carter's grove paint analysis completed 2011

7/28/2019 Carter's Grove Paint Analysis Completed 2011

1/139

Cross-Section Microscopy Analysis of Interior and Exterior Paints

Carters Grove

James City County, Virginia

November 2010

Natasha K. LoeblichArchitectural Paint Analyst

for

Halsey Minor

Carters GroveJames City County, Virginia


2/139

Table of Contents

Purpose 1

Historical Background 1

Sampling Procedures 3

Sampling Locations 3

Results of Cross-Section Analysis 8

Exterior 10Doors 10Cornice 17Windows 22Mortar 30

Interior 33

First-Floor Entrance Hall 35First-Floor Stair Hall 42First-Floor Southeast Room 45First-Floor Northeast Room 51First-Floor Southwest Room 53First-Floor Northwest Room 56Second-Floor South Central Room 61Second-Floor Stair Hall 66Second-Floor Southeast Room 71Second-Floor Northeast Room 73Second-Floor Southwest Room 76Second-Floor Northwest Room 79

Fragments 83

Results of Binding Media Analysis with Fluorochrome Stains 106

Results of Pigment Identification with Polarized Light Microscopy 117

Results of Colorimetry 121

Conclusion 125

Appendix

Sampling Memorandums 127

Cross-Section Preparation Procedures 136Binding Media Analysis Procedures 136Pigment Identification Procedures 136Color Measurement Procedures 137Contact Sheets of Cross-Section Photomicrographs 138


3/139

1

Cross-Section Microscopy Analysis ofInterior and Exterior Paints

Structure: Carters Grove, James City County, VirginiaOwner: Halsey MinorRequested by: Edward A. Chappell, Director, Architectural and Archaeological Research DepartmentConservator: Natasha K. Loeblich, Architectural Paint AnalystConsultant: Susan L. Buck, Ph.D., Conservator and Paint AnalystDate: November 2010

Purpose

The goal of this project is to use cross-section microscopy to identify the early finishes, if they are present, in interiorand exterior paint samples from Carters Grove. This report follows a 2004 report on exterior finishes by Peggy Ol-ley and Susan Buck for which nine samples were taken on July 21, 2004. 1 In 2006, this author reported on a fewsamples taken from interior and exterior window sash and paneling in the upstairs bedrooms.2 For this 2010 report,samples were taken from north and south elevation windows and door architraves, the cornice, and the mortar.Inside, samples were taken from the front and rear entrance hall, the southeast room, the northeast room, and thenorthwest room on the first floor. Four samples were also taken from a detached rosette that is believed to havebeen attached to the frieze over the chimney piece in the first-floor southeast room. Samples were also collectedfrom the front and rear passage on the second floor and from the four second-floor chambers. Additionally, severalinterior and exterior architectural fragments found above the stable were sampled to see how their finish historiescompared with samples from the house.

Historical Background

Construction of the main house at Carters Grove was begun around 1750 by Carter Burwell and was completedby 1755. Burwell died in 1756 and the house passed to his son Nathaniel who did not come of age until 1771. Atthis point the family returned to Carters Grove where they stayed until 1792 when they moved to a new residenceelsewhere in Virginia. The house remained in the Burwell family until 1838, after which it went through a series ofowners. Since the Burwell family was often absent and the property changed hands several times, the house mayrarely have been repainted in the first hundred years of its life.

In 1879 Carters Grove was purchased by Edwin G. Booth, a wealthy industrialist. In 1881, Booth celebratedWashingtons victory at Yorktown by painting the interior of the house in a red, white, and blue scheme.3 Black andwhite photographs from this era in the Colonial Williamsburg archives show a multicolored paint scheme in severalof the major rooms, including the second floor, that probably represent this red, white, and blue treatment. One

photograph of the entrance hall (see page 2) shows that rosettes, presumably removed from the frieze over thechimney piece in the southeast room, have been attached in the spandrels of the archway and on the center ofthe keystone. The center rosette appears to have a slightly different shape so it may be a different ornament. Aphotograph of the southeast room during the Booth family occupation (see page 2) shows that the woodwork hasbeen stripped and there are ghosts where the six rosettes would have been attached above the chimney piece. The

1 Unpublished report for the Architectural Research Department for the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation entitled Cross-Section MicroscopyReport: Carters Grove, Colonial Williamsburg Foundation dated 10/2/2004.

2 Unpublished report for the Architectural Research Department at Colonial Williamsburg Foundation by Natasha Loeblich entitled CartersGrove: Cross-Section Microscopy Paint Analysis dated February 13, 2006.

3 Information on the historical background of the house was taken from Mark R. Wengers The Story of a Virginia Plantation: Carters Grovepublished by Colonial Williamsburg Foundation in 1994.


4/139

Cross-Section Microscopy Analysis of Interior and Exterior Paints - Carters Grove, James City County, Virginia 2

two wreath ornaments near the ends of the frieze remain in place. A rosette matching the profile of those used inthe southeast room was recovered from a desk drawer at Carters Grove in the twentieth century. Currently thereare six rosettes in place in the southeast room, and the curatorial file for the detached rosette notes that the orna-ments in place in the southeast room are reproductions of inferior carving. The rosettes in the southeast room

Photograph from the Boothfamily era of the entrance hallshowing multi-colored schemewith attached rosettes

Photograph from the Boothfamily era of the south-east room showing strippedwoodwork and

missing rosettes


5/139


Location

CG1 Second-floor, northeast bedroom, northwest window, lower sash, interior face, top edge at left sideCG2 Second-floor, northeast bedroom, west window, lower sash, exterior face, top left corner

CG3 Second-floor, northeast bedroom, northeast window, upper sash, exterior face, top of frame, 12 from left

CG4 Second-floor, southwest bedroom, paneling, horizontal board in upper panel, 3rd board from bottom, 2 from left (west)end

CG5 Second-floor, southwest bedroom, paneling, horizontal board in upper panel, 4th board from bottom, 36 from left (west)end

CG6 Second-floor, southwest bedroom paneling, right (east) stile, left edge, 10 above floor

CG7 North elevation, cornice, side of modillion block over center window

CG8 North elevation, cornice, fascia behind modillion, just left of left edge of center window

were not examined on-site for this report, but some of them may be originals that have eroded details due to ag-gressive stripping methods. Other photographs from the late nineteenth to early twentieth century in the ColonialWilliamsburg archives indicate the woodwork in many of the major rooms was stripped, including the second-floorpassage. This may have been done to remove the red, white, and blue color scheme which could have been dif-ficult to paint over.

Whiffen maintains that paneling of the dining room, and upper and lower hallways, was stripped by T. Percival Bis-land when he purchased the property in 1907 and before it was sold in 1911. Whiffen also reports that whateverpaint remained on the first floor rooms was scraped so the surfaces could be stained to a natural finish except inthe dining room which was painted old ivory.

In 1928, the house was purchased by Archibald and Molly McCrea who commissioned architect Duncan Lee torestore it. The restoration included the addition of a new third floor which necessitated changes to the roof andstaircase, and the addition of dormers. During the McCreas residency some of the woodwork was repainted butmany of the rooms were either stripped again or left bare of paint and remain so today. Ms. McCrea died in 1960and in 1969 the house was given to Colonial Williamsburg by the Sealantic Fund, a philanthropic organization. In2007, Carters Grove was sold to Halsey Minor who is the current owner of the property.

