061123.Westonbirt, Thanksgiving

November 23, 2006 at 8:07 PM | Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Orange.

 

Some dressings for the family table?

 

Orange.

 

061114.262.Glos.Westonbirt

 

Orange.

 

Onion Magazine

 

Orange.

 

“…13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, Orange,
26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32,33-Orange,
34, 44, 68, 27, 35. 42, 58,47, 63, 85, 67, 66, 51, 79, 42-Orange,
58 47, 62, 85. Orange. I lost the thread.

 The Heritage Lotto provides critical funding to most UK conservation efforts.

Orange.

 Forget the garnishes and play the Lotto.

Orange.

Yeah, that’s right.

 

 

 

 

 

061118.Bath, ‘X’ Marks the Spots: Conserve Some, Remove Others

November 18, 2006 at 4:07 AM | Posted in Architecture, Bath, Bath Abbey, Cathedrals and churches, Chisel Marks, Conservation, Ladders, Preservation, Restoration, Ruins, Salisbury, Sculpture, somerset, Uncategorized, Wiltshire | 3 Comments

061026.097.Somset.Bath.Abbey.West.St Andrew Statue

 

Figure of St. Andrew

Date:1500-1540
Height: 60 inches
Width: 20 inches
Depth: c8 inches

061117.1.Somset.Bath.Abbey.RolandNewman.DecayandConsofStone.MMEver stare at something for a long time? I’ve been watching this west facade of Bath Abbey like a hawk, which is why the statues and their surroundings have bothered me. At the Salisbury lecture, I learned that Salisbury’s west facade has the most preserved medieval stonework (mostly plain ashlars) even though most of its façade statuary was clearly Victorian (they’re wearing wigs, etc.) from Gilbert Scott’s notorious true “restoration.” Scott demolished anything that was built after the cathedral was first completed, and rearranged the remaining original fabric of the interior to make it symmetrical. His actions were a contributing impetus for conservation studies.

Anyway, I took this photo of St. Andrew (and several other statues) a while back and then found a case study on it by Roland Newman examining the previous restorations of the statue and the late 1990s conservation efforts that resulted in what you see above. The main efforts seem to have been removing the previous restoration addition’s use of cement and replacing it with a built-up sacrificial layer of lime mortar.

There have been four major restorations of the abbey:
1833 G.P. Manners
1860-73 Gilbert Scott: his work here was the considered scholarly and responsible (having gone in and replaced or removed most of Manner’s altercations)
1900 Thomas Jackson
1957-1960 (I believe carried out by English Heritage)
And the late 1990s conservation efforts by English Heritage.

The canopy around St Andrew is carved from Clipsham stone and dates from 1900, as much of the Bath stone weathers poorly. (This is infamously seen by its poor performance in the restoration of Henry VII’s Westminster Abbey Chapel, London.) Newman provides a very good explanation on the causes of decay at Bath Abbey, and Bath in general. “The weather in Bath is mainly from the South West, so the parts of the stone facing in that direction get perpetually washed whist those facing in other directions do not. This gives rise to mechanical erosion on one side of a figure and a build up of dirt and salts on the other.” (Newman, 17. See citation below.)

Will answer the demands of the Ruth, Natalie, and JC in tomorrow’s post.

 

 

 

 

061117.2.Somset.Bath.Abbey.RolandNewman.DecayandConsofStone.MM061117.4.Somset.Bath.Abbey.RolandNewman.DecayandConsofStone.MM

Except for the top photo, all information diagrams and the second photo above come from

Roland Newman, The Decay and Conservation of Stone. Thesis (MSc). (Bath: University of Bath: 2000).

061017.Nympsfield, Woodchester Mansion Ground Floor Billiard Room, Entrance Hall

October 17, 2006 at 9:24 PM | Posted in Architecture, Blogroll, Chisel Marks, Conservation, Gloucestershire, Mansion, Nymsfield, Ruins, Uncategorized, Vaults | 9 Comments

Woodchester Mansion Website

061013.063.Glos.Nympsfield.WoodchesterMansion.SouthWing.BilliardRm

As explained in earlier posts, this house was never compeleted. Abandoned in the 1870s, it is a remarkable surviving Victorian construction site. It remained standing because of the strength of its masonry walls. For the most part, floors were never put in and the walls rely on heavy buttresses. Here in the South Wing’s Billiard Room, one can gaze up at three sets of fireplaces and the springing stones where the ceiling vaults would have attached themselves to the walls.

The Woodstock Mansion estate had a brick manufacturer on site, as well as stone a few feet under the ground, but there was very little timber on the estate. The foundations are all stacked on solid bedrock, and the mansion was built almost entirely of materials found on the property making the mansion somewhat afordable for your average business baron.

Try as I might, I could not get all three complete fireplaces in the picture, but you can see the mantel of the ground floor and the next two floors quite well. There is a large stone arch supporting the roof timbers, and several holes in the oak and slate roof.

Apart from the brick arches taking the load off the delicately carved fireplaces, another aspect to note are the holes in the masonry for the scaffoldings (no longer there). They would normally have been sealed up with brick and then plastered over. The most interesting construction remainders are the cheap wooden boards over the top mantels (barely visible). These boards were placed over all delicate stonework during construction, so nothing was chipped before the house was turned over to the owner.

Don’t go there when it’s raining, which is pretty much every single day. But if you ignore the freezing dampness, it is well worth the trip. And I’m told they throw an incredible Halloween party for 15 pounds. They’ve added spooky doors to complete the “haunted” look of the house and each scaffolding hole is filled with a small candle, which must look amazing in the dark!

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Entries and comments feeds.