Archive for category stone
Your hands were blistered, your head dripping with sweat. It had taken a day, or two, maybe three, to create something you now hold in your hand to secure your short-term job-site future. You likely thought about its design and function in your head as long as it took to cut and weld it together with the best steel or iron you could find. A chisel. Not just any chisel, a stonemasons chisel.
Your chisel – its size, and weight to fit your hand – an extension of yourself. Made for the specific work you were paid to perform. Created for a specific type of stone. The chisel shape, length, and sharpness all part of its design and intended purpose to birth a dimension stone of specified measurements and texture worthy of setting into a historic masonry wall. To become an important part of another historic stone masonry building of load bearing capacity, carrying the weight of each consecutive floor upon itself as it raises from the ground on the stout foundation we never see or appreciate.
The creation of stone chisels at the construction site by the very stonemasons that use them is centuries old. And it probably is most definitely on the road to oblivion. The art of the stone masonry craft is now changed. Making tools at the construction site, or in the stonemasons workshop, was part of the trade. It was what you were trained to do 100 years ago. There were no other options. And for good reason, no one else would know what you needed for a specific project as each individual set of chisels were designed specifically for each job. If you have the privileged of knowing a retired stonemason – just look in his tool bag and confirm for yourself – there are many many chisels of various sorts.
Stone chisels; however, now are made by others. People that are not in the stone masonry trade. They can not appreciate the purpose of the chisel design or its intended purpose because they are not stonemasons.
Blame it on changes in architectural design: Veneer walls and thin stucco stone are in, old-fashion load-bearing walls are out. Blame it on changes in the father-son connection: handing down the trade skills to the next generation. Blame it on the fact that nothing lasts forever, not even tool making skills of the simple chisel lodged in the brain of almost every American stonemason over 80.
True American-made stone masonry chisels can not be found at Home Depot, Lowes, Menards or your local hardware stores. But don’t blame these companies they serve a different customer base – the “Do-it-Yourselfer.”
As a professional in your trade, part of your job is to research and look for those American companies that still do exist that make the custom tools you need – especially the all important chisel.
I have known Norm Akley, President of Trow & Holden Company, Inc., for nearly 20 years. He operates a company located in Barre, Vermont that makes old fashioned hand-made stone chisels among other items for the trade. Norm understands my trade and the challenges I face in difficult projects. I draw a picture of a special chisel design I need to have fabricated for a particular project to match a historic profile finish and fax it over to him, yes I said fax!
He makes the chisel from my sketch in the correct size and weight and the rest is history! Speaking of history, Trow & Holden Company has been making stoneworking tools since 1890.
Every chance I get I try to support American companies like Trow & Holden. The experience in tool making, as well as the companies appreciation and knowledge of my stone masonry trade, make Norm and his company a very valuable partner in our ability to offer the best Historic Stone Masonry Training Programs in the United States. In the end, I believe better workmanship is a direct result of better tools in the hands of craftspeople who know how to use them correctly.
Anguish for descendant of Victorian artist as stone splits in two during restoration work
Art lecturer Ian Wilson with the broken gravestone
Victorian Pre-Raphaelite artist Ford Madox Brown. Right: Great-great-grandson Oliver Soskice
Published: 29 March, 2013
by PETER GRUNER
THE great-great-grandson of Victorian Pre-Raphaelite artist Ford Madox Brown has voiced concern that the gravestone of his famous ancestor has been badly damaged during restoration work.
Oliver Soskice, 64, a professional artist, paid £750 to have the stone – which was leaning perilously – placed flat on the ground at Islington and St Pancras Cemetery, in East Finchley.
However, during lifting work last month the ornate stone broke into two pieces and that is how it has been left.
Mr Soskice said: “It’s not that I tipped Hamlet’s gravedigger £10 to do the job. The work cost a lot of money.
“I wanted them to clear the site, which they have done, and lay the stone flat on the ground so there was no danger it might topple over and injure someone. But I had no idea there was a danger it might break.”
Mr Soskice, who lives in Cambridge, is the son of Frank Soskice, the late Labour MP and former Home Secretary.
The “forgotten and neglected” Madox Brown burial spot was discovered by chance by Holloway art lecturer Ian Wilson while visiting his mother’s grave nearby in March last year.
As a result of Mr Soskice’s concerns, featured in the Tribune last year, Islington Council launched a Ford Madox Brown grave improvement appeal.
Mr Wilson, art co-ordinator at the Hoffman Foundation for Autism in Wood Green, hopes the appeal will pay for repairs to the stone and the eventual full restoration of the grave. He said: “At the moment the grave looks like a building yard. This is disrespectful to anyone let alone an important British artist and early socialist.”
He has asked the council’s environment chief, Councillor Paul Smith, to instigate work cementing the two broken parts of the stone together.
“Cllr Smith was reported last year in the Tribune as saying he was keen on launching an appeal,” he said. “How far has he got?”
