assessment + treatment report for #114a floral … nps orca/full...have been reduced as they are...

ASSESSMENT + TREATMENT REPORT FOR #114A FLORAL POLYCHROME HORSESHOE-BACK

SLUNG LEATHER MASON MONTEREY CHAIR, OREGON CAVES NATIONAL MONUMENT

Horseshoe-back Monterey Chair #114A, before, top, and after treatment, below, in the MPFC studio.

MPF Conservation www.mpfconservation.com 1 of 70

http://www.mpfconservation.com


BACKGROUND DATA

1. This treatment proposal is prepared by MPF Conservation, hereafter known as MPFC, by Mitchell R.

Powell and Kate Powell.

2. Our contacts for this job were Mary Merryman, Park Curator; Vicki Snitzler, Superintendent Oregon

Caves; and John Roth, Chief of Resource Management Oregon Caves.

TABLE OF CONTENTSPage Section

4 HISTORY OF THE MONTEREY LINE AT THE CHATEAU

7 NPS CONDITION REPORT

8 ASSESSMENT FOR #114A FLORAL POLYCHROME HORSESHOE-BACK

SLUNG LEATHER MASON MONTEREY CHAIR

MPFC may have modified the Assessment for brevity and to stop repetition within this report. The images may have been reduced as they are repeated in the Treatment Resume at the end of this report. However, the original

assessments, “2010 11 5 114A FLORAL HORSESHOEBACK FULL TRTMNT PROP” will be in “9 114A Documentation” folder in the chair’s folder on the hard drive. Revisions may be noted within the Assessment; these

were made due to information discovered during treatment, and MPFC thought it was easier to note the changes within the assessment if misinformation was recorded in that area. We will note when a major decision was reversed.

This Treatment Report stands as our best accurate information or history.

9 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

11 FINISH

16 LEGS / ARM STILES AS ONE + STRETCHERS

20 SEAT

21 HORSESHOE-BACK (STILE/LEG TOP, ARMS AND CREST)

23 TREATMENT REPORT FOR #114A FLORAL POLYCHROME HORSESHOE-BACK


23 GENERAL TREATMENT NOTES

24 EXCAVATION




Page Section

25 STRUCTURAL REPARATION

26 FINISH TREATMENT

26 REGARDING ORIGINAL FINISH

26 FINISH: CLEANING THE FINISH

26 CLEANING: TESTING

30 CLEANING: MOLD + POWDERING PIGMENTS

31 CLEANING: FAILURES

33 CLEANING BY AREAS

54 FINISH TREATMENT: ADHESION + CONSOLIDATION

54 FINISH: ADHESION

54 FINISH: BARRIER AND CONSOLIDATION

55 FINISH TREATMENT: INFILL

55 FINISH: INFILL PROTOCOL

56 FINISH: COLOR INFILL

58 FINISH: SAMPLE INFILL AREAS

58 INFILL: FRONT FACE POLYCHROME FLORAL MOTIFS ON LEGS

59 INFILL: RIGHT-FACING LEGS

62 INFILL: FRONT POLYCHROME STRETCHER

64 FINISH: WAX

65 LEATHER SEAT TREATMENT

65 LEATHER CLEANING

66 LEATHER CONSOLIDATION

66 RED ROT

68 LACING RECREATION

69 LACING APPLICATION

71 RESUME BEFORE + AFTER TREATMENT




Image top left from unknown source. Image top center from “Monterey1.

Image far right from Eric Berg’s Early California Antiques, at www.earlycaliforniaantiques.com.

HISTORY OF THE MONTEREY LINE IN THE CHATEAU

3. The furniture in the Chateau was designed and built by Frank Mason, who founded the Mason

Manufacturing Company of Los Angeles in the late 1920’s, and his son George Mason.

4. In our experience, they used alder wood from Oregon.

5. The style is derived from Spanish and Dutch Colonial, Pennsylvania Dutch, California Mission

architecture and furnishings, cowboy accoutrements (such as might be found in a barn: lariats and

branding irons), and simple ranch furnishings.

5.1. However, there is also more to the history of the horseshoe-back chair, discussed below.

6. The line was first marketed by the Barker Brothers; the Chateau

purchased the line through Meier & Frank in Portland.

7. Regarding the style of the horseshoe-back chair, Sali Katz discusses

this chair in her book, “Hispanic Furniture2,” an image of which is

shown right, with a copy of the full text in the file for this chair:

“Historical precedent for this style may date to the sillon de cadera

(hip joint chair) where the arms are an extension of the back, or it

may have been influenced by the English captain’s chair. . . “


1 “Monterey,” by Roger Renick and Michael Trotter, Schiffer Publishing LTD., 2000.

2 “Hispanic Furniture;” by Sali Barnett Katz, 1986, Architectural Book Publishing Co., Inc.,with permission from the author.

http://www.earlycaliforniaantiques.com

http://www.earlycaliforniaantiques.com



Dagobert, Museo Alhambra, Spanish, ca. 13283, above left; and Italian, above right. Below the “Chair of Dagobert” 7th century, with detail of the elaborate legs. Back and arms added in the 12th century

by Abbe Sugar. Lives in the Musee de Souverains, Paris. All are examples of sillon de cadera.

Bottom, three examples of captain’s chairs4: left, a captain’s windsor made by E. B. Tracy, 1795, Connecticut;

center, English upholstered ca 19th century; right, American ca. 19th century.


3 Dagobert image from http://www.qantara-med.org/, and not the most famous form of a Dagobert Chair, nor the oldest. Dagobert is a male given name, from “dago”, meaning good, and “berath”, meaning bright. Image top right from unknown source. Images center are from http://royalfurniture.org/ and “the Illustrated History of Furniture online at http://pastygallery.com. We do not know if the written content is completely reliable but are thankful for images.

4 Captains chair images from http://www.1stdibs.com/, a site which represents many antique dealers.



http://www.qantara-med.org

http://www.qantara-med.org

http://royalfurniture.org

http://royalfurniture.org

http://pastygallery.com

http://pastygallery.com

http://www.1stdibs.com

http://www.1stdibs.com

7.1. The sillon de cadera, shown previous page top and center

row, has a slung seat and slung back, and the highly

decorated fronts of chairs from many regions remind MPFC

of the Monterey Horseshoe-back.

7.2. The captains chair in all its many forms always has the

distinctive round or barrel-back, turned stiles, and usually

turned leg stretchers5, shown previous page bottom row.

7.3. The frame of the campeche chair (example shown right) also

may have influenced this chair, though to a lesser extent:

note the turned arm stiles.

7.4. The Horseshoe-back (a Monterey affectation, as it is called a barrel-back by furniture historians),

was also made with rush seats, and MPFC had always seen the style with rush seats prior to these

pieces, however, the frame adapts to the slung leather well, with no drawbacks.

8. A word about historical accuracy, finish colors, and the book “Monterey”: while a good retrospective, it

gives the impression that the Mason company used a half dozen colors, and our research shows they

were inventive and experimental and the line of colors was much larger than the book indicates.

8.1. MPFC’s insight, research and information relating to colors and pigments is discussed in our

report “2011 Painted Finishes Treatment Report”.

9. Also, there were more styles than shown in the

“Monterey” book, both in form and in decoration;

however, one cannot fault the author for this as there

is a limit to the images allowed.

Right, three of the four Horseshoe-back chairs owned by the NPS; 114A is on the far right, in the Chateau, October 2006.


5 Sali Katz refers to the front leg stretcher as a chambrana, a word which hails from 10AD, and is derived from the structural members, specifically what we might call headers, around doors and windows, but which refers to structural parts of a chair which joins parts together, or is structurally integral to the chair.



