Colonial Williamsburg Digital Library

Restoration-era paint specifications:

The following colors were specified for interior woodwork at the Brush—Everard House during the 1949 restoration (Kocher and Dearstyne 1952, 84-86). These colors were based on paint scrapes carried out at that time:

Description:

The stair is an open-type with treads ornamented with wood brackets carved in an ornate floral/scoll design. The walls feature paneled dados with surbases and crosseted door architraves. Dendrochronology carried out in 2006 determined that the wood for the stair framing and treads was cut in early 1719 (Klee 2011, 6), which would suggest that the staircase and passage woodwork were installed by John Brush.

On-site, CWF architectural historians Edward Chappell and Jeff Klee observed strong discrepancies in the construction of the stair, in particular amongst the balusters, which suggested that certain stair elements could post-date the rest of the stair. (It was hoped that the paint evidence would throw light on this theory).

There was no indication of plaster or an earlier wall surface behind the present stair and wainscot, suggesting that the present finishes are the first and only decorative treatment (Klee 2011, 12).

Summary of Welsh (1991) paint findings:

Welsh concluded that all stair passage woodwork had "identical layering sequences, suggesting that all features are early and original"(Welsh 1991, 7). The first three generations are listed in the table below. The remaining generations were described as a series of browns, olives, and whites.

Summary of present (2012) paint findings:

For a condensed presentation of all stair passage results, see table 2 (page 15).

Approximately sixteen decorative generations were identified in the stair passage. The absence of dirt on the surface of the wood indicates that the stair passage was painted soon after its construction. The same first period finish was found in all samples, which suggests that all of the stair passage woodwork is contemporary, or was at least painted in the same period.

The interpretation of early finishes was very different from Welsh's 1991 study, the biggest difference being the assignment of the first generation red-brown as a primer, rather than a finish coat. This was determined via high magnification microscopy (400x), which determined that there was no dirt on the surface of the red-brown paint, and in fact very few "hard boundaries" to suggest that this paint had dried completely before the gray paint was applied. The same condition was observed for the second generation gray paint, suggesting that it was not a finish coat, but an intermediate paint layer in the first finish generation, which appears to have been a glossy brown finish. The first five generations are summarized in the following table:

The first generation is comprised of five layers: a shellac sealant (1a), followed by a thin layer of deep red-brown primer (1b), a coarsely ground gray base coat (1c), a warm brown paint (1d), and a clear varnish (1e). This stratigraphy was found on almost all passage woodwork, including the staircase, the arched header over the door to the rear passage, the wainscot, the first-floor door architraves, and second-floor door leafs. The second-floor door architraves were stripped and contained mostly modern paints, but remnants of the first-generation red-brown primer was seen deep in the wood cells, so these architraves appear to be first-period.

The second generation is a thick layer of coarsely-ground dark brown paint which contains mostly brown and golden-yellow pigment particles, with occasional white and black particles. This generation was usually observed to have a disrupted, uneven surface suggesting it was exposed for a long period of time. On the first-floor door leaves to the parlor and dining room, this brown generation was the first to have been applied, on top of a red-brown primer (2a), suggesting these leafs were later additions.

This red-brown primer on the door leafs is not the same as the first generation red-brown primer in the rest of the stair passage, but appears to be contemporary with generation 4 in the first-floor northwest parlor. This was determined via repeated visual examination at high magnification (400x), which revealed that the first generation red-brown primer in the passage was slightly lighter in color and had a brighter autofluorescence than the later red-brown, which was darker and had little autofluorescence in UV light.

Generation 3 is another dark brown paint (3a), similar in color to the previous generation, although more thinly applied. It was coated with a thin layer of varnish (3b). This might date to the second Everard period (1770s). Generations 4 and 5 are coarsely-ground red-brown paints and clear varnishes. It is not clear when these finishes were applied, as the passage appears to have been painted independently of the rest of the house (with the exception of the first period).

As directed by E. Chappell, samples were taken from some balusters that appeared to be of a different style than the majority of balusters on the stair. The results confirmed that these balusters were later in date (see pp. 32-35). The earliest coating was a coarsely-ground pinkish-red paint that aligns with generation 7 in the rest of the passage, suggesting that these balusters were added much later, possibly the mid-19th century. The dutchmen patches on the bases of some balusters were sampled and found to contain only modern, 20th century paints. This would suggest that these repairs were made by CWF.

The paint history of the door leaf to the cellar does not align with any of the passage woodwork, or any other stratigraphies identified in the house to date. It is possible that this leaf was re—used from another house. The sample from the trim surrounding the cellar entrance was incomplete but the extant paints suggest that the trim is contemporary with the rest of the woodwork in the passage.

Table 2. EVERARD STAIR PASSAGE: decorative history (continued on next page)

Table 2. EVERARD STAIR PASSAGE: decorative history (continued from previous page)

The cellar door leaf was not included in this chart because the sample was fragmentary and difficult to interpret. There was enough evidence to show that its early finishes do not align with the stair passage, suggesting it might have been re-used from another house.

STAIR PASSAGE — SAMPLE LOCATIONS

staircase, first floor, south partition

staircase, first landing

staircase, first landing

staircase, second landing

stair rise paneling, first floor

staircase, upper floor

upper floor, entrance to SW room

upper floor, entrance to NW room

upper floor

first-floor, stair passage

first-floor, stair rise (EV 17 taken from patch, EV 18 taken above patch)

first-floor, stair rise (EV 19 taken area above patch, EV 20 from patch)

first-floor, stair rise, baluster 22 from bottom (EV 22 taken area above patch, EV 21 from patch). Appears to be Period I

first-floor, entrance to NW parlor (photo J. Klee 2011)

first-floor, entrance to SW (dining) room

first-floor, door leaf to SW (dining) room

staircase

newel post on first landing

balusters 18-20 (from right to left). Baluster 20 is believed to be first-period, while balusters 18 & 19 are possibly later additions (EAC, personal comment, Dec. 2011).

baluster 5 (up from bottom). This appears to be of the later style (EAC, personal comment, Dec. 2011).

upper floor, door leaf from passage to SW chamber

upper floor, door leaf from passage to NW chamber

First floor, lobby beside door to cellar stair, south wall

First floor, lobby beside door to cellar stair

south wall, door to stair passage

STAIRCASE - NEWEL POST
Sample EV 13: newel post on upper floor, south side, 22" up from floor

EV 13, visible light, 400x

EV 13, UV light, 400x

EV 13, visible light, 400x

EV 13, UV light, 400x

Sample EV 13 contained a very clear example of the first and second finish generations. The "soft" boundaries between the five layers that make up the generation 1 suggest they were all applied within a relatively short period of time. The disruption of the second generation brown paint suggests it was exposed for a long period of time, possibly Everard period I (1756).

STAIRCASE — DECORATIVE BRACKET
Sample EV 1: decorative bracket under 6th stair up from bottom, underside

EV 1, visible light, 400x

EV 1, UV light, 400x

EV 1, visible light, 400x

EV 1, UV light, 400x

Sample EV 1 suggests that the early finish history of the decorative brackets aligns with the rest of the stair passage woodwork, suggesting all surfaces were painted at the same time, with the same paint/color. Since there is no dirt on the surface of the wood, this paint would have been applied shortly after the stair was constructed by John Brush c.1719.

STAIRCASE — HANDRAIL
Sample EV 5: handrail fascia between first and second landing, just under cap

EV 5, visible light, 200x

EV 5, UV light, 200x

EV 5, visible light, 200x

EV 5, UV light, 200x

Sample EV 5 suggests that the early finish history of the handrails align with the rest of the stair passage woodwork, suggesting all surfaces were painted at the same time with the same paint/color. This paint would have been applied shortly after the stair was constructed by John Brush c.1719.

STAIRCASE — HANDRAIL
Sample EV 14: upper floor, handrail on stair rise adjacent to top newel

EV 14, visible light, 200x

EV 14, UV light, 200x

Like sample EV 5 (previous page), sample EV 14 suggests that the early finish history of the handrails align with the rest of the stair passage woodwork, suggesting all surfaces were painted at the same time with the same paint/color. This paint would have been applied shortly after the stair was constructed by John Brush c.1719.

STAIRCASE — BOTTOM RAIL ON UPPER FLOOR LANDING
Sample EV 7: upper floor, bottom rail, 6" our from newel post

EV 7, visible light, 200x

EV 7, UV light, 200x

EV 7, visible light, 200x

EV 7, UV light, 200x

Sample EV 7 was collected at the request of Edward Chappell to determine if the bottom rail on the upper floor was an addition to the stair, post—dating early baluster mortises in the floor. The paint evidence suggests that this rail is first-period and contemporary with the rest of the stair. Although some of the early paints are disrupted, the finish history (in particular generation 1), aligns with the rest of the stair passage woodwork, suggesting all surfaces were painted at the same time with the same color/paint. There is no dirt on the surface of the wood, suggesting this paint would have been applied shortly after the stair was constructed by John Brush c.1719.

STAIRCASE — BOTTOM NEWEL POST
Sample EV 92: first-floor, newel post, just under handrail

EV 92c, visible light, 200x

EV 92c, UV light, 200x

The paint evidence in sample EV 92 suggests that the newel post is first-period and contemporary with the rest of the staircase (c. 1719). It contains the same paint history as the rest of the woodwork in the stair passage, starting with the first generation red-brown primer (1b), gray base coat (1c), brown paint (1d), and varnish (1e).