Sampling Procedures

The 147 samples examined in this report were collected during multiple site visits, building on the finish informa-tion gathered in each previous visit. Edward Chappell collected three samples from paneling in the second-floorsouthwest bedroom on October 14, 2005 during repairs. Soon after, three samples were taken by this author fromwindow sash from the second-floor northeast bedroom that were removed to the paint shop for restoration. Thesesamples were examined in a report on Carters Grove generated in 2006. During a site visit on February 22, 2007with Jeff Klee, 24 samples were taken from the exterior with the aid of Paul Frankie who operated a diesel-poweredlift. The exterior samples are numbered CG7-CG30 since six samples had previously been taken from the house forthe 2006 report. A second visit was made on April 5, 2007 with Chappell and Jeff Klee and 22 samples, numbersCG31-CG52 were taken from protected areas were it was hoped interior finishes may have survived previous paintremoval. On August 8, 2007, Chappell returned and took six more samples (CG53-CG58) from the second-floorinterior. Four samples (CG59-CG62) were taken from a detached rosette (No. 1983-337) from the interior of thehouse that is stored in the Colonial Williamsburg fragments collection. On a later visit Chappell took five samples(CG63-CG67) from several second-floor rooms. On March 24, 2008, Chappell, Susan Buck, and the author tookfurther samples from the first and second floor rooms (CG68-CG124). The architectural fragments found above thestable were sampled with the help of Chappell on July 29, 2008 (CG125-155). Numbers CG96-CG99 and CG152-CG155 were not used. The samples were collected on site in labeled bags and each was given a unique numbercorresponding to its recorded sample location. The locations were recorded in written form and photographed.The photographs of the sample locations are given in the appendix. The exact sample locations are presented inthe table below.

Sampling Locations


6/139


CG9 North elevation, cornice, molding around modillion, left side, over left side of center window

CG10 North elevation, header of 2nd floor center window, inner flat just below new molding

CG11 North elevation, header of 2nd floor center window, left side, inner flat molding

CG12 North elevation, door header, lower bead on underside, right of center and new patch

CG13 North elevation, door header, just below top molding

CG14 North elevation, door header, underside, left side

CG15 North elevation, red wash on mortar of regular brickwork, right of door, just over water table

CG16 South elevation, cornice, molding between soffit and fascia, over space between 3rd and 4th window from west

CG17 South elevation, cornice, fascia behind modillions, over space between 3rd and 4th window from west

CG18 South elevation, cornice, soffit next to modillion, over space between 3rd and 4th window from west

CG19 South elevation, cornice, inside curve of modillion, over space between 3rd and 4th window from west

CG20 South elevation, cornice, side of modillion, over 4th window from west

CG21 South elevation, architrave of center window, outer edge of header, just below new molding

CG22 South elevation, architrave of 3rd window from west, underside of header, left side

CG23 South elevation, architrave of 3rd window from west, underside of header over right pane

CG24 South elevation, header of door architrave, shaded by moldingCG25 South elevation, header of door architrave, underside of lintel

CG26 South elevation, header of door architrave, back edge of right side at join with side

CG27 South elevation, red wash on mortar, rubbed and gauged brick over 3rd window from west

CG28 South elevation, red wash on mortar of regular brickwork, below 11th brick down from left side of center window

CG29 South elevation, red wash on mortar of rubbed and gauged brick frontispiece of door, underside of pediment, 4th brick upfrom left end

CG30 South elevation, red wash on mortar of rubbed and gauged molded brick just under pediment of door

CG31 First-floor entrance hall, southeast pilaster (south of southeast door), pedestal cap, concave soffit below fret, south side,2 out from the partition

CG32 First-floor entrance hall, face of wainscot behind and immediately north of pedestal of southeast pilaster, 6 below cap

CG33 First-floor entrance hall, bottom rail of upper paneling at juncture with top of chair rail on east wall, 1 2 south of the

longitudinal partition

CG34 First-floor entrance hall, southeast window shutter, back side, lower west (right) panel at intersection with stile, 5 abovethe bottom rail. This may not have been painted originally

CG35 First-floor entrance hall, north stile of panel between southwest pilaster (south of southwest door) and south (front) wall,adjoining and below upper middle torus (upper large torus) on base

CG36 First-floor entrance hall, southeast pilaster, south of southeast door, base, groove between upper and middle tori, southside, 2 back from front corner

CG37 First-floor entrance hall, south stile of panel south of southeast pilaster, at southeast corner of room, groove betweenovolo and cyma, 1 2 above bottom rail

CG38 First-floor entrance hall, pilaster base east of arched opening, east side, groove between upper and middle tori, 1! backfrom front

CG39 First-floor entrance hall rear, door now leading to cellar stair, outer face, west (right) middle panel, bevel adjoining thirdrail, 4 east of edge

CG40 First-floor entrance hall rear, west cornice, top fillet, adjoining fret soffit, 4 south (left) of return against west wall, belowstair to third floor, in stairwell

CG41 First-floor entrance hall rear, soffit 1 6 to the east of sample 10, upper north edge of the central fret

CG42 First-floor southeast room, concave soffit below chair rail fret, middle of north end immediately south of west door (toentry hall)

CG43 First-floor southeast room, fascia behind fret on chair rail 6 north of east (hyphen) door, above bottom piece of fret

CG44 First-floor southeast room, east pilaster framing chimney piece, base, groove between flat face and lower (large) torus, 5east of the west edge

CG45 First-floor southeast room, same east pilaster, front fascia of pedestal cap, behind the fret 6 east of west edge


7/139


CG46 First-floor southeast room, carved backband of chimney piece surround, top piece, upper edge of cove behind leaf, 2east of west end

CG47 First-floor northeast room, upper panel immediately south of northwest (stair hall) door, lower north corner of raised fieldat intersection with bevel

CG48 First-floor northeast room, northwest door leaf, room side, south (left) bottom panel, bevel at intersection with lower

south corner. This is an original door, with patchesCG49 First-floor northeast room, west paneling, bottom southernmost panel, top fillet of raised field 1 10 north of west end

CG50 First-floor northwest room, bolection chair rail, north wall, bottom face of bottom cyma, 1 2 west of west window innorth (rear) wall

CG51 First-floor northwest room, northwest window, north wall, in crevice at join of east architrave and paneling above chair rail

CG52 Second-floor south central room, left pilaster, recess under fretwork at chair rail, front left edge

CG53 Second-floor south central room, arched opening, river-side, right (east) pilaster, top torus on base, at intersection withflat wooden back

CG54 Second-floor south central room, arched opening, river-side, right (east) pilaster, fillet behind right rear flute, 1 abovebase

CG55 Second-floor stair hall, arched opening, left (west) pilaster in stair passage left (when back is to stair) east, top of plinthbase, edge of cavetto, left side, 1 out from wall

CG56 Second-floor stair hall, arched opening, left side, bottom of flute closest to wall

CG57 Second-floor stair hall, door to right rear northeast bedchamber, right (south) side of architrave, back side of backband, 2above baseboard

CG58 Second-floor stair hall, door to right rear northeast bedchamber, left (north) side of architrave, backband at intersectionwith middle of architrave, 2 above floor

CG59 Detached rosette (1983-337) from frieze over chimney piece of southeast room, off center petal with evidence of dark redpaint

CG60 Detached rosette (1983-337) from frieze over chimney piece of southeast room, off inner edge of outer wide petal withevidence of gilding and dirt

CG61 Detached rosette (1983-337) from frieze over chimney piece of southeast room, off edge of outer broken leaf with evi-dence of gilding

CG62 Detached rosette (1983-337) from frieze over chimney piece of southeast room, off inner edge of outer broken leaf

CG63 Second-floor, southwest (left front) room, doorway to northwest (left rear) room, west architrave 4 above floor

CG64 Second-floor, southwest room, south wall, west window, east jamb, panel above window seat, lower south corner ofraised field

CG65 Second-floor, southeast (right front) room, south wall, east window, west jamb, lower southern corner of panel just aboveseat

CG66 Second-floor, northwest (right rear) room, north wall, east window, west jamb, lower north corner of raised panel fieldjust above seat

CG67 Second-floor, northwest (left rear) room, north wall, left reveal, panel above seat, lower north edge of raised field

CG68 Second-floor northeast chamber, north wall, east window, window seat at rear left corner

CG69 Second-floor northeast chamber, north wall, east window frame on left side just above lower H hinge

CG70 Second-floor northeast chamber, north wall, east window, room-side of left shutter, starts with blue

CG71 Second-floor northeast chamber, east wall, window in former closet on left side of window frame, ~3 above lower Hhinge, compare to north wall window