NPS SURVEY CONDITION REPORT

10. The NPS’s6 most recent assessment by Al Levitan

recommended to “Tone in paint losses, Clean wax.”

11. Levitan notes: “Structurally stable, Some loss of paint

from abrasion, Small tear in leather seat does not extend

completely through leather, Some looseness in juncture of

rear posts and crest rail.”

12. Under condition problems he checked:

12.1. Surface Elements: Scratches, Abrasions

12.2. Finish: Dust, Soiled, Paint Loss

13. Levitan also comments that the “Leather lashing appears to be replacement.”

14. MPFC notes that there is no tears in this seat, but there is advanced leather rot over the entire surface

showing lines near the front lashing that will result in tears if it is sat upon.

15. We see conditional issues in the chair that are more extensive than was noted in the 2005 CS

(including the information boxes checked on form).

16. Our overview, to be detailed in this report: Loose crest; Break in the left-facing stile-to arm-cap; and

Extremely damaged finish.

17. The horseshoe-backed piece assessed is one of the original pieces, and one of four; shown previous page.

17.1. The NPS 2005 CS Al Levitan lists four horseshoe-backs: #114, #114A, #114B, and #114C.

17.2. Of these, it appears that two are painted in what we are calling a floral pattern to match as

previous page, while two are painted to match what we are calling the geometric pattern,

shown previous page, bottom, far left; in other documents7 there are three listed.


6 Source: National Park Service Condition Survey dates May 2005, by Alan Levitan.

7 Oregon Caves Chateau: Oregon Caves National Monument Historic Structure Report by Alex McMurry, June, 1999.



ASSESSMENT FOR #114A FLORAL POLYCHROME HORSESHOE-BACK SLUNG LEATHER MASON MONTEREY CHAIR

REVISED: Images are smaller as we will be using many of them at the end of the Treatment Report.

Left-facing side of Chair #114A, above; front view, left, back view, center. Rear-facing view top right. Right facing views, center, front and back. Top view showing seat, stiles, and horseshoe back, bottom left; underside, bottom right.




GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

18. The chair was assessed onsite in July 2010; and again in our studio in October 2010.

19. The Horseshoe-back Chair was built of Oregon alder wood, with a polychrome painted finish with base

colors of Crackled Straw Ivory and Crackled Yellow.

20. REVISION: CLARITY It consists of the original slung leather seat with four legs that turn into stiles,

five turned stretchers, a carved front stretcher, and a horseshoe-back built of two arms, and a two-

piece curved crest.

20.1. REVISION: CLARITY Al Levitan does not think this leather seat is original; MPFC believes

it is due to the information gleaned from #114; we are certain it is the original oil-painted

leather seat.

20.2. Some of the lashing is not original as it is not the proper color.

21. REVISION: ADDITION While Mason used mortise and tenon joinery, kerfed tenons, lap joints, and

other compression joints, they frequently added brads or nails to these presumably stable joins.

21.1. This is not to be confused with the introduction of screws for securing structural members or

lag screws, which secured strapping brackets placed over joinery.

21.2. Mitchell surmises the introduced brads and nails

during the glue-up phase, penetrating mortice

walls and tenons, and often burying these nails

into the wood substrate in an attempt to

circumvent the traditional activity of clamping

joinery during glue cures, thereby saving dollars

in labor time, never realizing that their

furniture would one day be collectible western

heritage pieces necessitating disassembly for

restoration and preservation.

21.3. This singular practice caused many problems

during reparation.

Detail of polychrome front; note dirt discoloring the front stretcher on the far left, and the

degradation of finish on the feet. The bits of bright white that cover the piece are areas where

the paint is chipped and gesso is exposed.




22. Overall dimensions:

22.1. Overall Height = 27¼-inches;

22.2. Arm height = 25½-inches;

22.3. Width between arms at front is 18 1/2-inches, at widest part of bow curve is 21 1/2-inches;

22.4. Seat Height = 16 3/4-inches at the front; 16-inches at the back (gentle slope);

22.5. Seat Width = 22-inches at the front, 17-inches at the back;

22.6. Seat Depth = 17 1/4-inches.




REVISION: FINISH

23. The Polychrome painted finish is original to the chair.

24. Base colors are Straw Ivory and Straw Yellow in a

crackle finish, shown center bottom and bottom right in

images from the book “Monterey8, the crackle is not part

of the degradation.

24.1. Discussion of the differences in the Straw

Yellow paint is included in our “2011 Painted Monterey Finishes.”

25. Polychromed decorative patterns are: mock fleur-de-lis motif with swirls on the stretcher, shown above

in detail, previous page; or floral and leaf patterns on the front legs, shown previous page and in detail

next few pages.

26. REVISION: CLARITY It appears that the finish may have been semi-gloss, shown in several images.

27. The finish is in extremely poor condition: chipped paint, scrapes, gouges, and mold under paint exist in

various areas of the chair; worn finish and detail is missing entirely on the arm tops.

Base finish colors: Straw Yellow Crackle, left and polychrome red and blue decorative details on the stretcher. Straw Ivory

Crackle center top.


8 “Monterey,” by Roger Renick and Michael Trotter, Schiffer Publishing LTD., 2000.



REVISION Two examples of extremely damaged and flaking finish: above left, a foot, showing dirt, mold,

flaking finish, exposed alder and gesso; right, a foot, flaking Straw Ivory finish showing gesso.

27.1. Chipped paint covers the entire chair in both the base colors

and decorative areas, revealing gesso and alder underneath,

shown in many images.

27.2. Flaking and chipped paint are of concern because unlike the

wear that comes from hands touching paint and smoothly

wearing it in areas, chipped and flaking paint will continue to

degrade even in a museum setting.

27.3. Because the Straw Ivory is close to the color of the gesso, the

flaking is not as noticeable as it might be on another color,

but the damage is extensive.

27.4. The tops of the horseshoe arms are completely worn from

handling, however, we surmise that there was a fleur-de-lis

swirling pattern similar to the stretcher on the arms; the

edge of the caps (and possibly the cap) were painted green,

shown bottom right.

27.5. Bare wood is exposed in both cases.

27.6. The finish is not protected, in need of preservation.

27.7. The finish is extremely dirty from grease, possibly animal

fats; cleaning will be a challenge due to extensive flaking.




28. We have only surface tested the finishes, however, at this time we believe the following:

28.1. The original painted finish appears to be created from oil-based (possibly japan) paint.

Worn and chipped Straw Ivory, showing gesso and wood. Black grime (not

asphaltum, as this is thick and on top of the finish) of unknown origin exists on the chair

in many places, shown center right. Silver (not blue) paint also appears to have

been placed on the chair, not by original design, bottom left, on the kerfed joint.




28.2. REVISION: CLARITY It appears that the entire chair was base-coated, as is mentioned in

Renick’s “Monterey” book, with a dark oil paint, probably asphaltum, seen on the underside

(pages 8, 16, 18 + 22.)

29. MPFC topically tested several of the current pieces in

our studio for treatment, and understand the layering of

the painted finish used on the chair, from both this project

and prior experience on similar pieces.

29.1. The crackle effect, shown top, was created by a

fast drying top coat applied to

a slow drying undercoat.

29.2. The top coat was protected by

wax; it was the final coat to

protect the finish.

29.3. The resulting finish was not

shiny, but of medium sheen.

30. Testing will assist us in final determinations.

31. REVISION: CLARITY The polychrome floral and leaf design motif on the front legs, shown next page

and pages 1, 8, 9 + 16 are in paint colors red, black, blue, mustard, white, and olive green on Straw Ivory

31.1. REVISION: DISCOVERY Originally MPFC thought that gesso may have been applied under

the decorative colors to brighten; further work with the chairs during treatment proved this to

be false.

