historic structure report - Lexington Historical Society

Transcription

HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT
The Buckman Tavern
Lexington, Massachusetts
August 2013
Menders, Torrey & Spencer
Cover photo credits. Background and upper right: Menders, Torrey & Spencer, Inc.
Lower right and left: Lexington Historical Society.
The Buckman Tavern
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & METHODOLOGY
PART 1: DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY (Anne Andrus Grady, Architectural Historian)
A) Introduction & Summary of Findings
Page 3 B) Significance: Historical & Architectural Page 5 C) Historical Analysis Page 7 – Title History Page 7 – History of Property Owners & Significant Events Page 8
– Taverns in Lexington Page 19
D) Architectural Analysis
Page 20
– Original Construction & Building Evolution
Page 20
– Building History by Category Page 29
E) Research Methodology & Bibliography
Page 83
F) Historic Views & Plans
Page 89
PART 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS & TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
A) Drawings & Photographs Page 95
B) Character Defining Features
Page 101
C) Preservation Guidelines Page 105
D) Conditions & Recommendations
Page 109
– Exterior
Page 110
– Interior
Page 116
E) Mechanical, Electrical & Plumbing Page 131
PART 3: CONCEPTUAL DESIGN/FEASIBILITY STUDY
A) Conceptual Design Page 135
B) Regulatory Analysis Page 153 C) Outline Drawings and Specifications
Page 157
D) Opinion of Probable Cost Page 173
E) Cyclical Maintenance Plan Page 179
Menders, Torrey & Spencer, Inc. • 2013
i
The Buckman Tavern
APPENDIX
ii
A) Paint Analysis & Recommendations (Finch & Rose, 2013)
B) Paint Analysis (Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities, 1987)
C) Summary of Probable Cost (MJ Mawn, Inc.)
D) Presentation to Community Preservation Committee (April 8, 2013)
E) References to Buckman Tavern in Town Records
The Buckman Tavern
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
The Lexington Historical Society
13 Depot Square
Lexington, MA 02420
Lynne Spencer Patrick Guthrie Nicholas Curtis Lynn Smiledge Susan Bennett, Executive Director
Lester E. Savage III, Building Committee Chair
F. David Wells, Jr., Board of Directors
Joseph Michelson, Owner’s Representative
Menders, Torrey & Spencer, Inc. Architecture • Preservation
123 North Washington Street
Boston, MA 02114
617.227.1477
www.mendersarchitects.com
Principal, Historic Preservation
Registered Architect
Architectural Designer
Preservation Planner
Affiliated Consultants:
Architectural Historian:
Anne Andrus Grady
10 Trotting Horse Drive
Lexington, MA 02421
781.862.8977
Anne wishes to thank Susan Bennett and Elaine Doran of the Lexington Historical
Society and Paul Doherty, volunteer photographer for the Society, for their
assistance in the preparation of this report. She would also like to acknowledge
the previous research on the Buckman Tavern by Willard Brown and Edwin B.
Worthen, Jr., and the photographs taken and annotated by S. Lawrence Whipple.
These have all been invaluable resources.
Historic Building Fabric Consultant:
Finch & Rose
William Finch 50 Front Street
Beverly, MA 01915
978.922.4950
iii
The Buckman Tavern
Mechanical, Electrical, Plumbing & Fire Protection Engineers:
Cirees, Inc.
John King
540 Granite Street, Suite 206
Braintree, MA 02184
781.849.7262
iv
Structural Engineer: Aberjona Engineering Inc.
One Mt. Vernon Street, Third Floor
Winchester, MA 01890
781.729.6188
Cost Estimator:
MJ Mawn, Inc.
Michael Mawn
595 Washington St.
East Walpole, MA 02032
508.660.6790
The Buckman Tavern
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
It was a privilege to be selected to prepare a Historic Structure Report and conceptual designs for the Buckman Tavern. Determining the rehabilitation needs and future
use of this National Historic Landmark was the ultimate objective of the study. The
Historic Structure Report, which complies with the guidelines of the National Park
Service, was prepared to provide a comprehensive and scholarly assessment of the
building’s history and fabric, a comprehensive survey of existing physical conditions,
and treatment recommendations for the building’s preservation.
The findings of the Historic Structure Report led to a very fluid programming phase.
The initial concept of the Historical Society project team evolved as new revelations
in the research influenced interpretation and building use goals in unexpected ways.
As with all aspects of this work, the collaborative dialogue resulted in a final program
that represents an informed step forward.
The programmatic needs, combined with an understanding of the building’s condition, code requirements and historic review requirements, served as the foundation
for conceptual options designed to suit the program and building capacity. The
evolving program resulted in five iterations of the renovation being developed. The
design options were explored with the building stewards, and eventually an outcome
was reached that was parallel to the final program. Outline plans and specifications
formed the basis of a detailed cost estimate for the selected option and design development proceed through construction documents and bidding.
The cost to accomplish all of the exterior preservation recommendations in this
report and the selected option for renovation and handicap access was estimated at
approximately $953,000 including soft costs such as architectural, engineering, and legal fees and expenses. To assist in funding the preservation project, the Society raised
funds internally and successfully sought Community Preservation Act funding and a
grant from the Massachusetts Cultural Facilities Fund.
The Report
Part One of this study, the Developmental History by Anne Grady, provides an indepth historical and architectural analysis of the building and explores the Tavern’s
significant role in American history. Generously illustrated with historic drawings
and images and investigative photographs, it also contains a comprehensive research
bibliography.
Part Two, Existing Conditions & Treatment Recommendations, includes a list of
character-defining features at the Tavern and guidelines for its preservation and
rehabilitation consistent with The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties. Physical conditions are documented with photographs and narrative
and treatment recommendations are provided for both the exterior and interior. The
recommendations include suggestions for further investigation of the historic fabric
and for historically appropriate paint colors and finishes.
v
The Buckman Tavern
Part Three of the report contains conceptual designs options for rehabilitation and handicap access
based on the established program of needs, a comprehensive regulatory analysis, and recommendations from the existing conditions survey. Outline drawings and specifications and an opinion of
probable cost were derived from the selected design option. A cyclical maintenance plan is provided
that will help the building stewards anticipate and budget for routine maintenance activities.
The Appendix includes the complete paint analysis reports by Finch & Rose (2013) and the Society
for the Preservation of New England Antiquities (1987), the summary of probable cost (MJ Mawn,
Inc.), the presentation to the Community Preservation Committee on April 8, 2013, and historic
references to the Buckman Tavern in excerpts from Town of Lexington records.
METHODOLOGY
This Historic Structure Report represents a collaborative effort between Menders, Torrey & Spencer, Inc. (MTS) and the Lexington Historical Society. The Society was represented by Susan Bennett,
Executive Director, who served as point of contact with MTS and facilitated access to the Buckman
Tavern. The project team was assembled and coordinated by Lynne Spencer, partner and preservation principal at Menders, Torrey & Spencer, Inc. and Patrick Guthrie, RA, who together directed
on-site investigations and development of the report. They were assisted by Nicholas Curtis, architectural designer, and Lynn Smiledge, preservation planner and report coordinator.
Architectural Historian Anne Grady prepared Part One of the report, the developmental history of
the Buckman Tavern. The methodology she employed is described in detail on page 83 of the study.
William Finch of Finch & Rose, historic preservation consultants, visited the building to investigate
historic fabric including exterior clapboards and interior wall finishes to characterize the various paint
and wallpaper treatments of the building throughout its evolution.
A dendrochronology study was performed Dr. Daniel Miles of the Oxford Dendrochronology Laboratory.
Aberjona Engineering conducted a structural engineering assessment of the building and John King
of Cirees, Inc. performed an assessment of the mechanical, electrical, plumbing and fire protection
systems. Their findings are incorporated in Part Two of this Report, Existing Conditions and Treatment Recommendations. Michael Mawn of M.J. Mawn Inc. prepared the cost estimates for renovation based on outline plans and specifications developed by MTS.
Drawings were created using CAD based on field measurements and HABS drawings and used in
conjunction with photographs and narrative to document existing conditions and illustrate treatment
recommendations. Concurrently, conceptual design options were created and presented to the Board
of the Directors of the Lexington Historical Society and the Lexington Historic Districts Commission. Outline specifications for restoration and rehabilitation were based upon the approved conceptual design.
All photographs were taken by Menders, Torrey & Spencer, Inc. or Anne Andrus Grady unless otherwise indicated. The final report was issued both as a printed document and in electronic format as a
portable document format (.pdf). Six hard copies were delivered along with the compact disc.
vi
The Buckman Tavern
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY
by Anne Andrus Grady
Room numbers referenced in the Developmental History portion of this report are
shown on the floor plans that follow.
BUCKMAN'S
TAVERN
MASSACHUSETTS 4
LEXINGTON, MA
Architect:
menders, torrey & spencer, inc
architecture preservatio
004
Boston, MA 02114
t. 617.227.1477
f. 617.227.2654
UP
UP
UP
002
001
003
ISSUE:
REVISIONS:
JUNE 28, 2
Date:
Scale:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
1235
Project Number:
005
Do not scale the drawings. Al
dimensions shall be confirmed
prior to construction.The contrac
shall immediatly report any
discrepancies to the architect
UP
Basement
BUCKMAN'S
TAVERN
MASSACHUSETTS 4
N
1
BUCKMAN'S TAVERN BASEMENT PLAN
LEXINGTON, MA
Architect:
1/8" = 1'-0"
106
UP
T
DW
UP
104
103
105
Boston, MA 02114
t. 617.227.1477
f. 617.227.2654
UP
T
100
A-1
101
102
DW
111
UP
107
DW
ISSUE:
T
108
DW
UP
UP
REVISIONS:
T
JUNE 28, 2
Date:
T
Scale:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
110
Project Number:
109
1235
First Floor
N
BUCKMAN'S TAVERN 1ST FLOOR PLAN
1 Torrey & Spencer, Inc. • 2013
Menders,
1/8" = 1'-0"
1
A-2
The Buckman Tavern
BUCKMAN'S
TAVERN
MASSACHUSETTS 4
LEXINGTON, MA
Architect:
Boston, MA 02114
t. 617.227.1477
f. 617.227.2654
201
206DW
202
UP
200
ISSUE:
DW
REVISIONS:
203
UP
UP
DW
UP
JUNE 28, 2
Date:
Scale:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
205
Second Floor
N
1
1235
Project Number:
204
BUCKMAN'S
TAVERN
A-3
BUCKMAN'S TAVERN 2ND FLOOR PLAN
MASSACHUSETTS 4
1/8" = 1'-0"
LEXINGTON, MA
Architect:
menders, torrey & spencer, in
Boston, MA 02114
t. 617.227.1477
f. 617.227.2654
301
300
ISSUE:
DW
302
UP
REVISIONS:
DW
JUNE 28, Date:
Scale:
Drawn by:
304
Checked by:
303
Project Number:
1235
Do not scale the drawings. A
dimensions shall be confirme
discrepancies to the architec
Attic
N
1
2
BUCKMAN'S TAVERN 3RD FLOOR PLAN
1/8" = 1'-0"
A-4
The Buckman Tavern
A) INTRODUCTION & SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
INTRODUCTION
This Historic Structure Report was undertaken as part of a larger project to repair and restore the
Buckman Tavern and to improve accessibility, interpretation/exhibition and the visitor experience.
The information in the report is intended to serve as the basis for current and future preservation decisions regarding the Tavern. The project, following on the successful renovations of the
Hancock-Clarke House in 2008 and the Munroe Tavern in 2010, is the Lexington Historical Society’s
third initiative to improve the condition of its properties and to provide for current programmatic
and interpretive needs. The initial phase of the Buckman Tavern project, including the architectural
and historical studies presented in this report, was supported by Community Preservation Act funds
of the Town of Lexington.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The Buckman Tavern is most renowned for its role in the events of April 19, 1775. However, the
site is important in other ways. It has been a notable presence in Lexington since it became a tavern
in 1713, shortly after it was built. As a “Public House of Entertainment,” the Tavern was faithfully
tended by John Muzzy from 1713 to about 1755, Samuel Stone from 1764 or earlier to 1768, John
Buckman from 1768 to 1784, Joseph Simonds from 1784 to 1794, and Rufus Meriam from 1794
to about 1815 when the building ceased to be used as a tavern. For the next 100 years the property
was the locus of a thriving 42-acre farm, including at its peak 12 farm buildings, and as such reflects
the agricultural heritage of Lexington,
where farming was a chief occupation
up through the 19th century.
In 1913 when the remaining three-acres
of land and the Tavern were threatened with redevelopment, the Town of
Lexington and the Lexington Historical
Society stepped in to save the building.
In a public/private partnership, unusual
at the time, the Town owned the property, but the Historical Society assumed
management under a 99-year lease. For
the first dozen or more years, the Tavern was not a museum. During World
Figure 1. Buckman Tavern, October 2012.
War I townspeople had gathered at the
Tavern to support the war effort under
the leadership of the Red Cross. After the war and with the support of the Historical Society, the
Buckman Tavern Community Association sought to preserve the collegiality developed during World
War I by creating what was in all senses a modern community center. People feared that, otherwise,
the Tavern would “creep back into its dead past.”1
1
Report of the Buckman Tavern Committee, 1919. Box 2, Buckman Tavern Collection, Lexington Historical Society Archives.
3
The Buckman Tavern
In the early 1920s under the leadership
of Lexington architect Willard Brown,
the Tavern was the subject of a restoration that was more restrained than many
restorations of the period. With the tutelage of William Sumner Appleton of
the Society for the Preservation of New
England Antiquities, Brown employed
newly emerging scientific preservation
methods based on the examination of
physical evidence in buildings themselves. He had the good luck, especially
in the Tap Room, to find significant evidence to guide his restoration. Gradually
as furniture and artifacts were returned
to the Tavern, museum rooms were created and community use of the Tavern
declined.
1713
Ca. 1730
Ca. 1755
By 1813
1860
Figure 2. Additions to the Buckman Tavern. Adapted from a drawing by Russell H.Kettell reproduced in Willard Brown, The Story of the Buckman Tavern,
1967.
The findings presented in this report
are the result of examination of the
documentary record, most of it housed
in the Lexington Historical Society
Archive, detailed examination of the
building, and William Finch’s paint research.2 These approaches were used to
develop a chronology of the history of
the building and its use and to place the
building in an architectural and historical context.
The Tavern’s main structure achieved its present size in three building campaigns that probably occurred before John Muzzy is believed to have given up the tavern business about 1755.3 At first the
Tavern, built ca. 1713 in a late First Period (post-medieval) style, was a single room, two story building with a lean-to. Very shortly after, perhaps before 1730, another room and chamber were added on
the other side of the chimney bay. In the final enlargement the Tavern became a structure that was
two rooms deep and three stories high with habitable rooms on the third floor, and was decorated on
the exterior in an up-to-date Georgian style. With this enlargement the Tavern became the most stylish building believed to have been built in Lexington in the 18th century and the tallest, other than
the meetinghouse.
2
William Finch of Finch & Rose, “Buckman Tavern Paint and Woodwork Dating Report,” February 2013.
3
Specific documentary references to the use of the Buckman Tavern in the later years of John Muzzy’s life are lacking.
See a discussion of the reasons for giving 1755 as the approximate date that John Muzzy ceased to be an innholder under
biographical information in Part 1:C.
4
The Buckman Tavern
The objective of this Historic Structure Report is to facilitate informed preservation decisions about
future repairs, renovations, and reinstallations for interpretive purposes in order the ensure that this
iconic building, now 300 years old, will be appropriately preserved for many years to come.
B) SIGNIFICANCE
Historical Significance
The role of the Buckman Tavern in events surrounding the Battle of Lexington on April 19, 1775,
assured the Tavern’s prominent place in the history of the Town and the nation. As one of the most
important surviving buildings associated with the first confrontation in the long Revolutionary War,
the Tavern has been an icon of the Revolution ever since. The richness of the documentary record,
including depositions by militiamen and others, enhances our understanding of the Tavern’s place in
the events of that day.
The Buckman Tavern, built between 1709 and 1713, is the oldest surviving tavern building in Lexington as well as the oldest building altogether. The building continued to be a tavern for the next 100
years as taverns became an important component of the local economy. Lexington was a preferred
stopping place for drovers because it was only a day’s walk from markets in Boston. By the first decade of the 19th century, twelve taverns were operating in town.
The Tavern and the park surrounding it is the last remnant of what was once an active farm in
Lexington center, and thus reflects Lexington’s history as a rural agrarian community. The property
is also an early example of the saving of an important historic building with the use of public funds,
and of a successful public/private partnership by which the Lexington Historical Society raised one
third of the purchase cost in return for the Tavern and some surrounding land being placed in the
Society’s stewardship in perpetuity as long as the building is used for historical purposes. The Tavern
was then leased to the Society for 99 years in 1914, and that lease was renewed for another 99 years
in 2013. The Town of Lexington at times provided funds for major repairs.
The Buckman Tavern is also significant for its history of use as a community center. Just as the
Historical Society took over management of the building, World War I broke out in Europe. Until
1918, the Tavern was used to support the war effort as an “emergency hospital” and quarters for an
active Red Cross program. People from all walks of life came to volunteer. After the war, the Buckman Tavern Committee, appointed by the Lexington Historical Society to explore future use of the
Tavern, argued that the building should continue to be used by the community instead of becoming a
static symbol of the past. For the first 15 years, under the leadership of the Buckman Tavern Community Association, the building housed all of the kinds of activities that one would wish for today
in a community center and more – human services, children’s play groups, a children’s museum, Red
Cross and other charity work. It also served as an informal meeting place for residents. Anyone could
rent rooms for a nominal fee. The Tavern, therefore, also represents an early effort to foster a sense
of community in the Town through the establishment of a center for common activities, care and
fellowship.
As more furnishings and artifacts were returned to the Tavern, the Historical Society gradually took
over rooms for displays. So began the important role of the Tavern as a well-visited house museum
and education center under the stewardship of the Lexington Historical Society, which continues
today.
5
The Buckman Tavern
Architectural Significance
The Buckman Tavern represents an architectural continuum that embodies features of three stylistic periods and thus reflects the needs and aspirations of successive owners. The oldest part,
built between 1709 and 1713, was a modest single room saltbox house with late First Period framing, fireplace construction and decorative treatments. In the second quarter of the 18th century, or
shortly thereafter, the structure was enlarged to its present size and remodeled on the exterior to
reflect Renaissance classical architecture of the early Georgian period. The classical frontispiece (now
a reproduction), the molded window heads and the massing of the, by then, two-room-deep, threestory house with hip roof, dormers and projecting eaves link the Tavern to upscale architecture of
the time.
The Tavern, while still an inn, became the most architecturally sophisticated building known to have
existed in Lexington in the 18th century. This particular form was a symbol of wealth and status
among New England elites of the time, and it is somewhat surprising that John Muzzy, a mere tavern
keeper, saw himself in that light. It
was perhaps his second wife, Rebecca
Watts, an heir to the vast Bellingham
estate in Chelsea, who influenced her
husband to build such a grand house.
The Bellingham-Cary House in Chelsea, built by other Bellingham heirs, is
another example of this early Georgian hip-roofed style. Unfortunately,
only a few features of the Tavern’s
interior in the Georgian period have
survived. They include raised-field
paneling south of the fireplace in the
southwest parlor, the stair balusters
on the second floor, and, apparently,
two chimneybreasts.
Figure 3. Detail of a stereoscopic view of the Buckman Tavern, ca. 1865. Courtesy of the Lexington Historical Society.
During the early years of the ownership by Rufus Meriam, the interiors
were remodeled in the Federal style to
reflect its use as a modern family dwelling. Walls previously sheathed or plastered over were given flat
board dados. Mantelpieces for fireplaces that had been reduced in size featured friezes decorated with
reeded pilaster caps and mantel shelves with delicate moldings. Stair balusters were replaced on the
first floor with simple ones, square in section, that were characteristic of the period.
The Buckman Tavern also represents an early restoration that employed scientific methods of investigation and documentation espoused by leading preservationists of the time such as William Sumner Appleton, Norman Isham and J. Frederick Kelly. There is a certain irony to the fact the Willard
Brown led the restoration. In 1909 he had designed for Leroy Brown the remodeling of the Jonathan
Harrington House bordering the Green on the corner of Bedford Street that resulted in the loss
6
The Buckman Tavern
of considerable historic fabric. The threat to the historic integrity of this pre-Revolutionary building “so roused” William Sumner Appleton by “the practical destruction by over-restoration” of the
Harrington House that he was prompted to found the Society for the Preservation of New England
Antiquities (SPNEA).4
By the time Willard Brown led the remodeling of the Buckman Tavern, or perhaps because of its
historic importance, he had learned to be cautious. Brown’s use of building archaeology included
identifying original wallpapers by peeling apart many layers or discovering remnants behind later
woodwork. He also commissioned paint research to determine the original colors used in the stair
hall. Brown’s work included documenting “before” conditions in 24 early color photographs (the
photos have not survived). To his credit, Brown realized that there was not enough data to restore
the inside of the Tavern to its appearance at the time of the battle, so he left in place interiors much
as they had been updated by Rufus Meriam in the early 19th century, except in the tap room and old
kitchen. He stated, “Other lines of evidence and speculation might be considered, but enough has
been suggested to indicate that in the restoration of these early houses one may not jump at conclusions, and that all work of this nature can be undertaken only with the utmost caution.”5 As a result,
Brown took far fewer liberties with the past than in most restorations of the time in which conjectural period features were installed and preserved important evidence of early treatments.
C) HISTORICAL ANALYSIS
Title History and Important Dates
1693
Edward Pelham sells 206 acres to Benjamin Muzzy, including the Tavern site.
1709
Benjamin Muzzy conveys six acres, including the Tavern site to his son, John Muzzy. John Muzzy marries Elizabeth Bradshaw.
Ca. 1709-
1713
Earliest part of the Tavern built.
1713
Town of Lexington incorporated.
1714
John Muzzy approved as an innholder. 1722
John Muzzy marries Rebecca Watts Turner Ingham.
1755
By this time the Tavern has likely achieved its present three-story configuration and John Muzzy is believed to have given up the Tavern business.
4
William Sumner Appleton, “Preserving the Antiquities of New England,” ms., n.d. Appleton File, Historic New England.
As quoted in James Lindgren, Preserving Historic New England (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 139. See also
Charles Hosmer, Presence of the Past (New York: Oxford University Press, 1965), 238.
5
Willard D. Brown, The Story of Buckman Tavern (Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Historical Society, 1967), 37. Hereafter cited as Brown.
7
The Buckman Tavern
1764
John Muzzy sells the Tavern property to his son-in-law, Samuel Stone.
1768
Jane Muzzy Stone, Samuel’s widow, is granted administration of his estate.
Stones’ daughters Elizabeth and Ruth, inherit the Tavern.
1768
John Buckman, husband of Ruth Stone, begins to manage the Tavern.
1774
John Buckman buys out the share of the Tavern owned by Elizabeth Stone and her husband, Joseph Simonds, to acquire full possession of the property.
1775, April 19
Battle of Lexington.
1784
John Buckman sells the Tavern to his brother-in-law, Joseph Simonds, who runs the Tavern for the next ten years.
1794
Joseph Simonds sells the Tavern property to his niece Martha Simonds and her husband, Rufus Meriam, who operates the Tavern until about 1815.
1847
Rufus Meriam dies. His widow died in 1847. Their daughters inherit the Tavern. One son, Rufus, and four of the five daughters lived on in the Tavern until the last one dies.