CG72 Second-floor northeast chamber, east wall, window in former closet, room-side of left shutter, left edge of lower panel

CG73 Second-floor northeast chamber, east wall, window in former closet, left side of window seat near join with left panel

CG74 Second-floor northwest chamber, west wall, left side of door frame, ~5 up

CG75 First-floor, southwest (left front) room, north wall, east pilaster, concave soffit of plinth cap, front piece, 4 from west end

CG76 First-floor, southwest (left front) room, north wall, west pilaster, concave soffit of plinth cap, east piece,! out from rear

CG77 First-floor, southwest (left front) room, south wall, surbase fret, recessed vertical face 1 8 west of southeast window

CG78 First-floor, southwest (left front) room, north wall, southeast inner corner of fireplace projection, concave soffit of plinthcap

CG79 First-floor, northwest (left rear) room, north wall, upper panel east of northwest window, west bevel against window stile1 3 above surbase


8/139


CG80 First-floor, northwest (left rear) room, east wall, door to rear passage, west side of leaf, second north panel, countingfrom bottom, upper north bevel where it meets the stile and rail ovolos

CG81 First-Floor stair hall, door to northwest room (same as sample 80), east face, third rail counting from bottom, lower edgeadjoining second north panel, ! from north end

CG82 First-Floor entrance hall, north wall (longitudinal partition), west pilaster, concave soffit of plinth cap, west piece,! out

from rearCG83 First-Floor entrance hall, east wall, main entablature soffit above door to southeast room, recessed field above fret, 2 2

south of north pilaster cap, 1! back from face of architrave

CG84 First-Floor entrance hall, east wall, main entablature soffit above door to southeast room, east (rear) projecting edge ofsoffit adjoining top panel rail, 1 2 south of pilaster cap

CG85 First-Floor entrance hall, panel stile immediately south of pilaster north of door to southeast room, immediately belowcarved south (side) half-rose, ! below entablature soffit

CG86 First-Floor entrance hall, east wall, pilaster north of door to southeast room, south side of cap, east edge of west eggmerging with leafs on Ionic volute, ! below top of egg

CG87 First-Floor entrance hall, east wall, concave soffit of plinth cap, at intersection with south wall

CG88 First-Floor entrance hall, east wall, pilaster south of door to southeast room, south side of cap, east edge of west eggmerging with leafs, ! below top of egg

CG89 First-Floor entrance hall, east wall, pilaster south of door to southeast room, west side of cap, upper ovolo, 1 back from

southwest corner

CG90 First-Floor entrance hall, west wall, panel stile immediately north of door to southwest room, where it meets the pilaster,1 10 above plinth

CG91 First-Floor entrance hall, east wall, base, top of cyma where it meets a central bead, 6 north of pilaster plinth north ofdoor to southeast room

CG92 First-Floor entrance hall, east wall, pilaster south of door to southeast room, cap, west face, north half ovolo where itmeets its concave housing

CG93 First-Floor entrance hall, north wall (longitudinal partition), above arched opening, carved soffit of entablature, fifth largerose, counting from east pilaster, west edge of rear petal

CG94 First-Floor entrance hall, north wall (longitudinal partition), above arched opening, carved soffit of entablature, north edgeof guilloche ribbon, around fourth large rose

CG95 First-Floor entrance hall, north wall (longitudinal partition), above arched opening, carved soffit of entablature, waterleafcarving, edge of leaf, south of fourth small flower

CG96-CG99

(Numbers not used)

CG100 Second-floor, northwest chamber, north wall, east window, left side of window frame about 1 above patch for H hinge

CG101 Second-floor, northwest chamber, north wall, east window, left shutter, left edge of lower panel, ~1 up from bottom rail

CG102 Second-floor, northwest chamber, east wall, baseboard plinth, about 5 from NE corner

CG103 Second-floor, southwest chamber, south wall, west window, right side of window frame about 2 above patch for H hinge

CG104 Second-floor, southwest chamber, south wall, west window, right shutter, right corner of lower panel ~1 up from rail

CG105 Second-floor, southwest chamber, east wall, left side of door frame, ~5 up

CG106 Second-floor, southwest chamber, north wall, northwest corner, short section of baseboard on plinth

CG107 Second-floor, southeast chamber, south wall, west window, right from ~ 3 above patch for lower H hinge

CG108 Second-floor, southeast chamber, south wall, west window, west shutter, lower panel ~ 10 above bottom rail

CG109 Second-floor, southeast chamber, west wall, north side of door frame ~ 5 up

CG110 Second-floor, southeast chamber, north wall, baseboard cap, just ~ 1 left of chimney breast

CG111 Second-floor, southeast chamber, north wall, baseboard plinth, just below CG110

CG112 Second-floor, south central room, south wall, east window, right side of window frame ~ 2 above patch for bottom Hhinge

CG113 Second-floor, south central room, south wall, east window, right shutter, lower panel, about 1 up from bottom rail

CG114 Second-floor, south central room, south wall, east window, right shutter pocket ~ 1 up

CG115 Second-floor, south central room, north wall, background carved lattice decoration for soffit of central arch, rear westpilaster

CG116 Second-floor, south central room, north wall, east pilaster, underside of left volute for capital, plaster


9/139


CG117 Second-floor, south central room, north wall, east pilaster, bead molding, left side of capital

CG118 Second-floor, south central room, north wall, raised lattice decoration for soffit of central arch, rear west pilaster

CG119 Second-floor, south central room, north wall, capital of east pilaster, rear leaf on left side

CG120 Second-floor, stair hall, south wall, east pilaster, carved capital at right volute

CG121 Second-floor, stair hall, south wall, latticework soffit, near east pilaster, background

CG122 Second-floor, stair hall, south wall, latticework soffit near east pilaster, raised design

CG123 Second-floor, stair hall, south wall, west of arch, cap of baseboard ~ 6 right of base for pilaster

CG124 Second-floor, stair hall, east wall, baseboard plinth just right of door to northeast chamber

CG125 Six-light sash, exterior face, upper sash, numbered XIV on right edge, when facing exterior, above the paint line,"above top, 9 right of left edge

CG126 Six-light sash, exterior face, thick paint buildup! below previous sample

CG127 Six-light sash, exterior face, thick paint buildup,! below top and 1! left of right edge

CG128 Six-light sash, exterior face, left side of left muntin, once covered by putty, 8 below top

CG129 Six-light sash, exterior face, right side of middle right muntin, 10 below top, once covered by putty

CG130 Six-light sash, interior, sample taken from top rail " below top, 1 2 left of right side

CG131 Six-light sash, interior, top of second vertical muntin, counting from left, at torus and fillet, meeting those of top rai

CG132 Eight-panel interior door with ovolos and raised panels on both sides and rodent hole in bottom, narrower face, left thirdpanel, counting from bottom, left bevel 1 below top bevel.