32. REVISION: CLARITY The mock fleur-de-lis motif is on the top of the arms, shown pages 1 + 8, and

across the front stretcher (shown pages 1, 8, 11 + 16).

32.1. Paint colors are red, blue, black, ivory on Straw Yellow.

32.2. REVISION: DISCOVERY Originally MPFC thought that gesso may have been applied under

the decorative colors to brighten; further work with the chairs during treatment proved this to

be false.




33. REVISION: OMISSION.

Chipped and worn paint shows gesso and bare alder in all photos. Note the depth of the cobalt blue, top left and bottom right; the suggestion of colors on the top of the left-facing arm, top right, which leads us to believe that the design evoked the stretcher design. Extreme grime on the sides of the arm caps, bottom left. Center left, note the kerf joint on the underside. Bottom left, the color of the alder with a beautiful patina.

Bottom right, the spot of cobalt green that is round and protrudes is a brad holding the stretcher.




Image of the underside showing the back side of the mortice & tenon stretcher, below left; note the asphaltum paint undercoat. It appears to be a through tenon but is a faux through tenon. Legs become stiles,

shown right on the left-facing rear stile/leg. Kerf joints are seen on all sides, shown right and page 17.

LEGS / ARM STILES AS ONE + STRETCHERS

34. REVISION: CLARITY Legs and arm stiles are one integral

piece; we may refer to them as legs when they are below the

seat, and stiles when above the seat.

35. They will be designated as follows: Left-facing front stile/leg,

Right-facing front stile/leg, Left-facing rear stile/leg, and

Right-facing rear stile/leg.

36. Leg joinery consists of:

36.1. Mortice & tenon in the front contoured stretcher,

shown below and page 8.




36.2. Kerfed joinery from seat rungs (stretchers) and

rungs or stretchers into leg, shown top right.

36.3. MPFC surmises that the top “mushroom” cap of

the front arm stiles, if removed, will reveal a

kerfed top joint, shown pages 8, 12, 15 + 18-19.

37. REVISION: CLARITY The legs were designed to accept

kerfed tenons at the end of the stretchers placed into the

mortice bores, creating a traditional compression joint,

that is, not glued, though we suspect Mason glued these

joints due to physical evidence on kerfed tenons when

removed, from other projects past, and it is referenced in Renick’s “Monterey” book9.

38. The leg-to-stretchers kerf joint, shown page 11, 12, 13 15, and this page, bottom, are as follows:

38.1. All kerfed joints on all four legs are loose.

38.2. REVISION: CLARITY Each rung or stretcher passes through the leg (except for the front

contoured chambrana or stretcher, which may be a mortice & tenon or false decorative tenon).

38.3. REVISION: CLARITY A kerf line was cut through the center of the end of the stretcher

stump; a hardwood wedge was tamped into the kerf to spread the tenon and secure the piece.

38.4. REVISION: DISCOVERY Mitchell discovered most joints had nails driven through them.

Above, a kerf joint on a rung pulled out 1/8-inch, enough so that you can see the split

for the wedge. This pulled joint happened before delivery, as the paint over the kerf

on the front is intact, not sunken.


9 “Monterey,” by Roger Renick and Michael Trotter, Schiffer Publishing LTD., 2000. Page 26, “All pieces were glued. . . With hot glue from a multiple glue-up machine.”



39. REVISION: DISCOVERY AND CLARITY The front legs may

carry a mortice and tenon joint for the decorative front stretcher.

39.1. The stretcher appears to pass through the leg, but closer

inspection showed evidence that the end which appears to be

through the leg is a faux tenon, shown top right.

39.2. Note the brads which hold the faux tenon into place,

creating a design element and decorative motif, shown top

right and on page 8.

40. The top of all legs, previously discussed, may be kerfed

or may be a tapered tenon.

40.1. If a kerf, the mushroom cap on the front stile/

legs, shown center right, may be covering the

kerfed joint

40.2. If a tapered tenon, the mushroom cap covered

the exposed joint on top of the arm.

40.3. Top caps have small brads holding them into

place, shown center right; note the one brad

protruding above the other.

40.4. If a kerf, the top of the rear kerfs on the stile/

legs are covered by the back pieces, shown page

21 and described in the section on the horseshoe

back, below.

41. The left-facing stile-to-arm joint is split in multiple

sections at the arm joint, shown next page top.

41.1. MPFC surmises this was caused by a burl contracting, not by a problem with the joint.

42. Each leg is straight with a turned urn shape on the stile between the seat and the arm, shown

page 14 + 21.




43. Bottom end grain on all legs is open and an invitation to pest

infestation.

44. REVISION: CLARITY ALL LEGS

45. All legs are in visibly good structural condition.

46. Though seat rungs are generally loose in their sockets the base

stretchers rungs appear solid in their joints, especially as this

will be a museum piece.

Right-facing front stile/leg underneath showing mortice & tenon of stretcher & rung

connections, top left, and asphaltum undercoating; Left-facing rear stile/leg, top right.




SEAT

47. The seat is a slung leather seat cut from strapping

leather, wrapped around the stretchers and tacked,

shown this page.

47.1. Decorative additional support comes from

punched holes and laces, shown this page.

47.2. We have seen no other Mason horseshoe back

with a slung leather seat10, only rush seats, as shown

on page 4; however, preliminary assessments (without

releasing tacks and taking the seat off) indicate this is

the original seat.

48. REVISION: CLARITY The leather is dirty, has areas of

advanced stages of red rot, but is in adequate condition for

display in the museum.

48.1. REVISION: CLARITY However, stains and red rot

have saturated the leather and will not be

removed when surface leather is cleaned.

49. Levitan indicates this may not be the original

strapping.

49.1. REVISION: CLARITY Pigments and

placement on the chair is consistent with

adjacent pigments as well as other Mason

specimens; we believe it to be original.

49.2. REVISION: CLARITY The strapping is in pieces; if any piece is determined to be original, it

should be cleaned and saved for display if not reused.


10 True at the time, but consequently have seen two others.



Horseshoe-back diagram showing parts, above.

Outside left-facing horseshoe-back, center.

HORSESHOE-BACK (STILE/LEG TOP, ARMS, + CREST)50. The horseshoe-back is made of four separate pieces that appear to be

three, shown above:

50.1. Left-facing arm, shown next page and pages 8 + 16.;

50.2. Crest top piece + middle back bottom piece (these two make up

the back “curve”) and are shown above and pages 14 + 16);

50.3. Right-facing arm, shown next page and pages 8 + 16.

51. We surmise this clever design covers the kerfed joints at the top of all

four stile legs (rear right-facing stile shown bottom right), and allows

the round horseshoe shape to remain stable.

52. REVISION: CLARITY MPFC surmises that originally only screws secured the four pieces together,

shown next page; however, brads were placed into some of the joints, toenailing the pieces together,

shown next page.




53. The join between the arm and crest on the left-facing side has opened less than 1/64-inch, shown page

19 top right; it appears stable.

54. Note the colors on the underside of the crest/arms, below: one appears to be asphaltum, under the right-

facing side, while the smokey maple color appears on the left-facing arm and back.

Left facing arm top and front stile/leg, top left;

Right-facing front stile/leg and arm top, right.

Center, Construction seen from the underside and left-facing outside back. Note the two shades of undercoating,

center left. Inside connections from crest top piece to arms, left-facing and right-facing,

bottom left and right.

TREATMENT PROPOSAL DELETED FROM THIS REPORT

BUT CAN BE FOUND IN “9 DOCUMENTATION” ON THE HARD DRIVE.




TREATMENT REPORT FOR #114A FLORAL POLYCHROME HORSESHOE-BACK


GENERAL TREATMENT NOTES

55. In this treatment we see no deviation from accepted NPS standards for treatment: 114A is to become

part of the Museum Collection.