STAIRCASE — HALF-BALUSTER ON NEWEL POST ON FIRST LANDING
Sample EV 3: half baluster on first landing newel, west face, plinth, 3" up from bottom

EV 3, visible light, 100x

EV 3, UV light, 100x

The newel post on the first stair landing was believed to be a later addition (E. Chappell, pers. comm., Dec. 2011). However, sample EV 3, taken from the half-baluster on this newel post, indicates that it contains the same first generation seen on the rest of the stair passage woodwork, which would suggest that it dates to Period I (c. 1719).²

STAIRCASE — BALUSTERS (PERIOD I STYLE)
Sample EV 91: 22nd baluster from bottom, taken from capital (just under handrail)

EV 91b, visible light, 200x

EV 91b, UV light, 200x

EV 91a, visible light, 200x

EV 91a, UV light, 200x

Sample EV 91 was taken from the 22^nd baluster from the bottom, believed to be Period I (E. Chappell, pers. comm., Dec. 2011). Although the later stratigraphy is disrupted and some intermediate generations are missing, the first generation paint is relatively intact. The paint evidence suggests that this baluster does contain the first generation red-brown primer (1b), gray base coat (1c), brown paint (1d), and thin varnish (1e), which would indicate that the 22nd baluster is Period I, ie: contemporary with all other stair passage woodwork, c. 1719.

STAIRCASE — BALUSTERS (PERIOD II STYLE)
Sample EV 95: 19th baluster up from the bottom, "urn" shaped element on lower turning

EV 95, visible light, 200x

EV 95, UV light, 200x

Sample EV 95 was taken from a baluster that was believed to be a later installation (E. Chappell, pers. comm., Dec. 2011). The first generation applied to the wood substrate aligns with generation 7 on the rest of the stair passage. This would suggest that this baluster is a much later addition, and could possibly date to the 19th century.

This finding was confirmed by the paint chronology on suspected Period II balusters in samples EV 18 and EV 19, although the paint evidence in those samples was much less intact (see following pages).

STAIRCASE — PATCHED BALUSTERS
5th baluster up from bottom (Period II)

STAIRCASE — PATCHED BALUSTERS
11th baluster up from the bottom (Period II)

STAIRCASE — PATCHED BALUSTERS
22nd baluster up from bottom

STAIR PASSAGE — WAINSCOT PANELING

STAIR PASSAGE — HEADER OVER PASSAGE DOOR
Sample EV16: arched header over passage door under stairs to east

EV 16, visible light, 400x

EV 16, UV light, 400x

Sample EV 16 suggests that the early finish history of the arched header over the door to the east passage aligns with the rest of the stair passage woodwork, indicating that all surfaces were painted at the same time. This paint would have been applied shortly after the stair was constructed by John Brush c.1719.

STAIR PASSAGE — DOOR ARCHITRAVES (FIRST FLOOR)

STAIR PASSAGE — DOOR LEAFS (FIRST FLOOR)

STAIR PASSAGE — CELLAR DOOR LEAF
EV 30: lower right raised panel

EV 30, visible light, 400x

EV 30, UV light, 400x

EV 30, visible light, 200x

EV 30, UV light, 200x

The paint history of the cellar door is different from the rest of the woodwork in the stair passage, suggesting it was moved here from another location in the house.

STAIR PASSAGE — CELLAR DOOR TRIM
EV 31: trim at left side of door

EV 31, visible light, 100x

EV 31, UV light, 100x

EV 31, visible light, 100x

EV 31, UV light, 100x

EV 31, visible light, 100x

EV 31, UV light, 100x

This sample is missing wood substrate so it could not be determined if the first generation finish was present, but the evidence suggests the cellar trim is contemporary with the rest of the woodwork in the passage.

STAIR PASSAGE — DOOR ARCHITRAVES (UPPER FLOOR)
Sample EV 10: entrance to SW room from stair passage, inner fascia

EV 10, visible light, 200x

EV 10, UV light, 200x

EV 10, visible light, 200x

EV 10, UV light, 200x

The evidence in sample EV 10 suggests that this upper-floor door architrave was stripped. Most of the extant finishes are twentieth-century coatings consisting of finely-ground red-brown paints with a dim autofluorescence (indicative of a synthetic binding media), most of which are coated with alkyd-based varnishes (blue autofluorescence in UV). However, remnants of the first paint generation still survive in the wood cells, which would suggest that this architraves is contemporary with the rest of the stair passage woodwork.

STAIR PASSAGE, Upper floor — Door Architrave to NW chamber

STAIR PASSAGE, UPPER FLOOR — DOOR LEAF TO SW CHAMBER
Sample EV 102: upper floor, door leaf to southwest chamber, underside of bottom right panel

EV 102b, visible light, 200x

EV 102b, UV light, 200x

EV 102a, visible light, 200x

EV 102ba UV light, 200x

Although some of the early chronology is disrupted or missing, the first—generation paint evidence on the door leaf to the upper-floor southwest chamber aligns with the rest of the stair passage woodwork, suggesting that this leaf is original, c.1719.

There is more of a defined boundary on the surface of the red-brown primer (1b), as compared to the rest of the stair passage samples, and there also appears to be some varnish present. It is possible that the primer on this door leaf was allowed to dry more thoroughly, and was exposed longer, before it was painted with the gray paint (1c), or that this leaf was painted red-brown and varnished on its own, separate from the rest of the stair passage woodwork. The reason for this anomaly is not immediately clear. See next page for further discussion.

STAIR PASSAGE, UPPER FLOOR — DOOR LEAF TO NW CHAMBER
Sample EV 104: upper floor, door leaf to northwest chamber, right stile

EV 104a, UV light, 200x

EV 104a, visible light, 200x

Only the earliest paints from sample EV 104 are shown above. The paint evidence aligns with the first generation in the rest of the stair passage, consisting of a shellac sealant (1a), a red-brown primer (1b), a gray base coat (1c), a brown paint (1d), and a thin varnish layer (1e, not seen here).

As seen on the other upper-floor door leaf (previous page), there is more of a defined boundary on the surface of the red-brown primer (1b), as compared to the rest of the stair passage samples, and there also appears to be some varnish present. It is possible that the primer on this door leaf was allowed to dry more thoroughly, and was exposed longer, before it was painted with the gray paint (1c), or that this leaf was painted red-brown and varnished on its own, separate from the rest of the stair passage woodwork. The reason for this anomaly is not immediately clear. However physical evidence such as the archaic quality of the ovolos, the arrangement of the panels (with a thin lock rail), and particularly the foliated hinges strongly suggest that this door leaf is first period (Klee, personal comment, May 24, 2012).

STAIR PASSAGE, FIRST FLOOR — PEGBOARD IN LOBBY
Sample EV 108: first floor, left corner of pegboard in lobby beside door to cellar stair

EV 108b, UV light, 200x

EV 108b, visible light, 200x

The sample from the pegboard contains the same first generation gray paint seen in the rest of the stair hall, suggesting this element dates to the Brush-era (1719). The red paint on the bottom of the sample is not the Brush-era red-brown primer but rather one of the later red-brown paints that have flowed under the disrupted early paints.

STAIR PASSAGE, FIRST FLOOR — PANELING IN REAR LOBBY
Sample EV 109: first floor, beaded rear facing of paneling in stair passage rear lobby

EV 109a, UV light, 200x

EV 109a, visible light, 200x

The beaded paneling in the stair passage lobby contains the same first generation red-brown primer, gray paint, and brown finish seen in the rest of the stair passage, suggesting this element dates to the Brush era (1719). The rest of the early paints are very disrupted.

Description/History:

Physical examination suggests that when John Brush constructed the house, the first-floor northwest parlor had only baseboards and door and window trim, with the walls plastered to the ceiling and whitewashed (Klee 2011, 12). The cornice and chairboards were added later, most likely during the occupation of Elizabeth Russell and Henry Cary (1728-1742), or Everard's early occupancy (1756) (Klee 2011, 18). The paneling, wainscot, and mantel were all installed when Thomas Everard completed an extensive remodeling of the house c.1770-1773 (Klee 2011, 20). At that time, the present Georgian-style window and door architraves replaced most of the existing Brush-era trim (J. Klee, personal comment, Dec. 2011).

Summary of Welsh (1991) paint study findings:

Welsh concluded that the first generation in the parlor was the medium red-brown paint found throughout the house. He found a layer of dirt on the surface of this paint that suggested it was a finish coat as opposed to a primer. Generation 2 was a medium-green paint made with lead white and verdigris, followed by a glaze with a small amount of verdigris. This generation was also covered with a layer of dirt. In the third generation the woodwork was painted a deep green finish made with the medium-green base coat and two layers of deep verdigris green glaze. Generation 3 was the earliest finish on the wainscot, chimneybreast paneling, and mantel, which were known to have been installed by Thomas Everard c. 1770.

Summary of present (2012) paint study findings:

For a presentation of all parlor results, see table 3 (page 54).

The 2011 findings were very different from Welsh's interpretation and have resulted in a re-evaluation of the physical history of the parlor.

The present investigation found that the door leaf to the rear (NE) chamber and the jamb liner on the parlor side of the door casing to the passage contained three early finish generations that pre-date anything else in the parlor (Welsh only found this early stratigraphy on the door leaf to the rear (NE) room. He appears to have concluded that this leaf was not original to the space, and does not discuss it in his report). In these samples, the earliest finish generation is a resinous sealant (1a), followed by a thin layer of coarsely ground red-brown primer (1b), and a gray paint made with lead white and large, coarsely-ground particles of charcoal (1c). This is the same as the first generation paint in the stair passage, and is interpreted here as a Brush-era finish. Generation 2 is a blue-green paint, and generation 3 is a deep blue paint.

The comparative evidence determined that in generation 4, the chair rails, cornice, door leaf to passage, and present door and window architraves were installed and painted the same light verdigris green. The earliest generation on these new elements was a shellac sealant (4a), red-brown primer (4b), and the light green paint. (4c) (Welsh identified this light green as generation 2, because he considered the red-brown primer (4b) to be a finish coat). Although most of the chair rails and architraves were stripped, remnants of the red-brown primer in the wood suggests these elements are contemporary. Generation 4 could represent the Russell/Cary-era (1728-142), or Everard Period I (c.1756). The light green verdigris paint was re-applied in generation 5.

The comparative evidence suggests that in generation 6, the chimneybreast paneling and wainscot were installed, and all parlor woodwork was painted a deep-green color made with verdigris. CWF architectural historians have associated the paneling with Thomas Everard's extensive renovations c.1770, so generation 6 has been interpreted as Everard period II. This deep green paint was re-applied in generation 7, most likely during a later Everard period.

