only organization that seems to have a problem with it and their concerns are based on tests that are, quite simply, whacky. The CPSC has done a lot of good over the years -- safety glass comes to mind. Unfortunately, they also contribute a lot of needless crap to our culture and they've failed to act when doing so would make a really important difference. They're not the organization that I'd want to quote regarding anything technical or scientific. - Jim Katen, Oregon Jim, It turns out that on March 19 of 2011 the CPSC unanimously approved ALUMICONN, as an additional approved remedy. Apparently, CPSC Publication 516 will be modified, to include AlumiConn, and re-printed. [:-thumbu]

Whatever it is, here are some clues: 1. It's incomplete - the soot staining suggests there was some form of cover. 2. There appears to be solder spots on the back plate - possibly to bond the back?

Amazing in every way imaginable.

Sheesh, Tom. A 350 V8 ( a great engine. Got 284K out of one before it lost a hydrolic lifter) in a Ford Ranger? That' not a truck. That's a chariot hooked up to a tfeam of wild horses. [:-thumbu]

NO oil. Not a drop. I don't know why, but my vehicles never loose oil. I drive them so easy. I guess that's why. As I stated, the Ford has 269,000 on one clutch. That's all me, I think. I do religioulsy change fluids when I'm supposed to - even transmission and axle fluids. I don't fool around with lubricatio (Cue the Bain...). I've got a Hemi Durango that's been running synthetic since the first day it turned over.

Good point, I'll check. I honestly don't know, but I suspect that it's an interference engine becuase that's why the shop pressed me hard to have it done.

Hm.. I think it was around 77,000. No! actually, I think it was pretty recent. I accidentally put some diesel in the the darn thing last summer, from an improperly marked can, and had to drop the tank and drain it, along with cleaning out the whole system and rebuildling the carburator. I believe the shop talked me into doing the timing belt then, so this belt only has a few hundred miles on it (2000 miles max).

2.0 CC Four-banger. And, I gotta tell ya. I've owned and worked on a lot of vehicles, but I think a strong four cylinder vehicle is tragically under-rated. They're typically tough and dependable little engines that will get the job done. I had a Datsun four-banger that I sold with 209,000 miles on it, and the things I put that truck through are shameful (in terms of hard work). It was rated half ton, but I fooled it often into thinking it was a 5/8 ton truck. Hey, brick are heavy! I just kept the majority of the weight forward of the rear axle. Truth be told, I'll take a four cylinder over anything else. There's very little one can't do, for themselves, on one. I've even lowered a whole manual transmission, bell housing and all, on my chest and rolled out from under the truck on a creeper. And, it's pretty exciting to pop the hood and actually see a little street, instead of mangled spaghetti (wires and vacuum hoses). Everything's so easy to get at: plugs, wires, the distributor, even the starter! You can't beat 'em for being mechanic friendly. The Datsun had an overhead cam and solid lifters. I used to keep the valves adjusted perfectly, which makes one heck of a difference in how those little power plants run. Every time I ever adjusted the valves, it brought the tiger out in it. At any rate, if you couldn't tell, I love the little engines. Among the big pluses with them - they HAVE to work hard, so the heads and valves don't get anywhere near as fouled up.

As a part of this drastic repositioning of my life, I'm retiring my Ford F150, which is going to be hard to part with. She's got 269,000 miles on her an runs perfectly. It even has the ORIGINAL clutch and water pump, and doesn't, burn or even leak, a drop of oil. It's a crew cab, but the the only seat that's ever seen any action is the driver seat. I Linexed the bed the day I bought it. I think that the best testimony I can offer regarding this Ford F150, is that, with the exception of dead batteries, this truck has never once died on the road or failed to start. That's truly amazing. But, 16 - 19 MPG, is unacceptable now. Click to Enlarge 64.53 KB Click to Enlarge 74.18 KB Click to Enlarge 63.56 KB So I'm resurrecting my previous work horse - a 1984 Ford Ranger, which I was just using for dump runs - etc. She's got 127,000 on her and also runs like a top. She just needs a paint job. But she goes into full service tomorrow morning, and 22 - 28 MPG is more like it. Click to Enlarge 73.77 KB Goodbye $88.00 fill-ups and hello $47.00 fill-ups. The quest to pinch pennies continues...