56. The report was organized by areas of treatment, not the order the treatment was performed.

57. Treatment was performed in the following order: leather lacings removed; finish cleaned; finish MSA

applied for various reasons; leather consolidated and cleaned; finish infill performed; finish waxed; and

new lacings applied.




EXCAVATION

LEATHER LACING EXCAVATION

58. Two different lacings were present:

58.1. An older lacing shown in the top four

images, tattered and in pieces, tied and

tacked under the seat, and

58.2. A grey suede lacing, shown tied to the older

lacing, bottom right.

59. MPFC surmises that the older lacings were original,

as they appear to have been placed on the chair

then painted with the Smokey Maple topcoat (color

missing on the side placed down), which is consistent

with the manner MPFC has seen leather to be




treated in other Mason Monterey piece.

60. Leather lacings were removed prior to cleaning, to be assessed to determine if any can be reused.

61. One piece is long enough to place on the back of the chair; the other three sides will be new lacings.

STRUCTURAL REPARATION

62. Areas of loose joints and slight instability exist in the structure of the chair, however, MPFC will not

embark upon reparation at this time.

62.1. There is no threat to the stability of the chair, and to perform structural reparation would

likely cause damage to the finish.

62.2. Further, reparation of the structure on Mason furniture is complicated due to notes #59, below.

63. Regarding the structure: while Mason used mortise and

tenon joinery, doweled and mortise joints, kerfed tenons

to compress leg joinery, they also frequently added

brads (finish nails with small recessed heads, an

example seen as a green dot, right) toenailed through the

edge of the outer mortise walls securing the mortise

wall to the tenons.

63.1. Mitchell surmises they did this to shortcut the clamping and curing process required

after applying glue to the joints and assembling

63.2. It is because of Mason’s shortcutting procedure that it is so very difficult and time consuming

to disassemble Mason’s furniture to repair, clean and re-glue failed joinery.

63.3. In addition the toenailing actually became a destructive addition to the joints as the glue began

to disintegrate and the joint began to flex because the constant flexing motion against the

toenails sometime caused the mortise walls to splinter; had the nails not been added the joints

would have simply loosened.




FINISH TREATMENT

REGARDING ORIGINAL FINISH

64. The finish information is as stands, with revisions, in the

Assessment Report, pages 11-15.

65. Our finish information on all pigments and colors is

included in the “2011 Monterey Painted Finishes

Report.”

66. Note: Crackled paint (craquelure) is typical of this style

of furniture.

66.1. An image of nearly pristine Straw Ivory, shown right on the inside of the front facing leg

under the seat; these areas were few.

FINISH: CLEANING THE FINISH

CLEANING: TESTING

67. The entire piece needs to be thoroughly and gently cleaned; we can continue detailed assessment to

detect potential lifting flakes of paint, and additional detailed images of the piece will be taken.

68. Kate tested for the best cleaning method of “Straw Ivory” finish on the back of the chair.

69. This was the first museum piece to be cleaned, and some of the findings on 114A will be assumed for

other pieces in the collection.

70. Cleaning instruments:

70.1. Diaper cloth is too harsh for this fragile painted finish, as there was an immediate loss of paint;

cotton swabs will be used on painted surfaces.




71. Absorene® was ineffective during tests.

72. Vulpex® 1:20 solution, or half what is recommended

showed an immediate loss of paint + dirt, not

recommended.

73. 11TritonX100® 1:14 solution, mild solution, but stronger

than used for textiles: pigment failure was not

immediate, but within four rubs in an undegraded area, therefore not recommended.

74. 12Stoddard Solvent® or mineral spirits, shown top right: no substantial loss of pigment in the test,

however, very little dirt removal after a dozen rubs, therefore we think it is not up to the task of

cleaning this very dirty chair, but may be used as a consolidant in fragile areas prior to cleaning.

75. Deionized water: dirt moved with gentle rubbing within

1-4 rubs, allowing time to “scrub” gently before pigment

began to fail, bottom.

75.1. When pigment failed, it was not immediate and

thorough, but a gradual loss.

76. Conclusion: In areas that appear extremely degraded

or powdering, Stoddard Solvent® will be used as a

consolidant; drying time of at least one hour given,

then careful cleaning will commence.

76.1. The bottom 4-inches of ALL legs will be

consolidated with Stoddard Solvent® prior to

cleaning.

76.2. Deionized water and cotton swabs will be

primary cleansers.


11 “A Review of the Consolidation System Used in the Conservation of a Japanned Clock” by Deborah Bigelow, 1990 WAG Postprints.

12 CCI Notes 7-2; and “A Review of the Consolidation System Used in the Conservation of a Japanned Clock” by Deborah Bigelow, 1990 WAG Postprints



76.3. We will start inside the frame and at the

bottom and work upward, from Straw Ivory

areas to polychrome areas.

76.4. Method will be to clean between the crackle or

with the flow of the grooves or brush marks,

shown top right, generally avoiding the

crevices at first, and cleaning the smooth

surfaces in between.

76.5. Crevices or intentional “cracks” will be cleaned as needed; several areas are lifting and need

adhesion.

77. Adhesion of flakes will be performed with Golden's MSA Hard Varnish.

78. Regarding highly degraded areas with concentrations of grime: the conclusion made in conjunction

with the NPS, is that grease and grime must be removed with careful cleaning if it is likely to continue

to degrade the finish.

79. How to detect loss versus dirt?

79.1. The feel of the dirt is one clue, which can’t be

described but must be felt: sliding or crunching

versus smooth.

79.2. In the image top right, the top and bottom swabs

show dirt, the middle swab exhibits dirt with a

loss of Straw Ivory paint, or a failure in the finish, which is the bright spot on the lower tip of

the dirty swab.

79.3. In all cases, Kate continued to clean until the dirt is removed, or when the finish begins to show

signs of imminent failure, whichever is first.

79.4. In each case a decision will be made as to go further or stop with cleaning after signs of failure.

80. In general, when the finish failed and became powdery, as if the binder in the paint degraded, it seemed

to relate to either the location or to the type of grime cleaned.




81. Several types of dirt were found on the chair:

81.1. We dubbed the first grime “tar” as it appears

thick, black, and is a bit greasy, very difficult

to remove, clinging to the finish, gesso or to

the wood beneath, top and center right.

81.2. Drips that are coffee colored, and easily

removed: they may be from a liquid like coffee

or cola, or may be dripping mud.

81.3. Pale grey slightly solid dirt, easily removed, though

sometimes failures happened at the site, top and bottom

right.

81.4. Occasional colors, such as colored pencils or markers

(shown next page top), some of which were easily

removed, some of which were difficult, and may have been

indelible ink.

81.5. Mold, shown next page top, also found on two

rungs, and may be part the problematic area

on top of the large stretcher in the front,

spoken of below.

81.6. Thick dark grease, which we surmise is animal

fats from hands, which combines with the oil

paints and causes immediate failures of paint

during removal: horseshoe-back arms, front

stiles (bottom right), and even around the leather seat stretchers at the front.

81.7. In the latter, Kate suggests the grease has merged with the finish over its lifetime, both

degrading, and in an odd way, becoming the binder for the pigment.




Right-facing front foot before cleaning, left: mold is apparent. After consolidation with Stoddard’s solvent, center. A damp cotton swab with gentle rubbing started on the left, moving right, and immediate failure

is shown, right. A powdery residue of pigment (lead white paint used as a gesso undercoat) is left. We will treat the wood for mold. Also, note the red indelible marker, which would not lift without finish removal.

CLEANING: MOLD + POWDERING PIGMENTS

82. Mold was found in several areas under the paint of the right-facing front side and right-facing rear

side, discussed in detail below, and in all cases the paint was adversely affected.