Generations 8—14 are a series of white, pale blue, and off-white paints. Generation 15 is a medium-yellow paint that contains coarsely-ground deep red particles, suggesting it was prepared by hand, and could be a mid-19th-century paint. The comparative evidence indicates that in this finish generation, all woodwork was painted with this medium-yellow paint, and the door leaves were faux-wood grained, using the medium-yellow as a base coat for graining. There is a layer of grime on the surface of this paint which suggests it was exposed for a long period of time. In generation 16, the door leaves were painted black but the rest of the woodwork was not newly painted.

In generation 17, the room was painted in a polychrome scheme, with grayish-brown paneling and door leafs, and deep mauve trim. The parlor was again painted in a polychrome scheme in generation 18, with medium-brown paneling and door leafs, and tan-colored trim. These are most likely late 19th-century or early 20th-century color schemes.³

Generation 19 was painted by CWF in 1949 and consists of red-brown door leafs and gray-green woodwork. This was repeated in generation 20. Generation 21 is a replication of the 18th-century verdigris green color scheme. It was applied in 1995 in response to Welsh's findings and consists of a white primer, a bright blue-green base coat and a bright green glaze made with verdigris in colophony resin (C. Swan, personal comment, Dec. 2011).

Table 3. EVERARD HOUSE, First-floor NORTHWEST PARLOR: Complete decorative history

Note: — findings suggest that door leaf to passage is later (this is consistent with passage-side evidence on same leaf)
— leaf to rear chamber (NE room) and door casing to passage is first-period (aligns with gen. 1 (1719) on stair passage woodwork)

Description/History:

Like the first-floor northwest parlor, the physical evidence suggests that when John Brush constructed the house (c.1718), the southwest dining room had only baseboards and door and window architraves, and the walls were plastered to the ceiling and whitewashed (Klee 2011, 12). Evidence for the early wall finishes could exist on the exposed wall plate enclosed by the buffet (an Everard period I addition) on the east wall (to be sampled at a future date when all objects will be removed from buffet). The cornice and chairboards were added later, possibly during the occupation of Elizabeth Russell and Henry Cary (1728-1742) or during Thomas Everard's early occupancy (c.1756), but this is still uncertain (Klee 2011, 18).

As in the parlor, the raised—panel wainscot, mantel, and overdoor are believed to have been installed by Everard c.1770 (Klee 2011, 22). Evidence for the present wallpaper was found underneath the cornice during the restoration, and is believed to date to c.1770.

All of the plaster dates to the restoration and was not sampled.

Summary of Welsh (1991) paint study findings:

Welsh concluded that the first generation in the parlor was the medium red-brown paint found throughout the house. Generation 2 was a dark brown paint on all of the trim except for the baseboards which were painted black. The comparative paint evidence suggested that the cornice, wainscot, and mantelpiece and overdoor paneling were installed in generation 3, when the woodwork was painted a yellowish-white with dark brown baseboards and door leafs (Welsh 1991, 26).

Summary of present (2012) paint study findings:

Many of the samples collected from the dining room were incomplete or had disrupted early paint stratigraphies, making the interpretation of this space, and its relation to the rest of the house, very difficult. In general, the findings were similar to Welsh's 1991 results, with the exception that the first-generation red-brown was identified as a primer, not a finish coat. This shifted all of the early paint generations back one generation.

The first extant generation appears to be a red-brown primer (1a) and medium-brown paint (1b). This finish was fragmentary and found only on the window architrave and the door leaf and architrave to the passage. It seems to align with generation 2 in the stair passage, suggesting it is not a Brush-era finish but could date to the Russell/Cary-era, or Thomas Everard Period I (1756). Although the evidence is fragmentary, there were remnants of the red-brown primer on the chair rails, suggesting that these were contemporary with Everard Period I.⁴ This color appears to have been applied to all woodwork in this room.

In the second generation, Everard Period II (c.1770), the wainscot and cornice were installed and all woodwork was painted a pale yellow, with the exception of the door leafs which were red-brown. As in the parlor, the absence of the red-brown primer on these elements suggests that they were later additions.

The sample from the window architrave contained the most intact early paint sequence, and suggests that generations 3-6 (missing from all other samples), were pale blue and off-white paints. Generation 7 is the medium-yellow paint with large red particles that was seen in the stair passage (as generation 9) and the parlor (as generation 15). In the dining room, as in those spaces, the trim was painted with the medium-yellow and the door leafs were faux-wood grained using the yellow as a base coat. Generation 8 is a brown paint that is very bright in reflected UV light. This generation appears to align with generation 10 in the stair passage and generation 17 in the parlor.

Generation 9 is a bright white paint that appears to date to the twentieth century. Generations 10 and 11 are green paints that were applied by CWF. Generation 12 is the current pale yellow paint, a replication of Everard Period II (c.1770) as identified by Frank Welsh in 1991.

Table 4: EVERARD HOUSE, First-floor SW (DINING) ROOM: complete decorative history

note:
— leaf to rear study (SE room) has first-period finish (consistent with gen. 1 in stair passage,also found on leaf to rear chamber in the parlor), but since it could have been taken from elsewhere, its results are presented separately.
— absence of red-brown in wainscot suggests it is later than the chair rails and architraves, installed in generation 2 (Everard, c. 1770)

Description/History:

The southeast wing is believed to have been constructed during Thomas Everard's second phase of renovations c.1770 (Klee 2011, 21). This chamber would have been finished similarly to the other ground floor spaces, with fine woodwork including a cornice, wainscot, and overdoor paneling. Archaeological evidence suggests that this wing was demolished in 1780, during the occupancy of Dr. Hall (Klee 2011, 22). It was rebuilt by CWF during the 1949 restoration, leaving the original woodwork around the doorway on the east wall, where it survived. Photographic evidence suggests that the overdoor was captured for almost two centuries by an 18th-century shed addition (Klee 2011, 7), and exposed during the restoration. Physical investigation (Klee and Chappell, 2011) suggested that the leaf was re-hung, but could be in its original location.

Summary of Welsh (1991) paint study findings:

Welsh did not find a great deal of paint evidence in this space. He reports seeing the medium red-brown paint on the door trim and the door leaf. The first generation on the overdoor and doorway stiles was a medium orange-yellow. It is not clear how these elements align.

Summary of present (2012) paint study findings:

Eight samples were taken from the area surrounding the doorway. The paint evidence suggests the door leaf may not be original to this space, as the finishes do not align with any of the finishes on the study woodwork, or even the finishes on the dining-room side. However, the early paints do align with those found in the stair passage, indicating this leaf is original to the house.

The door architraves were stripped and did not contain any paint evidence, but the paint evidence from the overdoor panel and stile contained important information. The evidence suggests that generations 1 and 2 are the light yellow and cream-colored paints possibly used in the adjacent dining room. Generation 3 is a coarsely ground medium-green paint made with blue and yellow pigments (not with verdigris as seen in the parlor). The overdoor is missing generations 4-5, and it re-aligns with the stile in generation 6, a 20th-century bright green paint. This suggests that the overdoor panel was captured in generations 4 and 5, and exposed in the 20th century, which correlates with the physical history of the house. However, this would indicate that the stile was painted only twice in two centuries, which is unusual except when one considers that it was captured behind plaster in a closet (J. Klee, personal comment, May 2012).

Table 5. EVERARD HOUSE, FIRST-FLOOR SOUTHEAST CHAMBER (STUDY): complete decorative history

* door leaf does not clearly align with anything on the stile or overdoor except the most recent paint (gen. 13). Nor does the dining room-side of the same leaf. However, the early paint evidence DOES align with the stair hall (gens 1-5), suggesting this door is original to the house itself, although it may not be in its original location.

Study sample locations
west wall, door leaf and paneling

Description/History:

The northeast (rear) chamber was constructed in 1720, during the Brush era. This space was originally finished with baseboards and door and window trim, and the walls were whitewashed to the ceiling (Klee 2011, 12). The wainscot, cornice, and mantel were added during Thomas Everard's second phase of renovation (c.1770).

For this investigation, samples were taken only from the door leaf and architrave leading to the northwest parlor. The window architraves were examined but did not contain any historic paint evidence.

Summary of Welsh (1991) paint study findings:

The samples associated with the doorway leading to the northwest parlor contained the first generation red-brown paint. Generation 2 was the light gray paint found in the stair passage. Generations 3-5 were gray, medium green, and blue colors. Generation 6 is the dark green verdigris glaze which aligns with the first generation on the wainscot in the northwest parlor. Generation 7 is an orange-yellow paint that was the first finish coat on the window trim, cornice, and mantelpiece. The evidence suggests the baseboards were painted black in this period.

Summary of present (2012) paint study findings:

Five samples were taken from the doorway leading to the northwest parlor, all of which contained excellent early paint evidence. The stratigraphies on the leaf and architrave clearly align, suggesting both are first period and were painted at the same time with the same color/finish. Generation 1 is the red-brown primer and gray paint that was found in the stair passage (1719). Generation 2 is a coarsely ground green paint made with yellow and blue pigments (not verdigris as in the adjacent parlor). Generation 3 is a deep blue paint which matched the parlor at this time, and generation 4 is the deep green verdigris paint that appears to align with generation 6 in the parlor, and would have been applied during Everard period II (c.1770).

Interestingly, this exact same paint history was found on the room-side of the leaf in the upper-floor northeast chamber, suggesting this leaf might have originated from this room.

Table 6. EVERARD HOUSE: FIRST-FLOOR NORTHEAST (REAR) CHAMBER: Complete Decorative History

Rear Chamber Sample Locations

Description/History:

The upper floor southwest chamber dates to the Brush era. Finishes in this space are relatively modest, and it does not appear to have been renovated by Everard in the late 18th century.

Samples were taken only from the closet door and window boxes on the west wall, the door leaf to the passage, and the baseboards. The remaining woodwork appeared new and/or was examined and did not contain any historic paint evidence.