1886 Mary Meriam and her niece, Abbie Stetson Griffing, convey the three-acre xxxxxxxxxxxxxxproperty to Abbie’s son, Thomas Meriam Stetson, in trust.6
1890
Mary Meriam, last surviving child of Rufus Meriam, dies.
1913
Town of Lexington purchases the Tavern.7
1914
Town leases the Tavern property to the Historical Society for 99 years.
History of Property Owners, Use, and Significant Events Associated with the Property
1693
Benjamin Muzzy (1657-1732)8
In 1693 Benjamin Muzzy purchased 206 acres of land including the site of the Buckman Tavern
from Edward Pelham. The land had been part of a 600-acre grant of 1638 that encompassed what
6
Edwin B. Worthen, Jr., Historian, Lexington Historical Society, “Buckman Tavern: an Account of the Land and the
House, its Ownership and Development.” 1963, 24. Hereafter cited as Worthen.
7 Middlesex County Registry of Deeds: 3809; 270.
8
According to Charles Hudson in History of the Town of Lexington, 1913, Vol. II, there were many spellings of the name.
“Muzzy is the common form in the older records, although Muzzey appears as early as 1737.” P. 476.
8
The Buckman Tavern
is now Lexington Center, but was then part of Cambridge. By the 1640s, the land was owned by
the Pelham family. Worthen believes that Benjamin Muzzy’s father, also named Benjamin, who died
in 1690, was sent by the Pelhams to clear their land, which was a condition of the grant, and that
he stayed on to manage the farm for the Pelhams.9 Nineteenth century local historian M.J. Canavan
believes that Benjamin Muzzy, the son, continued to manage the Pelham farm until he purchased it.10
The area was known as “the Farms” even before it became a separate precinct of Cambridge in 1691.
Benjamin Muzzy was living in Cambridge Farms at least as early as 1692 and probably for some years
before that.11 He was a subscriber to the building of the meetinghouse there in 1692. According to
Canavan, he had already amassed a large amount of land in the precinct before he purchased the Pelham property in 1693, and he was one of the largest taxpayers in 1693. Benjamin Muzzy held public
offices in the precinct as constable in 1694, assessor in 1700 and in the Town of Lexington after its
establishment in 1713 as tythingman in 1716. He died in 1732. The inventory of his estate included
111 acres of land in Lexington and a substantial personal estate. There were many heirs, given that
he had eight children by his first wife, Sarah (d. 1711), and five by his second wife, Jane. John Muzzy,
as the oldest son, would have received more than the others, but he had already received some of his
portion (see below).12
1709
John Muzzy (1685-1768)
John Muzzy, Benjamin’s oldest son, was only 24 years old when on May 10, 1709, his father conveyed
to him, as part of his inheritance, the land on which the Buckman Tavern was built. Benjamin Muzzy
probably wanted, in anticipation of John’s coming marriage, to set him up for married life; he stated
in the deed:
For Divers good Causes and Considerations, but more Especially for the good affection I bear unto my well beloved son John Muzzy, Clothier, Give Grant and confirme
unto him a Certain parcel of Land Lying in Cambridge in the farms neer the Farm
meeting house and by Estimation Six acres more or less.13
John married Elizabeth Bradshaw (1688-1722) on July 9, 1709. Whether the house was built in 1709,
or several years later remains to be determined.14 In 1714, John Muzzy appeared before the selectmen
to request their approval to operate a public house of entertainment. His father came with him and
vouched that he would back John up with supplies needed to operate the tavern. The record reads:
9
Worthen, 5.
10
M. J. Canavan, “Something about the Old Muzzy Farm before the Revolution,” Typescript, c. 1900. Lexington Historical
Society Archives #3761, 8.
11
Canavan, “Muzzy Farm,” cites Paige’s statement in his History of Cambridge (1877) that Benjamin Muzzy, the son, moved
to Cambridge before 1681.
12
Middlesex County Registry of Deeds: 34; 314.
13
Middlesex County Registry of Deeds 16; 323, as quoted in Worthen, 7.
14 Dating the Tavern by Dendrochronology is anticipated in 2013 as part of the current renovation project.
9
The Buckman Tavern
June 28, 1714: At a metting of the Selectmen it was agred that John Muzzy should
have thare approbation to kep a Publique House of entertainment, and his father did
ingage before the Selectmen to accommodate his son with stable room haye and pasturing, so far as he stood in nead for the support of strangers.15
Again Benjamin Muzzy gave John a leg up in life which, as one of the largest taxpayers, he could afford to do.
Locating a tavern close to the meetinghouse must have seemed a wise choice. At the time, there was
only one other tavern in Lexington, the one run by John Comee, about a mile down the main road
on what would later become the Munroe Tavern site.16 Although John Muzzy’s occupation was given
as a clothier in the deed from his father, in a deed of 1717 he was called a weaver. Thus it appears
that he continued to make and sell cloth to supplement his income from the tavern and to support
his growing family. John Muzzy also served the town in various capacities over his long career as an
innkeeper: as constable in 1727, school committee member in 1733, selectman in 1741-1742 and
1744, and assessor in 1746. John and Elizabeth Muzzy had five children before 1719. Elizabeth died in February 1722 at age 33.
In December 1722, John married Rebecca Watts Turner Ingham. They had no children. Rebecca
died in July 1731 at age 49. Rebecca was the daughter of Rebecca and Edward Watts, who were heirs
to the majority of the Bellingham estate of four large farms in Chelsea. After the parents’ deaths in
1714 and 1715 respectively, Rebecca received £200 from her mother’s estate, while her brothers, Edward, Samuel and Daniel received farms. Edward, as the oldest, received one half of the value, and
his younger brothers one quarter each. Edward prospered and at his death in 1727, had a personal
estate of £2878. As he died intestate, Rebecca would have been entitled to an amount of his estate
specified by law, but the amount she received has yet to be determined.17
If Rebecca received a portion of her brother’s estate, that amount plus John Muzzy’s inheritance
from his father in 1732 would have put him in position to complete the enlargement of the Tavern
building to the three story, double pile structure that it was at the time of the battle. At the time, and
in fact throughout the eighteenth century in Lexington, the Tavern was apparently one of the largest
buildings in Lexington other than the meetinghouse, and the most stylish. It is very likely that John
Muzzy would have completed the enlargement of the Tavern while still an active innholder, estimated to be prior to 1755. Whether the Bellingham-Cary House in Chelsea, built by other heirs of the
Watts family in a similar style, inspired the design of Muzzy’s tavern is unknown.
John married Mary (surname unknown) in the early 1730s and had two more children by her, born in
1734 and 1736. She died in 1758. John Muzzy died in 1768. Four years prior to that, he sold the tav15
Selectmen’s’ Records, June 28, 1714 as quoted in Worthen, 8.
16
Selectmen’s Records, March 1, 1714/1715. Edwin B.Worthen Jr.’s handwritten list of references in the Town of
Lexington Records regarding the licensing of innholders. Worthen Collection, Cary Memorial Library.
17
Edward Watts’ widow seems to have retained during her life her interest in her husband’s estate, which was for
unexplained reasons 19/30s of the estate, larger than the usual widow’s thirds. She sold her portion to her future husband,
Thomas Greaves for £3000. (See Mellen Chamberlain’s History of Chelsea, 307-308.) By implication there would be £1737
to be divided among the other heirs, who were Edward’s two brothers and Rebecca. In 1730, John Muzzy and Rebecca, his
wife, “released their interest in her father’s estate on Dec. 10, 1730.” (Chamberlain, 357.)
10
The Buckman Tavern
ern property to his son-in-law, Samuel Stone, husband of his daughter Jane. The conveyance included
the mansion house, barn and edifices and 42 acres of land.
Lexington tax records for selected years in the period from 1729 to 1752 and after 1774 are preserved in the Lexington Town Clerk’s office. A preliminary review of the records indicates that John
Muzzy’s real and personal estate tax assessments were among the highest in Lexington for the years
in which his assessments survive, but not the highest. John Muzzy was listed as having one slave in
1738.
A review of selectmen’s records by Edwin Worthen, Jr. indicates that John Muzzy was not approved
as an innholder or retailer after 1747.18 John Muzzy’s daughter, Jane, married Samuel Stone in the
early 1740s. Samuel Stone (b. 1718) may well have taken over management of the Tavern from his
father-in-law as early as the late 1740s, though he was not approved to operate a Tavern until 1767,
three years after he purchased the Tavern from John Muzzy. The information about those approved
as innholders or retailers in the selectmen’s record may be incomplete. Alternatively, the Buckman
Tavern may have ceased operation for as many as twenty years. Worthen states that John Muzzy gave
up the Tavern business about 1755 but does not cite a source for that belief.19 The lack of clarity in
the documentary record makes it impossible to be certain about what happened in the last twenty
years of John Muzzy’s life and makes it equally difficult to determine when the final enlargement of
the main part of the building was completed. In the absence of a more specific date, Worthen’s ca.
1755 date is used in this report as the likely date by which the main body of the Tavern reached its
present size.
1764 Samuel Stone (1718-1768)
1768 John Buckman (1745-1792)
In 1767, if not before, Samuel Stone was operating an inn and retail shop at the Tavern.20 Samuel
Stone died four days after his father-in-law, John Muzzy, in 1768. He and Jane Muzzy Stone had two
daughters: Ruth, who married John Buckman three months after her father’s death, and Elizabeth
who married Joseph Simonds in 1769. John Buckman grew up in what became the Munroe Tavern
where his father, John Buckman, Sr., kept a retail store from 1752 until his death in 1768. John, Jr.,
23 years old, came to operate the inn for his mother-in-law after his marriage. In 1770 he sold his
father’s property to William Munroe. In 1771 he bought out the share of the Tavern property that
his wife’s sister, Elizabeth, and her husband, Joseph Simonds, had inherited, thus becoming the sole
owner of what then became known as the Buckman Tavern.21
18
Edwin B. Worthen Jr.’s handwritten list of references in the Town of Lexington records regarding the licensing of
innholders. Worthen Collection, Cary Memorial Library.
19
M.J. Canavan, who examined Lexington deeds and other records extensively, may have been the source of Worthen’s
statement.
20
In addition to Worthen’s report, M.J. Canavan also cites 1767 as the year Samuel Stone began as host of the Tavern.
Canavan Papers, Volume II, 4. Special Collections, Cary Memorial Library.
21
Worthen, 14.
11
The Buckman Tavern
Description of the Battle of Lexington on April 19, 177522
Much has been written about the Battle of Lexington, beginning almost immediately after that first
conflict. Occasionally the Buckman Tavern is mentioned directly, but its role is implied in most writings.23 The role of the Buckman Tavern in the Revolutionary cause must have begun long before the
confrontation on the common, as people gathered to express their grievances and the selectmen met
there. The discussions must have accelerated in the days before April 19 as
plans were made to alarm the countryside and prepare for the worst.
Figure 4. “The Battle of Lexington,” engraving by Amos Doolittle. Reproduced
from a copy at the Lexington Historical Society.
The hustle and bustle on the night of
April 18 must have strained the capacity
of the building as militiamen assembled
and waited for orders for the first time
between 1:00 and 2:00 a.m., or stayed
because they lived too far away to go
home when Captain Parker dismissed
them later. Then, the building would
have filled up again after warning shots,
bells, and William Diamond’s drumming alerted those who had left to
return.
We can get glimpses of individuals in the Tavern from the many participants and onlookers who
gave depositions over time. We see Jonas Clarke, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and
William Dawes walking down to confer with the militia after Revere alarmed those at Rev. Clarke’s
house shortly after midnight. We can visualize Dawes and Revere taking some refreshment after their
long ride before heading west again. We see Elijah Sanderson, who said that after he was released
from captivity with Paul Revere he went to the Tavern, “and after a while went to sleep in my chair
by the fire.”24 We see Paul Revere and John Lowell, John Hancock’s confidential clerk, just at dawn
in the minutes before the battle, pushing their way through the crowd of militiamen in the Tavern to
retrieve Hancock’s large trunk of important and incriminating papers that had been left behind in an
upstairs chamber. We can then visualize them struggling to get the heavy trunk, four-feet long, twofeet wide and two-and-one-half feet tall, down the stairs and carry it outside to hide it in the woods
just as Captain Parker was lining up his men on the Common. We see Rufus Meriam, future owner of
22
For this description I have relied most heavily on David Hackett Fischer, Paul Revere’s Ride (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1994); Willard D. Brown, The Story of Buckman (Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Historical Society, 1969),
and Edwin B. Worthen, Jr., “Buckman Tavern: An Account of the Land and Houses, its Ownership, Development and
Restoration,” Typescript, 1963. Lexington Historical Society Archives.
23
See David Hackett Fischer, Paul Revere’s Ride (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994) on the historiography of Paul
Revere’s ride and the events surrounding April 19, 1775 and his bibliography for an extended list of sources.
24
Elias Phinney, History of the Battle of Lexington on the Morning of the 19th April 1775 (Boston: Phelps and Farnum, 1825),
31-33: Elijah Sanderson, Deposition, December 17, 1824.
12
The Buckman Tavern
the Tavern, as a boy of twelve, watching on the steps of the Tavern as the Regulars marched up the
road, and then quickly going inside when shots were fired.25
John Buckman, though a member of Captain Parker’s company, was not among the 60 to 70 men
who faced the regulars on the Common; he must have been, in one way or another, one of the estimated 40 onlookers.26 He may have stayed close to protect the Tavern, see to those who took refuge
in the Tavern when the fighting started, and console his terrified wife if she was still there. He apparently did not give a deposition at any point.
All through the day of April 19 and into the evening, the Tavern must have been busy with people
seeking refuge or information, and grieving the dead as plans were made to bury them. At 2:00 p.m.
two wounded regulars were brought into the Tavern. One subsequently died and was buried in the
cemetery behind the First Parish Church. One can only imagine the shock, anger, grief and confusion felt by those who gathered in the Tavern. They must have found solace in the place and its
genial host.
Whether John Buckman served later in the war is uncertain. He was on the muster roll of Capt. John
Bridge’s Lexington company in Roxbury from March 4 to 8, 1776. He continued to operate the Tavern until 1784 when he sold it to his brother- and sister-in-law, Joseph and Elizabeth Simonds. His
first wife having died in 1778, John Buckman married Sarah Weld in 1784. They had four children.
He was licensed as an innkeeper until 1790, so perhaps he continued to operate the Buckman Tavern
or another of the numerous taverns in Lexington for a few years.27
1784
Joseph Simonds (1739-1813)
In 1784, John Buckman sold the Tavern property back to Joseph and Elizabeth Simonds. Whether
Simonds took an active role in running the Tavern in the ten years that he owned it is uncertain.28 He
was busy serving the Town of Lexington as selectmen in 1784, 1787, 1788, 1790 and 1794, and as
assessor in 1784, 1787 and 1788, just as he had been active at the time of the Revolution, both politically and in the military. He had been an ensign in Captain Parker’s company, presumably present on
the Green on April 19th, and served in Cambridge and New York later in 1775.29
25
Worthen, 17.
26 These numbers come from the first published account of the battle, by Rev. William Gordon, a Congregational minister
from Roxbury, who took it upon himself to record the history of the events of April 19 by interviewing participants.
He wrote “An Account of the Commencement of Hostilities Between Great Britain and America in the province of
Massachusetts-Bay,” and sent it to a “Gentleman in England” on May 17, 1775. The account was published in the
Pennsylvania Gazette in June 1775. Fischer says that his account was short, “but remarkable full and accurate.” See Fischer,
Paul Revere’s Ride, 327 and note 3, 418. See also http://lincoln.lib.niu.edu/cgi-bin/amarch/getdoc.pl?/var/lib/philologic/
databases/amarch/.2950#
27 Worthen, 18.
28
Each year in the 18th century, innkeepers had to apply to the selectmen to renew their licenses. Worthen pored over the
selectmen’s records to identify innkeepers. He is silent, however, on whether Simonds received a license.
29
Hudson, Vol. II, 622 and Fischer, 319.
13
The Buckman Tavern
1794 Rufus Meriam (1762-1847)
Rufus Meriam married Joseph Simonds’s niece, Martha, so once again the Tavern property was
acquired by a relation of the previous owner. Worthen says that there was a family tradition that
Simonds sold the property to Meriam on the condition that he continue to operate the Tavern, and
Rufus Meriam was licensed as an innholder in 1794.30 Lexington was growing dramatically as a stop
for drovers bringing animals to markets in Boston from the northern New England states. In 1810,
there were twelve taverns in operation. Edward P. Bliss gave a talk about taverns in Lexington to the
Historical Society in 1887 (see section on taverns in this report). He had this to say about the Tavern
under Rufus Meriam’s management:
A stage-coach stopped at his house; and his business was rather providing meals than in
furnishing lodgings. His custom was more with the “carriage-folk” than with teamsters.
Balls were given here. One especially notable occasion was when a fashionable company
from Boston engaged the house and grounds for a day, to celebrate the close of the War
of 1812, and erected a marquee, or tent for dancing. The ladies were served a fine dinner
by themselves in the double-chamber, and the gentlemen had to find for themselves in
neighboring taverns. There was a guard stationed about the grounds to exclude Lexington people. The house was seldom opened as a public house after 1815.
Rufus Meriam and Martha Simonds had seven surviving children:
Martha (1787-1863)
Rufus (1789-1868)
John Parkhurst (1791-1859)
Eliza (1793-1868)
Mary (1798-1890)
Emily (1800-1869)
Julia Ann (1804-1889)
Julia Ann was the only one of the children to marry. In 1827, she became the wife of Rev. Caleb
Stetson, who had been the principal of the Lexington Academy from 1822 to 1825. Later Reverend
Stetson served as minister in Medford and South Scituate before returning to Lexington about 1860.
In 1813, Rufus Meriam became Lexington’s first postmaster. The post office was located in the one
story addition to the southeast of the main block of the house. His son, John Parkhurst Meriam,
took over the postmaster duties. Together they served a total of 28 years.31 In the early years of
the 19th century, perhaps when it ceased to be a tavern, Rufus Meriam remodeled many rooms in
the Tavern, added a new kitchen on the north side of the building, and made over the old kitchen
into the family’s dining room. See the Architectural Analysis section of this report for details of the
changes made during the Meriam period.
30
Worthen, 18.
31
Ibid.
14
The Buckman Tavern
Throughout his adult life, Rufus Meriam, Jr. ran the farm on the 50 acres that came with the Tavern
in 1794. At its peak there were twelve outbuildings on the property, and beyond them extending up
Merriam Hill to the northeast were orchards and a pond.32 Buildings included the current Garrity
House, the carriage house southeast (moved from a site closer to the house in 1913), barns and other
outbuildings (see a plan of the farm in 1958 in the Site History section of this report).
In 1846, planners of the railroad line to Lexington wanted its termination to be at the junction of
Bedford and Hancock Streets. The Meriams refused to sell the land immediately in front of the
Tavern. Eventually the terminal was placed where the Depot building is today on land sold for that
purpose by the Meriams. In 1873 the railroad line was extended behind the Tavern where the bike
path is today.
When Rufus Meriam, Sr. died in 1847 he left his estate to his wife and five daughters. Mrs. Meriam
died in 1849. The unmarried daughters, along with Reverend and Mrs. Stetson after 1859 or 1860,
lived on in the Tavern. The shed was added north of the new kitchen when the Stetsons arrived. In
1886, Mary and Abbie Stetson Griffing conveyed the property in trust to Thomas Meriam Stetson,
Abbie’s son. By then all of the land except the current three-acre Buckman Tavern plot had been
sold off. The last to die was Mary in 1890. By a few years after that, the Tavern apparently was uninhabited. Photos show it shuttered and with the gardens overgrown.
After the Town acquired the property in 1913, Dr. Josiah Tilton contacted Abbie Stetson Griffing for
information on the history of the Tavern during the Meriam ownership. Mrs. Griffing responded in
letters to Dr. Tilton beginning in 1914 and soon produced “The Silhouettes – A Reminiscence,” a 31page typescript, a copy of which is in the Lexington Historical Society Archives. Portions of the text
relating to various rooms and additions are quoted or referenced in the Architectural Analysis section
of this report. The title refers to seven silhouettes of Meriam family members by Rufus Porter now
owned by the Society. “The Silhouettes” gives a wealth of information about Meriam family members and their use of the house. Also important are the separate reminiscences of Mrs. Bridget Leary
who was the only servant in the house in the 1880s when the Stetsons were in charge.33
In 1912 the contents of the Meriam/Stetson estate were auctioned off. Leroy S. Brown was concerned enough to write William Sumner Appleton describing the possibility that the property, which
was to be sold, might be developed.34 At the same time the Lexington Historical Society appointed a
committee to work with Leroy Brown to find a way to preserve the Buckman Tavern property. The
first step was that:
32
According to Worthen, Merriam Hill is not named for the Meriam family of the Tavern, but for Matthew Merriam
who was a landowner on the hill and built the shoe findings factory on Oakland Street in the late 19th century, hence the
different spelling.
33
“Bridget Leary Remembers,” Typescript in the Buckman Tavern file in the S. L. Whipple Collection. Author unknown. The three pages of reminiscences are prefaced by that statement, “Mrs. Bridget Leary . . . reigned supreme in the Stetson’s
kitchen for a number of years. Her reminiscences are of no historical value. They simply give a picture – behind the scenes
of the domestic side of life in the Stetson household, in the middle eighties. And they give this picture from the kitchen
point of view!”
34
Buckman Tavern, William Sumner Appleton Correspondence File. Historic New England Archives. Microfiche.
15
The Buckman Tavern
The committee . . . sent a printed notice to voters of the town in the spring of 1913
stating the action that it had taken in this matter. The society felt strongly that it was
necessary and desirable to control the entire estate of three acres, in order to protect the
common and maintain the character of the center of town, and to stop further encroachment of business or undesirable developments, which threatened the area. Therefore the original committee, after prolonged negotiations, had secured an option on the
entire property for $42,000. . . . The committee recommended that the town appropriate
$30,000 and that the Society raise $12,000.35
1913 Town of Lexington
1914 Lexington Historical Society lease
Town meeting voted that the
newly formed Board of Park
Commissioners should purchase the property and turn the
Tavern over to the custody of
the Historical Society with a
suitable amount of surrounding
land. This arrangement had to be
approved by the Legislature. The
Park Commission then took on
the task of clearing the land of
debris and overgrowth, as “it had
been used as a dumping ground
for years,” and authorized the Society to make necessary repairs to
the Tavern.36 A 99-year lease to
the Society was signed on August
1, 1914.
Figure 5. Plan of the Meriam Estate at Lexington, November 1912.
An important outgrowth of the saving of the Buckman Tavern was the determination, led by Leroy
Brown, to protect all of the buildings surrounding the Battle Green. In 1917, owners of the properties abutting the Green signed a covenant agreeing to allow only residential use of their land, maintain a uniform set back and limit new construction to a single building. These deed restrictions, which
would run for 99 years, constituted one of the earliest preservation agreements in the country.
No sooner was the Buckman Tavern property saved than World War I began in Europe. The first
use of the Tavern was for activities in support of the war as a local “emergency hospital” and as the
headquarters of the local Red Cross chapter. By then a new heating system had been installed, the
doorway returned to its earlier appearance, and the roof repaired.
35
Edwin B. Worthen, Jr. and S. Lawrence Whipple, A Brief History of he Lexington Historical Society (Lexington,
Massachusetts: Lexington Historical Society, 1986), 15.