82.1. The negative results ranged from powdering pigment and extreme loss of paint, to fine

crumbling crackled texture (not part of the original craquelure) which accompanied a loss of

what appeared to be the binder that held the pigment, causing light powdering when touched.

82.2. The locations implied a separate source of moisture from the floor, as this mold was not just

around the feet; possibly the chair lived near a large window or other source of condensation.

83. The first area of powdery, degraded paint appeared around the feet:

83.1. The bottom 3-4-inches of the finish on the right-facing leg, shown next page, was extremely

degraded; MPFC surmises the unfinished feet bottoms left the wood open and moisture wicked

underneath the painted finish, causing more degradation from below the paint.




83.2. A side view of the degradation is shown top

right: the large crack on the bottom edge of the

image was original to the finish, but the

powdery losses along the top edge of the image

are due to moisture.

83.3. Moisture may have come front wet floors, but

as it seems to be on one side of the chair only

(right side), it may be that the chair was placed in an area of the Chateau where condensation

created a damp area on the floor, and over a long time this degradation occurred.

84. Powdering pigment was seen on top of the arms; it appeared that the oily dirt was holding the pigment

in place.

84.1. MPFC does not think the pigment degraded due to oily dirt alone, due to the lesser powdering

on the sides or the outside of the front stiles, which were covered in oily dirt.

84.2. MPFC believes it was a combination of the grease buildup along with moisture, as the top of

the arms were probably frequently a resting place for cold drinks, wet hands or even wet

garments over the years as part of the normal course of the chair’s use, resulting in that

particular type of degradation.

CLEANING: FAILURES

85. The floral polychrome elements on the right-facing leg were quite unstable.

85.1. Mineral spirits were used to clean most of the decorative elements.

85.2. Due to their prominent location, we did not perform tests, but took our cues from the initial

degradation and reacted accordingly in terms of product use.

86. Cleaning was problematic in many areas, as the paint was flaking from abrasion or was extremely

fragile.

87. Several long cracks exist in the “feet” or bottom 1-2 inches of the legs; as we treated the finish, we

found several areas where hide glue was injected to secure small fissures.




88. What was thought to be failures are not all failures; upon closer

inspection in photographs and during treatment, it was apparent

that many areas where grime clung were areas where small paint

losses in the form of small flakes clung or merged with the grime.

88.1. In cleaning the grime in these areas, gesso was exposed,

which is not the same as a failure where finish was

removed, shown right.

89. NOTE: Regarding the use of “poster paints:”

89.1. A collector of Monterey who spoke with George Mason

said that he told her “poster paints” were used; we considered this as we looked at failures in

decorative areas.

89.2. “Poster paint” in modern times usually refers to the water-based paints (also called tempera,

though they are not) made with pigment and glue size and water, which children use in school

for projects.

89.3. The modern form of tempera (“poster paint”) was not the painting medium common in the

12th-15th centuries, created using egg yolk to bind the pigments, which was quite durable.

89.4. While egg tempera paints are water resistant, it is unlikely that a furniture company created

true egg tempera paints, which were mixed in very small quantities as they must be used

while fresh13.

89.5. It is possible that George Mason’s memory was faulty decades later.

89.6. If children’s “poster paints” get wet they quickly degrade.

89.7. This is where treatment of multiple objects is advantageous for gathering information: a color

that failed easily on one chair in the collection did not fail in another chair, nor wear off using

water in several applications of damp rubbing.


13 This is common knowledge to Kate, a painter, and can be found in many books on painting techniques.



89.8. This suggests that the failures are due to environmental issues rather than a failure of the

paint type or even pigment color: the finish has been severely compromised by oily hands and

moisture over decades of use.

89.9. MPFC is secure in stating that it is categorically untrue that any “poster paints” were used

on any pieces of Monterey that we have seen.

90. To summarize, most failures occurred in the following areas:

90.1. Within 3-inches of the bottom of the leg, or the “feet;” MPFC sees evidence of water damage on

the right-facing side, and we surmise that the open and unprotected grain on the bottom of the

legs wicked water underneath he finish, whether from carpets cleaned, ambient moisture, or a

possible water event, which degraded the finish from the underside.

90.2. On the right-facing floral motifs, as per the discussion in 86.1.

90.3. On top of the arms, which we attribute to the combination of grease and liquids used over the

chair’s lifetime.

CLEANING: BY AREAS

CLEANING: INSIDE UNDER THE SEAT, ALL SIDES

91. Legs and all apparent degraded paint was consolidated

with Stoddard Solvent® the day before.

92. Began with the right-facing inside under the seat, and

worked to the front, left-facing side, and the rear.

93. Cleaning around the NPS label rendered it unusable;

we removed it, shown next page top.

94. Kate damp-dusted the stretcher under the leather seat,

which we are not planning to remove, bottom right.

95. Small brads were used to secure kerf joints in the

rungs, and many were well hidden inside, as shown

next page bottom right.




Before and after cleaning, and removal of the label

behind the front leg stretcher, above.Cleaning the inside

right-facing seat rungs, center, before and after.

Bottom left: cotton swabs from cleaning the rungs.

Bottom right, Mason used brads to hold their mortice

and tenon joints.




Left facing inside foot, before and after cleaning, top.

CLEANING: LEFT-FACING EXTERIOR BELOW SEAT

96. The chair was turned right-side up

97. Legs and all apparent degraded paint was consolidated

with Stoddard Solvent® the day before.

98. False Through Tenon, shown right, is painted with Straw

Yellow, and when cleaned with a damp cotton swab,

immediately lost yellow pigment; the swab

was saved for the pigment sample.

99. The olive-colored paint which created the

leaves for the floral motif exhibited

immediate failures, and Kate decided to

clean the floral and other decorative

motifs on the legs with Stoddard Solvent®.

100.Rungs were mildly dirty but the dirt was

stubborn on the areas of bare wood and

gesso on the bottom rung, shown center

bottom and bottom right, before and after.

100.1. Orange marker was removed.




Before cleaning, left, and after, right, of stubborn tar-like substance. In some cases the tar-like substance was not completely removable.




101. A black tar-like substance (we will call tar) clung in several areas, shown previous page.

101.1. The tar which clung to gesso and bare wood was extremely difficult to remove.

101.2. Kate was willing to lose some degraded finish as shown to remove the sticky black tar.

101.3. The leg shown previous page bottom right had thick tar covering the entire area on the edge,

now bare wood.

101.4. MPFC removed very little of the finish, but the tar was sitting directly on the bare wood, some

of which is still visible on the rear side, as yet uncleaned in the photo.

101.5. In these areas, usually the finish beneath was slightly powdery around the gesso.

101.6. We are not certain if the degradation of the finish came as a result of this particular grime, or

if the finish was chipped or degraded from beneath by liquid or ambient moisture wicking up

under the paint, then the tar adhesed to the degraded areas.

102.The bottom 3-inches of both left-facing legs were filthy, shown previous page and below.

102.1. All grime was easily removed but for one light grey spot that has a smooth feel to it, shown at

the top edge of the leg.

CLEANING: REAR EXTERIOR BELOW HORSESHOE-BACK

103. Legs and all apparent degraded paint was consolidated the night before with Stoddard Solvent®.

104. The rear side below the seat has many areas of extreme finish degradation: bare wood, exposed

gesso, powdering finish, and areas of tar on both gesso and bare wood.




105. Two spots of what appears to be silver paint were on the exterior of the kerf joints on the left-

facing rear leg, shown next page bottom left; we cannot imagine what this was, but it appeared to

have rubbed off something, as we saw bits of it up and down the leg in a line.