CG133 Eight-panel interior door, narrow face, bottom of fourth rail, counting from bottom, outer edge of top ovolo! right ofleft ovolo

CG134 Eight-panel interior door, hinged edge, 1 10 above bottom

CG135 Eight-panel interior door, wide face, bottom rail, 2! above bottom 4 left of right outer stile

CG136 Eight-panel interior door, wide face, bottom right panel, bottom bevel at fillet of raised panel, 4 left of right edge

CG137 Eight-panel interior door wide face, fourth rail, at intersection between fillet and ovolo 3 from intersection with rightovolo

CG138 Second, narrower, eight-panel interior door, narrow face, third left panel, left bevel at ovolo, 6 above bottom

CG139 Second, narrower, eight-panel interior door, opposite, wider face, 3 wide bottom right panel, right end of fillet at bottomedge of raised field

CG140 Third eight-panel interior door, narrow face, top right panel, fillet at top edge of raised field, 4 left of right end

CG141 Third eight-panel interior door, narrow face, fourth rail, top ovolo at intersection with bevel, 2 left of right edge

CG142 Third eight-panel interior door, wide face, 3 4!, top left panel, top fillet of raised field, " right of left end

CG143 Four-panel interior shutter from superior first-floor room, VII chiseled on left edge, finished face, second rail, bottomfillet, 3 left of right side

CG144 Second four-panel shutter from superior room, VII chiseled on right edge, finished face, third panel, left bevel at edgeof stile, 4 below top

CG145 Raised panel marked SE room 2nd floor in c.1930 blue chalk on back, bevel at sticking groove 1 up from one short end

CG146 Second raised panel, with 10 in graphite, long fillet at corner of raised field

CG147 Third raised panel, marked NE room 2nd floor and #15 in blue, long fillet at corner of raised field

CG148 Fourth raised panel, V chiseled on rear, bevel on short end and adjoining fillet of raised field

CG149 Fifth raised panel, 11 in graphite on rear, long fillet 1 from end

CG150 Bolection surbase, 4! high, 5 1 long, torus at intersection of fillet for larger cyma, 2 6! from one end

CG151 Bolection surbase, 4! high, 5 1 long, torus at intersection of fillet for larger cyma, 4 from one end

CG152 Bolection surbase, 4! high, 5 1 long, applied torus, 3 from end (Sample not examined)

CG153 Sixth raised panel, with no markings, sample from fillet 10 from one end (Sample not examined)

CG154 Second bolection surbase, 4! high, 6 11# long, edge of bolection adjoining fillet of large cyma 1 7 from one end(Sample not examined)

CG155 Second bolection surbase, from face of large cyma 1 5 from same end (Sample not examined)


10/139


Results of Cross-section Analysis

Cross-sections from the 147 samples collected from Carters Grove are discussed in detail in the following section ofthis report, beginning with the exterior samples and ending with the interior samples which are grouped by room.

The exterior samples that yielded the best finish histories were taken from protected areas of the door architraveson the north and south elevation. There is no evidence that the exterior was stripped as the interior spaces were,but it does seem that some layers in some locations were lost due to exposure. The most complete exteriorsamples begin with a worn red paint that is the first generation of finish, perhaps applied while construction wason-going in 1750-55. Generation 2 is a white paint that might have been applied when the family returned to thehouse in 1771. Generations three and four are more white paints. The most complete window sample begins witha white paint that seems to align with generation 3 on the door architrave. Generations 5, 6, and 7 are missingfrom some samples, but others have evidence of gray, light brown, and dark brown paint applied in this period.These generations of finish could represent the period where the house was not occupied and changed hands sev-eral times. Generation 7 appears to be the earliest layer to have zinc white pigment, which dates it to after 18451.This suggests that before date this the house was repainted around every fifteen years. After generation 7 all theelements on the exterior are painted with about fifteen generations of white and off-white paints.

Some samples from the cornice have an extended finish history that indicate that original elements were retainedduring the McCrea restoration. The most complete samples from the cornice on the north and south elevation beginwith a white paint that seems to align with the second generation on the door architraves. It is possible then thatthe red paint was confined to the doorways.

Samples from the brickwork suggest that the whole of the exterior masonry walls may have been painted with ared limewash. Evidence was found of a red coating on both the regular brickwork and the rubbed and gaugedbrickwork on both the north and south elevations.

The samples from the interior of Carters Grove are difficult to interpret because in many cases the cross-sectionsare so fragmentary. Paint removal campaigns on the first and second floor have left little evidence of the originalpaints. For this reason, samples were taken from protected areas that would have been difficult to strip or scrapeclean, such as areas under moldings and in the crevices of deep carvings. However, there is always the chance that

these hidden areas were missed during some repainting campaigns and thus do not have a full finish history. Thisis especially true when samples are taken from the edge of panels where wood shrinkage has exposed a surfacethat may not have received the earliest finish layers. For these reasons, it is much harder to construct a finish his-tory for the interior.

Luckily, it is difficult to fully obliterate a paint finish from every surface and many samples contain some paint evi-dence, even if it only survived embedded in the wood cells. Most samples from the first and second-floor centraland eastern rooms began with what seems to be a traditional eighteenth-century paint composed of lead white pig-ment in an oil binder. This paint is fairly coarse with some large pigment clumps that suggest it was hand-ground,unlike a modern machine-made paint. In many samples, this layer seems to have low concentration of yellow andblack pigments, which would have changed the color from white to something closer to a putty or stone color.Other samples do not seem to have the colored pigments and it is hard to tell if this is because the paint in someareas was not colored, or because colored pigments were just not present in the small sample area. With so littlepaint evidence remaining, it may be impossible to be sure if the color of the earliest paint was the same in all thespaces.

In contrast, the western rooms on both floors seem to have been painted gray in generation 1 instead of off-whitelike the other rooms, which is unexpected. This suggests a functional difference between the west and east side ofthe house. However, Chappell indicated that more elaborate woodwork makes the south (front) spaces of higherstatus than the north (rear) spaces downstairs. Thus it is a surprising discovery that the west rooms appear to havebeen painted differently than the central and east ones.

1 Eastaugh, Nicholas, et al. Pigment Compendium: a Dictionary of Historical Pigments. Oxford: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann, 2004. pp.406.


11/139


The first-generation paint of the rooms is sometimes found trapped in the wood cells of samples, whereas the nextfew generations of early paint were more easily removed and even more elusive. The evidence that can be gleanedfrom the samples taken in the house suggests that in generation 2, the central and western rooms upstairs anddownstairs were painted white. However, the eastern rooms on both floors seem to have been painted gray-greenin generation 2. The generation 3 colors are identical to generation 2 except that the second-floor northeast room

is painted blue, suggesting that this may have been a special room. After this, most rooms go back to white or off-white. In generation 4 and 5 a few samples have different colored paints and it seems like certain element such asbaseboards, chair rails, and/or capitals may have picked out in different colors.

Cross-sections from select samples are examined more fully in the rest of this section beginning with the exteriorelements and followed by a discussion of the evidence in the interior rooms.


12/139


CG12

CG14

CG13

South Elevation Door Header

CG25CG24

CG26

Exterior: Door Architraves

The most complete samples from the exterior were taken from the underside of the header of the door architraveson the north and south elevations. The sample locations are shown in the images below. These six samples (CG12- CG14 and CG24 - CG26) have evidence of at least 22 generations of finish, which is more than found on any other

element.

North Elevation Door Header


13/139


11

1

Resinoussealant

1

Sample CG14, north elevation, door header, underside, left sideVisible light, 200x Ultraviolet light, 200x

2

Grime

2

Grime

Many of the samples from the door headers begin with a resinous sealant trapped in the wood cells. The autofluo-rescence of this sealant suggests that it might be at least partly composed of shellac, which has a characteristicorange fluorescence. The first finish is a worn red paint with little autofluorescence and with some grime trappedabove it. The presence of the grime and the weathered nature of the red paint suggests that it was a presenta-tion surface that was allowed to age and collect grime before the next generation of finish was applied. Perhaps

this finish was applied during construction in 1750-55 and not repainted over until Nathaniel Burwell achieved hismajority and returned to Carters Grove with his family in 1771.

Sample CG12, north elevation, door header, lower bead on underside, right of center and new patchVisible light, 200x Ultraviolet light, 200x

Wood

Wood


14/139


The cross-section on this page is also from the header on the north door architrave. Above the first-generation,worn red paint are three generations of white paints. Generation 5 is a light gray paint with a darker fluorescencethan the paints around it. Olley and Buck also found evidence of this gray layer in their samples from the doorarchitrave on the north elevation, but their samples were from lower on the architrave and are missing other earlylayers. A similar light gray paint was found in cross-sections from the cornice on the south elevation. The cross-

section on the next page has a grime accumulation between the gray paint and the white paint of generation 6indicating the two finishes were not applied at the same time.

Generation 7 is a slightly translucent, off-white paint that has a bluish fluorescence in ultraviolet light. This layercould be mistaken for a flatted varnish except that there is grime trapped between it and the generation below. itmay be that this layer has varnish mixed in or a high binder ration. In reflected ultraviolet light this layer has small,brightly-fluorescent yellow-green spots visible at high magnification suggesting that it contains the pigment zincwhite which would date the layer to after 1845. Generations 8 and above are white or off-white paints with varyingappearances in ultraviolet light.