Summary of Welsh (1991) paint study findings:

Welsh determined that the first generation in this space was an oilbound red-brown paint, that was exposed for many years before being repainted. The second generation is the same light gray found in the stair passage, with the baseboards painted black. The third generation is a medium-blue paint made with Prussian blue pigment, with a glazed finish.

Summary of present (2012) paint study findings:

The first generation in this space appears to be a thin red-brown primer followed by the same gray paint used in the stair passage. The baseboards were also primed with red-brown and painted black. This scheme would date to the Brush era.

In the second generation, the woodwork was painted a deep blue color made with Prussian blue pigment. This paint was coated with some type of glaze layer, seen in sample EV 135, taken from the window box. The baseboards appear to have been painted dark brown in this period. The blue paint is very similar to the third generation blue found on the first-floor rear chamber and northwest parlor, which is believed to pre-date the Everard occupancy, but it is uncertain whether this is the same blue. The color match for the blue paint was very close to Welsh's 1991 match, but slightly more greenish, which could result from differing conditions of deterioration, such as an enhanced yellowing of the oil medium in the present sample (although it was light-bleached before colorimetry).

Generations 3 and 4 are tan-colored paints, followed by generation 5, a pale blue color. These paints align with generations 5-7 in the first-floor rear chamber, which are believed to post-date the Everard era.

Table 7: EVERARD HOUSE, UPPER-FLOOR SOUTHWEST CHAMBER

The baseboards are not included in this table because it is unclear precisely how they align with the rest of the room, with the exceptions of first period (black) and current presentation finish (dark brown). They appear to have always been painted off-white, black, or dark brown.

Description/History:

The upper floor northwest chamber dates to the Brush era. Finishes in this space are relatively modest, and it does not appear to have been renovated by Everard in the late 18th century. Samples were taken from the window boxes and exposed rafters on the west wall, the small closets, the door leafs, and the baseboards. The remaining woodwork appeared new and/or was examined and did not contain any historic paint evidence.

Summary of Welsh (1991) paint study findings:

Welsh determined that the first generation in this space was an oilbound red-brown paint, that was exposed for many years before being repainted. The second generation is a white paint, with the baseboards painted black. The third generation is a brown paint.

Summary of present (2012) paint study findings:

The first generation in this space appears to be a thin red-brown primer followed by a white finish coat. The sample taken from the closet door leaf (EV 117) suggests this white paint may have been coated with a plant resin varnish in some areas. During this period, the baseboards were also primed red-brown and painted black.

In the second generation, all of the woodwork was painted dark brown. This appears to be the same dark brown paint used in the first-floor dining room and the stair passage in this period. Generations 3-5 are the same buff and pale blue paints that were also used in the southwest parlor across the passage.

Table 8: EVERARD HOUSE, UPPER-FLOOR NORTHWEST CHAMBER

— The baseboards are not included in this table because it is unclear how their finishes align with the rest of the woodwork, with the exception of the first generation which is a red-brown primer and black paint.

Description/History:

The small passage on the upper floor connecting the northwest and northeast chambers is not original to the house, but was constructed in the early 19th-century when the servant's stair was installed (Klee, personal comment, 2012). The only 'old' elements in this space appeared to be the door leafs at each end of the passage, although the leaf to the northeast chamber must have been moved from elsewhere, since this doorway is itself part of the addition (Klee, 2012). The rest of the woodwork in the passage appeared recent, and no historic paints were found on the door hinges.

Summary of Welsh (1991) paint study findings:

Welsh reports that the passage-side of the door to the northeast chamber has dirt on the wood surface, followed by two generations of red-brown paint, and a series of whites and grays leading up to the 20th century. He also lists results for the "paneled face of door to back stairs", presumably meaning the door to the northeast chamber. This door is listed as starting with red-brown, followed by a brown paint, a yellow-white, green, and a series of whites. The rest of his samples appear to contain modern paints only.

Summary of present (2012) paint study findings:

The passage-side of the door leaf to the northwest chamber only retained a few remaining 'islands' of historic paint, but the analysis suggests it dates to the first period. The first finish is the red-brown primer followed by the first period gray paint. The samples were very fragmented, and intermediate generations were missing, so the complete finish history of this side of the door is more difficult to interpret.

On-site examination suggested that the passage-side of the door leaf to the northeast chamber was scraped down. This was confirmed by the cross-section, which shows that the earliest paint is generation 9.

Description/History:

All of the woodwork in this space appeared new with the exception of the door leaf, which would have been placed here when the passage leading to this room was constructed in the early 19th century (Klee 2012, 22). This leaf has the same profile as the first-period doors on the first floor.

Summary of Welsh (1991) paint study findings:

On the door leaf, Welsh found the first generation red-brown used throughout the house. The second generation was light gray, followed by generation three, a medium green, and generation four, a medium blue. On the door surround, he found dirt on the surface of the wood, followed by modern paints.

Summary of present (2012) paint study findings:

The early paint history of the door leaf aligns with the first eight generations on the door leaf and architrave in the first-floor rear chamber (see below for comparison). The first generation is the Brush-era thin red-brown primer followed by two applications of the gray paint. Generation 2 is an olive green color, and generation 3 is a deep blue. Generation 4 is a verdigris-based green. Generations 5-7 are buff colors, while generation 8 is a pale blue. Generations 5-8 were also found on the upper floor northwest and southwest chambers, but earlier in their stratigraphies, as generations 3-5. Since this leaf appears to originate from the first floor, this would suggest that the upper floor woodwork was not painted as often as that on the first floor.

Door leaf in upper—floor northeast chamber

EV 128a, visible light, 200x

Table 9: EVERARD HOUSE, UPPER-FLOOR NORTHEAST CHAMBER (Door Leaf Only)

Sample EV 54: Generation 1 red-brown primer on parlor door leaf to rear chamber

EV 54, red-brown primer, transmitted plane polarized light, 1000x

EV 54, red-brown primer, transmitted cross polarized light, 1000x

The pigments in the first generation (Brush-era, c.1719) red-brown primer are very different from the fourth generation red-brown primer (p. 146). The first generation contains a mixture of iron earth pigments (mostly red with some yellow), and a good deal of mineral inclusions. Red earth (red iron oxide) is visible as red particles of various sizes — ranging from fine, rounded grains to larger crystals with a deep red color under crossed polars. Inclusions of yellow earth (yellow iron oxide) are also present, as small agglomerations of rounded particles that are golden yellow in transmitted light and isotropic in crossed polars. The flat, colorless particles with a bright birefringence are most likely mineral inclusions such as quartz, baryte, and calcite, associate with naturally-sourced ochres (Eastaugh, 686). These mineral inclusions were not seen in the later red-brown primer.

Sample EV 54: Generation 1 gray paint on parlor door leaf to rear chamber

EV 54, gray paint, transmitted plane polarized light, 1000x

EV 54, gray paint, transmitted cross polarized light, 1000x

The first generation gray paint appears to contain primarily lead white pigment — visible as small, rounded particles with a greenish color in transmitted plane polarized light and a bright birefringence in cross polarized light.

A small amount of carbon black pigment is also visible as large, flat particles with sharp edges that are black and opaque in transmitted plane polarized light and isotropic (dark) in cross polarized light.

Sample EV 91: Generation 1 brown paint in the stair passage (baluster)

EV 91, uncast portion of sample showing first generation light brown finish, visible light, 100x

EV 91, generation 1 brown paint, transmitted plane polarized light, 1000x

EV 91, generation 1 brown paint, transmitted cross polarized light, 1000x

The sample appears to contain lead white, visible as small, rounded particles that are green in transmitted light and have a bright birefringence in cross polarized light. Autofluorescent particles of lead white pigment were also visible in the paint cross-section (pp. 26, 37). Chalk also appears to be present, visible as larger flakes that are colorless in transmitted light but have an undulose birefingence under crossed polars.

A large amount of yellow earth pigment is present, which has a golden color in transmitted light but is isotropic under crossed polars. A smaller amount of red earth was also seen (not shown in the photomicrograph), visible as small particles that were deep red in transmitted light and isotropic under crossed polars.

Carbon black particles of varying size and shape were dispersed throughout the sample. These particles appear to be from the same batch used to create the underlying gray paint layer.

Examination of an uncast portion of the sample suggests that this finish had a transparent quality and a golden brown color.

Sample EV 54: Generation 2 blue-green paint on parlor door leaf to rear chamber

EV 54, blue—green paint, transmitted plane polarized light, 1000x

EV 54, blue paint, transmitted cross polarized light, 1000x

The paint appears to contain primarily lead white pigment — visible as small, rounded particles with a greenish color in transmitted plane polarized light and a bright birefringence in cross polarized light.

The sample also contains some Prussian blue pigment — present as particles of various size with a blue color in transmitted plane polarized light and isotropic (dark) in cross polarized light. The 'smeary' quality of these particles is also suggestive of Prussian blue.

Although some yellow particles (most likely yellow earth pigments) were seen in the cross-section, they were not found in the dispersed sample. They might have been used very sparingly.

Sample EV 117: generation 2 dark brown paint (also used during this period in the stair passage and the dining room).

EV 117, early paints, visible light, 200x

EV 117, generation 2 dark brown paint, plane polarized light, 1000x

EV 117, generation 2 dark brown paint, cross polarized light, 1000x

The majority of the sample is made up of yellow earth pigment, visible as clumps of golden-brown particles that were isotropic in crossed polars. Red particles, most likely a red earth, were visible in the cross-section, but none were seen in the dispersed sample. Carbon black and some lead white were also found. A good amount of chalk appears to have been added.

Sample EV 54: Parlor, generation 3 deep blue paint (also found in the rear chamber and upstairs southwest chamber)

Sample EV 54, visible light, 200x (only early layers shown)

EV 54, generation 3 deep blue paint, plane polarized light, 1000x

EV 54, generation 3 deep blue paint, cross polarized light, 1000x

The majority of the sample is made up of lead white pigment, visible as very small greenish particles with a bright birefringence. Some chalk was also seen, present as large, plate-like particles with an undulose birefringence.