105.1. The silver paint was blue-silver, quite shiny.

105.2. Most of it was removed, and had undermined the paint beneath it.

105.3. It does not appear to be something that was applied, like a silver pen; the pattern of markings

suggests the silver rubbed off of something the chair routinely backed into at one time, as this

might also be what is seen embedded into the gesso on the top of the chipped and rubbed legs

where they turn into stiles, shown center right.

Above, silver markings as described; below, worn areas on top of legs as they turn into stiles.




106. The top of both legs where they become stiles, shown previous page bottom right, have worn to

gesso and bare wood.

106.1. The areas were thoroughly cleaned; some finish failure occurred around these worn areas.

107. An example of an area where flaking was occurring, shown previous page center left, around a

crack, was adhesed with Golden’s MSA Hard Varnish underneath the paint.

108. The right facing leg was severely degraded at the bottom in the manner described perviously, and

failure quickly occurred, even with consolidation.

CLEANING: RIGHT-FACING EXTERIOR BELOW SEAT

109. Legs and all apparent degraded paint was

consolidated the night before with Stoddard

Solvent®.

110. The right-facing legs were much cleaner in

general, though the degradation was the second

most severe next to the rear.

111. Tar was present on the legs, as on other sides,

all was removed, as shown on lower rung,

shown right.

112. Mold was present on the front right-facing leg

at the foot, and this is shown page 29.

112.1. Even after consolidation, the moldy

area was removable, but removal took

most of the finish, leaving a powdery

residue, shown page 29.

113. A smaller outbreak of mold was present on the

lower rung, shown top and center top right.




113.1. After cleaning, the mold was treated with a

10% solution of pure bleach, applied

carefully with a cotton swab.

113.2. The bleach then was diluted with deionized

water until it was removed.

114. An orange marker would not lift without finish

removal.

115. Straw Yellow finish on the false through tenon was

cleaned with Stoddard Solvent®.

CLEANING:

FRONT EXTERIOR BELOW HORSESHOE-BACK

116. Legs and all apparent degraded paint was

consolidated the night before with Stoddard

Solvent®, shown center bottom right.

117. Clues to paint application come from underneath

the chair, shown center right, where the asphaltum

under the yellow is apparent.

118. Testing was performed for all decorative motif

colors before cleaning commenced, bottom right:

118.1. Red color paint was able to take very light

cleaning with deionized water in non-

degraded areas.

118.2. Blue color paint was able to be cleaned

with deionized water in non-degraded areas.

118.3. Green-yellow paint behind blue floral motif was able to take very light cleaning with

deionized water in non-degraded areas.




Above, extremely degraded and dirty front left-facing foot, right, before cleaning, and center, after cleaning.

Degraded green-yellow paint along edge was where paint immediately failed. Right facing foot, top right, before cleaning, and center left, after cleaning. Note red paint has run, and yellow center is largely lost.

Below center, tar removal on paint in good condition above front stretcher right-facing. After cleaning, bottom right

118.4. Yellow centers were able to take very light cleaning with

deionized water in non-degraded areas.

118.5. Green leaves were able to be cleaned with deionized

water in non-degraded areas.

118.6. Straw Yellow paint on stretchers remained stable during

careful cleaning with deionized water only in non-

degraded areas; most of the stretcher was extremely

degraded.




119. All painted motifs on the legs and the Straw Ivory base finish were easily cleaned with a mixture

of Stoddard Solvent® and/or deionized water, shown previous page, with the exception of small

spots of tar.

120. The stretcher was extremely degraded, shown this page and next.

121. The top edge of the rung, shown this page and next

page all images, had both tar and mold embedded into

the yellow paint.

121.1. This was not asphaltum, which exhibits

black pigmentation embedded into the grain

on bare wood long after most of the

asphaltum was worn, as seen in other

pieces in the collection.

121.2. However, turning the chair over we

found the asphaltum on the underside of

the stretcher, shown page 39 bottom right,

which would not lift with vigorous

scrubbing in our test.

121.3. The yellow paint has degraded, and we

presume this was due to the mold

undermining the adhesion, loosening and

powdering the pigment.

121.4. Cleaning with a moist cotton swab +

deionized water immediately powdered the

pigment, shown in the bright yellow areas

right.

121.5. Cleaning with Stoddard Solvent® was a slow process.




121.6. The key was how far to go; Kate had

to remove the mold, or degradation

would continue, plus the pigment

was powdered under the mold.

121.7. The work was driven largely by the

feel of the dirt: the bare wood felt

smooth with no drag when clean;

asphaltum felt like fine sandpaper;

and mold was gritty and uneven.

121.8. Kate removed the mold until

visually no pale grey was left and

the area felt relatively smooth to

the touch.

121.9. Moldy areas were carefully

treated with 10% bleach solution

on a cotton swab, then rinsed.

Extremely degraded and dirty stretcher, before, top right; half cleaned, center right, and clean, bottom right. Colors are brighter, the mold + tar are removed, and the moldy areas treated with 10% bleach solution.




122. The majority of the mold was on the right side of the stretcher, which was also where the mold on

the leg and the rung existed; discussions regarding this off-center indication of moisture are on page

29-30.

123. In many areas of the stretcher, the paint was in good condition; all were cleaned with no failure.

123.1. Cleaning lifted dirt and exposed areas of paint loss, which was not a failure during

cleaning, but an exposure of previous paint failures, shown center motif previous page.

124. When cleaning the finish, Kate was able to see the artist’s technique in detail, shown previous page.

Note: brilliant yellow spots underneath failed Smokey Maple topcoat; the artist’s deliberate

highlights of brilliant blue; the bright ivory and red, where dirt was removed from the motif.

Gradual process of cleaning with deionized water (Straw Ivory, flower, blue line) and Stoddard Solvent (green leaves).




CLEANING: FRONT STILES

125. All apparent degraded paint was consolidated the night

before with Stoddard Solvent®, top right.

126. The front stiles were filthy, covered with a greasy grey

film which was easily removed in all areas but those

where gesso was exposed, below.

127. The left-facing stile, this page, was twice as greasy as the right, previous page.

128. Areas where jeans and other abrasive clothing has rubbed, shown previous page bottom right, were

the only areas which powdered as the greasy film was removed.

Gradual process of cleaning the turned stile with deionized water, center and bottom.




129. What appeared at first glance to be a Smokey Maple topcoat (shown previous page bottom and

below on rear stiles) was actually grime; the Smokey Maple topcoat was worn in all areas easily

grabbed by hands.

129.1. Note the bottom of the urn shape on the right in the cleaned images, below.

130. Due to the tenacious nature of the Straw Ivory, the front stiles were easily cleaned despite the

level of dirt: below, before and after images, and pages 43-44.

CLEANING: REAR STILES

131. All apparent degraded paint was consolidated the night before with Stoddard Solvent®.

132. The rear stiles were mildly dirty, which was easily removed in all areas except where gesso was

exposed, shown above.

133. Areas where jeans and other abrasive clothing rubbed, shown above, were the only areas which

powdered as dirt was removed.

134. The Smokey Maple topcoat was in good condition overall.

135. There are several areas on both left- and right-facing rear stiles which are cracked and chipped, and

in danger of further loss from chipping; these were adhesed with Golden’s MSA Hard Varnish

under and over the lifting paint.




CLEANING: INSIDE HORSESHOE-BACK

136. All apparent degraded paint was consolidated the

night before with Stoddard Solvent®; on the inside

back the areas most in need were the top edge and

bottom edge.

137. The inside back was mildly dirty, however, due to

the fragile nature of the yellow, Stoddard Solvent®

was the cleaning medium in all but the most

stubborn areas.

138. The Smokey Maple topcoat was in good condition

overall.

139. Before and after cleaning shown on the right-

facing inside back, top and center right.