9

12

10

8

7

5

4

1

2

11

3

6

1314

9

12

10

8

7

5

4

1

2

11

3

6

1314


15/139


The cross-section below has more evidence of the upper paint layers and shows a grime boundary between thegray paint of generation 5 and the white paint of generation 6.


9

12

10

87

54

1 2

11

3

6

1314

1516

17

1819

20

21

22

9

12

10

87

54

1 2

11

3

6

1314

15

1617

18

19

20

21

22


16/139


The samples from the door architrave on the south elevation have a slightly different early stratigraphy althoughgeneration 1 and 2 are identical. The cross-sections below show that, as found on the northern door architrave,the first generation of finish on the southern door architrave is a worn red paint with some grime above it. Rem-nants of the second-generation white paint are also present with bits of black mold embedded in the paint layer.However, the later generations on the south elevation door architrave are different from those found on the north

door architrave.

Sample CG26, south elevation, header of door architrave, back edge of right side at join with sideVisible light, 200x Ultraviolet light, 200x

1

21

2


17/139


10

11

14

9

7b

7a

12

13

1

2

15

18

1920

21

The cross-section below from the south elevation door architrave is missing generations 3 through 6. Generation7 consists of a thick white paint with large colored pigment particles and a light brown paint above it. Both thesepaints have a grainy, rough appearance. The two paints (identified as 7a and 7b) have blended slightly and wereprobably applied at the same time. The white paint has a greenish fluorescence and some small particles withyellow-green fluorescence that appear to be zinc white. This suggests that this paint aligns with generation 7 on

the door architraves, which was also the first layer that may contain zinc white on that sample. The light brownfinish coat has a muted brownish fluorescence. Neither of these layers were found on the door architrave on thenorth elevation. Either these colored layers wore away on that side or at certain periods the two door architraveswere painted differently. This portion of the finish history could represent the time the house was owned but notoccupied by the Burwell family and eventually was sold.

Above generation 7 the finish histories of the door architrave on the north and south elevation are identical, withthe exception of the white paint in generation 13 which has a different autofluorescence color.

Sample CG25, south elevation, header of door architrave, underside of lintelVisible light, 100x Ultraviolet light, 100x

16

22

8

10

11

14

9

7b

7a

12

13

1

2

15

18

192021

16

22

8


18/139


10

11

13

9

7b

7a

12

18

19

20

21

8

22

10

11

13

9

7b

7a

12

18

19

20

21

8

22

1

A second sample from the door architrave on the south elevation also begins with remnants of the worn red paintin generation 1 embedded in the bottom of the first layer. As with the sample CG25 on the previous page, genera-tions 2 through 6 are missing. In this sample, generation 7 consists of a light brown primer and dark brown finishcoat. Again, these two paints have a grainy, rough appearance. The two paints have merged slightly suggestingthat they were applied at the same time. The light brown primer seems to be the same paint used as a finish coat

in the same generation in the cross-section on the previous page. The dark brown paint in this cross-section wasnot found in any other exterior samples.

The cross-sections on this page and the previous page suggest that the south door architrave might have had amulti-colored decorative scheme in generation 7 that used brown and light brown paints. In this same generation,the north door architrave was painted white as is the cornice.

Above generation 7 is a series of white and off-white paints with varying autofluorescence colors that were foundon several elements, although some of the layers are disrupted in this sample.

Sample CG26, south elevation, header of door architrave, back edge of right side at join with sideVisible light, 100x Ultraviolet light, 100x

1

15


19/139


Cornice

Eight samples were taken from the cornice, three from the north elevation (CG7 - CG9) and five from the southelevation (CG16 - CG20). During examination of the cornice on-site with Jeff Klee, its less weathered appearancesuggested that much of the cornice may have been replaced, probably during the McCrea restoration. However,

the most complete samples from both the north and south cornice begin with a white paint that appears to alignwith the white paint applied in generation 2 to the door architraves. There is no evidence of the red paint found ingeneration 1 on the door architraves, but the wood substrate is very disrupted on the cornice.

North Elevation Cornice

South Elevation Cornice

CG9

CG17


20/139


As shown in the cross-section below, there is grime trapped on the wood surface of the cornice underneath the firstwhite paint generation. This suggests that the red paint of generation 1 may have been present, but wore awaycompletely leaving the wood surface exposed.

Sample CG9 from the north elevation, cornice, molding around modillion, left side, over left side of

center windowVisible light, 200x Ultraviolet light, 200x

1

Grime

1

Grime


21/139


2

4

3

12

13

9

7

11

15

19

22

10

14

2

4

3

12

13

9

7

11

1519

22

10

14

6 6

Samples from both the north and south cornice have evidence of early white paints in generations 2 through 4 thatcorrespond to the paints applied to the door architraves. The cross-section below from the north cornice shows thefirst three white paint generations. In place of generation 5, which was a gray paint on the door architrave, thereis a thick layer of grime above the generation 4 paint in this cross-section.

On the north and south cornice generation 7 is a slightly translucent white paint with small brightly-fluorescentspots that suggests it contains the pigment zinc white. On the southern door architrave this generation also con-tained zinc white but had evidence of gray and brown paints. Above generation 7 the finish history of the corniceis virtually identical to that of the door architraves, although a few layers are missing, likely due to weathering.

Sample CG8 from the north elevation, cornice, fascia behind modillion, just left of left edge of centerwindow, Visible light, 100x Ultraviolet light, 100x


22/139


One sample from the south cornice has evidence of the light gray paint in generation 5 that was also found on somesamples from the northern door architrave. This cross-section has a clump of thick brown material that does notappear to be a paint, but may be an accumulation of grime from an unknown source. This brown material was alsofound in one other sample from south cornice, as shown in sample CG16 on the next page.

Sample CG18 from the south elevation, cornice, soffit next to modillion, over space between 3rd and4th window from westVisible light, 100x Ultraviolet light, 100x

2

4

3

1213

9

7

11

15

19

22

10

14

65

8

2

4

3

1213

9

7

11

15

19

22

10

14

65

8


23/139


A cross-section from a sample from the south cornice is shown below that has an identical stratigraphy to other cor-nice samples. However, it also has a bit of the thick brown material found in two samples from the south cornice.The material is dark in ultraviolet light and looks more like mortar than paint. Perhaps mortar from the brick workfound its way onto the cornice or the material could be something used as a wood filler.

Sample CG16 from the south elevation, cornice, molding between soffit and fascia, over space be-tween 3rd and 4th window from westVisible light, 100x Ultraviolet light, 100x

4

11

9

7

3

10

8

1213

14

1519

20

2

Brownmaterial 4

11

9

7

3

10

8

1213

14

1519

20

2

Brownmaterial


24/139


1111

Windows

Five samples were taken from window architraves, including two from windows on the north elevation (CG10 andCG11) and three from windows on the south elevation (CG21 - CG23).

North Elevation Windows

CG10CG11

South Elevation Windows

CG21 CG22


25/139


Two samples from the windows containing wood substrate have clumps of red particles that could be the remnantsof the first generation red paint found on the door architraves. The wood substrate is also weathered and has somegrime indicating that early finishes were allowed to wear away and the wood was exposed before the next finishwas applied. In this cross-section the next finish is the white paint of generation 8.

Sample CG21, south elevation, architrave of center window, outer edge of header, just below newmolding, Visible light, 100x Ultraviolet light, 100x

Red pigmentsRed pigments

88

9

12

8

10

11

131415

19

22

16

9

12

8

10

11

131415

19

22

16

One of the most complete cross-sections from a window architrave is shown below. It begins with a white paintthat corresponds to generation 8 on the cornice and door architraves. The cross-section is typical of most windowsamples in that it shows evidence of grime trapped under the first paint layer and in the wood substrate, whichsuggests that the wood surface was left exposed for some time. This indicates that the early paint layers on thewindows were probably lost due to exposure.