36
Ibid., 16.
16
The Buckman Tavern
In 1919 the Buckman Tavern Committee, which included Willard Brown and
Dr. Josiah O. Tilton, reported to the
Society on the community effort during the war years and the committee’s
vision for the future of the Tavern, a
vision that was an impassioned plea for
a use other than that of the traditional
historic house museum:
Long before we entered the war,
the Special Aid Society, later
Figure 6. View of the exterior of the Buckman Tavern as restored and remerging with the Red Cross,
painted in 1916. Courtesy of the Lexington Historical Society.
had, through the courtesy of the
Historical Society, the Tavern
for its headquarters. Here, month after month, the women of the town, rich and poor
alike, have met and worked together. Here they have come into touch with one another
as never before, until they have been brought into close companionship and fellowship.
And through it all they have come to love the old Tavern; it has become a part of their
lives and the days spent there will never be forgotten nor their influence lost.
Now the war is over;
before long the Tavern will
have crept back into its
dead past. No longer will it
be a living, pulsing force in
our everyday lives.
The members of the
House Committee are
unanimous in the conviction that this state of affairs should not be allowed Figure 7. Red Cross volunteers working at tables in front of the Buckman Tavern ca.
1917. Courtesy of the Lexington Historical Society.
to occur. They feel most
strongly that the old house
which so long ago served as a rallying point for our first Defenders of Democracy, and
which so recently has come to its own again, becoming the centre from which radiated
our work of mercy and comfort in this the last war for the world’s peace, should not become a mere relic of a by-gone age, or more unthinkable yet, – serve as the background
for a modern teahouse.
One of the purposes behind the foundation of the Society in 1886 was the “preserving
of such traditions relating to the Town as may be deemed important.” What more important traditions have we ever had than those of “Service” and “Co-operation” which
have grown up under the sheltering roof of the old building?37
37
Report of the Buckman Tavern Committee, March 21, 1919. Printed and distributed at the request of the Lexington Historical
17
The Buckman Tavern
The Committee then described potential uses of the Tavern, which included just about every purpose that a modern community center would serve and more: a place for men and boys to read
newspapers and magazines, a place where children could gather for play groups and to do crafts, a
meeting place for scouts, a head-quarters for the District Nurse and other welfare work, a museum
for children. In short, the Committee hoped that the Society could find a way to “Not only cherish and safeguard the traditions of the past, but to enlarge and make richer the opportunities of the
present.”38
In 1920 the Buckman Tavern Community Association was formed to oversee the use of the Tavern
for the Society. For a few years after 1921 the Tavern was used by the League of Women Voters,
Child Welfare, Red Cross, D.A.R., the Lexington Minutemen, the Outlook Club and the Hockey
Club. Anyone could hire rooms for meetings, teas, lectures and the like.39 From 1921 to about 1926
the Children’s Museum, under a separate corporation, was housed in the west parlors. The core of
the museum was Dr. Tilton’s collection of 200 bird specimens, but butterflies, minerals and “miscellaneous curiosities” were also displayed.40 The popular tradition of a New Year’s open house began in
1922.
The restoration of the Tavern under the direction of architect Willard Brown continued during these
years of heavy activity (See Part 1:D for an overview of the restoration).
Within a few years, the Griffing family returned a number of furnishings to the Tavern. The Historical Society gradually transformed the building into a more traditional house museum.
In 1947 the Buckman Tavern Community Association was disbanded. In the same year the Society
Council voted to charge admission to the Tavern.
In 1948 the Historical Society voted to have a resident custodian occupy the Tavern for the first time.
The second floor east rooms were fitted up to serve as a bedroom and living room.
In the second half of the 20th century, the Buckman Tavern continued to be the most visited of the
three historic houses operated by the Lexington Historical Society. The redecoration of the house in
1953, renovations in 1973 and changes to interpretation and museum installations over time reflected
evolving ideas about the conservation and presentation of historic house museums. Concurrently,
major episodes of repair in 1967, 1973 and 1996 stabilized the Tavern to ensure its survival into the
21st century, but with the attendant loss of important historic fabric.
Society. Box 2, History, Lexington Historical Society Archives.
38
Ibid.
39
“A glance at the Buckman Tavern,” Typescript, 1973, 2. Box 1, Buckman Tavern Files, Lexington Historical Society
Archives
40
Untitled Typescript in the Worthen Collection, Cary Memorial Library, 19.06. Notations suggest that it was written by
Willard Brown.
18
The Buckman Tavern
Figure 8. The Viles Tavern in Lexington, 1827. Courtesy of Historic New England.
Taverns in Lexington41
According to Edward P. Bliss, who interviewed old residents and gave a paper on the taverns to the
Historical Society in 1887, tavern keeping reached its peak in the early 19th century. Old residents described seeing “Ox-loads and the four, six, even eight, horse loads of the products of the once profitable farms of New Hampshire and Vermont – great wagons laden with grain or piled with wooden
ware or packed with homespun woolens and many other commodities –- on the way to markets of
Boston, or returning from the seaport with groceries, cotton goods, salt fish and many other necessities and luxuries that commerce brings from over the seas. . . . The roads were sometimes blocked
with teams, and often at noon-time forty wagons would be drawn up before a tavern or the stores.
Twelve taverns were none too many, and their accommodations were pressed to a degree unendurable to our habits.”42
By the first decade of the nineteenth century three routes used by drovers and stage coaches ran
through Lexington, the Lowell Turnpike on the north, the Concord Turnpike on the south and the
Concord Road through the center. The stagecoaches also provided clients for the Taverns. One account indicates that it was not unusual for drovers with hundreds of animals including horses, cattle,
sheep and turkeys to stop for the night at a tavern. Drovers liked to stop in Lexington because it was
only a day’s walk to the stockyards in Brighton. They might stay two nights to rest their animals and
clean them up. A typical tavern was the Viles Tavern operated by Joel Viles from 1820 to 1850. The tavern “was a
large house, had long barns on one side for horses, and space in sheds on the other side for forty
yoke of oxen, so much were those creatures then made of service.”43
Though the Buckman Tavern, especially during the Meriam ownership, was said to have catered to
41
An earlier version of this section appeared in the Munroe Tavern Historic Structure Report by the author.
42
Edward P. Bliss, “The Old Taverns of Lexington,” Proceedings of the Lexington Historical Society Vol. I (Lexington,
Massachusetts: Lexington Historical Society, 1890): 73.
43
Ibid., 79.
19
The Buckman Tavern
the stagecoach trade, it must have accommodated drovers at times. The barn and other outbuildings
adjacent to the Tavern, shown in the Doolittle print (Figure 3), suggest a set up and function for the
Buckman Tavern similar to that shown in the Viles Tavern view. Although Rufus Meriam had given
up the Tavern business by 1815, the coming of the railroad to Lexington in 1846 effectively terminated the tavern business in Lexington as drovers took advantage of a cheaper and less arduous way
to get their livestock to market.
D) ARCHITECTURAL ANALYSIS
Original Construction & Building Evolution Original Construction
1709-1713
In May 1709 Benjamin Muzzy deeded to his son John, who married in July 1709, six acres of land
as part of John’s portion of his father’s property. The selectmen of the newly incorporated Town of
Lexington granted John Muzzy permission to keep a “Public House of Entertainment” in June of
1714, 1714. It is likely, therefore, that the building was constructed by 1713 if it was ready to receive
customers by June of 1714.
Architectural evidence indicates that house began as a single cell, 2 1/2 story, integral lean-to house
with the late First Period characteristics of exposed and decorated framing and certain other decorative treatments deriving from English Post-medieval vernacular architecture. The original building
encompassed the current Tap Room, chamber and attic above, a chimney bay on the west end and
what is known as the old kitchen in the lean-to north of the Tap Room. The evidence of 1709-1713
construction includes:
•
•
•
•
The large fireplace in the Tap Room has curved jambs, consistent with a construction date in the
1710s.
Remaining framing evidence indicates that there was a lean-to originally, but a somewhat unusual
one. The lean-to roof did not terminate at the first floor ceiling level, but about 2 1/2 feet above
it allowing for a more useable lean-to chamber. The location of the norplate of the lean-to is visible part way up the wall in the northeast chamber.A line of mortar on the south chimney, now
inside the attic, indicates the location of the gable roof before the roof was raised to its present
height and reconfigured as a hip roof.
The bead on the beams in the original part of the house is a fat one (almost one inch wide),
which is consistent with beaded beam decoration that was coming into use in the seventeen teens
and twenties. Posts have inch-wide flat chamfers, consistent with early 18th century practices.
Joist spacing of about 22 inches on centers and whitewash on the timbers, indicating that all
framing was exposed originally, are also consistent with late First Period practices.
Evidence of a possible original, or early addition to the east side of the Tavern:
Recent examination of a piece of the exterior walls of the original structur, visible in the attic of the
post office wing, indicates that the wall outside to the east chamber was once covered with lath and
plaster. This raises the possibility that there was an original or early addition (possibly a lean-to) on
the east side of the building.
20
The Buckman Tavern
Changes over Time
1722 – ca. 1755
During this period the main body of the house achieved its present size, apparently in two building
campaigns. First enlargement:
Very soon after the original house was built, the southwest room and chamber were added. That
these rooms were added is indicated by three observations: the double framing seen at the junction
of the entry and the parlor on the south wall of the building, the higher ceiling in the parlor than in
the Tap Room, and the slightly wider joist spacing (approx. 24 inches on centers) in the parlor ceiling.
This enlargement may have been anticipated in the beginning, because:
•
•
the chimney bay was built originally with space for two opposite facing fireplaces. We can still
see a large firebox behind the current parlor fireplace by looking up and to the right in the throat
of the chimney. However, examination of the chimney in the attic reveals that the flues for the
southwest parlor and chamber fireplaces were added to the original south chimney (using the
same size bricks as in the original chimney).
the major framing exposed in the ceilings of the parlor and chamber has the same wide bead as
the framing in the east part of the house and the original fireplace was just as large as the one in
the Tap Room. These features, when combined with a ceiling plastered below the joists, reveals
the transitional nature of the addition with some First Period characteristics retained and some
forward looking features, like the ceiling, added.
Final enlargement:
In the final enlargement, the northwest room and chamber were built and the northeast lean-to
chamber was raised to a full two stories, giving the building a double pile plan with rectangular
footprint. At the same time the roof was raised and chambers were created on the third floor. The
north chimney, built at the time of this final enlargement, includes flues for the fireplaces in the old
kitchen, the northwest room and chamber and the northwest attic chamber. A flue for the southwest
attic chamber fireplace was added to the south chimney and that chimney was extended upward to
rise above the new higher roof.
Willard Brown conjectured that there was an intermediate stage when the two-room house had a full
lean-to. Brown must have meant to indicate only that there may have been a structure over the well
in the space where the northwest is now, as described by Meriam family members (see below under
Room 110). There is no evidence that there was an intermediate stage when the northwest chamber
was a lean-to space like the northeast chamber.
By the time the main body of the Tavern achieved its present form, it had been completely transformed into a Georgian style building that reflected the arrival of Renaissance classicism in New
England, complete with molded window heads, a pedimented doorway, and a stylish hip roof. The
21
The Buckman Tavern
last enlargement is depicted in drawings made by Ralph Earl in 1775, from which Doolittle made
engravings. These show the main body of the tavern as it is now (see Figure 4). Brown believed that the final enlargement was completed by 1764 when John Muzzy sold the Tavern
to Samuel Stone. As noted earlier in the section on the History of Property Owners, there is some
reason to believe that Muzzy completed the enlargement before he gave up running the tavern about
1755 and that resources from his second wife, an heir to the Bellingham estate in Chelsea, and his
father would have made the construction possible. There are other examples in the region of this
particular upscale Georgian house form (hip roof, prominent dormers and classical details), including
the Bellingham-Cary House in Chelsea.
Very little is known about the evolution of the interiors in the 18th century. Only a few remaining
features, identified by style and paint analysis, are the result of remodelings in that century. These include the raised field paneling in the southwest parlor south of the fireplace, the two chimney breasts
in the west chambers, and the stair balusters on the second level.
1794-1913: Meriam family ownership.
Although the Buckman Tavern served as an informal drop off for letters in John Buckman’s time,
the one-story post office wing, added on a diagonal to the southeast corner of the building, may not
have existed until Rufus Meriam was appointed Lexington’s first postmaster in 1813. The kitchen ell
was very likely added at the same time and connected from the beginning to the post office wing by
the narrow shed-roofed corridor on the east side of the building. Otherwise, it would not have made
sense for the kitchen to extend six feet beyond the east wall of the building (see plan of the first
floor at the beginning of this report).
Ca. 1800-1820
In the early decades of Meriam family ownership, many of the rooms in the Tavern were remodeled
in the Federal style. Flat board dados replaced sheathed or plastered walls while wallpaper covered
the plastered walls aboe the dad. Fireplaces, reduced in size, were given new mantelpieces. The
staircase on the first floor received new woodwork, including stair balusters, square in section, that
replaced earlier turned balusters lik those remaining on the seocnd floor. The Tap Room became the
sitting room and the old kitchen became the family dining room.
The actual date when the Tavern was given these Federal style treatments is uncertain. The best
guess is that this major modernization took place between about 1800 and 1820. Paint and wallpaper
evidence suggests that the updatings may have occured in two phases, with the flat board dado being
installed before the mantelpieces. Several references state that the building was seldom used as a Tavern after 1815. It is likely that the Federal remodeling was completed within a few years of that date.
1859-1860
The shed was added to the north side of the new kitchen in 1859 or 1860, according to a Meriam
family descendant.
22
The Buckman Tavern
Ca.1865-1874
The Victorian enclosed entrance porch with balustrade above was installed sometime between these
dates. It is not shown in the ca. 1865 stereo photograph, but is present in the photos of the tavern at
the time of the centennial celebration in 1875 (Figures 3 and 51). A storm door was attached in front
of it at some point, perhaps seasonally.
Photographs of the interiors taken in the late 19th century show the rooms decorated and furnished
in keeping with the times. There were period wallpapers (some on top of beams or their cases and
over dados as well as on the plastered upper walls). Victorian four panel doors had replaced earlier
doors in many rooms, while other doorways had portieres.
1887
Edward P. Bliss gave a description of the interior of the Tavern in his 1887 talk on Taverns in Lexington:
The honest timbers are frankly displayed in the dining room, and the fireplace is arched
over with picturesque effect; but the construction was for the purpose of accommodating the floors above. The studding of the rooms on the right on the lower floor to the
right of the entry is lower than on the other side, while the chambers above are reversely
higher and lower. There were nine fireplaces, one of them set with brown Dutch tiles.
The double chamber on the north [meaning the ballroom] side of the house, and the
four chambers in the roof, were for guests.44
1913-1915
After purchase of the Tavern by the Town of Lexington and the Lexington Historical Society’s
acquisition of the 99 year lease, “necessary repairs were made, the roof was re-shingled and the front
door returned to its original appearance.”45 Painting, carpentry, stonework and clearing the grounds
were also accomplished. Willard Brown made plans of the building as it was just after purchase by
the Town.
Lexington Historical Society records detail repair and renovation work on the Tavern from this point
on. For major repairs, the Town of Lexington provided funding approved by Town Meeting. Minor
repairs seem to have been paid for by the Society or private donors. The following compendium
lists known episodes of work on the tavern documented in the Buckman Tavern Collection at the
Historical Society Archives.46 More detailed information is given in the section, Building Repairs by
Category, which follows.
1917
A central heating system was installed.
44
Edward P. Bliss, “Old Taverns of Lexington,” Proceedings of the Lexington Historical Society Vol. I (Lexington,
Massachusetts: Lexington Historical Society, 1889), 73-87.
45
Brown, 16.
46
Especially Box 1, which includes a handwritten “Record of Maintenance & Repairs,” 1915-1966.
23
The Buckman Tavern
1918
The connection between the east cellars and the west cellar, previously inaccessible, was made.
1919-1925
In making their report on the Tavern, in addition to proposing new uses for the building, the Buckman Tavern Committee stated that the Tap Room fireplace should be restored to its original appearance, “especially as we have no similar examples of this kind of work.”47
In 1920 funds to restore the tavern further were approved.
By the end of 1921, the fireplace in the Tap Room had been restored.
By 1925, under the direction of architect Willard Brown, restoration of the Tap Room, front hall,
parlor and old kitchen were completed.
1926
Plumbing, carpentry, and exterior painting were accomplished in cooperation with the Buckman
Tavern Community Association.
1927
Sprinklers were installed.
Massachusetts Avenue and Bedford Streets were widened by taking land in front of the Tavern.48 See
the section on Site History for a description of the history of land and a previous street widening.
1941
Willard Brown outlined work done in 1941:
“Pair of blinds and hardware, new door at front part of ell with sill repaired.
One door repaired at rear of ell.
New moldings at P.O. section of building.
The cementing of gutters.
Replacing of clapboards where found necessary, and any other work that be required to xxxxxxxput the exterior walls in proper condition to receive two coats of paint.”49
1948-1949
The decision was made to have a custodian live at the Tavern for the first time. Architect William
Roger Greeley prepared plans and the Town of Lexington appropriated $10,000 for the cost. The
work, carried out in 1949, included:
1. Re-shingling with wooden shingles . . . two sides of the roof and making needed repairs to
the chimneys and flashing;
2. Modernizing the heating plant by installing additional radiators, a new boiler, and oil burner
47
Report of the Bukcman Tavern Committee (March 19, 1919), 4.
48
Worthen, 22.
49
Willard D. Brown, “Outline of work to be done in connection with complete exterior painting, etc.” September 1941.
Box 1, Buckman Tavern Collection, Lexington Historical Society Archives.
24
The Buckman Tavern
3. Altering a part of the Tavern, which was not of any particular historical significance in order
to provide living quarters for a resident custodian including:
• Complete renovation of the present utility kitchen [including a new stove, sink and refrigerator]
• Removing temporary partition on the second floor so as to create a good sizedbedroom
• Complete renovation of the existing upstairs bathroom [including a new radiator]
• Conversion of the present bedroom into a living room for a custodian and closing it to the public
• Installation of a toilet and lavatory on the first floor back of the old kitchen for the semi-public use of visitors to the Tavern.50
Also included was the blocking up of the fireplace in the northeast second floor room,
the creation of the closet in that room next to the stairs, and the installation of a new
window between the two existing ones on the north wall.51 A telephone was installed for
the first time, requiring a trench to be dug for an underground telephone wire.52
Early 1950s
According to Edwin Worthen, Jr. the southwest parlor was redecorated.53
1954
Piping (for heating system) installed.54
1955
Outside painting and re-shingling done.
1956
A new front door and motor for oil burner were added.
Vestibule and kitchen repainted.
1959
Exterior painting was done; frozen water pipe was repaired.
1960
Some shingling undertaken.
50
Lexington Historical Society Council Meeting minutes, Oct. 24, 1948.
51
William Roger Greeley, architect. Notation on the plans for the 1949 work. Buckman Tavern Collection, Lexington
Historical Society Archives.
52
Letters regarding underground wiring. Buckman Tavern Collection, Lexington Historical Society Archives.
53
Worthen, 30.
54
The repairs listed from 1915 to 1965 are from a “Record of Maintenance and Repairs, Buckman Tavern, found in
folder: “ Buckman Tavern Maintenance,” Box 1, Buckman Tavern Collection, Lexington Historical Society Archives.
25
The Buckman Tavern
1962
Floor framing under front part shored up.
New Lally columns installed in basement.
Alan R. McDonald drew nine sheets of plans of the Tavern for the Historic American Building
Survey (HABS).
Figure 10. Buckling of the north wall of the southwest attic chamber, 1973,
owing to deterioration of the roof framing. S. Lawrence Whipple, Photographer. Courtesy of the Lexington Historical Society.
1965
First floor beams were strengthened.
1967
Concern about the buckling of an interior wall caused
the Lexington Historical Society to ask Donald Muirhead,
consultant engineer, to examine the tavern. Muirhead reported that, “There was extensive wood beetle and fungus
damage to the sills, roof rafters and floor joists, to the extent that the future stability of the tavern
remained in doubt.”55 Town Meeting authorized an appropriation of $25,000 to address the problem and the house was fumigated. Furniture and artifacts were wrapped in polyurethane during the
process. The foundations were repaired extensively and sills were replaced.56 New concrete floors and
some brick piers were installed in the basement. In addition to fumigation, damaged timbers were
to be “trimmed, drilled, cleaned, injected and treated as shown on the plans or as called for in the
‘Timber Treatment schedule.’”57
Figure 9. Deterioration in the south wall on the
second of the stair hall, as uncovered during the
repairs of 1973. S. Lawrence Whipple, Photographer.
Courtesy of the Lexington Historical Society.
55
Edwin B. Worthen, Jr. and S. Lawrence Whipple, A Brief History of the Lexington Historical Society in Observance of its One
Hundredth Anniversary (Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Historical Society, 1986), 16.
56
Anne R. Scigliano, “Study of Tavern Deterioration,” Lexington Minuteman (August 31, 1972).
57
Donald Muirhead, “Specifications for Beetle, Fungus and termite control and repairs at Buckman Tavern, Lexington,
Mass. (1967). Buckman Tavern Collection, Lexington Historical Society Archives. Contract drawings for the work in 1967
have not been found.
26
The Buckman Tavern
1972-1973
Water damage from roof leaks again caused weakening of the framing as indicated by walls being
pushed outward. As reported in a history of the Historical Society by Edwin Worthen and S. Lawrence Whipple, “By February 1972, the interior buckling of a downstairs plank wall had so alarmed
members [of the Society] and Selectmen alike that temporary shoring was installed. Consultant
Donald Muirhead was again called upon and found that hardly ten square feet of Buckman’s framing
above the basement level was structurally sound.”58 The work done in 1973, for a cost of $120,000,
was well documented in 123 annotated color slides taken by S. Lawrence Whipple and in twelve
sheets of annotated plans and detailed specifications for repair and control work by Donald Muirhead and structural engineers, Souza and True.59
The work included: “reinforcing the roof framing; installing new studs on the second floor; removing . . . lath and plaster from the attic; installation of three extra loadbearing posts in the kitchen area;
reframing the front door; re-shingling the roof with wood shingles installed with adequate ventilation; insulating the attic floor; and placing a new foundation and termite shield under the shed.”60
Muirhead’s plans specify extensive reinforcing, replacing or treating timbers with chemicals. They include a treatment schedule for each framing member shown and numbered on drawings. In the attic,
finish materials such as plastered sloping ceilings and sheathed or plastered knee walls were ripped
out to gain access to the timbers – resulting in the unfortunate loss of a large amount of the historic
building fabric on the third floor, the only place where virtually all of the finish materials dated from
the 18th century. It is unclear how many of the other framing members in the building were actually
uncovered. The treatment protocol specified that the contractor was to:
Cut off all destroyed wood away all wood; Drill – bore 5/32” holes 2” on centers [to
the] full depth of the [remaining insect] galleries; wire brush – scrub all surfaces to be
treated with a stiff wire brush; Vacuum clean out all joints, holes, and mortises with a
Pullman tire cleaner; inject insect toxin at 35 lbs. PSI in all holes, between bearings and
in mortises; [and] treat, flood spray to saturate in two operations.61
The toxins used were various combinations of orthocholobenzene, creosote, chlordane and medium
Blandol.