CLEANING: HORSESHOE ARMS

140. All apparent degraded paint was consolidated the

night before with Stoddard Solvent®

141. Kate began on the back of the right-facing arm,

shown center bottom and bottom right, and top of

the next page.

142. The grime on the arm tops was greasy, as in the

front arm stiles, easily seen in the images this page

and next, and on pages 48-49.

143. Unlike the front stiles, however, the loss and

degradation was extreme, and the fragility of the

remaining finish was exacerbated.




Above, the right-facing arm top where it connects to the inside back, shown before, left, and after cleaning, right.

Below, the left-facing arm top, showing thick layers of black grease, mostly animal fats mixed with dirt. Paint failures were common in all these areas.




The right-facing front arm caps, in various stages of cleaning: arm with the side grease during removal, and cleaning the underside, also very greasy, and the edge of the cap. Note the green paint on the cap, and asphaltum on the edge.




144. Grease must be removed to prevent further degradation of

the finish.

145. Underlying the decorative motifs and yellow paint was

asphaltum, easily seen on the underside of the arms and

horseshoe-back, page 18-19 + 22.

145.1. What was dirt, and what might be asphaltum?

145.2. Kate went by both visual and kinesthetic clues to

determine when the finish was clean; in this case, the

grime was extremely greasy; it felt like running your

finger through a greasy turkey pan.

145.3. Center right, while the black deeply embedded into the

grain may be asphaltum, and a thin layer of yellow

pigment still lay on the surface, MPFC decided to

remove it as necessary to remove the grease, which

could be felt.

145.4. The finish was so worn on the arm tops, that once

cleaned smooth beautiful alder was exposed.

146. The colors of the painted decorative motif were quite brilliant

underneath the grime: green, blue, red, and yellow were

exposed, shown bottom and previous pages.

147. Almost no Smokey Maple topcoat was left intact.

148. Note the drip mark halfway down the arm from liquid spilled

on top of the arm which degraded the grease and pigment,

bottom right; this is the risk we take when using Monterey in

areas where food and beverages are allowed.




Clean areas to the right of the swab stick and swab, top left and right.

Left-facing top edge, before cleaning bottom left, and after, right.

CLEANING: OUTSIDE HORSESHOE-BACK

149. All apparent degraded paint was consolidated the night before with Stoddard Solvent®; on the

outside back the areas most in need were the top edge and bottom edge.

150. The outside back was mildly dirty, however, due to the fragile nature of the yellow, Stoddard

Solvent® was the cleaning medium in all but the most stubborn areas.

151. The Smokey Maple topcoat was in good condition overall.

152. Outside back during cleaning, top.

153. Note the apparent drip marks on the left-facing outside back, seen above and bottom left; liquid

dripped on the outside back, and the finish could not withstand the wet element.

153.1. This should be considered when allowing Monterey to be used in areas with food and

beverages.

154. Before and after cleaning shown on the top edge of the left-facing back, bottom.




Before cleaning, top, and after cleaning, bottom.




FINISH TREATMENT: ADHESION + CONSOLIDATION

FINISH: ADHESION

155. There were seven areas where lifting chips were re-adhesed

using Golden’s MSA Hard Varnish® underneath the paint chip

as “glue”.

155.1. Shown top left, the loose paint chip was lifted slightly

and held while MSA Hard Varnish® was painted on

thickly with a small brush under the chip, then pressed

into place.

155.2. Excess was wiped immediately.

156. A top coat of Golden’s MSA Hard Varnish® was placed on top

to seal.

157. This protocol was used in all seven areas.

FINISH: BARRIER AND CONSOLIDATION

158. Powdery to fragile paint / pigment on the following areas was

consolidated: Arm tops; Stile/legs; Areas which carried mold

(shown center right); Areas which were undermined by water

either wicking up or dripped onto the surface (shown bottom

right); Areas with little binder intact; and Bottoms of legs.

159. Stoddard Solvent® was not an adequate consolidant.

160. The front legs and leg stretcher were to be infilled (discussion

next page); Golden’s MSA Hard Varnish® would be applied as

a barrier where infill was scheduled.

161. Kate, in conjunction with Mary Merryman, Curator, decided

to use Golden’s MSA Hard Varnish® as a consolidant as well,

to secure the loose and powdery pigment and failing paint.




162. This left only a few areas not included.

163. MPFC and the NPS agreed on protocol to use Golden’s

MSA Hard Varnish® on the entire chair, even on areas

which appeared in good condition, but were not when one

touched the paint and the pigment easily moved.

164. The entire chair was painted with Golden’s MSA Hard

Varnish®; our intention is to reduce the sheen with wax

after infill is completed.

FINISH TREATMENT: INFILL

FINISH: INFILL PROTOCOL

165. In general, where there were scratches or flakes in

areas where the finish was in otherwise good

condition, or where gesso (white chalky paint) or bare

wood was exposed, those areas were infilled, shown

center right.

166. In general, in areas where the floral, fleur de lis or swirling

designs or base Straw Ivory, or Straw Yellow paint was worn

smoothly off from daily wear, and wear no obvious chips were

flaking, and the patina was beautiful, MPFC would suggest no

infill, as shown bottom right.

166.1. These areas stand as an example of beauty in age.

167. Protocol on infill was acrylic over Golden’s MSA Hard

Varnish®.




FINISH: COLOR INFILL

168. Note: Detailed information on the recipes for the colors are

located in the document “2011 MONTEREY PAINTED

FINISHES.”

168.1. A color board was provided to the NPS, similar to the one

shown above, to help distinguish acrylic paints from the

original paints.

168.2. Paints were mixed to come close but not match perfectly,

so upon inspection by a curator or

conservator in future they could be found,

along with the images showing many

locations, in the file “3 FINISH” and “3

FINISH TIFF.”

169. All paint and products discussed below were

Golden® Acrylics unless stated otherwise.

170. A mix that was used in other mixes, but not on

this chair, is a versatile mixture of Kate’s called

QGGlaze.

171. Clear Heavy Gloss Gel was used to help smooth

out some of the areas and fill the levels.

172. Polymer Medium was used to thin to a glaze or

transparent color more subtle buildup.




173. Infill is not necessarily a two part color process, as in the

original paint with a glaze; Kate mixed colors that match the

tone visually.

174. Three Straw Ivory’s mixed: SI#1, SI#2 (shown previous page

center top right), and SI#3 (shown previous page center right.)

175. Two blues were used: Ultramarine and Anthraquinone Blue,

shown top right.

176. Kate created three reds: Red#1, Red#2, and Red#3, shown

previous page top.

177. Gold Green was used around Blue on front, shown top right,

but used other places as well, as it was versatile.

178. Leaf Green is Gold Green + Kate’s QGGlaze.

179. Three yellows were used in different places to create the

yellow on the stretcher and arms, shown on the color board

previous page, top: DY#1 (the marigold color, shown previous

page bottom right), HY#2 (a clear pure yellow with no tinges

seen in the fleur-de-lis previous page center bottom right),

and Gold Green.

180. Smokey Maple glaze was created with two glazes mixed as necessary in a palette: SM#1 (a gold

glaze) and SM#2 (an umber glaze) shown previous page top.

181. The crackle infill was created SM#2 and Raw Umber, and also with the application method.

181.1. In large infill areas, the buildup of the straw ivory colors were painted with separation,

shown bottom right.

181.2. SM#2 and Raw Umber were painted to mimic the craquelure lines.

182. In most areas, 3-5 application of buildup of colors were necessary to achieve a good match, as

shown below and next page.




FINISH: SAMPLE INFILL AREAS

INFILL: FRONT FACE POLYCHROME FLORAL MOTIFS ON LEGS

183. Infill occurred on both legs, but perhaps more on the right-facing

leg, and quite a bit more toward the bottom both legs, in both the

floral, leaf, and linear motifs.