Prussian blue was identified, present in the form of bright blue particles in a range of sizes, which also displayed a 'smeary' quality in some areas. This pigment is isotropic in crossed polars. A small amount of yellow earth pigment was also present, visible as clumps of golden-brown particles that were isotropic in crossed polars.

Sample EV: 42, first generation light yellow paint in study. Also used in dining room (Everard Period II, c.1770).

EV 42, taken from overdoor panel in first-floor SE chamber (study). Visible light, 200x

EV 42, generation 1 light yellow paint, plane polarized light, 1000x

EV 42, generation 1 light yellow paint, cross polarized light, 1000x

The majority of the sample is made up of lead white pigment, visible as small, greenish particles that have a bright birefringence under crossed polars. Some chalk also appears to have been added.

The hue of this paint is due to yellow ochre pigment, visible as clumps of golden-brown particles that were isotropic in crossed polars. Some carbon black was also found in the sample, which is black and opaque in transmitted light but isotropic under crossed polars.

Sample EV 34: Generation 4 red-brown primer on chimneybreast surbase in NW parlor

EV 34, red-brown primer, transmitted plane polarized light, 1000x

EV 34, red-brown primer, transmitted cross polarized light, 1000x

The fourth generation primer appears to be composed of red iron earth and carbon black. The red earth is visible as agglomerations of small, rounded particles that are red in transmitted light and isotropic in crossed polars (in the right image the exposure was maximized to make the pigment more visible). There were very few yellow earths and/or mineral inclusions in this sample, suggesting that this ochre is mostly pure hematite (the mineral responsible for the red color of this pigment), and therefore very different from the first generation red primer seen in other parts of the house.

The carbon black is visible as larger, flat, shard-like particles that are opaque and black in transmitted light and completely dark in crossed polars.

There appears to be some lead white from the second generation gray paint in this sample, visible as small particles that are colorless in transmitted light and green in crossed polars.

Sample EV 63: First-floor Northwest Parlor, generation 4 medium green paint

EV 63, uncast, visible light, 100x

EV 106 (same as EV 63), detail of generation 4. Visible light, 200x (enlarged)

EV 63, generation 4 medium-green paint, transmitted plane polarized light, 1000x

EV 63, generation 4 medium-green paint, cross polarized light, 1000x

Sample EV 63: Continued from previous page

Large, green particles of verdigris were seen in the dispersed sample. These display a transparent light green color in transmitted light, and a crystalline morphology that at closer inspection looks like bundles of small needles. However, these particles do not display the bright birefringence typical of verdigris, although it is most likely present.

EV 63, generation 4 medium-green paint, detail of verdigris particle

EV 63, generation 4 medium-green paint, detail of verdigris particle

The majority of the sample is made up of lead white pigment, visible as very small greenish particles with a bright birefringence. Some chalk appears to have been added as well.

Sample EV 106: Parlor, dark green verdigris-based paint (Everard period II, c. 1770).

EV 106, detail of early paints. Visible light, 200x (enlarged)

EV 106, generation 6 verdigris-green paint, plane polarized light, 1000x

EV 106, generation 6 verdigris-green paint, cross polarized light, 1000x

The majority of the sample is made up of lead white pigment, visible as very small greenish particles with a bright birefringence, and chalk, present as large, plate-like particles with an undulose birefringence. A small amount of yellow earth was also added.

Although the visible and ultraviolet light examination of this layer clearly indicates it is largely composed of verdigris, no distinct particles of the pigment were seen in the dispersed sample. This might suggest that this coating was made by adding verdigris to a heated resin, thus converting the verdigris to copper resinate. This would have created a very glossy, green finish.

Sample EV 27: first-floor stair passage, door architrave

EV 27, UV light, 200x. Before TTC stain.

EV 27, UV light, 200x. TTC reaction.

Sample EV 27 was stained with TTC to tag carbohydrates in the stratigraphy. No reactions (a dark brown color), were observed.

EV 27, B2A filter, 200x. Before FITC stain.

EV 27, B2A filter, 200x. FITC reaction.

Sample EV 27 was stained with FITC to tag proteins within the stratigraphy. One one of the later generations exhibited a positive reaction, which is most likely a 'false positive' resulting from detergents and/or other chemical additives in modern paints.

EV 27, B2A filter, 200x. Before DCF stain.

EV 27, B2A filter, 200x. DCF reaction.

Sample EV 27 was stained with DCF to tag lipids (oils) within the stratigraphy. Spotty reactions (bright yellow-green fluorescence) were observed in the first two generations, suggesting they are oil bound. The age and/or deterioration of these paints may have caused the uneven reaction.

One of the later generations also displayed a strong positive reaction, most likely a 'false positive' resulting from chemical additives in industrially prepared paints.

Sample EV 54: first-floor parlor, door leaf to rear chamber

EV 54, UV light, 200x. Before TTC stain.

EV 54, UV light, 200x. TTC reaction.

Sample EV 54 was stained with TTC to tag carbohydrates in the sample. Spotty reactions were observed throughout the stratigraphy. Strong reactions were observed in generations 21a and 21b, most likely from cellulosic bulking agents in modern paints. A strong reaction was also observed in the red-brown primer, the first generation gray paint, and the third generation deep blue paint, suggesting that a gum might have been used to disperse pigments during grinding. A moderate reaction was also observed in the verdigris-green paints (generations 4-7), although these paints are so dark in UV that it is difficult to record the extent of the reaction.

EV 54, B2A filter 200x. Before FITC stain.

EV 54, B2A filter 200x. FITC reaction.

Sample EV 54 was stained with FITC to tag proteins in the sample. Reactions ranging from strong to weak were observed throughout the stratigraphy. Strong reactions were observed in generations 21a and 21b, most likely 'false positives' from chemical additives in modern paints. A strong reaction was also observed in the red-brown primer, suggesting that an animal glue might have been used to disperse pigments during grinding. A moderate reaction was also observed in the verdigris-green paints (generations 4-7), again suggesting that an animal glue might have been used to disperse pigments during grinding.

EV 54, B2A filter 200x. Before DCF stain.

EV 54, B2A filter 200x. DCF reaction.

Sample EV 54 was stained with DCF to tag lipids (oils) in the sample. A positive reaction (yellow-green fluorescence) was observed in the red-brown primer and gray paint. A weak reaction was also observed in generations 4 and 5, the light green verdigris-based paints. This suggests these paints are oil bound, although their FITC reactions (previous page) suggest there is some protein present.

A strong reaction was observed in later generations 14, 21a and 21b.

Sample EV 81: first-floor, dining room, window architrave

EV 81, UV light, 200x. Before TTC stain.

EV 81, UV light, 200x. TTC reaction.

EV 81, B2A filter, 200x. Before FITC stain.

EV 81, B2A filter, 200x. FITC reaction.

Sample EV 81 was stained with TTC to tag carbohydrates in the sample. A positive reaction (dark red-brown color) was observed in the first generation. Spotty reactions were observed throughout the rest of the sample.

The sample was next stained with FITC to tag proteins in the stratigraphy. Weak positives were observed in generations 1 and 3.

EV 81, B2A filter, 200x. Before DCF stain.

EV 81, B2A filter, 200x. DCF reaction.

Sample EV 81 was stained with DCF to tag lipids (oils) in the sample. Weak reactions were observed throughout the sample, suggesting that the paints are oilbound. The weakness of the reaction might have been the result of the paints being deteriorated and/or originally leanly bound.

EV 42: first-floor, study, overdoor panel

EV 42, UV light, 200x. Before TTC stain.

EV 42, UV light, 200x. TTC reaction.

EV 42, B2A filter, 200x. Before FITC stain.

EV 42, B2A filter, 200x. FITC reaction.

Sample EV 42 was stained with TTC to tag carbohydrates in the sample. No reactions were observed.

The sample was next stained with FITC to tag proteins in the sample. A positive reaction (yellow-green fluorescence) was observed in generation 6, which appears to be a, industrially prepared paint. This could be a 'false positive' resulting from detergents or other chemical additives in modern coatings.

EV 42, B2A filter, 200x. Before DCF stain.

EV 42, B2A filter, 200x. DCF reaction.

Sample EV 42 was stained with DCF to tag lipids (oils) in the sample. A strong positive reaction was observed only in generation 6, which also stained strongly with FITC (previous page), most likely from detergents and/or other chemical additives in modern paints.

EV 87: First-floor rear chamber, door architrave

EV 81, UV light, 200x. Before TTC stain.

EV 81, UV light, 200x. TTC reaction.

EV 81, B2A filter, 200x. Before DCF stain.

EV 81, B2A filter, 200x. DCF reaction.

Sample 87 was stained with TTC to tag carbohydrates in the sample. No reactions were observed.

The sample was next stained with DCF to tag lipids (oils) in the sample. No reactions were observed.

The sample was not stained with FITC for proteins.

EV 100: upper floor, southwest chamber, closet door leaf

EV 100, UV light, 200x. Before TTC stain.

EV 100, UV light, 200x. TTC reaction.

Sample EV 100 was stained with TTC to tag carbohydrates in the stratigraphy. Some reactions (a red-brown color) were observed in the later paints, most likely from cellulosic bulking agents in industrially prepared coatings. No reactions were observed in the earliest paints.

EV 100, B2A filter, 200x. Before FITC stain.

EV 100, B2A filter, 200x. FITC reaction.

Sample EV 100 was stained with FITC to tag proteins in the stratigraphy. Strong reactions (a bright yellow-green fluorescence) were observed throughout the sample.

The DCF reactions (see next page) suggest all of the paints are oil bound. However, the positive FITC reactions in generations 1-5 could result from animal glues used to disperse pigments during hand grinding. The reactions in the later generations could be 'false positives' caused by chemical additives in modern paints.

EV 100, B2A filter, 200x. Before DCF stain.