Sample CG23, south elevation, architrave of 3rd window from west, underside of header over right

pane, Visible light, 100x Ultraviolet light, 100x


26/139


A cross-section from a window on the north elevation is included below for comparison. It has an identical stratig-raphy to that from the windows on the south elevation and begins with generation 8. There is grime trapped underthe first paint layer which suggests that earlier finishes have been lost.

Sample CG11, north elevation, header of 2nd floor center window, left side, inner flat molding

Visible light, 200x Ultraviolet light, 200x

12

8

10

11

13

14

15

9

12

8

10

11

13

14

15

9


27/139


10

8

9

Three window sash were sampled while they were in the Colonial Williamsburg Paint Shop for repairs (CG1 - CG3).This offered the chance to sample from the edges of the sash adjacent to the jambs where there appeared to bethick accumulations of paint.

The cross-section below is from a window sash on the north elevation that had the best paint evidence of all the

sash sampled. The cross-section begins with three thick white paints that probably correspond to generations 8, 9,and 10 as found on the window architraves. There are impressions of wood cells in the underside of generation 8and some trapped grime as well.

Sample CG2, westernmost window of northeast bedroom, north elevation, lower sash, exterior face,top left corner, Visible light, 200x Ultraviolet light, 200x

10

8

9


28/139


Five samples (CG125 - CG131) were taken from the exterior face of a six-light window sash found with other frag-ments above the stable.

Six-Light Sash

CG130

CG131

CG127

CG125

CG126


29/139


Sample CG125, removed six-light sash, exterior face, upper sash, numbered XIV on right edge, whenfacing exterior, above the paint line,! above top, 9 right of left edge


The earliest layer found in any of the samples from the removed window sash was a off-white paint. This layermay correspond with the earliest off-white paint found on other window samples. Above the off-white paint is agray-green paint layer with large pigment clumps.

Sample CG127, removed six-light sash, exterior face, thick paint buildup," below top and 1" left

of right edge, Visible light, 200x Ultraviolet light, 200x


30/139


Above the gray-green paint on the exterior face of the sash is a coarse red-brown paint. Next a few layers of whiteor off-white paints were applied that are visible in the cross-section on the previous page. These layers are of amore uniform consistency and have an autofluorescence that suggests they are not eighteenth-century paints.

This sash is the only exterior sample to contain a gray-green paint and the later red-brown paint, however, the

interior face of this sash has the same colorful paint layers. Some of the samples from this window were takenfrom the top edge of the sash where interior paints could have bled over onto the exterior, but the sample belowwas taken from where the putty had flaked off a muntin. Therefore, it is not clear how these paints relate to theexterior paints found in other samples.

Sample CG128, removed six-light sash, exterior face, left side of left muntin, once covered by putty,8 below top, Visible light, 400x Ultraviolet light, 400x



31/139


Doorarchitraves

Windowarchitraves

Cornice

Visible light color UV light color Visible light color UV light color Visible light color UV light color

22 off-white dark off-white blue off-white blue

21 off-white,off-white

dark,blue

- - - -

20 off-white dark off-white dark off-white dark

19 tan blue tan blue tan blue

18 off-white blue-purple

off-white green-purple

- -

15-17 off-white blue - - off-white blue

14 white dark off-white dark off-white dark

13 off-white yellowor blue

off-white blue off-white blue

11-12 white blue-purple

white blue-purple

white blue-purple

8-10 off-white yellow off-white yellow off-white yellow

7 off-white on thenorth door, lightgray and lightbrown or darkbrown on southdoor

fluorescencesuggests zinc white

- - off-white fluorescencesuggests zinc white

6 white blue-white

- - white blue-white

5 coarse gray blue-brown

- - coarse gray blue-brown

2-4 white yellow - - white yellow

1 red red red red ? ?

wood wood wood wood wood wood

The following table summarizes the finish history of the exterior trim elements at Carters Grove. Remnants of thefirst-generation red paint were only found in the door and window architraves, but there is grime below the firstwhite paint on the cornice. This suggests that the red paint may have been originally present here and wore away.The windows have lost all evidence of the paints applied before generation 8, but the cornice and door architraveswere painted with white paints in generations 2 through 4. In generation 5 the door architraves and cornice were

painted with a coarse gray paint. In generation 6, these elements were painted with a thin, white paint with ablue-white fluorescence. Generation 7 is unusual because many different colors were used, but all the paints havea grainy, rough texture and an appearance in ultraviolet light that suggests zinc white is present. Thus this gen-eration must post-date 1845. In generation 7, the north door architrave and cornice were painted off-white. Thesouth door architrave shows evidence of a light brown paint applied over a gray paint in one sample and a darkbrown paint applied over a light brown paint in another sample which may represent a decorative scheme.

Samples taken from the exterior face of window sash found in the stable attic show a white paint followed by agray-green paint, a red-brown paint, and a few white or off-white paints. The colored layers do not seem to cor-respond to other exterior samples, but do correspond with interior paints. It is possible that interior paints bled overonto some of the exterior paint surface, but otherwise these colorful exterior paints cannot be explained.


32/139


Mortar

Five samples (CG15 and CG27 - CG30) were taken from the mortar of both regular and rubbed and gauged brick-work on both the north and south elevations which yielded evidence of some pigmented coatings. All the mortarsamples had evidence of a red coating that seems to have been applied to both the rubbed and gauged brickwork

and the regular brickwork.

North Elevation Mortar

South Elevation Mortar

CG15

CG27CG28

CG29


33/139


Mortar

Red limewash

Sample CG15 was taken from the regular brickwork just over the water table. The cross-section of sample CG15begins with the mortar which has some sort of yellow inclusion that is dark in ultraviolet light. At the top right ofthe cross-section is a thin, red-pigmented coating that is most likely be a limewash. This coating lies over a thinlayer of grime and the mortar just below the red coating has a pinkish fluorescence that suggests that there mightbe biological growth in this area. This indicates that the red coating was probably added after the mortar wasexposed for some time. Just above the red coating is a thin white layer with dark autofluorescence that might bea modern white paint.

Sample CG15, north elevation, red wash on mortar, right of door, just over water tableVisible light, 200x Ultraviolet light, 200x

Mortar

Red limewash


34/139


Sample CG27 was taken from the mortar of the rubbed and gauged brick over a window. It has evidence of a redcoating that is most likely a limewash. This red coating was found in all the brick samples from both regular andrubbed and gauged brickwork. Sample CG27 is unusual because it also has evidence of a pink material that alsohas the appearance of a limewash. This may be the remains of a second application of color to the exterior.

Sample CG27, South elevation, red wash on mortar, brick over 3rd window from westVisible light, 40x Ultraviolet light, 40x

Mortar

Pink limewash

Red limewash

Mortar

Pink limewash

Red limewash


35/139


Interior

In addition to exterior sampling, finish samples were taken from the interior spaces on the first and second floors.

The plan of Carters Grove is shown on the next page for reference.1 Despite the almost complete removal of allfinishes from the woodwork in most of the rooms, in at least two different campaigns, some finishes do survive in

crevices. Protected areas below moldings or in the interstices of carvings were sampled in the hope that the mostfinish information might be gathered from these protected locations. Additionally, a detached rosette (1983-337)from the Colonial Williamsburg collection is believed to have come from the frieze over the chimney piece in thesoutheast room and offers a good early finish history. Nearly every sample from the interior begins with remnantsof an off-white paint that appears to be the first generation finish. Some samples indicate that this paint was col-ored with yellow and black pigments, but other samples do not have this coloration. The concentration of coloredpigments is quite low, so it is possible that the colored pigments just do not appear in every sample. The frag-mentary paint evidence makes it difficult to be sure if all the rooms were painted with the same color or not, butthe evidence does suggest that on both floors the central and eastern rooms were painted off-white or stone color.There is also strong evidence that in generation 1 the western rooms on both floors were painted gray.