184. Above, left-facing leg at the front stretcher: Gold-green infill in

center of the flower; Red#1 in the far petal, and Leaf-green on the

leaf in teeny areas, the intention to infill the white gesso in flaked

losses on the motif.

184.1. Note the bright green dot on the leaf above: this is one of

Mason’s original brads used to secure his mortice and

tenon joinery.

185. Next page, the succession of buildup on the foot of the right-

facing front leg.

186. Motif colors Ultramarine and Anthraquinone blues, Red#1 and

Red #2, Gold-green and the base color SI#1 was infilled, shown

center and bottom right, and next page.

187. Those paints were toned with the SM#1 and SM#2; the

craquelure was infilled with Raw Umber, shown next page center.




Showing the succession of buildup

on the foot of the right-facing front leg.

Note the top craquelure which is

original, versus the craquelure

painted in at the left of the leg.

Smokey Maple topcoat on the right is blended from the reparation on the

right-facing side of the leg.

INFILL: RIGHT-FACING LEGS

188. Powdery losses and bare wood existed on the right-facing leg; infill began using SI#2 over the MSA

barrier.

189. SM#1 and SM#2 as well as Raw Umber created the faux topcoat and craquelure, shown next page

top right.

190. On the other side of the same leg, three areas where existing paint was lifting were previously

glued to the leg using MSA, shown next page center left.

191. Infill was performed using SM#1, shown next page center middle.

192. SM#1 and SM#2 as well as Raw Umber created the faux topcoat and craquelure, shown center

right

192.1. Infill was also performed on areas of bare gesso where paint flaked.




Right-facing legs with infill, this page.

193. Note that when inspected closely, it was relatively easy to see

the infill, but when farther away, it was unnoticeable, especially

if one doesn’t now it is there.

194. Mold had undermined the finish on the feet, shown next page

top, and turned them powdery.

194.1. MSA secured the remaining pigments, and acted as a

barrier to the infill, which was performed using SI#1 as

the base coat, and SM#1 and SM#2 as well as Raw

Umber to create the craquelure.




Right-facing foot, above, and leg at the right-facing stretcher, below.

195. Moisture and mold had undermined the finish on the

leg at the right-facing stretcher, shown center.

195.1. Golden’s MSA Hard Varnish® secured the

remaining pigments, and acted as a barrier

to the infill, which was performed using

SI#1 as the base coat, and SM#1 and SM#2

to complete.




INFILL: FRONT POLYCHROME STRETCHER

196. These blue and red motifs were originally made with a confident hand, and a brush dipped in two

colors.

197. A left-facing detail of the front stretcher before MSA and infill, top, showing chips missing, open

slightly peeled paint, and bare wood within the body of the stretcher.

198. Kate infilled the top of the long swirl, and the bottom and center of the round swirl, shown bottom

with a tiny brush and many small strokes of various colors infilled on a minute scale.

199. She left the worn top and bottom of the stretcher untouched, as it should be worn from years of use.




200. The front stretcher before MSA and infill, top, showing the chips missing, open slightly peeled paint,

and bare wood within the body of the stretcher.

201. Kate infilled the lovely swirling of red and blues with a tiny brush and many small strokes of

various colors infilled on a minute scale.

202. The design now pops, and can be appreciated for the varying colors, not noticed in damaged

versions of motifs.




203. No infill was performed on the arm tops, the inside

or outside back, or the inside stiles.

203.1. Too much damage had occurred, and so the

infill would have been complete speculation.

204. The intent of the infill was to allow the observer to

see the pattern if the pattern was present.

205. Infill was complete.

206. The chair was too glossy at this time.

207. The chair was allowed to cure many weeks.

FINISH: WAX

208. Clear Myland’s wax, not a microcrystalline wax,

was used, as there have been failures reported with

microcrystalline waxes on some painted finishes.

209. The hard glossy finish was slightly scuffed, shown

center right, to dull the sheen.

210. Wax was applied then rubbed to a nice glow.

211. Note: The wax was applied after all the leather

upholstery treatment was performed, at the very

end of the project.




LEATHER SEAT TREATMENT

LEATHER CLEANING

212. The leather shows evidence of red rot, and was quite

dirty.

213. It is strong enough to be cleaned; we did so with

deionized water, using diaper cloth and cotton

swabs, removing surface dirt on the top.

213.1. We were unable to remove a linear white

substance that sat in the grooves of the

lacings.

213.2. We were unable to remove small bits of

paint.

214. Under the seat was cleaned of thick dust and dirt,

top right.




LEATHER CONSOLIDATION

RED ROT

215. Powdering, a felt-like texture and staining were

seen in several areas on the underside of the seat,

shown top right; we believe the seat has early stages

of red rot.

215.1. Red rot is usually found in vegetable tanned

leather, caused by environmental pollution,

exacerbated by high humidity and high temperatures.

215.2. It is most likely to occur at pH values between 4-4.5;

sulfur dioxide converts to sulfuric acid, creating

hydrogen peroxide.

215.3. The hydrogen peroxide mixed with the tannins in the

leather creates the red rot, oxidizing the proteins,

creating ammonium sulfate and ammonium bisulfate.

215.4. Red rot is irreversible, however, treatment will slow

the process.

216. The red rot is occurring on the underside of the

seat, not on the top; this may be due to the way

Mason colored his leather, which was with oil

paint.

216.1. However, the stains were shown top and

bottom.

217. Klucel G was used as a consolidate on the loose leather particles.

217.1. The treatment of Klucel G used to consolidate, was also recommended for red rot.

217.2. Klucel G will not stop the rot, but will slow it and consolidate the powdery leather rot,

shown center.




218. Our solution was 2% Klucel G in isopropyl alcohol.

218.1. It was applied on the top of the leather,

shown previous page bottom right, and on

the bottom of the seat.

219. Regarding red rot and storage of the chair:

219.1. It is recommended that the piece be kept

separate from other leather objects, and that

gloves be worn and discarded when handling the leather seat so as not to transfer particles

to other leather items.

219.2. Occasionally people are allergic to red rot.

220. A second coat of Klucel G was applied over areas which were in need of extra consolidation.




LACING RECREATION

221. MPFC purchased square cut lacing with no pigment.

222. Mason originally placed the lacing on the chair, and then painted the entire seat using the glaze

used on the entire chair; the leather was pigmented using oil paint.

222.1. We know this due to the original leather lacing, and the manner in which the pigment sets

on the original laces.

223. We could not paint the lacing on the chair without harming the

original seat.

224. We unrolled the lacing cut it into manageable lengths.

225. Kate thoroughly coated the leather with Smokey Maple glaze,

shown above, and left the lacings to dry thoroughly on

hangers.

226. Two weeks were needed for the lacing to completely dry,

bottom right.




LACING APPLICATION

227. The original lacing was applied to the back of the

chair, as we had just enough to cover the rear seat

stretcher, shown top right.

227.1. Kate was careful to place the colored

leather upside whenever possible; this did

little good as the leather is quite degraded

and the oil paint is porous and missing

over much of the leather, top right.

228. Simple knots were tied loosely, being careful of the

fragility of the leather, top right.

228.1. The seat will not be sat upon, and the

leather is decorative only.

229. The new leather was laced on the front and sides,

shown center and below, and tied the end.

230. Kate left the rest of the lacing intact, and placed the long end around the inside of the new lacing,

shown below, so that in future if the old lacing fails the NPS will have enough to replace it as one

length.

231. Next page, the chair completed after waxing.

The chair was waxed after this, noted page 59, and treatment was complete.




114A is completed!




assessment + treatment report for #114a floral … nps orca/full...have been reduced as they are...

Documents