Cllr Smith said this week he was sorry the stone had broken and hoped it could be repaired.
“I hope to meet the family as soon as possible and get the appeal going,” he added. “This important piece of art history needs to be supported.”
Speweik Comment: This story was first posted by Jonathan Appell on LinkedIn Group “Gravestone & Monument Preservation.” April 7, 2013. It was refreshing (but sad) to see a published story in a newspaper about a historic stone repair gone wrong. Maybe it was because it was a gravestone, and maybe it was because it was a famous persons gravestone, or maybe because it was so old – at this point it doesn’t matter – I’m just glad it was published for all to read. We can learn from the mistakes of others when we have the opportunity to know about them. A true expert (if such a person exists) is one that has a strong character trait to admit a mistake and allow others to learn from his experience. This of course is not usually our natural response.
Coming from the trades as a stonemason, I have come to learn and respect stone by working with it for many years in many applications. From quarry, to block, to slab, to dimension unit, to seasoning of the stone, then protecting and preparation, and finally to the installation into the wall. I have also had the reverse experience in my later years in historic preservation work of carefully deconstructing, removing from the wall, redressing, restoring, rehabilitating, and conserving stone for reuse – placed back into the same location or position.
I have found that historic preservation work requires a higher-level of sensitivity to the task with the baseline understanding that you are handling history and not just a piece of stone.
I have come to appreciate that the preservation approach must be well thought out and planned by first identifying the stone. Then determine the cause of the problem and possible pattern(s) to similar surrounding stone. Then examine the historic stone for potential areas of weakness prior to establishing the proposed solution to the problem – and certainly before moving it. It is from this process and examination (Condition Assessment) is HOW I develop the respect for the stone, what it has been through in connection to its problematic condition and then to finalize my proposed options for solutions.
This approach helps to keep surprises to a minimum, not to say they still do not occur, but hopefully not to the degree we read in this story.
I see some key contractor/owner errors or “red flags” in this story that may have made the initial problem more complicated. Can you identify some of these flags? Both on the contractor side and the owner side? I would love to hear your experiences with similar projects. Remember sharing any mistakes is a good thing here 🙂 Who will be my first expert to comment??
An Interview with Lauren McCroskey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Revised UFGS Historic Masonry Specification
I had the unique privilege to interview one of the leading historic preservation experts, Lauren McCroskey, Program Manager, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, at the Seattle District, on the recent revision to the UFGS for the Restoration and Cleaning of Masonry in Historic Structures.
USACE Official Announcement:
Technical Center of Expertise (TCX), Preservation of Historic Structures and Buildings Technology Update
As part of its mission to provide leadership in historic buildings technology, the TCX announces a major revision of its specification, “Restoration and Cleaning of Masonry in Historic Structures.” The spec now reflects state-of-the-industry guidance for the treatment of historic masonry and mortar, and surpasses existing preservation guidance provided by other federal agencies.
Property managers and cultural resource specialists are encouraged to use the spec in contract documents to ensure that masonry work is performed appropriately to prolong the life of historic buildings. See Unified Facilities Guide Specification 04 01 00.91
Speweik: What is the official title of the specification?
McCroskey: The title is the UNIFIED FACILITIES GUIDE SPECIFICATIONS
DIVISION 04 – MASONRY SECTION 04 01 00.91
RESTORATION AND CLEANING OF MASONRY IN HISTORIC STRUCTURES
Speweik: Who originally authored it?
McCroskey: The Corps was the preparing agent and performed the processing. The exact author(s) are unknown, though Corps staff would have prepared it.
Speweik: How long has it been in use/circulation?
McCroskey: It’s been available since 1991.
Speweik: Who is authorized to use it?
McCroskey: The Guide is to be used by the Military Departments (Army, Navy, Air Force, etc.), the Defense Agencies and the DoD Field Activities for planning, design, construction, sustainment, restoration and modernization of facilities, regardless of funding source. But anyone can use the guide to adapt to a particular masonry project.
Speweik: What government agency owns it?
McCroskey: The Architectural Discipline Working Group are the owners of the Section; Scott Wick is the Corps representative of that group.
Speweik: What is your position with the USACE and what specific responsibilities do you have regarding historic preservation?
McCroskey: I manage the Technical Center of Expertise for the Preservation of Historic Structures and Buildings, a program of nationwide service. The program provides technical assistance and preservation planning for Corps Districts, DoD, and other federal agencies to ensure facility and property managers apply the best practices to historic structures. We try to set the highest standards of preservation practice through quality project work, training, and by developing technical information.
Speweik: What prompted you to request an update to the Historic Masonry Division Section this past year?