The work in 1973 also included installing new posts in the southwest chamber and hallway of the
attic, in the northeast chamber and in the old kitchen. In the old kitchen, new splayed sections were
added to three of the four posts on the north wall. The south wall of the stair hall on the second
floor was rebuilt with new studs, apparently having been the site of severe water damage. At the same
time, the shed at the Tavern was remodeled to serve as the gift shop and entrance for people taking
58
Worthen and Whipple (1986), 37.
59
Donald Muirhead and Souza and True, Buckman Tavern – Repair & Control Work, March 15, 1973. Lexington
Historical Society Archives. Plans # 6871.
60
Ibid., 38.
61
Ibid., and Donald Muirhead and Souza and True, Specifications for insect control, on plans labeled 1 – 4.
Buckman Tavern, Repair & Control Work, March 15, 1973. Lexington Historical Society Archives. Plans # 6871.
27
The Buckman Tavern
tours. Wallpapers in the southwest parlor and in most of the stair hall were removed. The work was
completed well before the bicentennial celebration of 1975.
1976
Comparison of the cost of electric heat and oil heat at the Buckman Tavern determined that oil was
cheaper than electricity by a factor of two for heating.62 Arlex Oil Corp. converted the heating system
to forced hot water, with six zones and a 1,000 gallon fuel tank.63 They also removed the electric
baseboard heat and the electric water heater and installed hot water baseboard heat.
1984
Morgan Phillips, Architectural Conservator at the Society for the Preservation of New England
Antiquities, was contracted to study the use of epoxy to harden the floors of the Tavern as they were
wearing away from visitor traffic. He made several test applications, but in the end, determined that
consolidation was not advisable because it darkened the boards too much.64
1984-1987
Improvements were made to the gift shop to assist in displaying merchandise and provide a desk for
the sales personnel. In 1985 a ruptured pipe flooded the floor and warped the floor boards. The floor
was renewed by sanding and staining with brown stain.65
1987-1989
In 1987, Sara Chase of the Conservation Center at the Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities did extensive paint research on the exterior of the Tavern. She identified the earliest paint scheme as “medium, dull mustard yellow walls and light tannish off white.”66 It took until
1989 for the decision to be made to paint the Tavern in these colors and remove the shutters to more
accurately portray 18th century appearance of the Tavern. The decision involved deliberation and
approval by Historical Society Council members, the Board of Selectmen, the Design Advisory Committee and the Historic Districts Commission. The choice was made over strong protests from some
Lexingtonians, who liked the harmony of all white buildings around the Green.67
1992
Sara Chase did an Architectural Conservation Assessment of the Buckman Tavern that described a
number of needed repairs.
62
“Economics of Oil and Electrical Heat,” Buckman Tavern Collection, Box 1, Maintenance. Lexington Historical Society
Archives.
63
Proposal, Arlex Oil Corporation, April 5, 1976. Buckman Tavern Collection, Lexington Historical Society Archives.
64
Morgan Phillips, Report of April 1984 describing potential epoxy treatment of deteriorated floors. Box 1, Buckman
Tavern Collection, Lexington Historical Society Archive.
65
“Changes and Improvements to Gift Shops,” Typescript, Box 2. Buckman Tavern Collection, Lexington Historical
Society Archives.
66
Sara B. Chase, Investigation of Exterior Paint Colors of Buckman Tavern, Lexington, Massachusetts,” 1987-1988.
67
See Roland Greeley to the Board of Selectmen, 1988. Buckman Tavern Collection, Lexington Historical Society
Archives; and Shirley Tufts Land and Andrew Lane, “Leave Buckman Tavern the way it is,” Letter to the Editor, Lexington
Minuteman, March 10, 1988.
28
The Buckman Tavern
1996
In the mid-1990s the Lexington Historical Society authorized the re-siding of the Buckman Tavern
so that it would be in good order for the millennium. An internal report stated that “There were both
pine and cedar clapboards on the Tavern at the time, some in excellent condition, some not; furthermore, the Tavern was having trouble holding paint and stain.”68 The specifications called for the replacement of deteriorated clapboards and trim boards. Areas where there were gaps in the sheathing
were to be covered with rosin paper; new pine quarter-sawn kiln-dried clapboards with skived ends
were to be pre-primed with yellow ochre stain on all sides. They were to be installed with three-inch
weathers secured with galvanized rose-head nails.
In the end 75 percent of the clapboards were replaced. Over all, Peter Kelley, the contractor, reported that the building was in excellent condition. Only a couple of areas of ant infestation and foundation deterioration were found. Mr. Kelley recommended that trees and shrubs be trimmed to allow
the building to breath. Twenty photographs in the Lexington Historical Society Archives documented
the work. “One hundred of the removed clapboards were saved at the request of Mr. French and
Mrs. Gschwendtner. . . .While the carpenters were working away, another group of experts was scraping and painting all of the windows and trim as well as adding a final coat of stain to the Tavern.”69
Building History by Category
1. Site
At the time of his death, John Muzzy owned 42 acres on the south side of Massachusetts Avenue
extending on Hancock Street to the current bike path on the north, to Depot Square on the south
and encompassing most of Merriam Hill on the east. As with most property in Lexington in the 18th
century, the land was farmed to supply the family and the Tavern guests and supplement the innkeeper’s resources. Indeed, the Earl drawing of 1775, from which Doolittle made an engraving (Figure 4),
shows a barn and sheds immediately northwest of the Tavern. The same acreage passed to subsequent owners until Rufus Meriam bought it in 1794. For the first time, records and reminiscences
give us a picture of the Meriam Farm in the 19th century. A plan of 1858 shows twelve farm buildings north and east of the Tavern: corn barn on stilts, carriage house and shed, pump house, cow
barn, cider mill, red tool barn, old barn, store, cottage and shed, barn and storage cellar.70 Beyond
that to the east were a pond and an orchard extending up Merriam Hill.
Closer to the house, Mary Meriam had a garden, described thus by her niece, Abbie Stetson Griffing:
In the garden were Crown Imperial, Poppies, Day Lilies, and Tiger Lilies and the reddest of red
roses, and Flower de Luce, and Spider Plant, and such a bed of Tulips: Tulips with stems three
feet long, and blossoms of all shades of color. . . . Beyond was the asparagus bed, defying all
68
Overview, “Buckman Tavern Re-Siding, September 1996” Documentation Report. Possibly by Joan French.
Box 1, Buckman Tavern Collection Lexington Historical Society Archives.
69
This paragraph quotes and paraphrases both the report cited in the last note and a letter from Peter C. J. Kelley to
David Wells Sept. 12, 1996 Re: Progress Report – Exterior Renovations to the Buckman Tavern. Box 1, Buckman Tavern
Collection, Lexington Historical Society Archives.
70
A sketch of the plot plan of Meriam farm in 1858. Source unknown. Buckman Tavern Collection, Lexington Historical
Society Archives.
29
The Buckman Tavern
tradition, and continuing to yield delicious asparagus for 90 years.71
Early photographs show fencing along
the road. By 1875 there was an elaborate gate at the walkway to the front
door. By 1890 there were low stone
walls along the Merriam Street side
of the property and part way along
Bedford Street except in front of the
Tavern.
Figure 11. Plan of the Meriam Farm with buildings labeled, 1858. Courtesy of
the Lexington Historical Society.
Figure 12. Mary Meriam’s garden, late 19th century. Courtesy of the Lexington Historical Society.
as a dumping ground for years.”73
Massachusetts Avenue, a narrow dirt
road at the time of the battle, was
unpaved into the 20th century. Twice
the road was widened by taking land
in front of the Buckman Tavern. The
first widening about 1840 took a strip
about two rods wide from the Tavern
property. Photographs taken before the
second widening in 1927 show a much
greater expanse of land in front of the
Tavern. There were protests in 1927
because the widening caused the destruction of ash trees planted by John
Buckman along the road.72
Mary Meriam died in 1890. The Tavern
was apparently occupied for only a few
years after that. Then the condition of
the site deteriorated rapidly to the point
that by 1913, the land “had been used
In 1930, members of the Outlook Club and the Field and Garden Club approached the Lexington
Historical Society Council about their wish to plant an herb garden at the Tavern. They chose a
sunny site behind the Tavern. They planned, as they said, “To use such plant materials only in the old
garden as will thrive under existing conditions. It is proposed to surround the whole garden proper
with a wooden fence topped with barbed wire and to conceal the same by a planting of shrubs in
front. It is hoped to make the garden so complete that admission may be charged.”74
71
Abbie Stetson Griffing, “The Silhouettes”, 19-20.
72
Bliss, “Taverns,” (1887): 74.
73
Ibid., 16.
74
Lexington Historical Society Council minutes, October 14, 1930.
30
The Buckman Tavern
The people proposing the herb garden had asked landscape architect Arthur Shurcliff to advise on
their plan. Shurcliff did draw the plan for an extensive garden on the lower ground south and east of
the Tavern.75 It seems the plan was never executed, given the hardships of the 1930s.
2. Foundations
The foundations of the Tavern in the cellar are faced random rubble with the joints covered with
mortar. No notable differences are discernable in the construction of various parts of the cellar,
although they were built at different times as the Tavern grew in size. Two areas of crawl space have
similar foundation walls. In places in the cellar, foundation walls are well inside the location of the
building’s sills. This reflects the First Period practice of raising the frame and placing the sills on
stone underpinnings before digging the cellar and building its foundation walls.
The parts of the main range of the Tavern that are now exterior walls (the south, west and north
sides) are faced with granite blocks, as are the front and end walls of the post office wing. The west
foundation wall of the new kitchen and the east foundation walls are of rubble stone with one area
of brick. The foundations of the c. 1860 shed were rebuilt with concrete blocks in 1974.
3. Framing
The original part of the Tavern has framing characteristic of the late First Period for a single cell house with a
lean-to. In the Tap Room (17’ 11” by 14’ 11”), framing
consists of a longitudinal summer beam, girts around the
four walls, posts in the corners and north-south running
joists about 22 inches on centers. The lean-to on the first
floor (only 12 feet wide, front to back) has four beams
that span from the north girt of the Tap Room to the
rear wall of the building. They were framed into posts
at the north wall. Joists which have the same spacing as
those in the Tap Room run east to west in the westernmost bay and run south to north in the easternmost two
bays. Because the actual rear plate of the Tavern is part
way up the wall of the chamber above, these joists rest
on a ledge at the north wall. In the westernmost bay the
joists run east to west. There is evidence of diagonal
braces in the east part of the house.
The framing pattern of the tap room is repeated in the
chamber above, which has a longitudinal beam instead
of the usual tie beam.
Figure 13. Detail of the south girt, chimney post and
chimney girt in the tap room of ca. 1713. Note the wide
bead on the beam at the right. The joint incorporates
an infrequently seen butment cheek, in which the post
juts out below the beam for additional support beyond
that provided by the mortise and tenon joint between
the two timbers.
The framing of the chimney bay is as originally built. It
was apparently not altered to accommodate an opposite
75
Arthur Shurcliff, plan for the Buckman Tavern garden, n.d. A very faint copy of this plan is found in Box 3, Buckman
Tavern Collection, Lexington Historical Society Archives.
31
The Buckman Tavern
facing fireplace in the added southwest room.
Throughout the original part of the house exposed beams are decorated with beads that are unusually wide (almost an inch in diameter). This kind of chamfering is consistent with the ca.1709-1713
construction date of this part of the Tavern, as are the inch-wide flat chamfers with run-out stops on
the posts.
The framing of the added southwest room is similar to that of the original part of the building with
respect to the treatment of the beams with a distinctive wide bead and in the use of a longitudinal
summer beam. However, the framing is about five inches taller on the west side and the joist spacing
is two or so inches wider. In the chamber, there is a north/south tie beam instead of the longitudinal
beam seen in the southeast chamber.
The framing of the hip roof with upper deck above the third floor, added in the building campaign
that brought the main body of the Tavern to its present size, is typical framing for an 18th century
hip roof, with dragon beams in the floor and principal rafters and angled rafters at the corners that
run up to beams at the edge of the upper deck. Those beams originally supported joists for the
plastered ceiling of all but the northeast garret room. More framing above supports the upper deck.
Several posts in the hallways of the attic support the roof framing. Two posts were added in 1973.
All of the existing framing in the Tavern was drawn and numbered by Donald Muirhead in 1973 in
conjunction with his schedule of treatment for insect and fungal damage to the timbers.76
Much of the framing in the cellar has been replaced, sistered or supported on additional posts over
time.
Dating by Dendrochronology:
The key to successful dendrochronology is the presence of the last layer of sapwood laid down before the tree was felled. Without complete sapwood, it is impossible to identify the year that the tree
was harvested. The second requirement is that the timbers have a sufficient number of rings to make
possible matching their ring patterns to the reference chronology (database of ring patterns for the
region).
The major posts and beams in the oldest part of the house are oak and several have complete sapwood sections, making them potentially datable. Joists, where visible, and purlins are also oak. The
current roof framing is mostly pine. The pine timbers would be less likely to date because a database
for pine is still being developed.77 Many of the pine roof timbers in the attic were scraped in 1973.
This removed beetle damage but also removed any complete sapwood that was present earlier. Elsewhere timbers are either painted or boxed. Painted framing can be sampled if complete sapwood can
be found. The half-inch holes where core samples are taken can be plugged and painted afterward.
76
Donald Muirhead, Consultant, and Souza and True, Engineers, Measured drawings of Buckman Tavern Repair and
Control Work, March 15, 1973. Accession # 6876. In 2012, Paul Doherty photographed the plans, enhanced their clarity
and placed all twelve drawings on a CD. Buckman Tavern plans, Lexington Historical Society Archives
77
There is a fully developed reference chronology for oak, but not yet one for pine in eastern Massachusetts.
32
The Buckman Tavern
On November 11, 2012, Dr. Daniel
Miles of the Oxford Dendrochronology Laboratory took 26 core samples
from oak beams, joists, purlins and
rafters in the Tavern. The sampling covered the three phases of construction.
The samples will be analyzed in 2013.
4. Exterior Walls We have no certain evidence of the
original exterior cladding of the Tavern.
However, clapboards with narrow
weathers, skived at the ends for weather
protection and butted at the corners of
the building, would have been normal
finish material in 1713. What happened
later in the 18th century is by no means
clear. A small amount of evidence suggests that there may have been wider
and thicker beaded clapboards on the
exterior walls later in the 18th century,
which would have been consistent with
upscale Georgian treatments.78
Figure 14. A view taken of the southeast corner of the Tavern taken in the
post office attic in 1973 showing conditions ca. 1813 when the corner was
encapsulated by the new construction. S. Lawrence Whipple, Photographer.
A portion of the exterior wall at the
southeast corner of the Tavern was preserved with some finish materials intact
when the post office wing was built
onto that corner ca. 1813. The evidence
was examined and described in detail by Figure 15. Another view of the beaded clapboards on the east wall of the TavWillard Brown in the 1920s.79 Figure 15, ern as seen in the attic of the post office wing in 1973. S. Lawrence Whipple,
Photographer. Courtesy of the Lexington Historical Society.
taken in 1973, shows at the center of
the photo the exterior of the southeast
corner post of the Tap Room chamber. At the right are three beaded clapboards with wide weathers
that are nailed directly to the studs. The beaded clapboards run to the corner of the east wall. At the
left are sheathing boards with what appear to be one or two unpainted shingles nailed horizontally to
the sheathing at the bottom of the photo, perhaps to serve as shims.
The Figure 17 photo from 1973 shows the upper part of the south wall with what Willard Brown
identified as conventional narrower and thinner clapboards nailed with hand wrought nails to the
78
Such as the Porter-Phelps-Huntington House in Hadley, Massachusetts, built in 1752.
79
Brown, 33.
33
The Buckman Tavern
sheathing. Brown took this evidence to mean that
the beaded clapboards were the original exterior wall
treatment and that they were later replaced with plain
clapbards. However, beaded clapboards would not have
been used in 1713.
Figure 16. What appear to be riven clapboards on the
south wall of the Tavern as seen in the attic of the post
office wing in 1973. The clapboards are no longer present on the wall. S. Lawrence Whipple, Photographer.
The picture gets more complicated. The beaded clapboards have very little evidence of weathering and very
little build-up of paint. In addition, behind the beaded
clapboards is evidence that lath was once nailed to the
exterior face of the studs and plaster was applied to the
lath to make a finished plaster wall. This evidence may
mean that there was once an addition on the east wall
of the building, possibly a side lean-to, and that the wall
adjoining the tap room and its chamber was first finished
with plaster and subsequently with beaded clapboards
that were thus never part of the exterior cladding of the
building. If, however, the beaded clapboards covered the
entire exterior of the building at some point in the 18th
century, why are the remaining beaded clapboards so
little weathered, and why are there not similar clapboards
preserved on the south wall in the post office attic? In
summary, there is no way to determine what role the
beaded clapbords played. There may have always been
conventioanl clapboards on the exterior walls of the
Tavern.
Sometimes shingles were used to cover less visible parts of early buildings. This appears to have been
the case at the Tavern. The north wall of the early 19th century kitchen wing was shingled before the
shed was added in 1859 or 1860. Parts of a shingled wall, including the lower part of a window, were
encapsulated when the shed was added and are now visible above the stairs to the cellar.
Minor repairs or replacement of the exterior cladding were no doubt carried out by the Meriams and
were continued by the Society until 1996. In that year, 75 percent of the clapboards were replaced
in order to give the tavern a “cleaner, neater” look in time for the Millennium.80 In his report on the
project, contractor Peter Kelly noted that about 100 clapboards with the nails in them were saved at
the request of Joan and Chuck French.
All of the walls are now covered with clapboards in good repair. A metal-covered projecting rectangular water table was installed at some point on the west and south sides of the tavern and on the
front and end of the post office wing.
5. Windows
Historic photographs indicate that sometime around 1870 the earlier windows in the Tavern, includ80
George Comptois, “Famous house gets a new ‘old’ look,” Lexington Minuteman (August 29, 1996).
34
ing those in the dormers, were replaced with 2/2 lights
popular in the Victorian period. It is not clear whether
the windows on the east elevation were updated with
larger panes; no historic images show that side. The
return to the earlier multi-paned style of sash must have
been one of the first restoration efforts at the tavern,
as the new windows were present by 1916. At that time,
all of the windows in the Tavern, except one, received
reproduction sash with 12/12 lights (or fewer for smaller
windows) intended to match the similar windows shown
in the stereo view of the Tavern taken about 1865.
Though the windows have the correct number of lights,
the muntins are too thin to match actual 18th century
ones. The only window believed to survive from the
18th century, on the basis of its thicker muntins, is the
westernmost window in the northeast chamber. The
west part of the chamber was a separate room in the
1870s when the windows with larger lights replaced
earlier small-paned windows on the Tavern. The room
served as “Mary’s clothes room” and was described by
Abbie Griffing as being packed with clothes (see description in the entry for Room 200). One can imagine that
the workman of ca. 1870, when confronted with such a
congested room, decided to skip the replacement of that
one window.81
The Buckman Tavern
Figure 17. A window on the south wall of the Tavern.
The frame and molded window head date from 18th
century. The sash is a reproduction of 1916.
Window frames on the main body of the Tavern are typical 18th century assemblages of projecting
window heads decorated with moldings, molded sills and jamb covers. They almost certainly survive
from the final enlargement of the building sometime before 1755.
6. Doors
The front doorway is a reproduction installed just after the Historical Society took over the care of
the Tavern. According to Willard Brown, the design was chosen to be “in character with other local
portals of the early period.”82 It is also similar to the doorway shown in the early stereo view, which
was very likely the doorway installed when the main body of the Tavern achieved its present size
before 1755. The doorway features fluted pilasters on either side that support a classical entablature
with a pediment decorated with modillions. Brown noted that the door was taller than the original
door displayed inside the entry. The front door itself was replaced in 1956.83 The door of the Tavern
at the time of the battle is displayed in the stair hall. The transom with five lights of bull’s eye glass
that now hangs inside a later transom must have been part of the original Georgian doorway, as its
thick muntins bespeak mid-18th century construction.
81
Might this window preserve early paint sequences for the Tavern’s trim on the exterior?
82
Brown, 17.
83
“Record of Maintenance and Repairs,” Box 1. Buckman Tavern Collection, Lexington Historical Society Archives.
35
The Buckman Tavern
There are seven exterior doors on the
Tavern. Most are simple late 19th or
early 20th century doors that serve utilitarian parts of the building. The door
opposite the rear stairs, however, appears to be a heavy board 18th century
door, held together with hand wrought
nails.
7. Roof and Gutters
There have been a number of episodes
of re-shingling the roof. Until the late
1920s, wood shingles were used. At that
time asphalt shingles were used on the
upper deck for the first time.
Figure 18. The new roof of wooden shingles being installed in 1973 “with
adequate ventilation.” S. Lawrence Whipple, Photographer. Courtesy of the
Lexington Historical Society.
The roof re-shingling took place during
the repairs in 1973, when wood shingles were applied “with adequate ventilation” for the first time.
S. Lawrence Whipple documented this re-shingling in a series of annotated slides. More recently, the
roof was re-shingled in 2002.
Gutters have probably been present
since the final enlargement. Downspouts beside the front door first appeared in a photo taken in 1875.
8. Chimneys
Figure 19. A view of the south side of the south chimney in the attic showing the thinner bricks used for the addition of a flue for the southwest attic
chamber fireplace and the heightening of the chimney stack at the time that
the roof of the Tavern was raised.
There are two chimneys on the main
body of the Tavern and one that previously served the new kitchen fireplace
in the north wing. The south chimney
stack, built as part of the original construction ca. 1713, served the fireplace
in the Tap Room, the chamber above
and possibly the old kitchen.84 When
the southwest room and chamber were
added, their flues were added to this
chimney. Later still, when the Tavern
was enlarged to include the northwest
room and chamber, habitable chambers
84
Although William Finch makes a compelling case that there was a fireplace in the old kitchen from the beginning, based
on his observation of the build-up of soot on the beams, the location of the original kitchen fireplace flue is a puzzle.
There is no evidence of a separate flue on the north side of the south chimney in the attic. However, Brown cited evidence
of an unused flue in the southeast chamber closet, which could have served the original kitchen fireplace.
36
The Buckman Tavern
of the third floor and the north chimney were built. Bricks used to build the north chimney were
thinner than those used to build the south chimney; according to Richard Irons, such bricks could
have been used as early as 1750. The north chimney served what were then five fireplaces in the
north part of the building including the current old kitchen fireplace (one fireplace, in the northeast
chamber, has since been closed up).
A flue was added to the south chimney for the fireplace in the southwest attic chamber using the
same kind of thinner bricks as were used in the north chimney. At the same time, the south chimney
was made taller with the thinner bricks so it would extend above the higher roof. Evidence of this
sequence of changes to the chimney stacks can be read in the attic. Also visible there is the line of
mortar on the east side of the south chimney where the earlier lower roof abutted the chimney; there
are even remnants of a drip course on two sides of the chimney where it was once above the roof.
See further descriptions of the fireplace and chimney features in the room by room entries that follow.
9. Utilities
Heating:
The first furnace was installed about 1870 when the Stetson family was in charge of the Tavern.85 Prior to that, fireplaces and then Franklin stoves heated the rooms. A new furnace was installed in
1917.
Lighting:
Most of the museum rooms have imitation candle wall sconces, a popular alternative for early house
museums that were also found in the Hancock-Clarke House. More recently, track lighting was installed along the summer beams in the second floor rooms that are used for exhibits.
Water:
At least two wells are known to have been within the building’s footprint: the well beneath the floor
of the northwest parlor and the one in the corner of the north shed that was incorporated into the
shed when it was constructed in 1859 or 1860.