In generation 2, the central rooms were repainted off-white along with the western rooms, but at the same timethe eastern rooms on both floors were painted gray-green. This is a notable change from the generation 1 finishes

in which the western rooms were picked out in different colors.

The generation 3 finishes were identical in color to generation 2, with the exception of a blue paint applied to thesecond-floor northeast room. This suggests that this room served some special function or was painted to suit thetaste of a particular occupant. In generation 4, some samples have different colors that may indicate that somemoldings or capitals were picked out in darker colors. After generation 4, the color scheme of the house becomesmore complex. Evidence from all the cross-sections was used to build a table containing compiled stratigraphiesof the interior finishes (see page 126). In the following section of this report, the paint evidence from the interiorsamples is examined in more detail.

1 Plans are from the Historic American Buildings Survey collection and were drawn in 1976. Additions to the east and west have been omit-ted from the plans.


36/139


Northwest Room

RearEntranceHall

Northeast Room

Southeast RoomSouthwest Room

FrontEntrance

Hall

South (river front) elevation

Northwest Room

Stair Hall

Northeast Room

Southeast RoomSouthwest Room

FrontPassage

South (river front) elevation

Carters Grove first (top) and second-floor (bottom) plans


37/139


First-Floor Entrance Hall

Twenty-two samples, including samples CG31-CG38 and CG82-CG95, were taken from the front (south) entrancehall at Carters Grove. The samples were taken from protected areas in which it was hoped that remains of earlypaints might have survived despite the multiple paint removal efforts. The following images show the sample loca-

tions.

CG31

CG32

CG33

CG34

CG35

CG36


38/139


CG37

CG38

CG85

CG86

CG95 CG94CG93


39/139


Most of the samples from the front (south) entrance hall at Carters Grove have some evidence of a lead white-based paint trapped in the wood cells. The generation 1 paint has a muted yellow fluorescence that suggests itmight have an aged oil binder. The coarseness of the pigment particles suggests that the paint was hand-ground,which would be consistent with eighteenth-century production methods. This paint is likely to be the original first-generation finish since it is embedded in the wood cells and there is no evidence of grime or other finishes below

it. Most of the samples from the entrance hall and the stair hall begin with fragments of a lead-white based paintthat appears similar to this finish, supporting the theory that this paint was the first finish applied to the woodworkin the entrance hall.

A few samples, such as the one below, have some colored pigment particles in the earliest finish layers, includingyellow, brown, and black particles. This combination of colors suggests that the first-generation paint may havebeen a beige or putty color meant to replicate stone. Other samples of this paint do not seem to have the coloredpigments, but since the concentration of colored pigment is low it is possible they were just not present in the areasampled. This would be consistent with an eighteenth-century paint that was mixed by hand and not a completelyuniform color. It is also possible that some areas of this room were painted white and others off-white so as to pickout certain details. Since the evidence in this room is so fragmentary, there is no way to be certain of the color ofthe whole room.

The generation 2 finish appears to be an identical paint that is only separated by a very thin grime layer from thefirst paint. Thus the room seems to have been repainted fairly quickly.

Sample CG82, entrance hall, north wall (longitudinal partition), west pilaster, concave soffit of plinthcap, west piece," out from rear


3

1

Wood

2

1

Wood

2


40/139


The cross-section below shows the wood substrate and fragments of the generation 1 lead-white based paint.There are pockets of an orange-fluorescent resinous sealant trapped in the wood cells that suggest that the wood-work was sealed before paint was applied. The autofluorescence color of the resin in ultraviolet light is character-istic of shellac.

The generation 1 paint is fragmentary in this sample and, unlike the previous sample, does not show evidence ofcolored pigments, but since the concentration is low it is possible that the colored pigments are not visible in allsamples.

Sample CG93, entrance hall, north wall (longitudinal partition), above arched opening, carved soffitof entablature, fifth large rose, counting from east pilaster, west edge of rear petal


Resinoussealant

11

WoodWood


41/139


1

2

3

46

7

810

91314

1

2

3

46

7

810

91314

5

Most of the samples from the entrance hall are so disrupted that it is impossible to get a sense of the finish historyof the room. However, two samples from the north face of the wall above the arched opening between the fronthall and the stair hall have fourteen generations of finish. These two samples may represent the complete finishhistory for the front entrance hall, and possibly the stair hall as well.

Generation 3 is a darker yellow paint that may be more oil-rich or have a resinous component since this layer isslightly more translucent and darker in reflected ultraviolet light. Generations 4 and 5 are lead white-based paintswith a few colored pigment particles that seem to have been the same color as the generation 1 and 2 paints.Generation 6 is a lead white-based paint with no colored pigmentation. Generations 7, 8, and 9 have a bluish au-tofluorescence with spots of a brightly yellow-green florescent pigment. This appearance is characteristic of a paintpigmented with zinc white, and dates the layer to after 1845. Generations 10, 11, 12, and 13 may all representdecorative treatments, such as faux graining schemes, because they have multiple finishes and clear varnishes.These generations are examined more fully in the following pages. Generation 14 is a dark brown paint. On-siteexamination be eye suggested that this brown paint may have been applied to areas that were too difficult to stripto unify them with the stripped wood surfaces.

Sample CG94, entrance hall, north wall (longitudinal partition), above arched opening, carved soffitof entablature, north edge of guilloche ribbon, around fourth large rose



42/139


The cross-section below has evidence of the finishes applied in generations 10, 11, and 12 that were missing fromthe cross-sections on the previous pages. Generation 10 consists of a thin dark brown paint or glaze that is cov-ered by a clear varnish that has a fluorescence characteristic of a natural plant resin. The dark brown paint is notcontinuous in most samples, which suggests that it may mark out a pattern, most likely a faux graining design. Thebrown paint flows into a crack in the white paint of generation 9 in the middle of the sample, so these two paints

were not applied at the same time.

Generations 11 and 12 are both thick and somewhat translucent layers. Generation 11 is unpigmented and seemsalmost fibrous. It has the appearance of wallpaper, but that would not have been used over the raised moldingwhere this sample was collected. No other samples were found with this layer and there is too little here to charac-terize the material. Generation 12 seems to be a pigmented varnish that may represent a coating applied to refreshthe decorative treatment applied in generation 10.



10

9

1213

11

14

56

4

3

8

10

9

1213

11

14

56

4

3

8


43/139


The finishes applied in generation 13 may also represent a faux graining treatment. In this generation, a yellowpaint was applied first and then a translucent brown glaze was applied over this, as seen in the two cross-sectionsbelow. The glaze is translucent and discontinuous and probably picks out a wood grain pattern.

Generation 14 is a dark brown paint that was found in several other samples from the entrance hall.



Sample CG95, entrance hall, north wall (longitudinal partition), above arched opening, carved soffitof entablature, waterleaf carving, edge of leaf, south of fourth small flower


109

13

11

14

56

4

8

1110

9

1314

56

4

8

11

9

13

5

69

13

5

6


44/139


First-Floor Stair Hall

Four samples were taken from the first-floor stair hall in protected areas, including CG39-CG41 and CG81.

CG39

CG40

CG41

CG81


45/139


1

2

It would seem likely that the paneling in the first-floor stair hall was painted to match the paneling in the frontentrance hall, and one cross-section from the stair hall begins with three similar off-white paint layers. In this cross-section from sample CG40, the off-white paint of generation 1 seems to have been applied in two coats as thereis a slight paint boundary in this generation. This generation has a few black pigment particles that would havedarkened the color somewhat. Generation 2 is a darker paint with some yellow pigments. Generation 3 is another

off-white paint. In other cross-sections it was applied much more thickly than found in this sample. All these layershave a pinkish autofluorescence in reflected ultraviolet light that is typical of an aged oil paint. Above generation 3are the remains of coatings that are too fragmentary to identify. There may be some yellow paint that correspondsto the yellow paint found in generation 13 in other samples from the entrance hall.