EV 100, B2A filter, 200x. DCF reaction.

Sample EV 100 was stained with DCF to tag lipids (oils) in the stratigraphy. Positive reactions (a bright yellow-green fluorescence) were observed throughout the sample. This suggests that the paints are oil bound, which confirms the visual assessment of these paints.

The reactions in the earliest paints are relatively weak, which suggests they may be deteriorated and/or leanly bound.

EV 112: upper floor, northwest chamber, door leaf to passage

EV 112, UV light, 200x. Before TTC stain.

EV 112, UV light, 200x. TTC reaction.

EV 112, B2A filter, 200x. Before FITC stain.

EV 112, B2A filter, 200x. FITC reaction.

Sample EV 112 was stained with TTC to tag carbohydrates in the sample. A weak reaction (red-brown color) was observed in the red-brown primer (1b) and shellac (1a). This suggests that a gum might have been used to disperse pigments during grinding. This gum might also have been present in the shellac.

The sample was next stained with FITC to tag proteins in the sample, but no reactions (a bright yellow-green fluorescence) were observed.

EV 112, B2A filter, 200x. Before DCF stain.

EV 112, B2A filter, 200x. DCF reaction.

Sample EV 112 was stained with DCF to tag lipids (oils) in the sample, but no reactions (a bright yellow-green fluorescence) were observed.

However, the same first generation was present in sample EV 100, which stained positively for oils with a proteinaceous additive. It is possible that no reaction was observed in EV 112 due to the earliest paints being leanly bound and/or more deteriorated.

* Generation 1 (c.1719), red-brown primer found on first-period elements throughout the house

EV 89, underside of uncast sample from which color measurements were taken. Visible light, 40x

The first generation red-brown primer was measured with a Minolta Chroma Meter colorimeter/microscope to obtain color values in CIE L*a*b* and Munsell colorspace. The closest commercial color match was determined by eye using a stereomicroscope at 30x magnification with a color corrected light source.

The closest commercial color match was determined to be Benjamin Moore swatch 2104-30 "Harvest Brown" The color difference (ΔE) between this swatch and the sample was calculated as 3.18 (see Appendix B for details). The average human eye cannot detect ΔE values less than 3 (Wolbers 2008), so the difference between the original primer and the commercial match is barely perceptible to the human eye, and is therefore an excellent match. However, it should be noted that the original paint was thought (by the author) to be slightly more red than the commercial swatch.

* Generation 1 (c.1719), gray paint found on first-period elements throughout the house

EV 91 (stair baluster), uncast sample showing earliest layers. Visible light, 100x

Consistent color readings for the first generation gray paint could not be obtained with the Minolta Chroma Meter colorimeter/microscope, because large and intact areas were difficult to expose. Instead, the closest commercial color match was determined by eye using a stereomicroscope at 30x magnification with a color corrected light source. The closest commercial color match was determined to be Benjamin Moore swatch HC-108 "Sandy Hook Gray".

* Generation 1 (c.1719), brown finish in the stair passage

EV 91 (stair baluster), uncast sample showing earliest layers. Visible light, 100x

The first generation brown finish in the stair passage was measured with a Minolta Chroma Meter colorimeter/microscope to obtain color values in CIE L*a*b* and Munsell colorspace. The closest commercial color match was determined by eye using a stereomicroscope at 30x magnification with a color corrected light source.

The closest commercial color match was determined to be Benjamin Moore swatch 2164-10 "Saddle Brown" The color difference (ΔE) between this swatch and the sample was calculated as 4.26 (see Appendix B for details). The average human eye cannot detect ΔE values less than 3 (Wolbers 2008), so the difference between the original primer and the commercial match is barely perceptible to the human eye, and is therefore an acceptable match. However, it should be noted that this layer is not an opaque paint, but a transparent finish, through which the gray under layer could be seen, so the color match here lacks the depth of the original, which was the result of a deliberate buildup of layers.

* Generation 4 (Russell/Clay or Everard Period I), red-brown primer

Underside of sample from NW parlor, chimney-breast chair rail. Underside of uncast sample showing earliest layers. Visible light, 100x

The first generation brown finish in the stair passage was measured with a Minolta Chroma Meter colorimeter/microscope to obtain color values in CIE L*a*b* and Munsell colorspace. The closest commercial color match was determined by eye using a stereomicroscope at 30x magnification with a color corrected light source.

The closest commercial color match was determined to be Benjamin Moore swatch 2104-10 "Pancake Syrup" The color difference (ΔE) between this swatch and the sample was calculated as 3.13 (see Appendix B for details). The average human eye cannot detect ΔE values less than 3 (Wolbers 2008), so the difference between the original primer and the commercial match is barely perceptible to the human eye, and is therefore an excellent match.

* Generation 4 (Russell/Clay or Everard Period I), green paint in the NW parlor

Underside of sample from NW parlor, chimney-breast chair rail. Underside of uncast sample showing earliest layers. Visible light, 100x

It was very difficult to obtain consistent color readings for the fourth generation verdigris-green paint in the northwest parlor. Resulting matches ranged from a light to medium olive green color. This is most likely due to the inherent variations in this hand-ground paint, which contained verdigris particles of varying size in a lead white base (see PLM results). The commercial swatch provided below was matched by eye, and it was determined to lie in the middle of the range of green colors present.

To truly recreate this color, it is recommended to hand grind this paint using traditional methods and the materials identified in this analysis. In addition to this study, instrumental techniques such as elemental analysis with scanning electron microscopy-energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM-EDS), organic media analysis with Fourier-transform Infrared Spectroscopy (FTIR), and Raman spectroscopy, could be carried out to definitively identify the composition before moving forward.

* Generation 2 blue paint in first-floor NW parlor

EV 54, taken from parlor, door leaf to rear chamber, detail of early paints. Visible light, 400x (enlarged)

Color readings for the second generation blue paint could not be obtained with the Minolta Chroma Meter colorimeter/microscope, because large and intact areas were difficult to expose. Instead, the closest commercial color match was determined by eye using a stereomicroscope at 30x magnification with a color corrected light source. The closest commercial color match was determined to be Benjamin Moore AC-21 "Silver Pine". This match was more green than expected, which could result from the aged, yellowed oil media.

* Generation 2 green paint in first-floor NE (rear) chamber

EV 89, taken from NE (rear) chamber door leaf. Visible light, 200x

Color readings for the second generation green paint could not be obtained with the Minolta Chroma Meter colorimeter/microscope, because large and intact areas could not be exposed for measurement. Instead, the closest commercial color match was determined by eye using a stereomicroscope at 30x magnification with a color corrected light source. The closest commercial color match was determined to be Benjamin Moore HC-122 "Great Barrington Green".

* Generation 3 blue paint in first-floor NE (rear) chamber and parlor, and generation 2 blue paint in upper-floor southwest chamber

EV 89, taken from first floor NE (rear) chamber door leaf. Visible light, 200x

EV 54, taken from first floor parlor, door leaf to rear chamber. Visible light, 200x

EV 135, taken from upper floor SW chamber, window box. Visible light, 200x

Color readings for the blue paint could not be obtained with the Minolta Chroma Meter colorimeter/ microscope, because large and intact areas could not be exposed for measurement. Instead, the closest commercial color match was determined by eye using a stereomicroscope at 30x magnification with a color corrected light source. The closest commercial color match was determined to be Benjamin Moore HC-159 "Philipsburg Blue".

* Generation 1 paint in first-floor SE room (study), and generation 2 paint in dining room (Everard Period II)

EV 42, taken from overdoor panel in first-floor SE chamber (study). Visible light, 200x

The first generation light yellow paint in the study was measured with a Minolta Chroma Meter colorimeter/microscope to obtain color values in CIE L*a*b* and Munsell colorspace. The closest commercial color match was determined by eye using a stereomicroscope at 30x magnification with a color corrected light source.

The closest commercial color match was determined to be Benjamin Moore swatch 2162-40 "Peanut Shell" The color difference (ΔE) between this swatch and the sample was calculated as 4.28 (see Appendix B for details). The average human eye cannot detect ΔE values less than 3 (Wolbers 2008), so the difference between the original primer and the commercial match is barely perceptible to the human eye, and is therefore an acceptable match.

* Generation 2 paint in first-floor SE room (study)

EV 42, taken from overdoor panel in first-floor SE chamber (study). Visible light, 200x

Color readings for the second generation tan paint could not be obtained with the Minolta Chroma Meter colorimeter/microscope, because large and intact areas could not be exposed for measurement. Instead, the closest commercial color match was determined by eye using a stereomicroscope at 30x magnification with a color corrected light source. The closest commercial color match was determined to be Benjamin Moore HC-28 "Shelburne Buff ".

* Generation 3 green paint in first-floor SE room (study)

EV 42, taken from overdoor panel in first-floor SE chamber (study). Visible light, 200x

The third generation green paint in the study was measured with a Minolta Chroma Meter colorimeter/ microscope to obtain color values in CIE L*a*b* and Munsell colorspace. The average of multiple readings was used to reflect the inherent color variation in this early, coarsely-ground paint. The closest commercial color match was determined by eye using a stereomicroscope at 30x magnification with a color corrected light source.

The closest commercial color match was determined to be Benjamin Moore swatch 2142-30 "Mountain Moss" The color difference (ΔE) between this swatch and the sample was calculated as 3.35 (see Appendix B for details). The average human eye cannot detect ΔE values less than 3 (Wolbers 2008), so the difference between the original primer and the commercial match is barely perceptible to the human eye, and is therefore an excellent match.

* Generation 1 dark brown paint in dining room and second generation brown paint in upper floor northwest chamber. Generation 4 dark brown paint in stair passage.

EV 83a, taken from the dining room door leaf to passage. Visible light, 200x

EV 122, taken from east wall door surround in upper floor NW chamber. Visible light, 200x

Color readings for the dark brown paint in the dining room and upper floor northwest chamber could not be obtained with the Minolta Chroma Meter colorimeter/microscope, because large and intact areas could not be exposed for measurement. Instead, the closest commercial color match was determined by eye using a stereomicroscope at 30x magnification with a color corrected light source. The closest commercial color match was determined to be Benjamin Moore HC-72 "Branchport Brown".