Telephone:
A telephone was first installed in the Tavern in 1949 for the use of resident custodians.
10. Paint
Records of maintenance reference a number of repaintings of the exterior of the building over time,
but there were probably more for which there is no record. Exterior painting, as listed in Lexington
Historical Society records, was done in 1915, 1926 (two coats of best quality oil and lead paint), 1941,
1955, 1959, 1969 and 1989.
85
See description of framing removed for pipes in and between the two chimneys when the furnace was put in: Abbie
Stetson Griffing, “The Silhouettes,” 22-23.
37
The Buckman Tavern
Much of the interior was repainted in 1974 (in anticipation of the Bicentennial, no doubt). Whether
paint research to identify original colors was performed prior to that repainting is unknown.86 In
1994 the interiors were repainted in the 1974 colors, although in several rooms the colors were lightened slightly.
In 1987 Sara Chase of the SPNEA Conservation Center did a study of exterior paint colors on the
building. Her findings resulted in the painting of the Tavern in 1989 with the yellow walls and cream
trim one sees today (2012).
The “Buckman Tavern Paint and Woodwork Dating Report” of 2013 by Finch & Rose provides a
wealth of information on the paint history of wooden finish materials in the Tavern. William Finch’s
findings about the sequence of changes to the woodwork, which have been invaluable in identifying the age of surviving wooden elements in the building in relation to each other, are incorporated
into the discussion of the rooms beginning on page 39 of this
report.
The layers of exterior wall paint were analyzed from samples
tacken from early clapboards preserved by the Lexington Historical Society. Finch’s findings were supplemented by Susan
Buck’s analysis of pigments.87 The sequence of paints found
on the clapboards, with number 1 being the earliest layer, consist of: 1. Deep (i.e., dark) yellow ochre
2. Thin off-white that appears translucent and greyish in
cross section
3. Light green with visible chunks of bright green verdigris pigment
4. Medium yellow ochre (much thicker than the other
layers)
5. Light tan
6. Light yellow ochre
7. Light tan, followed by a succession of off-whites.88
11. Hardware89
There are a number of Suffolk latches on the first and second
floors of the Tavern. However, most are attached with modern
screws, so were either brought in after the Lexington Historical
86
Figure 20. Suffolk latch on the front door of
the Tavern present at the time of the battle in
1775. Note leather botches under the hand
wrought nails.
Historic New England (formerly the SPNEA) was doing a good deal of paint research on historic buildings through
what was then called the SPNEA Conservation Center on Historic Buildings before the Bicentennial. Nothing has been
found currently in the Historic New England Conservation Center files.
87
Susan L. Buck, “Buckman Tavern Clapboard Paint Analysis,” January 22, 2013.
88
William Finch, “Buckman Tavern Paint and Woodwork Dating Report,” February 2013, 23.
89
See details about hardware in the various room element tables.
38
The Buckman Tavern
Society took charge of the building or
were reproductions at that time. There
are a few Norfolk latches as well, with
the same probable history. Some doors
have brown glass knobs, which were
popular in the Victorian period.
Doors today may have H or HL hinges,
but their origin is equally uncertain as
they are also attached with modern
screws or obvious reproduction nails.
Butt hinges that probably date from the
Meriam period are used elsewhere.
Figure 21. Strap hinge on the door to the southwest attic chamber, installed
when the roof was raised before 1755. Note leather botches under the hand
wrought nails.
The Suffolk latch on the old front door
is an original 18th century latch. In the southwest chamber in the attic, true 18th century strap hinges
survive on the door to the stairs. The straps extend more than half way across the batten door. On
the doors to the southwest and southeast chambers in the attic, paint shadows preserve evidence of
previous Suffolk latches.
12. Interiors
William Finch’s findings about the paint history and relative dates of the various building elements
are included without citation in the room texts that follow. More detailed information about Finch’s
research on each room is available in Finch & Rose’s “Buckman Tavern Paint and Woodwork Dating
Report,” included as an Appendix to this report. Cellar:
The cellar is entered from the shed (now the gift shop).
The cellar was deepened after 1913 to gain more headroom and accommodate the installation of
steam for radiators and sprinkler mains.90
Foundation walls throughout are of roughly faced random rubble stonework with no obvious
changes in style that would indicate the age of various sections of the cellar.
In 1918 a passageway was cut through to the cellar under the southwest parlor, which had become
inaccessible after the northwest rooms were added to the house.
All parts of the cellar contain a great deal of replacement framing, dating from the last 100 years or
more, and identifiable by their dimensions and finishing. Some older timbers survive. In the cellar
under the southwest parlor many early joists in terrible condition have been sistered. A large original
sleeper remains under the Tap Room floor, although some of its surface was scraped off in 1973.
90
Brown, 29.
39
The Buckman Tavern
Room 001. Cellar under new kitchen
Room 002. Wine cellar
The wine cellar is fitted with the shelving one would expect given its use. Several sources make reference to the remains of the stringer outside the south wall of the wine cellar as evidence that stairs
came down to the cellar from the eastern part of the old kitchen for easy access to supplies. The configuration of the remaining brick and plaster on that wall could be interpreted to indicate the position
of earlier stairs to the cellar here.
Room 003. Cellar under tap room
Room 004. Cellar under post office wing
Room 005. Cellar under southwest parlor
When the northwest room was built the stairs to enter the southwest cellar from the north were
floored over and the cellar forgotten. The cellar was undiscovered and unused for at least 150 years. According to Abbie Griffing, when the floor in the northwest parlor was taken up about 1895,
“unplaned planks of the steps [to the southwest cellar] were white as when first laid down.91 Thus it
sounds like the decision to enclose the northwest parlor space was made shortly after the cellar under
the southwest parlor was built (since there was no other access to it).
Crawl space under the northwest parlor.
Brown makes reference to the crude logs in the ceiling of the northwest parlor. Logs, probably flattened on the top, can be seen from the cellar supporting the floor of that room.
First Floor:
Room 100. Shed (now gift shop)
According to Meriam family descendants, this shed, with roof framing characteristics of the mid19th century, was added in 1859 or 1860. Abbie Stetson Griffing says that the shed was known as the
pump room because there was a pump from a well in the northeast corner. Measured drawings by
Willard Brown of 1915 show that the northeast corner of the shed was still partitioned off at that
time.
HABS drawings show that by 1962 the partition and presumably the pump had been removed but
the studs were still exposed.
In 1973 the shed became the gift shop. Now there is unpainted boarding on some of the lower walls
and plaster elsewhere. Access to the cellar is as it was in 1915, from stairs in the southeast corner of
the gift shop.
Shed upper room
This attic room displays narrow vertical ridge board to which common rafters are spiked, consis91
Abbie Stetson Griffing, “The Silhouettes,” 23-24.
40
The Buckman Tavern
tent with the 1859-1860 construction date ascribed to the construction of the shed. The room was
initially finished with plaster on the gable walls, knee walls and, apparently, on the ceiling up to the
collar beam level, making it a habitable chamber, perhaps for a servant. The rafters do not show lath
burn or nail holes, but do have widely-spaced nail holes suggesting that some kind of boarding was
attached to the rafters to which plaster and lath may or may not have been applied. There is a window
in the north gable end and a small window on the east side.
The plaster ceiling was removed, probably during the repairs of 1973. Since then the room has
served as a store room for the gift shop.
Room 101. Kitchen
This new kitchen extending from the east part of the north wall was added in the early 19th century
by Rufus Meriam. The large fireplace
mass that remains on the north wall
served as a cooking fireplace until it
was closed up prior to 1915. A sink was
then, as now, on the east wall of the
room.
The basic layout of the current kitchen
is as shown on the drawings of 1949
that were made in connection with fitting up the east chambers as quarters
for a resident custodian.
Room 102. West entry
The rear entry and back stairs were
carved out of the southwest corner of
the new kitchen space at some point.
Figure 22. Wing attached to the Tavern that served as the post office in Lexington when Rufus Meriam was appointed the first postmaster.
Room 103. East entry to tap room
Room 104. Lavatory
This lavatory was created in 1949 “for the semi-public use of visitors to the Tavern.”92
Room 105. Guides’ room
This room was created in 1949 as revealed by a comparison of 1915 and 1949 plans.
Room 106. Old Post Office
The post office was not part of the original building. The most likely date of its construction is at
the time that Rufus Meriam became Lexington’s first postmaster in 1813. Preserved above the ceiling
and now visible through a view port is a portion of the exterior wall of the main block of the Tavern
encapsulated when the post office was added.93 The roof framing of principal rafters and purlins, vis92
Lexington Historical Society Council Meeting minutes, Oct. 24, 1948.
93
See description of the encapsulated exterior wall in Section V. B. 4. Exterior walls.
41
The Buckman Tavern
ible through a view port, is consistent with 18th or early 19th century construction. The slopes of the
gable roof are not symmetrical; the front slope is shorter and steeper than the rear slope. The roof
appears to have been constructed in such a way that the ridge would meet the corner of the building.
When the Society acquired the building, the post office was divided into two spaces by a central
front-to-rear partition.94 Long after the wing ceased to serve as the post office, Abbie Stetson Griffing said, “These rooms remained unchanged. There was a glass window behind which sat the official,
the letter-boxes, and the little door, through which the letters were given out. Later the boxes and
the window were removed.”95 You can see the joint in the dado on the rear wall where the partition
intruded before it was removed.
Element
Framing
Description
Beams hidden above ceiling.
Posts in plain cases in southeast corners, next to door to tap room and
on the reverse of the tap room wall at junction with Room 105.
Roof framing: principal rafters, common purlins with ridge purlin.
Date
Ca. 1813;
Cases: mid
19th c.
Ca. 1813
Floor
Clear coated pine boards with deep set nails.
Recent
Walls
Ca. 1813
1920
Baseboard
Dado of two flat boards with cap of half round and cove moldings.
New plaster above. (See Worthen, page 29.) A cut in the dado on the
rear wall shows the previous location of the partition.
8 1/2” tall with cove and half round moldings on top.
Cornice
None
Ceiling
Recent plaster, probably redone in 1973.
1973?
Doors
Door to tap room: Victorian door with five raised panels scalloped at
the corners and Norfolk latch.
Door to Room 105. Two panel door, probably a reproduction of an
early door.
Plain with bead at inner edge.
Ca. 1870
Door trim
Windows
Reproduction windows with some old glass. 6/6 lights on rear and end
wall; 8/12 lights on front wall.
Ca. 1813
1920s
Probably
ca. 1813
Ca. 1916
Window trim Simple fillet, cyma and half round moldings like those on other window Ca. 1813
frames in the building believed to date from the early Meriam years.
Hardware
See above.
Paint
Light grey woodwork and white plaster walls.
2012
94
See Willard Brown’s pre 1920 plan of the first floor for the location of the partition.
95
Abbie Stetson Griffing, “The Silhouettes,” 6.
42
Fixtures/
utilities
Special features
The Buckman Tavern
Electric imitation candle sconces
1920s?
Hot water baseboard heat
1976
Room 107. Tap Room
The Tap Room is the most iconic room in the Buckman Tavern. It lives in memory as the chief
meeting place for the Lexington militia on the night of April 18, 1775, and a refuge throughout the
day of April 19.
The Tap Room is also an early example of the successful use of building archaeology and the luck
of finding significant evidence. William Sumner Appleton’s apparent participation in the restoration plan linked the work to the developing scientific restoration philosophy.96 In addition, architect
Willard Brown’s lengthy description of the evidence found and the restoration process was a rarity
among 1920s restorations. Unfortunately, the autochrome (early color) photographs that the Lexington Historical Society Council required be taken to document the “before” conditions have not been
located.97
Whether the Tap Room was updated in the18th century is uncertain, although what originally must
have been leaded glass casement windows were clearly replaced by vertically sliding wood sash sometime before 1775 (as shown in the Doolittle print).
Beginning in the early 19th century, the room was transformed into the Meriam family living room.
The bar was removed, the walls and ceiling were plastered then, if not before, and the fireplace was
reduced in size several times. A version of window seats in the south windows was created in the mid
19th century by extending the window embrasures, but not altering the position of the south wall as
a whole.98 New flooring of narrow oak boards was added at the end of the 19th century.99
With regard to the evolution of the fireplace, Abbie Stetson Griffing wrote:
Aunt Mary told us in 1805, . . [The] chimney (in her sitting room) was repaired, and
how she went way in behind the fireback, and looking up could see stars at noonday.
96
Lexington Historical Society Council meeting minutes, September 23, 1920: “Mr. W. D. Brown reported on suggestions
as to future restoration to be made, as outlined by Mr. Sumner Appleton. It was voted that the Buckman Tavern
Committee be authorized to work on the lower right-hand room.” See also James Lindgren, “Establishing a Scientific
Method in Preservation,” Preserving Historic New England (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 134-152. Appleton’s
recommendations have not been located either at the LHS Archives or at Historic New England.
97
Lexington Historical Society Council meeting minutes, March 25, 1925: “A meeting of the Council was held at Buckman
Tavern in order to see what had been found of the old construction in clearing the tap room for restoration. It was
voted that the bar be permanently restored in accordance with the traces of the old bar found in situ. It was voted that
autochrome [early color] photographs be taken of the room as a record of the absolute conditions before restoration.”
98
Worthen, 37: “In the early days, this [south] wall was sheathed with vertical boards. It is believed that J. P. Meriam
removed them, substituted plaster, and thickened the wall to make window recesses with their seats below.”
99
Worthen, 27.
43
The Buckman Tavern
About 1860, this fireplace was again changed, and an iron Franklin stove put in. This
stood further out in the room and threw out more heat. Later still, when a furnace
was set in the cellar, this Franklin fireplace was removed and the present one set with
Moorish tiles, which had been taken from the Parkhurst house before it was sold. When
this was done, five fireplaces were found, one behind the other. When the furnace was
put in, a good deal of oak was cut away from the beams in order to make room for the
pipes.100
A photograph of this room in the late 19th century shows a mantelpiece similar to the ones in the
southwest parlor and the southeast chamber. Donald Millar drew that mantelpiece and its tile decoration when he made measured drawings of the Tavern in 1916-1917. The mantelpiece and the dado
seen in the photograph at the right of the fireplace were part of the Meriam period updating in the
early 18th century.
In 1892, after Aunt Mary’s death, changes were made to the floor.
. . . . The floor of her sitting room was re-laid. The wide . . . planks, which had been down for more than two centuries, were growing dangerously thin and weak in the middle of the room, worn down to less than a quarter of an inch in thickness, and making the floor concave. When the planks were taken up, between the two floors we found
a layer of find white sand. . . .”101 Willard Brown, in his report of the restoration in the 1920s (finally published in 1967), described
his restoration of the Tap Room. He was aware from Abbie Stetson Griffing’s description that the
little room partitioned off at the east end of the old kitchen had served the function that the bar in
the Tap Room served originally. The Meriam family called that room “the bar” and before the 1920s
the room still contained “the wide shelf where tumblers were turned over, and deep groove through
which the water ran off.”102
It is worth quoting Brown on the key discoveries that allowed the bar and the fireplace to be reconstructed:
When starting upon the work of restoring the Tap Room to its old time appearance, in
no one’s mind was there a suspicion that evidence of an earlier bar than the little one
would be disclosed.
The modern plaster ceiling of the Tap Room was first removed, disclosing the white-
washed boarding of long ago. In one of the floor joists thus uncovered had been cut a deep square notch, but when and for what purpose no one could guess.
Next, from the walls was stripped the plastering of a later day. Serving as a stud to which had been nailed the lathing, was found an upright stick, its upper portion chamfered and painted dark green.
100
101
Ibid., 23.
102
44
The Buckman Tavern
It might have been, perhaps, some early stair post. Carefully it was removed. By chance, while its former use was being discussed, it was held up against the notched joist that
had previously caused much speculation. Into this it fitted perfectly. From its position
there could be little doubt that this had been the corner post of the old-time bar.
The side wall was examined, and on the painted paneling laid bare by the removal of the plaster was seen the outline of the counter with its sheathed partition under; it was on a line with the newly discovered post, which was painted up to the exact height of the counter. And so the bar of the early days was rebuilt, its size, its location, and even its moldings and to having thus surely been made known.
Had further proof been needed, -- on the painted paneling inside the bar was found outlines of former shelves, to which the very old shelvings in the later bar [in the east
part of the old kitchen] exactly fitted. At one side was discernible (and still to be seen
under its protecting glass covering,) the chalk marks of some ancient ‘score.’ Moreover,
at the floor, in the partition next to the stairs that once led directly from the kitchen to
the wine room in the cellar – and still visible – had been cut a small door. On its crude
leather hinges it had swung to render earlier the passing of casks and heavy jugs. . . .
Brown went on to describe the discovery of the original fireplace:
Even as with the bar, the existence of the old fireplace had long been lost sight of. For years it had remained hidden behind its small modern successor with glazed tile facing. But when the worn-out hot-air furnace had been removed from the cellar, a hole was
left in the chimney’s brickwork through which it was possible to crawl and, once inside,
to stand erect and move about. The Tavern’s ancient fireplace had been discovered.
It was a simple matter to take down the modern substitute so that within its wide-spread jambs the household fires might once again be lighted. When this was done, however,
a second encircling fireplace was disclosed; but so incorporated was it with the older
one as to make its removal extremely difficult. As the time of its construction a branding iron had been pressed into the fresh plaster surface of the brick above it leaving
the name J. P. Meriam (John Parkhurst Meriam) to give some idea of when the work
was done [perhaps about 1840]. Pains were taken to preserve and remove this bit of
inscribed plastering, but some slight settlement one night caused it to fall and the next
morning it was found in fragments on the floor.
At last the original fireplace was exposed to view, but in what a ruinous condition. The herringbone-patterned panel at the back had been almost disintegrated by the heat of countless fires. The old oak header [chimney lintel] that spanned its breadth had either burned or rotted and been removed. . . . Its size and exact position were clearly defined, however, and a sturdy hand-hewed oak beam from an ancient barn was set in the old location; while under it on either side, in clay from an abandoned pit in the north part of town, was laid up a facing of old brick. Gone as well was the ‘lug-pole’ or ‘trammel stick’ from which in olden times hung steaming kettles. Happily the charred ends of its supporting sticks still embedded in the vast throat above the lintel beam indicated where Menders, Torrey & Spencer, Inc. • 2013
45
The Buckman Tavern
and how its green oak successor should be installed. . . . The generous hearth of long
ago, too, had shrunk with the diminishing size of the successive fireplaces and had to be rebuilt.
On the removal of the intermediate fireplace the upper brickwork was found to be in a very loose and tumbledown condition, though the traces of its former lines were clearly marked on the side wall. As the workmen were straightening up the work, securely cemented in its exposed face was found a good sized stone. This was pried loose, disclosing a hole that ran in an oblique direction into the flue of the chimney; and in its depth were found three ancient hand-made pipes and a splinter of soft wood. . . . Why were they so carefully sealed up? What end was served by the opening in which they were thus hidden?103
According to Richard Jones, the opening was much more likely to be the site of a stove pipe connection to the fireplace flue, than as a place for clay pipes to be stored.104
Edwin Worthen, Jr. (born in 1913), who must have known the of the restoration work in the 1920s
first hand, supplied further details about the fireplace in his account of the Buckman Tavern of 1963:
When the Society began its work there was a fireplace in the room, faced with tiles and
with a wood mantel over, all of it flush with the room wall. Upon removing this last
fireplace it was discovered that it had been built inside still another and earlier, fireplace
right behind it. However, there was very conclusive evidence that this second fireplace
was not original, so it too was removed, and the much altered chimney had to be supported while the original fireplace was at last uncovered. In short, over the years the
whole chimney has been built forward about a foot by the construction of two later
fireplaces. The plaster arch above this header is also part of the restored work, its exact curve being revealed when the wall next to the kitchen was uncovered. There was sufficient old brickwork remaining at the front of the fireplace to give the proper lines for building up the face, which was done with the brick laid up in clay obtained from the site of the old brick yard and clay pits in North Lexington. The interior of the fireplace remains just as
it was, with the exception of that some of the bricks forming the herringbone panel at
the back were so badly burned out that they had to be replaced.”105
Richard Iron confirmed Brown’s statement that the original fireplace lintel had been removed, and
that when the new lintel was installed in 1921, the front parts of the north and south jambs were rebuilt to support it. The curved portions of both jambs retain original bricks. Other areas of original
brick include the places where photographs of the 1920s show plaster covering the bricks.
103
Brown, 18-21.
104
Richard Irons, personal communication to William Finch and Anne Grady, January 14, 2013.
105
Worthen, 29.
46
The Buckman Tavern
One puzzling bit of evidence has been carefully preserved, but its meaning is still uncertain. As Willard Brown said:
And what is the explanation of the black strip painted on the whitewashed ceiling of the old room? Some have suggested that it marked the position of a painted partition that screened the bar, the slanting direction of which it runs being due to the necessity of avoiding the small window that once was located under the centre beam.106
In the Tap Room, as in the other rooms on the first floor of the Tavern, floors of very wide pine
boards were laid in the 1920s to replace late 19th century oak flooring. The new floors were nailed
with reproduction nails with prominent rose heads meant to evoke the original floor nails in the
building.
Two photographs by Burr Church show the tap room partially restored, ca. 1925, and completely
restored, ca. 1927. In the earlier photo the room still has a flat board dado with molded cap as is still
seen in Room 109. The floor is still the narrow boards installed in 1892 and there is wallpaper from
the Meriam period on the walls, including the wood-sheathed north wall. The fireplace has been
restored and the plaster and lath removed from the ceiling. What shows in the photo must be the
condition of the ceiling with peeling whitewash before it was plastered. A six-panel door in the style
of an 18th century door with a brown glass knob is still on the closet south of the fireplace. In the
slightly later photo, the dado and wallpaper have been removed and the walls and ceilings given a coat
of whitewash. The door to the closet is now a two-panel door and the current wide boards have been
installed on the floor. It is interesting that both doors installed in the 1920s on the west wall have
earlier H hinges with foliate ends appropriate to the ca. 1713 dates of the Tap Room.
Over the years since the 1920s, though furnishings and displays have evolved, the bar room has remained the highlight of the Tavern’s interpretation.
106
Brown, 20.
47
The Buckman Tavern
Element
Framing
Floor
Walls
Description
Longitudinal oak summer beam and other beams are exposed and
decorated with a distinctive bead, almost an inch in diameter. The summer beam looks to have a tenon and spur joint with the chimney girt,
secured with a single pin from below.
Two notches on the north end of the 12-inch-deep east girt in the area
of the bar may relate to some feature attached to the wall originally.
Another notch in the south end of the east girt is unexplained.
Parts of the south girt were cut away to accommodate the height of
the double hung sash windows.
Joists are 3 1/2” by 4 1/2 inches and are spaced 21 3/4 to 22 1/2
inches on centers.
Two oak posts are exposed in the south corners of the room.
The southwest post, slightly splayed at the top, is in good condition
and displays an inch-wide flat chamfer and run-out stop, also typical of
late First Period work. A rarely seen butment cheek helps to support
the chimney girt, which is 11 1/2 inches deep. There is evidence of a
falling brace.
The southeast corner post has no splay and seems to have been slightly
cut back to accommodate the door to the post office.
Wide random width boards up to 23” inches wide. Nailed with reproduction rose-head nails.
North wall: vertical feather edged sheathing boards with groove on one
edge and feather on the other edge of each board. Evidence behind
the bar shows that the sheathing was previously plastered over.