Sample CG40, entrance hall rear, west cornice, top fillet, adjoining fret soffit, 4 south (left) of returnagainst west wall, below stair to third floor, in stairwell,


1

2

33

WoodWood


46/139


1310

8

1

A sample from the door to the cellar in the rear stair hall suggests that the doors may have been painted to matchthe paneling in some periods. As found on the paneling, the cross-sections from sample CG39 suggest that thewood substrate of the door was first treated with a resinous sealant, probably shellac. The first generation of paintis off-white and has an orange fluorescence, although this may be due to blending with the resinous sealant below.There is also a bit of the darker paint of generation 2. Above this is a coarse, dark red paint that is not found in any

of the paneling samples, but was found in some samples from baseboards and chair rails upstairs. This might havebeen applied in generation 3 or 4. Above this are paints that are also found in the front entrance hall. Genera-tions 7 and 8 are white paints that appear to contain zinc white pigment. Generation 10 is fragmentary but seemsto include the a brown glaze and varnish. This may be the remains of a faux graining system or other decorativepaint system. Above this is a modern yellow paint that corresponds to the yellow paint from generation 13 on thefront entrance hall paneling.

Sample CG39, entrance hall rear, door now leading to cellar stair, outer face, west (right) middlepanel, bevel adjoining third rail, 4 east of edge,



8

1310

1310

8

Red paint

1

8

1310

Resinoussealant

22

Red paint 77


47/139


First-Floor Southeast Room

Five samples were collected from protected areas in the southeast room (CG42-CG46) and an additional 4 samples(GC59-62) were taken from a detached rosette that is believed to have come from this room.

CG42 CG43

CG44 CG45

CG46


48/139


2

1

3

4

14

Only one sample from the southeast room walls yielded any evidence of early paints. The first generation is a leadwhite-based paint that may be the same as the first generation found on the most complete samples from the en-trance hall. In the cross-sections, the paint has a few brown pigments, but no other colored pigments were seen.Since the colored pigment is in such low concentration in this layer, it is hard to be sure of its color.

There is a boundary between the generation 1 paint and the next layer, which suggest that these two paints werenot applied at the same time, and other samples with these same paints also suggest they were applied at separatetimes. Generation 2 is a coarsely-ground gray-green paint with large yellow pigment particles This layer has a moremuted fluorescence than the other paint layers, which suggests it may contain less lead white since that pigmentis autofluorescent, or that it has a higher proportion of oil binder which quenches autofluorescence. Generations 3and 4 are also gray-green paints. A similar finish history was also found in samples from the first and second-floornortheast room, which suggests that early on the rooms on the eastern side of the house were painted alike.

Sample CG42, southeast room, concave soffit below chair rail fret, middle of north end immediatelysouth of west door (to entry hall)


2

1

3

4

14

Other samples from the southeast room did not show evidence of early paints or were too fragmentary or disrupted

to be of use. All the cross-section photomicrographs not discussed in this report are shown in the appendix forfuture reference.

While most of the samples collected from this room did not yield useful information, there is a detached archi-tectural fragment in the Colonial Williamsburg collection (accession number 1983-337) that appears to retain acomplete finish history. The fragment is a partial rosette that was found in a desk drawer at Carters Grove andtransferred to the collection in 1983. The rosette matches the other ornaments in the metopes of the frieze abovethe chimney piece in the southeast room, as shown in the 1976 HABS drawing on the next page. The curatorial filesuggests the current rosettes are late 19th or early 20th century replacements, but this has not been verified withon-site examination. Descriptions of the removed rosette in the files state that it is made of yellow pine and that itappears to be covered with traces of 18th-century gesso, bole, and gilt.1 There is a large area of paint removalon one of the petals which may have been done as part of an attempt to understand the coatings.

1 Unpublished letter in accession file addressed to Margie from Liza and dated 11-14-83.


49/139


CG59

CG62

CG61

CG60

Rosette (1983-337) sample locations

Chappell believes that this rosette was removed from thesoutheast room at some point and used for a period inthe entrance hall. Evidence for this is found in a earlyphotograph of the hall with a rosettes of identical profileattached in the corners of the archway and on the key-

stone (see page 2). The rosette has a bright red layer ingeneration 5 that could possibly be the color pictured inthis image.

Historic American BuildingsSurvey No. VA-351, sheet 20

Rosette


50/139


The rosette was first painted with a white paint that has a pinkish fluorescence in reflected ultraviolet light. Thisappears to be the same first-generation paint found throughout the house. In this cross-section there are smallspots of a blue paint just above the off-white paint. Evidence of this blue paint was found in one other cross-sec-tion from the rosette, but not in other samples from this house in this generation. It may represent a detail pickedout on the rosette.

Generations 2, 3, and 4 are gray-green paints that are also found in cross-sections from the first-floor southeastand northeast room and the second-floor northeast room. These paints have large pigment clumps that suggestthe paint was hand-ground and therefore is of an early date. Above this the paints used on the rosette do notcorrespond to paints found elsewhere in the house. Generation 5 is a bright pink paint that is missing from thiscross-section. Generation 6 is a yellow paint with muted autofluorescence and small red pigments. Generation 7 isa gilding layer with a bright orange base coat. The gilding does not appear to be pure gold leaf. It is thicker thantypical gold leaf and is associated with some dark green material that is probably a copper corrosion product so thismay be an alloy with a high copper content. The leaf is attached with a translucent size that has no fluorescence,which may indicate it is an oil size. Above the leaf is a translucent yellow layer that also has a muted autofluores-cence. This is most likely a toning layer for the gilding. In the cross-section below, this yellow toning layer hasflowed underneath the orange base coat of the gilding making it appear to be part of an earlier generation of finish.Generation 8 is a off-white paint with a thin varnish layer above it. The varnish has a bright blue fluorescence is

ultraviolet light. Generation 9 is a green paint with red pigment particles that appears similar in composition to theyellow paint in generation 6.

Sample CG61, detached rosette (1983-337), from frieze over chimney piece of southeast room, offedge of outer broken leaf with evidence of gilding


1

3

4

6

7

8

2

9

Pocket of blue paint1

3

4

6

7

8

2

9


51/139


Another cross-section from the rosette has more evidence of a blue paint trapped in a pocket in the gray-greenpaint of generation 2. This may be evidence that the paint was not well mixed and that perhaps the generation 2gray-green paint was first mixed as a blue paint to which yellow pigments were added. Or this blue paint could bea finish that was lost elsewhere and only preserved in two cross-sections from the rosette.

This cross-section also shows the bright pink paint of generation 5 that was not visible in the previous cross-section.This paint has a bright fluorescence in ultraviolet light that suggests it is mixed with lead white or that perhapsthere is a dye component in the paint. The red pigment is quite bright in both visible and reflected ultraviolet light.Generation 7, which contains a gilding system, and generation 9, a red-pigmented green paint, are missing fromthis cross-section. Above the yellow paint of generation 10 is a second gilding layer. Generation 11 consists of ayellow-pigmented base coat followed by a layer of gold leaf. As compared to the metal leaf in the previous cross-section, this leaf is thin and not associated with corrosion products and does appear to be gold. However, theelemental composition of the gilding systems in generation 7 and eleven would need to be confirmed with analyticaltechniques such as SEM-EDS or XRF to be certain of the metals present. Generation 12 is a multi-colored schemewith both a dark green, a red, and a tan paint.

Sample CG62, detached rosette (1983-337) from frieze over chimney piece of southeast room, offinner edge of outer broken leaf


3

4

6

8

2

10

5

11

12

3

4

6

8

2

10

5

11

12


52/139


The cross-section below has both the dark red, dark green, and tan paints of generation 12 that were applied tothe rosette in a decorative scheme. Examination of the rosette indicates that the green paint was used to outlinesome of the elements and was also applied to simulate veins down the middle of the petals and leaves. The redpaint appears to have been applied only to the center petals. The tan paint was thinly applied as a wash over mostof the surface covering the green, but not the red paint. As shown in the cross-section below, all of these paints

mixed indicating that they were applied at the same time.

Sample CG62, detached rosette (1983-337) from frieze over chimney piece of southeast room, offinn

carter's grove paint analysis completed 2011

Documents