* Generation 1 white paint in upper—floor northwest chamber (Brush era) generation 1 white paint

EV 117, taken from the closet door leaf in the northwest chamber, visible light, 200x

Color readings for the first generation white paint in the upper floor northwest chamber could not be obtained with the Minolta Chroma Meter colorimeter/microscope, because large and intact areas could not be exposed for measurement. Instead, the closest commercial color match was determined by eye using a stereomicroscope at 30x magnification with a color corrected light source. The closest commercial color match was determined to be Benjamin Moore swatch HC-90 "Crown Point Sand".

This color match is much darker and greener than would be expected for a white paint. It is worth nothing that there do not appear to be any other pigments in the cross-section, but this could not be proven via PLM because generation 1 was so thin and disrupted it could not be isolated for analysis. An instrumental technique such as scanning electron microscopy-energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) would be able to provide elemental data to better understand the pigment composition. It is possible that the oil component in this paint has caused the original white color to shift to a darker and more yellow hue. It might be more appropriate in this instance to match an existing sample of hand-ground lead white oil-based paint.

Period 1:

In the first period, when John Brush constructed the house, he sealed all of the interior woodwork with shellac, followed by a thin red-brown primer made with red ochre pigments in oil which also contained some glue and/or gum additives, possibly to aid in pigment dispersal. (This was very different from the Period 4 red-brown primer found on the parlor chair rails, which was a darker red made with red ochre and carbon black pigments).

After priming, all of the woodwork in the stair passage was painted with an oil bound gray paint made with lead white and carbon black, and finished with a glossy, translucent brown finish coat made with lead white, chalk, yellow and red ochres, and carbon black. A thin layer of plant resin varnish was applied to heighten the glossiness of this finish. The same gray paint in the stair passage was used as a finish coat (applied in two layers) in the first-floor parlor and rear chamber, and the second floor southwest chamber, while the second floor northwest chamber was painted white. There do not appear to be any Brush-era paints in the first-floor dining room, suggesting that all of the woodwork in this space is later.

Periods 2 & 3:

It is unclear who occupied the house during the second and third finish generations. In the period two, the stair passage woodwork was unpainted, but the first floor parlor was painted a blue-green color made with Prussian blue and lead white pigment, and the adjacent rear chamber was painted an olive green color. Fluorochrome staining was not able to determine the binding media of these paints, but they appear to be oil bound. The upstairs chambers were not painted at this time.

In the third generation, the parlor, rear chamber, and upstairs southwest chamber were painted an oil bound deep blue paint made with Prussian blue, lead white, chalk, and a small amount of yellow ochre. Some gum and animal glues appear to have been added to aid in pigment dispersal. During this period, the upstairs northwest chamber woodwork appears to have been unpainted.

Period 4:

In the fourth generation, the paint evidence suggests that some improvements were made to the house. This period could reflect Russell/Cary (c.1728-1742), or Everard Period I (c.1756). The stair passage door leafs to the western rooms were installed, and the passage was re-painted for the first time, in a dark brown color made with red and yellow earths, carbon black, lead white, and chalk in oil.

In the parlor, the cornice, chair rails, and present window and door architraves were installed. New work was primed with a red-brown primer made with red earth and carbon black, then all woodwork was painted with a coarsely-ground light green paint made with lead white, verdigris, and chalk in oil, possibly with gum and glue additives to aid in pigment dispersal or to enhance the working properties of the coating. The rear chamber adjacent to the parlor appears to have been unpainted at this time.

In the dining room, the chair rails and door and window architraves were installed and also primed red-brown and painted the same dark brown color used in the stair passage.

The upstairs southwest chamber was unpainted, but the northwest chamber was painted with the same dark brown used in the stair passage and dining room.

Period 5:

The light green paint in the parlor was re-applied, and the stair hall appears to have been re-painted the same brown as the previous period. This phase might represent necessary maintenance to 'spruce up' the most visible and high-status spaces in the house, since only these two rooms were painted.

Period 6:

This period is assigned Everard Period II (c.1770), as documentary evidence indicates the house underwent major improvements at this time. This is the present period of interpretation for the house. The stair passage appears to have been unpainted in this period, and would have been the same dark brown as the previous scheme.

In the parlor, the paneled wainscot, paneled chimneybreast, and paneling around the doorway to the rear chamber were installed. The new woodwork was coated with a white primer and painted a deep green paint made by heating verdigris with resins (although large, coarse verdigris particles remained), and adding chalk and lead white. Oils were not detected in this finish, although gums and animal glues may have been added to aid in pigment dispersal or to change the working properties of this paint. The existing parlor woodwork was also painted with the same deep green paint to match the new additions, although this paint was applied over the existing light green color. Due to the tendency of copper-based pigments to darken with time, it was not possible to obtain a color match for this finish.

The adjacent rear chamber was painted with the same deep green paint, repeating the chromatic link seen between these two spaces in generation 3.

Like the parlor, the dining room was improved with more refined woodwork including the present wainscot and cornice. Most woodwork was painted a light yellow color made with lead white, chalk, yellow ochre, and carbon black in oil, while the door leafs were painted dark brown.

The southeast wing is believed to have been constructed in this period. It was painted with the same light yellow oil paint used in the adjacent dining room.

The upstairs chambers appear to have been unpainted in this period. Therefore, the northwest chamber and would have remained the same dark brown seen in the stair hall, and the southwest chamber would have remained blue.

Period 7:

In generation 7, the dark verdigris-green paint in the parlor was re-applied. This is believed to have occurred later during Everard's occupancy (c.1770-1781). It is also possible that the dining room and study were re-painted (using the same colors as in the previous generation), during this time.

Periods 8 - present:

Following the initial colorful interiors preferred by the earliest occupants, all spaces (with the exception of the stair passage) received multiple generations of white and off-white paints (in some cases, even very pale blues). These could date to the late 18th century and possibly up to the mid-19th century. After this prolonged white campaign, bolder, warmer colors made another appearance, often paired with imitation wood-graining finishes. These could reflect the mid-late 19th-century treatments. After this era, the interior appears to have been painted infrequently up to the restoration. One campaign of dark brown/mauve found throughout the house may reflect the aesthetics of the late-19th century- early 20th century. Following this, some of the spaces, notably the stair passage and dining room, were painted a bright white with an industrially prepared, 20th-century paint. This is the color that appears to have been in place when the house was re-painted during the restoration, in 1949.

Sample Preparation:

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

Microscopy and Documentation:

The cross-section samples were examined using a Nikon Eclipse 80i microscope equipped with an EXFO X-cite 120 fluorescence illumination system fiberoptic halogen light source. Samples were examined and photographed under visible and ultraviolet light conditions (excitation 330-380 nm, barrier filter 420nm), from 100x to 400x magnifications. Digital images were captured using a Spot Flex digital camera with Spot Advance (version 4.6) software. All images were recorded as 12.6 MB tiff files and stored on a hard drive in a folder titled "Everard" on Susan Buck's laboratory computer. A separate set of images will be stored on the CWF digital database, accompanied by a digital version of the final report.

Information Provided by Visible and Ultraviolet Light Microscopy:

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

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

Binding Media Analysis using Fluorochrome staining:

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

2,7 Dichlorofluorescein (DCF): 0.02% w/v in ethanol. Fluorescent labeling reagent for lipids, particularly drying oils. One drop of stain was applied to the surface of the sample, blotted immediately, and cover-slipped with mineral spirits. The reaction was observed with the B2A filter cube (EX 450-490nm, BA 520nm). This stain exhibits a yellow-green fluorescence where lipids are present.

Triphenyl tetrazolium chloride (TTC): 1.0% w/v in ethanol. Labeling reagent for carbohydrates (gums, starches, cellulosic thickeners). One drop of stain was applied to the surface of the sample, blotted dry, and allowed to sit for approximately 45 seconds before cover-slipping, (must be allowed to react with atmospheric moisture for reaction to move forward). The reaction is observed under reflected UV light conditions (EX 330-380nm, BA 420nm). A dark red-brown color is seen where carbohydrates are present.

Fluorescein isothiocyanate (FITC): 0.02% w/v in anhydrous acetone. Fluorescent labeling reagent for proteins. One drop of stain was applied to the surface of the sample, blotted immediately, and cover-slipped with mineral spirits. The reaction was observed using the B—2A filter cube (EX 450-490nm, BA 520nm). A positive reaction is a bright yellow-green fluorescence.

Pigment Identification with Polarized Light Microscopy:

To collect a pigment sample for polarized light microscopy (PLM), a surgical scalpel was used to collect a small scraping from a clean, representative area of paint. The blade was then pressed and pulled across a clean glass microscope slide, dispersing the pigment particles across the surface. The pigments were then permanently embedded under a cover slip using Cargille Meltmount (refractive index 1.66). The embedded pigments were then examined in cross and plane-polarized transmitted light with the Nikon Eclipse 80i microscope at 1000x magnification (using an oil immersion objective). The observed morphologies (size, shape, agglomeration, cleavage patterns), and optical properties (including color, refractive index, extinction), were compared to reference standards as well as literature sources before making final determinations.

Color measurement and matching:

Color measurements were taken using the Minolta Chroma Meter CR-241 colorimeter/ microscope in Susan Buck's paint analysis laboratory. Equipped with an internal 360-degree pulsed xenon arc lamp, this instrument is capable of obtaining accurate color measurements in any one of five different tristimulus color measurement systems from areas as small as 0.3mm. For the purposes of this project, color values in CIE L*a*b* colorspace and the Munsell color system were obtained.