East wall: plaster.
West wall: wooden sheathing between the two doors south of the
fireplace.
South wall plaster between and west of the window embrasures.
Baseboard None
Cornice
None
Exposed joists and undersides of floor boards of second floor.
Ceiling
Firebox
81” wide by 54” high, with rounded jambs (characteristic of late First
Period construction). The smoke panel with herringbone-patterned
bricks was reconstructed in 1921. The current chimney lintel was made
in 1921 from a timber taken from an old barn in North Lexington.
Mantelpiece None. The plastered cove over the fireplace was reconstructed from
evidence on the sheathing boards to the north of the angle of the
original cove. The cove included the small shelf rediscovered in the
1920s.
Four rows of square hearth bricks.
Hearth
48
Date
Ca. 1713
Ca. 1927
Ca. 1713
19th or
20th c.
18th c.?
?
Ca. 1713
Ca. 1713;
restored in
1921
Ca. 1713;
restored in
1921
Restored in
1921
Doors
Door trim
Windows
Window
trim
Hardware
Paint
Fixtures/
Utilities
Special
features
The Buckman Tavern
Door to stair hall: reproduction two-panel door with raised fields on
tap room side with H hinges with foliate ends.
Door to closet: reproduction two-panel door with H hinges with foliate
ends and no latch.
Door to old kitchen: consists of an old six-panel door, perhaps from
another building, faced with a new six-panel door on the old kitchen
side.
Early 1920s
Door to post office: Victorian five-panel door with HL hinge attached
with modern large-headed nails.
Reused panel door on Tap Room side.
Simply molded back bands both west doors and the door to the old
kitchen. On the north door the architrave was extended upward to accommodate a previous Victorian door.
Door to the post office: minimal frame.
South windows: reproduction sash with 12/12 lights and some old
glass.
The two south windows are framed by deep embrasures with moldings
similar to the Federal style fillet, cyma and half round found in other
rooms updated during the Meriam ownership. The embrasures project
in front of the surrounding wall, to create the effect of window seats
without moving the plane of the wall. The actual seats with curved
corners project beyond the embrasures.
Wooden panel below the window seats.
Ca. 1870s
See above.
Whitewashed walls and ceiling. Woodwork: grey blue or dark red.
Hot water baseboard heat on south wall.
Bar, reconstructed as described above with vertical feather edged
sheathing below a molded counter.
Early 1920s
Installed
in the early
1920s
?
Early 1920s
Early 1920s
1916
Mid 19th c.
Probably
early 1920s
2012
1976
Early 1920s
49
The Buckman Tavern
Figure 23 (at left). A view of the tap room in the late
19th century, showing the mantelpiece and other
finish materials in the room when it was used as the
Meriam family living room. Courtesy of the Lexington Historical Society.
Figure 24. A measured drawing of the west wall of the tap room, as it appeared during the Meriam ownership.
Rev. Donald Millar, draftsman, 1916-1917. Courtesy of the Lexington Historical Society.
Figure 25 (at left). Conditions found when the fireplace
in the tap room was being restored to its 18th century
appearance in the early1920s. This must be one of
architect Willard Brown’s record photographs. Courtesy
of the Lexington Historical Society.
50
The Buckman Tavern
Figure 26 (above). The tap room mostly restored,
but with narrow floor and wallpaper covering the
sheathing boards still in place. Burr Church, Photographer, ca.1925. Courtesy of the Lexington Historical
Society.
Figure 27 (at right). The tap room at the completion of the restoration ca. 1927. Burr Church,
Figure 28 (at left). The fireplace in the tap room in
2012, showing the herringbone patterned bricks in
the smoke panel and the curved jambs characteristic of the early 18th century.and wallpaper covering
the sheathing boards still remaining. Burr Church,
Photographer, ca.1925. Courtesy of the Lexington
Historical Society.
51
The Buckman Tavern
Room 108. Entry and Stair Hall
The small combined entry and stair hall reflects several
periods in the Tavern’s history. The west chimney girt,
dating from the original construction, is exposed and
decorated with a chamfer similar to the one in the Tap
Room. There is no indication that the stair hall/entry
was widened when the west room and chamber were
added, as is often the case. The original door from the
Revolutionary period, complete with bullet hole, is displayed on the south wall next to the entrance door.
Worthen stated that the original staircase ascended in the
opposite direction, but does not give evidence to support his statement.107 The balustrade on the first floor
is of Federal Period design, ca. 1800 to 1820, while the
balusters remaining on the second floor are characteristic of the mid 18th century. Rufus Meriam removed earlier turned balusters from the first run of the staircase
and replaced them with the up-to-date balusters, square
in section. William Finch’s paint research indicates that
Meriam also replaced virtually all of the finish materials
and surrounding staircase on the first floor. In so doing
it is possible that he reversed the direction of the stairs,
as Worthen said.
Figure 29. The wallpaper of the Cervera pattern by
Reveillon found on the walls of the stair hall and reproduced by Thos. Strahan & Son in the 1920s.
During the 1920s restoration, according to Willard
Brown, when a baseboard was removed at the bottom
of the stairs a strip of early wallpaper was discovered. Eventually the paper was identified as a design
called Cervera, originally created by the French wallpaper manufacturer, Reveillon. According to
Richard Nylander, the wallpaper dates from between 1845 and 1860 and may be an American copy
of the French original. It commemorates the launching of the first manned balloon flight in 1783
(the balloon is the small dot in the sky).108 The event was commemorated on “prints, engravings,
wallpaper, coat buttons, faience, printed fabric, and the like.”109 Thos. Strahan & Son of Chelsea had
reproduced the paper from another sample and printed it in the colors found under the baseboard.
The paper was applied to the walls of the entry on both floors. A portion of that paper now remains
on the south wall of the entry. Later in the 19th century at least two different wallpapers graced the
walls in the entry.
In another example of the application of the scientific approach to preservation, paint research was
carried out in the 1920s and the woodwork in the entry was said to have been painted in the original
color.110
107
Worthen, 29
108
Richard Nylander, personal communication to William Finch, January 2, 2013,
109
Brown, 17; and explanation of teh Cervera wallpaper, filed with samples of the paper in the Lexington Historical
Society Archives.
110
Brown, 17.
52
Element
Framing
The Buckman Tavern
Description
All framing cased in plain cases except the west chimney girt,
which is exposed and displays the characteristic wide bead seen
on the tap room beams.
The board on the top surface of the west girt with a molding at
the edge was installed in the 1920s.
Floor
Wide boards attached with reproduction rose-head nails.
Walls
Plaster of uncertain date is on all walls except the west wall next
to the stairs, where there is plain vertical board sheathing. Similar
plain sheathing covers staircase below stringer.
Sheathing board north of Tap Room doorway is the reverse of
an early board between the two west doors in the Tap Room.
Baseboard
South wall: 7 1/2 inches high with ovolo molding on top.
By stairs: 8” high with Federal style moldings on top.
Below the stairs plain board, perhaps redone when a heating
register was installed in the 1870s. The molding at its top shown
in a late 19th century photograph was removed, probably in the
1920s.
Cornice
None
Ceiling
Plaster
Doors
New doors to Tap Room and southwest parlor, with six raised
panels, were installed at the time of the restoration of the 1920s.
(Notation on plans by Donald Millar of 1916-17 indicates modern replacement door installed.)
Entry door: Six raised panels with a pronounced cyma molding
and small bead at the grooves. (Handwritten list of Maintenance
and Repairs 1915-1966. Box 1, Buckman Tavern Collection, Lexington Historical Society Archives)
Door trim
Door to the parlor: Simple single architrave with molded backband
Door to the Tap Room has an architrave of plain boards with a
bead on their inner edge.
Front door: Victorian style simple backband.
Windows
A transom window with five lights and modern muntins is set
outside the older transom window with five panes of bull’s eye
glass lights and wider muntins.
Window trim The frame of the front door extends up beside the transom
windows
Hardware
Box lock on the front door, brass handle and a Suffolk latch on
the outside.
Date
West chimney
girt: ca. 1713
SE post case:
mid 19th c.;
SW post case:
1920s
1920s
1920s
Sheathing:
mid 19th c.
Early 19th c.;
18th c.?
Mid 19th c.
Early 19th c.
Ca. 1870
1920s
1920s
Apparently
1956
19th c.
1920s
?
1916
18th c. (inner)
?
?
53
The Buckman Tavern
Paint
Grey woodwork, supposedly based on the original colors revealed 2012
by paint research (but probably not accurate). White walls, brown
stair treads.
Special feaStaircase features balusters on the first level that are square in
Early 19th c.
section and set on a diagonal on the closed stringer. Newels are
tures
plain with cap molded on four sides; and stair rail is molded on
both sides.
Room 109. Southwest Parlor, Ladies’ Parlor
This room was part of the first enlargement of the building, added perhaps as early as 1730. What
little we know of the original appearance of the parlor indicates that the room was in some ways
similar to the Tap Room. The summer beam was exposed and decorated with a wide bead, a treatment like that of the Tap Room beams. There was a fireplace similar to the one in the Tap Room.
However, the ceilings were plastered below the joists from the beginning, indicating that the architectural tastes of the owners were moving away from the First Period focus on exposing the structural
framing toward the classical Georgian practice of concealing structure.111
Richard Irons, chimney construction expert, recently examined the remains of the original fireplace.
As viewed above and behind the back of the current fireplace, the original parlor fireplace was as
large as the Tap Room fireplace, although this one did not have curved jambs. The brickwork of
the right and rear walls, which survives, is consistent with construction ca. 1730. The firebox was 44
inches deep. The space between it and the tap room fireplace was just eight or nine inches, making
enough room for the rear walls of the two fireplaces but no room for a smoke chamber attributed by
tradition to the space. A patch at the center of the rear wall suggests that there may once have been a
smoke channel in this location.112 The narrow column of bricks visible at the left of the closet door
is a continuation of the base in the cellar of the current kitchen bake oven.
The appearance of this room as a whole in 1775 is unknown, but a few pre-1775 features are still
visible in the room today. These include the exposed summer beam, the cases on the girts and two of
the posts, the raised field paneling at the right of the fireplace, the architrave of the door to the entry,
and the window casings.
The sequence of paint layers on the summer beam is the most complete in the room; it served as the
basis for William Finch’s extensive paint analysis of the woodwork in the parlor. See “Finch & Rose
Paint and Woodwork Dating Report” submitted with this report.
By appearance, certain features in the room can be associated with the Federal style in the early
Meriam period ca. 1800 to 1820. Finch’s findings confirm that association, but refine the sequence
of changes by suggesting that they occurred in two phases. The flat board dado on the walls and
the baseboard below it were installed first, perhaps as early as the late 1790s. The mantelpiece itself
and the closet door to its left were installed later, ca.1820. Two different wallpapers found during the
1920s restoration are associated with the ca. 1800-1820 changes. The later of the two wallpapers, ca.
111
Joists in the attic on the west side show no whitewash, indicating that they were always concealed above a plaster
ceiling, while those on the east side were whitewashed.
112
Richard Irons, Comments on Buckman Tavern chimney and fireplace construction, January 14, 2013.
54
The Buckman Tavern
1819, was available as a reproduction from Thomas Strahan and Son and was placed on the walls in
the 1920s. A small section of the paper survives in the current parlor on the south wall.113
The molded cap of the dado was removed during the later Meriam ownership and a curved portion of the plaster was added to meet the forward edge of the dado. After that the walls, including
the paneled wall south of the fireplace, were completely papered in keeping with the fashion of the
times. The dado cap was restored in the 1920s with the molding based on paint lines found on the
cases of the corner posts.
Abbie Stetson Griffing remembered that “About 1860 also, new doors were placed in the west parlor;
those removed were very curious, with bright paint, shading from yellow to deep orange and red, and
completely crackled. I think they are still about the place. One, if I remember correctly, was used for
the small closet in the corner of the pump room.”114 The curious painting noted by Abbie Griffing
was graining. William Finch identified layers of grain painting on this door and the closet door, as
well as on other elements in the room including baseboards and the top of the mantel shelf.
Worthen and Brown described evidence found in the parlor when the Tavern was being restored
in the 1920s and the difficulties encountered in trying to develop a coherent restoration strategy.
Worthen said, “Behind the present fireplace was one of the same size as that in the Tap Room, but
because such radical and complicated changes had been made to the chimney . . . it was not possible
to restore the old fireplace.”115 Brown added that:
[When] the [old] kitchen fireplace was rebuilt and the brick oven enlarged. . . it was necessary to push the oven’s rear wall into the parlor fireplace, the old oak header across the
opening being in consequence cut short and a brick wall built under its unsupported end.
In the remaining space was built the fireplace we see today.116
Some have speculated that a secret staircase was built between the two chimney stacks at some point,
but there is no evidence that the staircase ever existed. Willard Brown did a series of drawings that
are now in the Lexington Historical Society Archives of the chimneys as he found them when the
Society took over the Buckman Tavern. They do not include evidence of a staircase.117
In the end, in the 1920s restoration the existing Federal style mantelpiece and its smaller firebox were
retained. Raised-field paneling, intended to evoke an earlier period, was installed above the mantelpiece. An elaborate bed molding was added below the cased chimney girt on the fireplace wall, but
the simple Victorian bed molding and original crown moldings along the beams on the other walls
113
According to Worthen, when the bed molding below the beams was removed, “There came into view a narrow strip of
the early paper – enough to show its width and background. Then it was recalled that among the treasures of the Lexington
Historical Society were two small figured panels said to have been cut from paper that once hung on those very walls. In
color they corresponded to the strip laid bare. The backgrounds were identical. Insufficient in themselves, -- combined, they
provided the actual pattern. The other earlier paper was found in the 1920s when multiple layers of paper on the walls were
carefully teased apart.”
114
Abbie Stetson Griffing to Dr. Tilton, January 27, 1914(?)
115 Worthen, 30.
116
Brown, 32.
117
Willard Brown, Measured drawings on vellum. #8161, Lexington Historical Society Archives.
55
The Buckman Tavern
were removed. Worthen notes that during the Meriam period, old floors were replaced with new
ones.118 The floors put in in the 1920s were like the others on the first floor with very wide boards
secured with modern reproduction rose-headed nails. New six-panel doors replaced the doors that
were, according to Abbie Griffing, put in in 1860.119 Those in charge of the 1920s restoration included a view port: “a hinged panel showed the old header and brickwork left so that the lines of the
early fireplace could be seen.120 The location of the view port, now removed, has not been determined. View ports were a relatively new concept at the time.
The room was redecorated in the early 1950s.121
Element
Framing
Floors
Walls
Baseboard
Cornice
Ceiling
Firebox
Mantelpiece
Hearth
Doors
Description
Summer beam: longitudinal, exposed and decorated with the wide
bead.
Girts: cased, decorated with the same wide bead.
Finish floor: very wide boards, nailed with reproduction rose-head
nails.
Fireplace wall: reproduction wall paneling above the fireplace.
Paneling south of the fireplace.
Other walls: Flat board dado 31 “ high with plaster above.
(Section on the north wall east of the doorway and all dado caps
are 1920s reproductions.)
6 1/2 inched high with Federal-style delicate molding on top.
Wide bed molding below chimney girt.
Apparently an early ceiling that received an inch-deep recoating in
the 1920s.
35” high by 48” wide – center panel probably rebuilt in 1920s.
A double architrave surrounds the firebox; above is a wide frieze
with “pilaster caps” and central panel that are reeded; a mantel
shelf of Federal design with multiple small moldings. The south
end of the shelf runs in front of paneled wall.
3 rows of square hearth tiles, either reset or new in 1920s.
Stair hall door: six raised field panel door installed in the 1910s.
No door to northwest parlor (formerly enclosed with portieres).
Closet door: two raised panels.
Date
Ca. 1730
Ca. 1730-1750
1920s
1920s
18th c.
Ca. 1800
1920s
Ca. 1800-1820
1920s
18th c. with
1920s coating
Ca. 1820; 1920s
Ca. 1820
1920s
1910s
Ca. 1820
Ca. 1820
118
Worthen, 26.
119
A note on measured drawings by Donald Millar of 1916 says modern doors were installed by then.
120
Worthen, 30.
121
Ibid.
56
The Buckman Tavern
Figure 30 (above). The southwest parlor in
the late 19th century during the Meriam
ownership. Courtesy of the Lexington Historical
Society.
Figure 31 (above). A similar view of the southwest parlor today, as
restored in the 1920s.
Figure 32 (at left). A view of the wallpaper of ca. 1819 found on the walls
under later layers and reproduced by Thos. Strahan & Son, now present on
only a part of the south wall of the room.
57
The Buckman Tavern
Door trim
Stair hall door: double architraves mitered at the corners.
Northwest parlor doorway with similar architrave was enlarged ca.
1870-1890.
Closet door architrave.
Windows
Reproduction 12/12 sash.
Window trim No trim above windows that run up to the girts. Frame molding
continues below the sill as a bed molding. Reveals of the two windows are slightly different.
Hardware
Door to stairs: Suffolk latch secured with modern screws; HL
hinges
Door to closet: just key hole; butt hinges.
Paint
Grey/blue trim and white walls.
Fixtures/
Hot water baseboard heat.
Utilities
Special feaCloset, apparently made in its present form ca. 1820s; the plastered
tures
walls are shaped to fit around brickwork of the old kitchen oven.
The china cabinet shelving may have been added during the redecoration of the room in the early 1950s.
18th c. repositioned upward
in 1860s
Ca. 1820-1830,
altered
1920s
1916
18th c.
1910s or 1920s
?
2012
1976
Ca. 1820
1950s?
Room 110. Northwest parlor, Old Well Room, Landlord’s Bedroom, Rev. Stetson’s Study
This room has different construction characteristics than the rest of the building owing to its presumed origin as a space where there was a well. Originally, the well was said to have been covered
by a porch or in a rudely enclosed room easily accessible from the adjoining kitchen. Abbie Stetson
Griffing even believed, based on a Meriam family tradition, that the space was open in some form
even after the northwest chamber was built above it. It is true that the floor and ceiling framing are
constructed of logs flattened on the top and that the walls are thicker than those of other rooms,
perhaps indicating that, as Abbie Griffing stated, they were filled with cobble stones. These features
would indeed suggest that the room was constructed at first for a purpose other than habitation, but
it is very unlikely that the northwest chamber was built before construction of the current walls of
the northwest parlor. Abbie Griffing described the rediscovery of the well and of the cellar beneath
the southwest parlor:
I have heard my mother (and her family) say that the N.W. corner was not enclosed until a later period. That is, to make it more clear, there was no enclosed room below the
“blue” N. W. chamber; just space, through which one entered the large kitchen, and also
the cellar, by means of the “bulkhead.” None of us knew the location of this bulkhead
until we laid the new floor in the N. W. room (my father’s study) about 20 years ago. I
think the walls of this room were put up with less care than in the rest of the house, as
instead of well-laid brick filling, we found carelessly laid cobble stones.122 In 1892, . . a new floor was laid in the study on the west side of the house. When the
old floor was taken up here, a stairway was found conducting to a cellar which we knew
122
Abbie Stetson Griffing to Dr. Tilton, January 5, 1914.
58
The Buckman Tavern
existed, but which was closed before the Battle of Lexington as we judge from pictures;
my grandfather said it was not open in his day. In the early cellar we found a spoon,
nothing else not even a bit of dust or mold; and the unplaned planks of the steps were
white as when first laid down.123 During the restoration of the 1920s Brown noted, “In this room it was found that there were vertical molded wall boards on the side next to the kitchen, apparently added at a later date. There is
now a plastered wall with some new panels over the fireplace and a wood cornice provided.”124 The
fireplace is served by the rear chimney. Unlike the fireplace above, this fireplace is built on an angle,
perhaps because the large kitchen fireplace and oven took up so much space that a fireplace flush
with the east wall of the room could not be built.
Element
Framing
Floor
Description
No framing visible.
Wide boards secured with modern reproduction rose-head nails.
Walls
East wall where vertical boards were removed in the 1920s, new plaster
was installed.
Other walls plaster of indeterminate age.
Baseboard
6 inch high plain boards.
Cornice
Reproduction 18th cornice runs around the room
Ceiling
Old plaster, apparently.
Firebox
46” wide by 26” high
Jamb and lintel bricks facing the room are painted black.
Mantelpiece Raised-field panel above the fireplace and interior of cupboards.
Two cupboard doors, the central raised panel and the stiles between
them, 1920s.
Hearth
Two rows of square hearth tiles (reset or new in 1920s).
Doors
Door to old kitchen: reproduction six-panel door.
No door to southwest parlor. Doorway enlarged and raised up ca. 18701890.
Door trim
Both doors have double architraves. The door to the kitchen has fill on
either side to reduce the width of the opening so the door would fit.
The doorway to the kitchen was also heightened to accommodate a
Victorian door.
Windows
Window trim Plain board enframement, with beaded board as apron below sill. Reveals: west window reveal five inches deep; north window, seven inches
deep
Date
?
1920s
1920s
?
?
1920s
18th c.
18th c.
Ca. 1755
1920s
1920s
1920s
18th c.?
1920s
1916
18th or
19th c.
Apron: ca.
1920s
123
124
Worthen, 30
59
The Buckman Tavern
Hardware
Paint
Cupboard doors: tiny H hinges and simple latches held with modern
screws.
Door to kitchen: Six panel door with HL hinges and Norfolk latch.
Green/olive woodwork; white walls
1920s
1920s
2012
Room 111. Old Kitchen Surviving from the original construction of ca.1713 is much of the framing of the ceiling and walls.
In typical lean-to framing, four major beams span from the south to the north walls of this room.
They rest on posts at the north wall. Details of the original joinery are missing except in the northeast corner since new splayed sections of the posts were inserted during the repairs of 1973.
Like most utilitarian spaces in late First Period houses, much of the the framing apparently had no
chamfers, although the beam just to the east of the fireplace had a wide head before it was shaved
off to accommodate a casing in the 19th century (this beam may be an extension of the Tap Room
chimney girt). There appears to be no post now under this beam at the south wall of the old kitchen;
the beam is instead suppported on brickwork. The sheathed south wall is assumed to be original.
When plaster was removed from the ceiling in the 1920s, the condition of the beams and joists in
the late 18th century, before plaster and lath were applied to the joists, was revealed. A build-up of
soot, grease and whitewash was found on the framing in the westernmost two bays. According to
Edwin Worthen, on the exposed framing were “interesting attempts at decoration which had long
ago been applied.125 William Finch identified the black stripes on the first joist north of the angled
beam over the fireplace cove as being part of the earlier treatment based on the nature of the paint
and the surface in which it was embedded. Other areas of the ceiling boards and framing have traces
of the original application of this decorative painting, although no evidence of striping was found in
the part of the east bay that was a separate in the 18th century. According to Abbott Cummings, the
pattern is plausible for early decoration. Finch determined that the black stripes were applied over
existing whitewash and thus were not original to the ca. 1713, but date, perhaps, to ca. 1740-1750.
The old kitchen is now very evocative of an early 18th century kitchen. However, the fireplace is not
the original one. It was rebuilt, apparently, in the mid to late 18th century. The rebuilding with a large
beehive could have occurred as early as about 1760, according to Richard Irons. The beehive oven
lacks the tell tail course of bricks standing on their ends (a soldier course) below the opening that is
associated with ovens built after 1800. The masonry of the fireplace and oven is angled so that is it is
wider at the west end to make room for the large oven.126
The old kitchen has a more complicated history than other spaces in the house. Piecing together information from three period sources, plus current examination, allows a tentative description of the
evolution of the room.127 In the tavern era, the east part of the room was partitioned off and served
125
Worthen, 29.