It's a train wreck. That's for sure. [:-bigeyes

Don't beat around the bush, John. Tell us what you REALLY think...

That 4th pic is what I thought the brick would look like close up (wire-cut), simply based upon the color range from a distance. That had me wondering, with you original post as now, if those brick are original to the building. I don't think they were using those brick at the turn of the century. I think they showed up on the scene more like the 30s or 40s - Bill?

Thanks Mike. I'll be sure to post any concerns I find here at the forum. So, does the correct softer mix of mortar typically have a lighter shade such as in this picture? How can the condition of the adjoining units affect this one? John, this is where it gets a bit tricky. As I'm confident Bill will agree, if the brick is as hard as nails, then mortar hardness is far less of a concern. So start there. If the brick appears well fired (dark shades of red and very dense and hard), there probably isn't that high a potential for future damage, even if they did use a harder mortar. But, if the brick are poorly fired - lighter shades of red and porous/soft, then mortar compatiability becomes critical. All of that aside, another more cosmetic tragedy in re-pointing is bringing the new mortar out flush to the face of the brick, if the brick edges have weathered (rounded). Doing this makes the joints appear fatter than they actually are , because of the rounded brick edges (simple geometry). If the bricks are weathered, you need to stop the mortar right where the weathering of the brick edge begins, and slick the surface right there. Make sense? I understand what you're saying Mike. Just to be clear, bringing mortar out flush to the face over rounded edges as you mentioned, that's just a cosmetic issue, correct? No. Actually, soft weathered brick with rounded edges pointed out to the face of the brick with excessively hard mort is the WORST possible combination. The wider cementicious joints act as a bit of a dam - preventing moisture from evaporting from the brick corners. This is preciesely what accelerates the deterioration, through freezing and expansion. THAT is the scenario that causes major brick face spalling - where the face is deeply receeded (deteriorated away). Got it. It was because you said "cosmetic tragedy" in your previous post that had me asking to make sure. I understand that there are various combinations of right and wrong. The span can run from just fine to totally whacked. I'll just have to see what I find tomorrow. It might be raining so I wonder if that would hide efflorescence that might give off tips to issues. Nope, Efflorescence will still be apparent. Just remember - the softer the brick, the more mortar compatibility matters. You'll do fine. Looks like a nice home.

I am constantly amazed by the publishid material you post. Have you ever contemplated what to do with your collection someday?

Thanks Mike. I'll be sure to post any concerns I find here at the forum. So, does the correct softer mix of mortar typically have a lighter shade such as in this picture? How can the condition of the adjoining units affect this one? John, this is where it gets a bit tricky. As I'm confident Bill will agree, if the brick is as hard as nails, then mortar hardness is far less of a concern. So start there. If the brick appears well fired (dark shades of red and very dense and hard), there probably isn't that high a potential for future damage, even if they did use a harder mortar. But, if the brick are poorly fired - lighter shades of red and porous/soft, then mortar compatiability becomes critical. All of that aside, another more cosmetic tragedy in re-pointing is bringing the new mortar out flush to the face of the brick, if the brick edges have weathered (rounded). Doing this makes the joints appear fatter than they actually are , because of the rounded brick edges (simple geometry). If the bricks are weathered, you need to stop the mortar right where the weathering of the brick edge begins, and slick the surface right there. Make sense? I understand what you're saying Mike. Just to be clear, bringing mortar out flush to the face over rounded edges as you mentioned, that's just a cosmetic issue, correct? No. Actually, soft weathered brick with rounded edges pointed out to the face of the brick with excessively hard mortar is the WORST possible combination. The wider cementicious joints act as a bit of a dam - preventing moisture from evaporting from the brick corners. This is preciesely what accelerates the deterioration, through freezing and expansion. THAT is the scenario that causes major brick face spalling - where the face is deeply receeded (deteriorated away).

I frequently tell folks exactly how I think something should be repaired. I also warn them of what others will try to sell them. Good. We're in the same camp. Sometimes leaving it to the alleged specialist is a death sentnce.