The CIE L*a*b* color space system (developed in 1976 by the Commission International de l'Eclairage, and now an internationally accepted industry-standard color measuring system) uses three numerical values, known as "tristimulus" values, to measure color: L* is the lightness variable, representing dark to light on a scale of 0-100, while a* and b* are chromaticity coordinates, a* representing red to green on scale from -50 to +50, and b* representing blue to yellow on a scale from -50 to +50. These three coordinates are used to plot the location of a color in the CIE L*a*b* colorspace.

These resulting values can be used to quantify color differences (ΔE), between two samples. To obtain this value, the following calculation is used:

ΔE = (?L*)^½ + (?a*)^½ + (?b*)^½

Ideally, color measurements should be collected from a clean, unweathered sample area. If necessary, a scalpel is used to scrape an area clean before color matching. Due to inherent color variations in paints (especially in hand ground, pre-industrial coatings), multiple readings are taken and averaged together to establish the final CIE L*a*b* values.

Due to the deterioration, soiling, and fragmentary nature of some early paints, color readings cannot always be obtained with the Chroma Meter. In these instances, paints are matched by eye to Munsell standard color swatches and commercial paint chips, using a stereomicroscope at 30x magnification with a color corrected light source. Commercial systems consulted include Benjamin Moore, Sherwin Williams, Pittsburgh Paints, and the Colonial Williamsburg Color Collection.

First-floor northwest parlor

EV 65 South wall, cornice, top edge of cyma on bed molding, 60" out from east wall

EV 66 Chimneybreast cornice, south face, top trim of bedmold, 3" from west edge

EV 67 Chimneybreast cornice, north face, top trim of bedmold, 24" from west edge

First-floor southwest dining room

EV 68 Cornice, north wall, bedmolding, 24" out from west wall

EV 69 Wainscot, north wall, easternmost panel, top beveled edge, 15" from east wall

EV 70 Chair rail, north wall, end of rail where meets east wall

EV 71 Wainscot, north wall, bottom rail where meets baseboard, 7" out from east wall

EV72 Architrave of door to study (SE room), left jamb, backband, 22" up from floor

EV 73 Same as EV 72, taken from fascia at join of backband

EV 74 Same as EV 72 and 73, inner left jamb, 14" up from floor

EV 75 Chimneybreast chair rail, south side, rounded end facing east wall

EV 76 Same as EV 75, bedmold, 1" out from eastern edge

EV 77 Door leaf to study (dining room-side), bottom left panel, underside of panel at beveled edge

EV 78 Door leaf to study (dining room-side), bottom right panel, upper left corner, ovolo

EV 79 South wall, easternmost wainscot panel, upper left corner, ovolo

EV 80 West wall, wainscot under south window, lower left corner, ovolo

EV 81 West wall, window architrave, outer edge of backband, lower right corner

EV 82 Door leaf to passage (dining room-side), bottom left panel, underside

EV 83 Door leaf to passage (dining room-side), center right panel, underside, bottom right corner

EV 84 Door architrave to passage (dining room-side), backband, 36" up from floor

(Due to the high number of visitors I wasn't able to collect as many samples from this doorway as I would have liked. I will look at what I have to far and then return to the house, possibly sometime next week (?) to take additional samples)

Upper floor, small passage between north chambers

EV 129 Door leaf to NW chamber, center stile, 18 ½" up from floor

This door was sampled again because previous samples were fragmented and difficult to interpret. It is an important door because the profile of this door matches other early doors in the house (ie: the first floor doors on the east wall). The hinges of this door contained modern paints only.

Upper floor, northwest chamber

EV 130 Northern window box, exposed rafter at dormer ceiling on south side of window box, 8" of west wall.

I didn't see much historic paint here. Possibly a thin light yellow on the wood followed by the present thick, granular whitewash.

EV 131 Northern window box, exposed rafter at dormer ceiling on north side of window box, 14" west of the east end.

Again, I didn't see much in the way of historic paints.

Upper floor, southwest chamber

The closet door leaf and trim on the east wall is new. All window sash appear new. Trim around entrance to SE chamber new. The trim around the passage doorway is either stripped or new. The window architrave on the south wall is new.

EV 132 Northern window box, vertical trim on south side of window box, 29 ½" above floor.

EV 133 Northern window box, paneling just under lip of seat, 17" up from floor, at far left (south) edge of the seat

EV 134 Northern window box, paneling just under lip of seat, 17" up from floor, 7" from right (north) edge

EV 135 South window box, paneling just above seat on the north side, far east edge of the seat

EV 136 West wall, small closet door surround, top rail, 1 ½" inches from far right corner

EV 137 West wall, small closet door leaf, bottom H-hinge, part attached to surround, presently painted to match baseboard. 1" up from floor.

EV 138 West wall, baseboard. 49" up from north wall and 3" up from floor

EV 139 Door leaf to passage, room-side. Center stile, left edge, above lock rail, 60" up from floor

Parlor

• 1.

  We know that initially the walls were fully plastered because the marks of lath and plaster pass behind the present cornice and surbase (chair rail). We believe the leaf of the doorway into the passage is first-period, predating all other woodwork in the parlor. Likewise, we think passage doors into the dining room and two upper front chambers have first—period leaves.

  Frank Welsh found red-brown as the earliest paint layer on the door leaf. We hope to distinguish between this red— brown and that on what we think are the later cornice and surbase in the parlor.

• 2.

  The earliest additions appear to include the cornice and surbase. We say this because of the way in which upper rails of the wainscot and chimney paneling are butted against rather than passing behind these elements. Frank Welsh seemed to confirm this sequence when he found medium red-brown on the cornice and surbase and not on the wainscot or chimney casing. Frank also reported finding red-brown on the door architraves and the similar window frames.

  An important question for us is whether or not the architraves are contemporary with these second—period elements. They are crisp, canonically classical in outline and bold in scale, much more like the academic cornice and substantial surbase than the flat older architraves and thin surbases in the passage. The window architraves also sit rather awkwardly over projecting panels in the wainscot as though the wainscot there may be added.

  However, it is also conceivable that the architraves postdate the cornice and surbase, so it would be useful to compare closely their earliest layers and offer new evidence for whether or not they are contemporary.

• 3.

  Juxtaposition of the wainscoting and chimney paneling to the cornice and surbase suggest they represent a later addition, presumably third period. This seems confirmed by Frank finding no red-brown on the paneling. He did find red-brown on the sections of surbase installed over paneling on the sides of the chimney, so apparently these were reset when paneling was installed to upgrade the room. It is conceivable, however, that the chimney finish is contemporary with the surbase. Indeed, the mantel looks back to earlier 18th-century finish, in scale and composition if not in the shape of the classical moldings. So, again, it is worth checking to clarify whether or not the paneling lacks the earliest layers on the architraves, cornice, and surbase.

  There appears to have been some surgery when the door from the parlor to the northeast chamber was installed.

A sizable panel over the door has stiles with unmatched pegs, one on the right and two on the left, as though it might have been reworked for this location, and the panel is less resolved in relation to the door's architrave than the corresponding one in the east wall of the dining room. Perhaps this is just uneven work, but it is worth checking. The door leaf dates from the 18thcentury, but it seems reused here, because its outer stiles and rails have been cut down to fit this opening. More importantly, it is superior to door leafs in the passage because it has ovolos edging the raised panels, like a pair of small door leafs reused between the northwest chamber and northeast room upstairs, at least one 204 of them probably installed when the service stair was added. More convincingly original to its location is a better door with ovolos on the front panel fields in the dining room. Frank found earliest layers on the parlor leaf that do not match those elsewhere in the room. It will be useful to determine when the paint layers do begin to align with those elsewhere in the parlor, and whether this leaf and its smaller counterparts upstairs may match layers around the west doorway in the southeast room, which is the only contender as a source for the three doors. A reasonable guess is that the three doors were salvaged from another Williamsburg building and installed here in the second or third period, but the dining room door may argue otherwise.

We would like to know if the sash in the parlor contain any evidence for relative date. Those in the two west windows are bulkier than those in the north window, but all three windows may offer evidence.

As Jeff points out, the doorway from passage to the dining room (southwest room) seems to have exposed outer edges of its Brush-era frame exposed behind the applied Georgian architrave. This is worth investigating for paint evidence; comparable fabric seems not to be exposed in the parlor.

Study

As noted above, the doorway from the dining room to the southeast room has a related leaf, here with ovolos on front of the panels and raised panels without ovolos on the rear. It, too, has a thin lock rail. This door was re-hung, evinced by ghosts for plain HL hinges, 1' 2" high and 1' ¼" wide, on the south jamb. We are interested in how this leaf matches with its frame and overdoor panel, on both the east and west sides. This leaf seems more likely than its three counterparts to be in its original location, but Frank found samples from the east (rear) side to be incomplete. It has the appearance of being exposed outside for a time.

Evidence for finish in the southeast room is very limited, but Frank did find some early paint, including a yellow ochre that we have interpreted as Everard era.

Stair Passage

Thinking about the academic character of second-period woodwork in the parlor and dining room makes one wonder if what looks to me like second-period elements of the stair is of the same date, whether installed by Elizabeth Russell, Henry Cary, or conceivably Thomas Everard. The replacement balusters are more academic than the initial ones, just as second- and maybe third-period woodwork in the rooms.

We all think the door architraves and door leaves in the openings from passage into the parlor and dining room are first-period.

Summary

As we develop a New Testament text for the Everard House, then, here are some initial questions for paint analysis.

• 1. Can we distinguish between Brush-era red-brown on the passage door leaf and that on what we think are the second-period cornice and surbase in the parlor?
• 2. Are the parlor door and window architraves actually second-period, matching the cornice and surbase, or later?
• 3. Is there clear evidence that the paneling in the parlor is third-period, lacking the earliest paint on cornice, surbase, and architraves?
• 4. Can we learn anything useful about the door from the parlor to the northeast chamber?
• 5. Can we relate paint on second-period stair elements to that on woodwork in the parlor or dining room? Or, can we distinguish between first— and second-period red-brown on different stair elements?
• 6. What can we learn about finish in the southeast room, including whether the relatively high-quality door leaf was made for that location. This may have implications for the three other leaves with ovolos edging the panels.