126
Richard Irons, personal communication, January 14, 2012.
127
Abbie Stetson Griffing, “The Silhouettes – A Reminiscence,” circa 1914. Worthen Collection, Cary Memorial
Library; Edwin B. Worthen, Jr., “Buckman Tavern, An account of the Land and the House, its Owners, Development and
Restoration,” 1963. Typescript at the Lexington Historical Society Archives; Willard D. Brown, The Story of Buckman
Tavern (Lexington: Lexington Historical Society, 1967). Based on Brown’s earlier manuscript.
60
The Buckman Tavern
the supplemental tavern functions of housing John Buckman’s desk where he “kept his accounts
and, most likely, as well the most precious of his liquors.”128 The room was apparently separated
off by a simple board partition just west of the shadow of the stairs referenced below on the south
wall. A small low down door with leather hinges is still present in the south wall of the old kitchen
behind the bar in the tap room. Brown speculated that this little door at floor level “rendered the
easier passing of casks and heavy jugs” from the cellar.129 In this little room were also the stairs to the
wine cellar below, “as evidenced by one of the old stringers still remaining in place on the side of the
brick-enclosed wine cellar.”130 The stairs to the cellar must have run down west to east near the south
wall of the old kitchen as the location of the south wall of the wine cellar is about three feet from
the south wall of the old kitchen above.
Subsequently, according to Willard Brown, this little room served the function that the bar in the
Tap Room served originally, Abbie Griffing said, “Aunt Mary used to have special care of the ‘bar’ as
it was always called – a little room leading from her sitting room and which had been the bar-room
when the house was used as the Buckman Tavern. In the bar is still the wide shelf where the tumblers were turned over, and a deep groove through which the water ran off.”131
Early in the ownership by the Meriam family, ca. 1800 to 1820, a new kitchen ell was built onto the
east part of the north wall extending beyond the east wall of the building by about six feet. At that
point the old kitchen was turned into the family’s dining room. The walls were plastered and the
ceiling was plastered below the joists. Later, the plaster below the hoists was removed and the beams
and joists were cased separately, wood trim was added, and a more modern wood floor was installed.
Wallpaper was even applied between the cased beams (see Figure 34). Abbie Griffing described hearing that there was once a settle inside the large fireplace (probably the original ca. 1713 fireplace). A
double sash window was installed by the Meriams at some later point, no doubt to brighten the dining area which is on the north side of the house.
With the plaster removed from the east portion of the south the wall of the old kitchen during the
1920s restoration, the outline of a set of stairs running down from the second floor east to west
became visible. There may or may not have been rear stairs somewhere in Room 111 originally, but
they were not the stairs indicated by the outline on the wall. The stairs shown in the outline run over
the low down door, and so would have made it impossible to open the door.
Also, these stairs terminated outside the east wall of the old kitchen. To climb them, one would have
had to start in the current corridor along the east side of the building.132 As this corridor joins the
ca.1813 post office wing to the early nineteenth century new kitchen, the stairs shown in the outline must have been built in the early Meriam period ca. 1800 to 1820. Later, when the stairs to the
second floor from the new kitchen were built, these stairs were removed and the south wall of the
kitchen was plastered over.
128
Brown, 18
129
Ibid.
130
Brown, 29.
131
132
Further evidence that the stairs ran in to the addition is the fact that the east girt above the stairs was cut back for more
headroom.
61
The Buckman Tavern
The shadow was very likely made more dramatic in the 1920s by painting the part above the stairs
black. It is hard to believe that the stairwell would have been painted black originally since there
would have been a need to maximize the amount of light in the stairway.
The early decorative painting was reproduced in the 1920s. The earlier stripes and chevrons are distinguished by their true black color, by their crazed condition, and by the fact that they are embedded
in a surface on the joists made greasy from kitchen cooking. The stripes painted in the 1920s, on the
other hand, are a black/charcoal grey color, and in places, they run over conduits for what appears to
be an early fire detection system. Esther Stevens Fraser, the leading authority on decorative painting
in early buildings at the time, would have been the likely candidate to do the work. Council minutes
indicate that the Society had correspondence with Mrs. Fraser, a Cambridge resident, in 1923 about
wallpapers found in the Tavern.133
133
Lexington Historical Society Council minutes, 1923.
Figue 33. Detail of the HABS drawing of 1962 with a notation indicating the location of the evidence of the stringer of the original stairs to the cellar. Alan R. McDonald, draftsman.
62
Figure 34. The old kitchen during the period when it
served as the Meriam Family dining room in the late 19th
century. Note the wallpaper between the boxed beams on
the ceiling. Courtesy of the Lexington Historical Society.
The Buckman Tavern
Figue 35. The old kitchen after restoration showing the ceiling framing revealed when the plaster was removed. Burr
Church, Photographer, ca. 1925. Courtesy of the Lexington
Historical Society.
Figure 37. The ceiling of the old kitchen as restored with black/grey painted
stripes in the 1920s.
Figure 36 at left. The shadow of the earlier stairs to the
second floor on the south wall of the old kitchen, as
enhanced by painting black the area above the stairs. S.
Lawrence Whipple, Photographer, 1973. Courtesy of the
63
The Buckman Tavern
Element
Framing
Floor
Walls
Baseboard
Cornice
Ceiling
Firebox
Mantelpiece
Hearth
Doors
Door trim
64
Description
Original exposed framing is present in the ceiling and on the north wall,
although some pieces have been altered. The angled beam in front of
the fireplace is a reused timber that must have been added when the
fireplace was rebuilt in the mid 18th century. At the north wall joists rest
on a ledger with plaster and brick nogging above. Joists in the chimney
bay run east/west, unlike those to the east.
The three westernmost north posts received new splayed inserts in the
upper portion in 1973. Whether the posts were as splayed before is unknown. Supplemental supports were added in the north and south walls
in 1973. The east part of the beam at the south wall was also replaced in
1973. The joists in the east section were replaced when the stair to the
second floor was removed.
Wide boards, secured with steel rose-head nails.
West, north and east walls: plaster.
South wall: vertical sheathing boards.
“Baseboard” painted in black 3 inches high. It must have been reproduced from evidence or a similar original baseboard line.
None
Exposed framing and ceiling boards.
Some boards replaced in 1920s when stairs to second floor removed.
65 1/2” wide by 45 1/2” high by 24” deep.
Date
Ca. 1713
1973
1920s
19th c.
Ca. 1713
18th c.,
restored in
the 1920s
Ca. 1713
1920s
2nd half
of 18th c.
Possibly
pre-1755
?
1920s
1920s
1920s
Plain frieze over firebox, simply molded top and bottom that may indicate the full width of the original firebox.
Plain board architrave around the firebox.
Some elements were replaced in 1920s.
Five rows of hearth bricks installed in 1920s; some may be reused.
Door to Tap Room: new six-panel door attached on the reverse of an
old door visible in the Tap Room; HL hinges on the door attached with
modern rose-head nails and a Norfolk latch.
Door to east corridor: four flat panels with molded grooves, like Federal Early 19th
style doors, with a Norfolk latch.
c.
Door to north entry: four raised panels with brown glass knob.
Early 19th
c.
1920s
Door to Room 110: modern reproduction door with six raised panels.
(Note: The Meriam period photograph shows a Victorian door to Room
110.)
Plain boards beaded at the inner edge. Lintel board rides over jamb cov- ?
ers.
The trim of the door to the Tap Room dates from the 1920s.
1920s
The Buckman Tavern
Windows
Reproduction sash. Two north windows: westernmost, a single window;
easternmost, a double window.
Window trim Plain sill, jamb and lintel covers with a small bead at the inner edges, like
the door trim.
Hardware
See above.
Paint
Woodwork dark brick red, walls white.
Ceilings painted with black chevron stripes.
Portions of original black stripes ca. 1740s-1750s
Fixtures/
utilities
Special features
Hot water baseboard heat on north wall.
Small, low down door with leather hinges leads to the bar in the tap
room.
1916
?
2012
1920s
Ca. 1740s1750s
1976
Ca. 1713?
Second Floor:
Room 200. Northeast chamber
This room began as a lean-to chamber with the roof sloping down the raised north plate of the leanto. Clues to the fact that the lean-to roof once terminated part way up the north wall of this room
were first noted by Willard Brown: “[On the north wall], we see, a short distance from the floor, the
heavy horizontal timber on which originally rested the old roof rafters. That this was the old plate is
indicated by the fact that the corner post does not extend above it. . . . It can be seen that the additional length of post, together with the necessary studding was set upon it.”134 The upper surface of the original north plate of the lean-to is 28 inches from the floor. One of the
new posts added when the lean-to roof was raised to a full two stories can be seen in the northeast
closet. Evidence of bracing is present on the post and new higher plate in the closet. The northwest
window in this room, with its thick muntins, is the only surviving eighteenth century window in the
building other than the transom window above the front door.
At some point, the room was divided by a north/south partition. In the 19th century, the western
room thus created served as Mary Meriam’s “clothes room,” described by Abbie Griffing:
“It used to be a small room with one window always heavily curtained. Around it were
bureaus and chests; on them were piled bandboxes great and small, reaching to the high
shelves that ran around the walls. On these shelves were more bandboxes. In the ceiling were hooks, and stretched across from wall to wall were lines; and on hooks and on
these lines hug garments not packed away in chests or bureaus. Aunt Mary kept the key,
and as a treat would take us in with her. But not even Aunt Mary knew all the treasures
contained in those chests. . . . Not until the clothes chamber was torn away were all
its treasures revealed. One chest was full of homespun linen sheet, good as new, and
marked in hair with initials of the maker, ‘M.M.’ and the dates 1811, 1816, 1817, etc.”135
134
Ibid., 35.
135
Abby Stetson Griffing, “The Silhouettes,” 21-25.
65
The Buckman Tavern
In the late 19th century the clothes room was turned into a bathroom as shown on Willard Brown’s
ca. 1915 plans. The partition remained until 1949 when the decision was made to have a resident
custodian for the first time. Both parts of this space and the southeast chamber became the bedroom, while the southeast chamber became the living room for the custodian. At this time the middle
window was added to the north wall; the fireplace was closed up and the adjacent bathroom on the
east wall was given new fixtures.136
Element
Framing
Floor
Walls
Description
Framing in the ceiling from the period when the lean-to roof
was raised: two north/south beams in the room, another in the
closet. No post below the intermediate beam.
The original lean-to plate is concealed below a small shelf on the
north wall 28 inches from the floor.
Carpeted, apparently over linoleum.
South, east and north walls: new plaster or wallboard.
Baseboard
West wall appears to be wallpaper and plaster skim coat over
vertical boards.
Plain boards, 5 inches high, except on west wall.
Cornice
Ceiling
Firebox
None
Appears to be recent plaster.
Bricked in in 1949, but chimney mass runs up the southeast part
of the room. Plans from 1910s show firebox size.
Mantelpiece None
None visible.
Hearth
Doors
Door to Room 202: six flat panels on this side. Victorian brown
glass knob.
Door to Room 205: six raised panels. Norfolk latch
Closet door: board and batten door. Victorian brown glass knob.
Door to stairs: unpainted door made of unpainted match boards.
Door trim Plain board trim on all doors; lintel board spans jamb covers
The frame for a second door on the east side of the door to
Room 205 with half of an H hinge on the frame is present. The
reason why there might have been a second door here is unknown.
Three windows in the north wall. The easternmost two are 6/9
Windows
replacement sash.
The westernmost window, with thick muntins and period glass is
the only remaining 18th century window in the building
Window
Simple casings finished with a half round at the front edge.
trim
Date
2nd quarter
of the 18th c.
Ca. 1713
1949 renovations for
custodian’s
quarters
?
19th or 20th
c.
1949?
1920s
1920s
1920s
1949
19th or 20th
c.
1916
18th c.
19th c.?
136
See alterations to Room 200, shown on plans for the 1949 work. Buckman Tavern Collection, Lexington Historical
Society Archives.
66
Hardware
Butt hinges; latches as described above
Paint
Fixtures/
utilities
Cream/white walls and brown framing
The Buckman Tavern
19th or 20th
c.
2012
1976
Room 201. Bathroom Apparently a bathroom was installed here sometime after the Historical Society took over the building. A list of the renovations made to quarters for a resident custodian in 1949 called for the complete renovation of the existing upstairs bathroom. The floor of the bathroom is 5 1/2 inches above
the floor of Room 200 in order to accommodate plumbing.
Room 202. Southeast chamber
The only visible feature surviving from the original ca. 1713 construction is the framing, finished like
the tap room framing with a wide bead. The ceiling and the joists were exposed and whitewashed
originally.137 The original firebox would have been deeper and perhaps taller; it may still exist behind
the current ca.1820 firebox.
Rufus Meriam no doubt undertook to upgrade this room in the early 19th century with new Federal
style woodwork, including a mantelpiece similar to the ones he installed in the Tap Room and southwest parlor, the closet door and all window and door casings.
The six panel doors to the stair hall and the northeast chamber predate the Federal style remodeling.
William Finch found them to have at least one additional layer of paint previous to the layers on the
other woodwork.
At some point, an angled wooden board four inches wide was set below the chimney girt.
This room was not restored in the 1920s except for the removal of “torn and dingy paper.”138
In 1949, the room became the custodian’s living room. More recently it has become part of the second floor exhibit space.
Willard Brown pointed out that in the closet to the north of the fireplace when the floor boards were
lifted, “Access may be had to the unused space between the two chimneys filled as it is with debris.”139
He also mentions that one could still see the remains of an abandoned flue from an earlier fireplace.
The flue,which is is not visible now, may have been the flue for the original ca. 1713 old kitchen
fireplace.
137
Photos taken in 1973 when the floor of the southeast third floor chamber was taken up show whitewash on the joists
dating from before the ceiling was plastered.
138
Brown, 35.
139
Ibid.
67
The Buckman Tavern
Element
Framing
Floor
Walls
Baseboard
Cornice
Ceiling
Firebox
Mantelpiece
Hearth
Doors
Door trim
Windows
68
Description
Floor joists in ceiling: 21 1/2 to 22 1/2 inches on centers.
Posts, south wall: exposed and splayed with inch-wide flat chamfers
and run-out/triangular stops top and bottom.
Posts, north wall: none visible.
Beams: on three sides of the room decorated with beads that are
nearly an inch in diameter. Rear (north) beam is boxed, but displays a bead similar to the others.
A Meriam period photograph shows this beam covered with wallpaper.
Summer beam: longitudinal, exposed and with bead similar to those
on the other beams.
Finish floor of wide boards, random widths, 8 1/2 to 12 inches.
Plaster.
The reverse side of a small area of the plaster on the east wall can be
seen in the view port in the post office ceiling. Perhaps the plaster on
the west wall may be over board sheathing or paneling.
The piece of dado left of the fireplace appears to be a late 19th c.
alteration.
A Federal style 6 1/2-inch high baseboard with molded top is visible
in places and may exist behind heating elements.
No cornice, but a picture rail is inserted in places below the beams
Old plaster with a more recent textured skim coat that has fallen off in
places
Est. Date
All framing appears
original to
the ca. 1713
construction;
beaded case
on north girt
may have
been introduced in the
1920s
Date unknown
Plaster: some
parts may be
original to ca.
1713
Late 19th c.
Ca. 18001820
Recent
18th century;
skim coat:
20th c.
Shallow firebox with splayed jambs, 34” high by 53” wide by 20” deep. Ca. 18001820
Simple, Federal style mantelpiece with frieze above the fireplace archi- Ca. 1800trave that includes “pilaster caps” and a center panel that are delicately 1820
reeded.
Square brick hearth tiles, 3 rows.
18th c.
Door to stair hall: six panel door with raised panels on both sides. Butt 18th c.;
hinges, but paint shadows indicate previous half H hinges.
hinges: 19th
c.
Closet door: two flat panels and butt hinges.
Ca. 18001820
Door to Room 200: Narrower than door to stair hall with six raised
18th c.;
panels facing this room; butt hinges, but paint evidence of previous H hinges: 19th
hinges.
c.
All door architraves have similar cyma and fillet backband moldings
Probably ca.
mitered at the corners. 1805-1815
Reproduction sash.
1916
The Buckman Tavern
Window
Federal style architraves with small bead at inner edge and delicate
frame casings cyma molding as backband. No trim above the windows as sash goes
right up to an inch below the beam. Plain apron with bead at the
bottom and cove and fillet molding at the top are present below the
window sills.
Hardware
Door to closet has simple oval brass pull ring (looks Federal style);
Other doors have Victorian brown glass knobs.
Door to stair hall has modern dead bolt
Paint
Green walls, white woodwork, brown floor
Special feaHot water baseboard heat.
Closet north of fireplace. Now finished wooden shelves and plaster
tures
walls, but previously with floor removed, the rubble and the space
between the two chimneys could be seen.
Ca. 18001820
Ca. 18001820;
Late 19th c.
2012
1976
1920s
39. Willard Brown’s record photograph of conditions at the beginning of
the restoration of the early 1920s.
38. The southeast chamber as it appeared during the
Meriam ownership in the late 19th century.
69
The Buckman Tavern
Room 203. Upper Stair Hall
This space contains the hanging staircase with the older
style balusters in the balustrade on the second floor
and on either side of the stairs to the third floor. The
balusters and the hanging staircase are believed to date
from the raising of the roof in the final enlargement of
the Tavern. There would not have been room for the
hanging stairs and the split staircases above them when
the building had the lower gable roof. The balusters are
consistent with mid 18th century design.
The horizontal sheathing boards on the west wall could
date from ca. 1713 or from the construction of the
southwest addition.
Extensive rot in the south wall of the stair hall here
required that the wall received new studs, boarding and
plaster in 1973.
40. Pre 1755 balusters in the second floor stair hall and
the hanging staircase to the attic. Note plainer balusters on the first floor runs of the staircase.
Element
Framing
Floor
Walls
Baseboard
Cornice
Ceiling
70
Description
The unboxed front plate is visible at the south wall. A plain, unchamfered west chimney girt is visible on the west wall.
The west chimney post in the southwest corner of the stair hall is
concealed in a plain box, rounded at the edge.
Wide board
South wall, mostly new plaster after wall was opened to repair rotted
studs.
East and north walls: plaster
East wall is two inches thick and may be original sheathing that was
covered with plaster.
West wall wide horizontal boards, perhaps original ca. 1713 sheathing
or the reverse of the early trim of Room 204.
Four inches high with small bead at top edge.
Small cove molding above south plate.
Plaster
Date
Ca. 1713
1973?
18th or
early 19th
c.
1973
Probably
1920s
Ca. 17131750
?
?
20th c.
Doors
The Buckman Tavern
Door to Room 202. Six raised panels, a period door with butt hinges,
but evidence on the reverse of previous H Hinge.
Door to Room 204. Six raised panels, a modern reproduction door
with H Hinges on the reverse attached with modern screws.
Door to attic: two long vertical raised panels, butt hinges and a Norfolk latch.
Door trim
Two different versions of single architraves with cyma and fillet
molded backbands.
Windows
Window trim Jamb moldings feature fillets and broad ovolo molding different from
any other window frames in the building.
Hardware
As described above.
Paint
Cream colored plaster walls and grey woodwork and floor.
Special feaFloating staircase to the attic trimmed with balustrades of vase shaped
tures
balusters, plain hand rails and newels.
18th c.
1920s
Early to
mid 19th
c.?
19th c.
1916
Late 19th
c.?
2012
Ca. 1755
Room 204. Southwest chamber, south part of Ballroom
After the northwest chamber was built this room and the rear room, separated by a removable
partition, could be thrown together to form a single space that was used as a ballroom. According
to Worthen, the panels did not fold back against the walls, but were removed completely when not
needed.140 During the Meriam ownership the two rooms were permanently separated by closets built
against the partition. The easternmost closet included a sink.
In the 1920s the partition that turned the southwest and northwest chambers into a single room
was discovered behind the wall of closets. Until the 1950s, the west upstairs chambers were thrown
together for a meeting space with the partitions permanently removed. In the 1950s restoration, the
old partitions were put back in place east of the doorway.141 Modern partitions were put in place west
of the doorway.
Willard Brown described how the partition was rediscovered:
When clearing away the closets and partitions that had been erected in later times, the old movable partition was found in place, though hidden behind applied plastering. It
consisted of six panels, which slid in a groove at the ceiling and were secured by bolts to
each other and to the floor. As one of the sections contained a hinged door and frame,
it will be seen that the Ballroom could quite easily be transformed into connecting bedrooms, each with its own fireplace. . . .
The continuous joint in the flooring marks the line between the older front portion
and the later addition; but for a long time the reason for the irregular cut about an inch
beyond was a source of much speculation. The only satisfactory explanation assumes
that the rear wall in settling (as was most decidedly the case) had caused the floor to kick
140
Worthen, 31.
141
Ibid.
71
The Buckman Tavern
Figure 41. Southwest chamber chimney breast.
Figure 42. View of the east wall of the southwest and northwest chambers
after removal of the partition and the wall of closets south of it. Photo taken
as part of Willard Brown’s effort to document conditions in the Tavern at the
time of the restoration of the 1920s. Courtesy of the Lexington Historical
Society.
Figure 43 (at left). The partition between the southwest and northwest chambers, as restored probably
in the 1950s after having been removed by the
Society to create a large meeting space.
72
The Buckman Tavern
up under the paneled partition, which, in consequence, could neither be set up nor removed. To relieve the pressure, the floor boards were sawed through – and not any too
skillfully. This theory is strengthened by the holes, which may well have been bored for
the insertion of a key-hole saw.
When the permanent closets had, long years afterwards, been built between the two
rooms, an additional coat of plaster was applied to the outside walls.142
The chimneybreast is recessed five inches behind the plane of the east wall. Chimneybreasts tended
to be recessed like this in the earlier part of the Georgian period before 1750. The fluted pilasters
flanking the recess are consistent with that early date as are the two raised overmantel panels. The
crossetted or eared architrave around the firebox, however, is unusual for that early period, more like
a double architrave for a door than the typical bolection molding of the early and mid 18th century.
The current architrave and the one like it in the northwest chamber may represent a later change
in the early 19th century, as they cover parts of the face of the brick lintel and jams that are usually
exposed around the firebox, the one in the northwest chamber being asymmetrical to the brick.
In a photo of 1910, the stiles and rails of the chimneybreast were painted a darker color than the
panels. This was a popular Victorian treatment. A mantel shelf was attached across the bottom panel.
The plaster on the wall south of the chimneybreast is flush with woodwork adjacent to the pilaster.
Possibly the plaster covers earlier woodwork or wall framing here. The reverse of this section of wall
in the stair hall is covered with horizontal sheathing that looks early. It might be worth probing the
wall to see what is under the plaster.
Element
Framing
Floor
Walls
Baseboard
Description
All framing is boxed except for the south plate. The south plate
has a wide bead like the framing beads in the earlier side of the
house.
The west tie beam has a second beaded molding half way up the
beam.
The southwest corner post is in a beaded case. The southeast
post is apparently behind the wall.
Wide boards on top of joists 24” to 25” on centers; no steel
rose-head nails (like downstairs.)
South and west walls: Plaster
East wall: chimneybreast and fluted pilasters north part, plain
plaster possibly concealing earlier wood trim, south part.
North wall: Six sets of raised panels with two panels vertically.