McCroskey: For several years I’ve had an awareness that the Corps’ existing standards and guidance for the treatment of historic masonry has lagged behind newer developments and technological advancements for treating historic brick, stone, and mortar. I receive inquiries from Corps Districts and other agencies asking for specific guidance to address deteriorated stone or brick. Property managers rarely know how to approach these issues from a historic preservation perspective, and often have maintenance and field crews tackle masonry problems. While their intent is good, the methods, materials, and applications are often not appropriate for historic structures, and can lead to further harm and long-term costly repairs. That’s why it’s essential for us to be able to pass along the most appropriate, state-of-the-industry techniques and standards.
Speweik: What do you believe to be one of the most significant changes to the specification?
McCroskey: There are many improvements, but one of the most important is the depth of information, which is far more educational for the user than the old spec. There is much to be learned from this document. Another key improvement is that materials application is not just described, but preceded by a thoughtful examination of building and masonry conditions. There is extensive information about how to investigate existing conditions so that the best decisions can be made about materials, conditions, and methods.
Speweik: How do you see this change making a positive difference for the quality-level of Historic Preservation Projects in the United States?
McCroskey: I believe the TCX is obligated to provide the best guidance regarding the treatment of historic structures and buildings. By encouraging the use of this guide, the rehabilitation of historic masonry should be performed in a manner that is appropriate, efficient, and prolongs the life of historic materials.
Speweik: How do you envision the revised specification affecting the work you do at the USACE?
McCroskey: The spec will be the only guidance we provide to customers, or when advising others on the best standards for masonry. Since this spec now surpasses all other historic masonry guidance, we now consider this document the “gold standard.” Of course, there are sub categories of masonry, such as terra cotta and concrete, which may require other technical information. But where brick, stone, and mortar are concerned, this is our “go to” standard.
Speweik: Did you consider the possible additional costs to Historic Preservation Projects as a result of some of the changes? And, if so, do you believe the additional cost is a significant percentage of overall project costs?
McCroskey: When good preservation practices are used, the life and performance of historic materials is extended. When improper practices are applied, greater costs can be incurred when the wrong treatment or method causes damage that requires repair. Taking short cuts by using commercial products that are not suited to historic stone or brick, or using techniques that are not consistent with historic methods can cost more long-term, and rarely satisfy the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and treatment of historic structures that all federal agencies must follow.
Speweik: How do architects, owners, consultants and contractors find out more about this important specification document?
McCroskey: The guide is now available on-line at the TCX web page: http://www.nws.usace.army.mil/BusinessWithUs/HistoricPreservation.aspx
For additional information or clarification regarding the spec’s application, your readers may contact me at:
Technical Center of Expertise
Preservation of Historic Structures & Buildings
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Fixing the faces of the stone using stone repair mortar has become a huge industry in the United States in the past 20 years. Manufacturer’s of these products all have their reasons why theirs is the best and most compatible to the original stone substrates. Each company guards its proprietary mixes with closely kept secrets as to what and why theirs is the best on the market. Some companies claim acrylics in the formulas, where others claim natural minerals – whatever that means. Most offer custom color matching, some texture matching. Either way, the products are here to stay and will be an option on most restoration projects large and small.
When is the best time to consider using stone repair mortar? Let’s first discuss the term – “repair mortar” not to be confused with “repointing” or “rebuilding mortar” that is used between stone and defined as mortar joints. A better term might be “substitute stone repair material” because that’s what it is – a substitute for the real thing. By definition a substitute stone repair material is a material that is used to patch damage or deteriorated surface masonry units’ insitu. When a stone is deteriorated beyond its original surface texture or carved feature it’s time to consider stone replacement or substitute stone repair patching.
Each condition and situation is unique to each building or monument and care must be taken in making/specifying this important decision. Cost of replacement may be problematic and even unrealistic. The size of the repair area may be so small in comparison to that of the entire stone that the substitute stone repair material may be justified. But the decision should also be compared to the old fashion Dutchman repair approach as an additional option. It seems that the repair material products are so easy to use that many situations that could merit a stone Dutchman repair simply get the “patch”.
On a recent project at the University of Wisconsin we were able to redress the deteriorated stone surfaces instead of applying a substitute stone repair material. The deterioration patterns were such that the surfaces had spalled and chipped away over the years leaving textures and stone massing voids from the profile of the walls. In many cases we were able to remove the damaged stone units redress them on a sand table, duplicate the original tools marks with hammer and stone chisels, and re-install the stone back to its original historic plumb lines of the wall. This was the best preservation practice approach for this project and one that limited the use of the substitute stone repair materials to the building. We did use a small amount of the material but only when all other stone treatment options were exhausted, which meant most substitute stone repair patches were on spots smaller than 1-inch in size.
Redressing Stone Training: http://www.youtube.com/user/SpeweikPreservation#p/u/10/oQSt_9sDcTI
Companies that currently sell substitute stone repair materials are: Cathedral Stone Products, Edison Coatings, Transmineral, Pennsylvania Lime Works, U.S. Heritage Group, Conproco, Keim, and Virginia Lime Works