West of door, panels are reproductions of the 1920s.
East of door, panels are 18th century.
A five inch high section like that in the stair hall is found on the
south wall near the door.
Date
Ca. 1713;
Cases: probably 18th c.
18th c.
Pre 20th c.
18th c.; Plaster may be
19th c.
1920s
18th c.
?
142
Brown, 36.
73
The Buckman Tavern
Cornice
A delicate, probably Federal style cornice runs across the fireplace wall, following the changing planes of the wall. Elsewhere,
a similar crown molding dresses the beam cases and the summer
beam.
Old plaster.
Ceiling
Firebox
43” wide by 31” high by 18” deep. The jambs of the fireplace are
quite splayed.
Mantelpiece Chimneybreast with two raised overmantel panels and a double
architrave around the firebox that is crossetted at the corners.
Hearth
One row of square hearth tiles.
Doors
Door to the stairs: modern reproduction door with six raised
panels and medium sized HL hinges and a Suffolk latch attached
with modern screws.
Closet door: two raised panels; butt hinges; no knob, but a key
hole.
Door to NW parlor: old reused door with six raised panels that
has been pieced on either side to fit a wider door. HL hinges
attached with large headed nails (date uncertain); Suffolk latch
attached with modern screws.
Door trim Slightly different versions of single architraves with cyma and
fillet moldings. The architrave of the door to the stair hall was
heightened at some point to accommodate a taller door.
Windows
Window
Reveals about four inches deep. Casings three inches wide
trim
trimmed with typical cyma and fillet moldings surround the windows on the sides and bottoms. No moldings on top.
See above
Hardware
Paint
Light green woodwork, darker green walls, and floor boards
stained rather than painted.
Fixtures/
utilities
Special
Closet predates 1914. Plaster walls and ceilings. An offset chimfeatures
ney flue, the flue of the fireplace in the southwest parlor, visible
inside the closet.
?
Ca. 1725-1750
18th c.
Ca. 1755;
early 19th c.?
1920s
18th c.
18th c.
?
1916
?
2012
1976
?
Room 205. Northwest chamber, north part of Ballroom.
This room and Room 204, the southwest bedroom, have fireplaces with similar chimneybreasts. On
this north part of the ballroom, the panels of the dividing partitions are flat.
A photograph at the time of the 1920s restoration shows that the overmantel panels had been plastered over. This chimney breast is not recessed like the one in the southwest chamber.
74
Element
Framing
Floor
Walls
Baseboard
Cornice
Ceiling
Firebox
Mantelpiece
Hearth
Doors
The Buckman Tavern
Description
All framing in boxes with narrow beads at the edge.
Floor joists 25-26 inches on centers.
Wide boards with T head nails for the most part
Old plaster.
Five inches high with horizontal bead on top.
A cornice, like that in room 204, on the fireplace wall below the beam
case. On the upper sides the beam cases around the walls and along the
summer beam is a similar cornice.
Old plaster.
44 1/2” wide by 26” high by 15” deep.
Jambs are quite splayed.
Two raised-field overmantel panels and a crossetted (eared) architrave
around the firebox like that in Room 204.
Four rows of bricks
Door to SW chamber: four panels, flat this side. Suffolk latch attached
with screws; HL hinges held with modern nails with large heads.
Door to Room 200: Six raised panels, Norfolk latch and small HL L
hinges attached with modern screws.
Door trim
Door to Room 200: Single architrave with cyma and fillet molded backband similar to those in Room 202.
Door to Room 204 Wide double architrave with shallow cyma and fillet.
Looks like a modern addition.
Windows
Window trim Architraves with a cyma, a half round, a cove and fillet, unlike any other
window trim in the house. Probably 20th c. because little build-up of
paint noted.
Hardware
On doors see above.
On folding panels, small H hinges
Paint
Light green woodwork, darker green walls. Floor not painted.
Fixtures/
utilities
Special feaRemovable panels that are now fixed in place.
tures
Date
Pre 1755
?
Pre 1755?
?
?
Pre 1755
?
Panels
18th c.;
architrave
early 19th
c.
Ca. 1755
18th c.,
reused in
the 1920s
or 1950s
1920s
Ca. 18001820
?
1916
1920s?
2012
1976
18th c. and
ca. 1950s
Room 206. Rear stairs
This small space, built after the previous stairs to the second floor in the old kitchen were removed,
incorporates the current rear staircase. In order to provide enough headroom, the roof over the stairs
had to be raised above the rest of the roof of the new kitchen. This happened before 1910 (when a
75
The Buckman Tavern
photo of the rear of the building shows the roof extension in place). Steep stairs run from the new
kitchen area. The walls of the stair hall are a combination of old plaster and vertical boards with a
narrow bead at the edge suggesting a 19th century treatment. A simple balustrade adjoins the south
side of the stairs. A small window on the east side lights this space.
Attic
The attic includes two staircases in front of the south chimney, one for access to the southwest
chamber and one for access to the other chambers and hallway. There also are stairs in the attic north
of the south chimney for access to the the scuttle in the roof. The two west chambers have fireplaces.
All but the garret in the northeast corner were finished in the mid 18th century as living quarters and
have ample closets.
In the course of repair and fumigation work in 1967 and 1973 the attic rooms were stripped of the
original plaster or boards on the walls and ceilings of all spaces except the northwest garret (where
none had existed). Edges of timbers, where damaged occurred, were cut away.
The complicated construction of the hip roof with central deck is visible. Evidence suggests that lath
for the plaster ceiling was nailed to the underside of joists that were positioned on the upper part of
the major beams, making headroom in the rooms as high as possible. At least one additional post was
added in 1973. The two chimneys help to tell the story of the enlargement of the house.143
Attic, south chimney:
Most of the south chimney is made of large bricks laid in lime mortar consistent with the date of
both the first construction of the Tavern and the ca. 1730 addition. The chimney has four original
flues east to west. Those for the southwest and southeast chamber fireplaces flank those for the first
floor parlor and tap room fireplaces. On the south face of the chimney adjacent to the two inner
flues, creosote has bled through the bricks, indicating the greater use of these two first floor fireplaces. On the north face of the south chimney cracks indicate the junctions of two of the flues. The
chimney tapers slightly toward the top. In the closet of the southwest attic chamber, a line of mortar
covers what is believed to be the junction between the flues for the fireplaces in original ca. 1713 east
part of the Tavern and the west part added ca. 1730.
The fireplace in the southwest attic chamber seems to have been built when the roof was raised.
The fireplace’s current flue, made largely of thinner bricks, was added onto the left (west) end of the
south chimney flush with its south face and extending down below the level of the firebox as support
for the new firebox.144 Bricks for that flue are keyed into the original south chimney in only a few
places. The newer bricks seem to have been added to form the south flank of the fireplace as well as
143
I am indebted to Richard Irons, historic chimney construction expert, for evaluating the evidence found on
the two chimney stacks in the attic.
144
Richard Irons saw a few of the thicker bricks inside the flue of the southwest attic chamber fireplace.
Thoses bricks were probably salvaged when adjustments were made to the existing chimney to insert the new
fireplace, and apparently do not mean that there was a fireplace in the chamber before the roof was raised.
76
The Buckman Tavern
its flue. It includes a variety of brick sizes and a few reused bricks.
Visible on the south chimney is remaining evidence that part of the chimney now enclosed in the attic was once above the roofline. On the east face is a line of mortar where the lower gable roof abutted the chimney. Just above that are evidence of drip courses of bricks on the south and east sides of
the chimney. When the roof was raised, the chimney was extended upward using thinner bricks like
those used to build the north chimney, indicating that the heightening of the south chimney and the
building of the north chimney likely occurred at the same time.
Attic, north chimney:
The bricks used to build the north chimney could be as early as 1750 or as late as 1850, according
to Richard Irons. The bricks are laid in lime mortar. Brick joints are scored. Normally, joints were
scored when the chimney was not going to be plastered.
Room 300. Garret
This unfinished room served as a garret. Some walls are the reverse of vertical sheathing in adjoining
spaces. On the perimeter of the room the rafters and purlins are exposed. Timbers in this space were
scraped to remove damaged portions in 1973.
Room 301. Southeast attic chamber
This room had knee walls, sloped plastered walls and a plaster ceiling. The vertical sheathing on the
west wall next to the hall is still covered with 19th century wallpaper.
Element
Framing
Floor
Walls
Description
Pine major beams, some scraped.
Framing in the floor, including oak joists are from the original construction. Photos from 1973 show whitewash on the sides of the
joists.
Wide unpainted boards
The reverse of vertical feather edged sheathing boards, with wallpaper applied on west and north walls of room.
Baseboard
Cornice
Ceiling
Doors
None
None
Previously plastered, now open to rafters.
Door to stairs: board and batten door with butt hinges, and evidence
of previous Suffolk latch.
Closet door: board and batten, with butt hinges and evidence of
previous wooden knob
Door trim
None
Windows
Two dormer windows with reproduction sash.
Window trim Plain and minimal.
Hardware
See above.
Paint
No paint
Date
Pre 1755
Ca. 1713
Pre 1755
Pre 1755
boards; wallpaper 19th c.
Pre 1755
?
1916
Pre 1755?
77
The Buckman Tavern
Figure 44. North wall of the southeast attic chamber with finish materials beginning to be removed to investigate infestation of the timbers. S. Lawrence
Whipple, Photographer, 1973. Courtesy of the Lexington Historical Society.
Figure 45. Detail of wallpaper in the southeast attic
Room 302. Attic stair hall
chamber.
The two sets of stairs in this space lead to opposite sides of
the attic to access the three attic chambers, the garret, the
connecting halls and the stairs to the roof. Simple handrails and newels with solid boards below finish the staircases. The south face of the south chimney forms the north wall. The floor south of the
stairwell is finished with wide unpainted boards. The east and west walls of the stair hall are sheathed
with feather edged boards, the reverse of the chamber sheathing on either side, painted grey.
Room 303. Southwest attic chamber
This chamber has a fine wall of vertical
raised-field paneling of wide boards
and of the older style paneling where
boards with grooves alternate with
boards with feathered edges. Finish
materials, including those now missing, would date from the construction
of the third floor, pre 1755. The insect
and fungus treatment in 1973 resulted
in the unfortunate removal of many of
the 18th century finish materials in the
room.
Figure 46. Attic stair hall with knee wall sheathing partially removed, 1973.
78
The Buckman Tavern
Element
Framing
Description
All visible major timber appear to be pine, but are in good shape without having been scraped much in 1973. One new post was added in
1973 on the north wall.
Floor
Wide boards, unpainted.
Walls
Previous knee walls removed; sloped walls above were stripped of original plaster and lath in 1973.
Baseboard
None
Cornice
None
Ceiling
None, but exposed rafters of the upper roof deck (Ceiling was plastered
before 1973.)
Firebox
With flue added to south chimney. 35” wide by 23” high by 12” deep.
Mantelpiece Two vertical raised panels side by side with evidence of three shelves
previously attached to the chimneybreast.
Hearth
One row of bricks, some now missing.
Doors
Board and batten door with feather edged board and grooved board on
the face of the door, wide strap hinges with leather under the nails
Door trim
None
Windows
Replacement sash.
Window trim Plain
Hardware
Remains of Suffolk latch on door and small box lock. Large strap
hinges on the door to the stairs.
Paint
Woodwork light grey
Date
Pre 1755
Pre 1775
Pre 1755
Pre 1755
Pre 1755
Pre 1755
1916
Pre 1755?
Pre 1755
2012
Room 304. Northwest attic chamber
In the fireplace the mortar joints are carefully scored and the bricks are painted red. The hearth,
made of bricks laid on top of the girt below, is unchanged from its original construction. There is a
mantel shelf above the firebox.
Element
Framing
Floor
Walls
Baseboard
Cornice
Ceiling
Firebox
Mantelpiece
Description
All visible major beams appear to be pine; many of their edges were
scraped in 1973. The north part of the beam added in 1973 is visible in
the south wall.
Wide boards, unpainted.
Previous knee walls and ceilings were stripped of original plaster and
lath in 1973. South and east walls of the room are finished with wallpaper applied to the reverse of the sheathing of other spaces.
None
None
None, except rafters and underside of roof sheathing of upper deck.
35” wide by 23” high by 12” deep, served by the north chimney.
Two vertical raised panels side by side with mantel shelf added across
panels.
Date
Pre 1755
Pre 1755
19th c.
Pre 1755
Pre 1755
79
The Buckman Tavern
Hearth
Doors
Three rows of bricks, some now missing.
No entry door; closet door is board and batten with wooden pull and
butt hinges.
Door trim
None.
Windows
Replacements.
Window trim Plain.
Hardware
See above.
Paint
Light grey woodwork; firebox bricks painted red.
19th c.
1916
2012
Figure 47. Northwest attic chamber with finish materials beginning to be removed. S. Lawrence Whipple, Photographer, 1973. Courtesy of the Lexington
Historical Society.
Figure 48. Northwest attic chamber after removal of walls and ceilings in
1973. Courtesy of the Lexington Historical Society.
80
The Buckman Tavern
Figure 49. East wall of northwest attic chamber in 1973. S. Lawrence Whipple,
81
The Buckman Tavern
82
The Buckman Tavern
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Research began at the Lexington Historical Society Archives. Resources examined included the
Buckman Tavern Collection in three boxes of documents and historic photographs; the Canavan
papers prepared in the late 19th century by a researcher who studied Lexington deeds and probate
documents in great detail; slides and documents in the S. L. Whipple papers; the Worthen file; the
Meriam-Stetson-Griffing file; the Burr Church Photograph Collection; the Willard Brown Collection;
plans of the Buckman Tavern from 1915 and c. 1920 (Willard Brown Collection), 1916-1917 (Rev.
Donald Millar), 1949 (William Roger Greeley), 1962 (HABS Collection) and 1973 (Donald Muirhead). Also examined were the minutes of the Lexington Historical Society Council after 1913.
Materials referenced, but not found in the Archives despite diligent searches, were William Sumner
Appleton’s advice to Willard Brown on the 1920s restoration; Autochrome (color) photographs of
the Tavern before that restoration that were required by the Society’s Council; plans of the 1920s
restoration submitted to SPNEA for approval of that restoration; additional letters from Abbie
Stetson Griffing about the Tavern during the Meriam/Stetson ownership: and any correspondence
with Esther Stevens Fraser about her involvement, if any, in the restoration of the ceiling decoration
in the old kitchen.
Two documents in the Archives and one set of photographs proved particularly helpful: Willard
Brown’s The Story of Buckman Tavern, written in the 1920s, but not published until 1967; Edwin B.
Worthen, Jr.’s “Buckman Tavern (1963); and S. Lawrence Whipple’s annotated slides of the restoration of 1973.
Three files folders on the Buckman Tavern Worthen Collection at the Cary Memorial Library yielded
additional information, including Abbie Stetson Griffing’s “The Silhouettes – A Reminiscence,” a record of the Meriam family’s life at the Tavern. The Historic New England Library and Archives had
additional historic photographs, including snapshots taken by Henry Charles Dean and Donald Millar
in 1910 and 1916. Microfiche in the William Sumner Appleton Correspondence File had some letters
concerning the threat of demolition of the Tavern in 1912, but they were so dark as to be virtually
unreadable. Reports of the Tavern, known to have been made by staff at the SPNEA Conservation
Center, could not be located at Historic New England.
Deed and probate research was undertaken at the State Archives and at the Middlesex County Court
House.
Research into the physical fabric of the building included standard methods of building archaeology: looking closely at features in the building and at building details such as the configuration and
finish treatment of framing, at paint scars, and at nail and lath types. William Finch’s extensive paint
research made it possible to include more definitive information about the age of the various wooden elements in the building relative to each other than visual inspection alone could achieve. Richard
Irons added significantly to the descriptions of fireplace and chimney construction. Each kind of
research, physical and documentary, was intended to inform the other in order to elicit a greater understanding of the building and the people who used it.
83
The Buckman Tavern
84
The Buckman Tavern
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
“Bridget Leary Remembers.” Typescript. N.d. Buckman Tavern File, Whipple Collection, Lexington
Historical Society Archives.
Brown, Willard. “Buckman Tavern” February 12, 1928, in “Radio Talks.” Typescripts for a series of
radio broadcasts. Willard Brown Collection. Lexington Historical Society Archives.
Brown, Willard Collection. Lexington Historical Society Archives.
Buckman Tavern Collection. Boxes 1, 2 and 3. Lexington Historical Society Archives.
Buckman Tavern Photograph File. Lexington Historical Society Archives.
Buckman Tavern Wallpaper Collection. Lexington Historical Society Archives.
Canavan, M. J. “Something about the Old Muzzy Farm before the Revolution.” Typescript. Ca. 1900. Lexington Historical Society Archives.
Canavan Papers, Vol. I and II. Cary Memorial Library.
Chase, Sara B. to Ann Ireland, Curator, Lexington Historical Society. November 19, 1987. Regarding
examination of historic paints at the Buckman Tavern.
__________. “Investigation of Exterior Paint colors of Buckman Tavern. Lexington, Massachusetts.” 1987-1988.
Finch, William of Finch & Rose, “Buckman Tavern Paint and Woodwork Dating Report.” February
2013.
Fuhrer, Mary. Buckman Tavern White Paper. February 2012. A series of essays on aspect of society in 1775: Lexington overview 1775; Lexington Militia; Youth; Women; and Slaves and Servants
for new interpretation of the Buckman Tavern.
Griffing, Abbie Stetson. “The Silhouettes -- A Reminiscence.” Worthen Collection, Cary Memorial
Library. Circa 1914.
__________. Letters to Dr. Josiah Tilton. January 5, 1914 and January 27, 1914. Lexington Historical
Society Archives.
Historic New England. Buckman Tavern Historic Photograph and Correspondence Files.
85
The Buckman Tavern
Irons, Richard. Personal communication to William Finch and Anne Grady regarding Buckman Tavern chimney construction. January 14, 2013.
Lexington Historical Society Council Minutes, 1911-1978. Lexington Historical Society Archives.
Lexington Tax Records for the 18th century. Town Clerk’s Office, Lexington Town Offices.
Meriam Stetson Griffing File. Lexington Historical Society Archives.
Whipple Collection. Buckman Tavern File. Lexington Historical Society Archives.
Worthen Collection. Buckman Tavern folders. Cary Memorial Library.
Worthen, Edwin B., Jr. “Buckman Tavern: an Account of the Land and the House, its Ownership and Development.” 1963. Buckman Tavern Collection, Lexington Historical Society Archives.
Secondary Sources
Bliss, Edward P. “Old Taverns of Lexington.” Proceedings of the Lexington Historical Society Vol. 1, 7387 Lexington, Massachusetts: Lexington Historical Society.
Brown, Willard D. The Story of Buckman Tavern. Lexington, Massachusetts, Lexington Historical Society, 1967.
Chamberlain, Mellen. A Documentary History of Chelsea. Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society,
1908.
Fischer, David Hackett. Paul Revere’s Ride. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.
Hosmer, Charles. Presence of the Past. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1965.
Hudson, Charles. History of the Town of Lexington. Boston: Wiggins & Lunt, 1968.
__________. History of the Town of Lexington. 2 vols. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1913.
Kollen, Richard. Lexington: From Liberty’s Birthplace to Progressive Suburb. Portsmouth, New Hampshire:
Arcadia Publishing, 2004.
Lindgren, James. Preserving Historic New England. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Phinney, Elias. History of the Battle of Lexington on the Morning of the 19th April, 1775. Boston: Phelps
and Farnum, 1825.
86
The Buckman Tavern
Report of the Buckman Tavern Committee, 1919. Box 2, Buckman Tavern Collection, Lexington Historical
Society Archives.
Worthen, Edwin B., Jr. and S. Lawrence Whipple. A Brief History of the Lexington Historical Society on the
Observance of its One-Hundredth Anniversary, 1886-1896. Lexington: Massachusetts: Lexington Historical
Society, 1986.
Buckman Tavern Plans, Elevations and Details in the Lexington Historical Society Archives
Donald Millar. 1916-1917. 15 sheets of plans, elevations, and details.
Willard D. Brown. 1915. Plans of 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors.
__________. Ca. 1920. Cellar,1st, 2nd and 3rd floors with locations for radiators.
Draftsman unknown. 1949. Plans for renovations to accommodate a resident custodian.
Alan McDonald. Historic American Building Survey. 1962. Nine sheets of plans, elevations and sections and details.
Donald Muirhead and Souza and True, Engineers. 1973. Twelve sheets of plans for repairs and treatment for infestations.
87
The Buckman Tavern
88
The Buckman Tavern
HISTORIC VIEWS AND PLANS
Figure 50. Daguerreotype of the Buckman Tavern, ca. 1850. Reproduced from a photograph at the Lexington Historical Society.
Figure 51. View of the Buckman Tavern decorated for the centennial celebration in 1875.
Sign reads, “One of the survivors, The Old Buckman Tavern. Wounded April 19, 1775.”
Steroscopic Scenery photographed by T. Lewis, Cambridgeport, Mass. Courtesy of the
89
The Buckman Tavern
Figure 52. The Tavern in 1886. Albumen print by Chas. O. Hadgman, Bedford. Courtesy of the Lexington Historical Society.
Figure 53. An early color postcard made from a photograph of ca. 1890. The color scheme shown is probably
accurate for it replicates the yellow walls and brown trim found on the portion of the wall of the new kitchen
encapsulated when the shed was added ca. 1860. Courtesy of the Lexington Historical Society.
90
The Buckman Tavern
Figure 54. View of he Buckman Tavern in 1894. By this time the building is unoccupied
and shuttered. Courtesy of the Lexington Historical Society.
Figure 55. The Tavern in 1900. By this time the grounds are overgrown. The Carriage
House shows at the left behind the building before it was moved to its current site
near the Garrity House in 1913. Fred. S. Piper, Photographer. Courtesy of the Lexington
Historical Society.
91
The Buckman Tavern
Figure 56. First floor plan, ca. 1921. Willard Brown, Draftsman.
Figure 57. Second floor plan, ca. 1921. Willard Brown, Draftsman. Courtesy of the Lexington Historical Society.
92
The Buckman Tavern
58. Third floor plan, ca. 1921. Willard Brown, Draftsman. Courtesy of the Lexington Historical Society.
59. Plan of the wind containing the new kitchen and shed, ca.
1921. Willard Brown, Draftsman. Courtesy of the Lexington
Historical Society.
93
The Buckman Tavern
94
The Buckman Tavern
DRAWINGS & PHOTOGRAPHS
The images that follow in this section of the report provide general contemporary
views of the Buckman Tavern. A description of the building’s architectural evolution is found in Part One: Developmental History. The unique architectural features of the Buckman Tavern are listed in Character Defining Features on page xx.
Descriptions of building elements and fabric conditions are included in Conditions
& Recommendations on page xx.
95
The Buckman Tavern
96
The Buckman Tavern
97
The Buckman Tavern
98
The Buckman Tavern
South and west elevations. Southeast diagonal ell (Post Office) at right.
East elevation. Southeast diagonal ell (Post Office) at left, north ell (Kitchen) at right.
99
The Buckman Tavern
East elevation. Southeast diagonal ell (Post Office) at left.
West elevation. North ell at left.
100
The Buckman Tavern
CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES
Character defining features refer to the significant observable and experiential
aspects of a building that define its architectural power and personality. They are
critically important considerations whenever repairs or alterations are contemplated.
Inappropriate changes to historic features can undermine the historical and architectural significance of the building, sometimes irreparably. Retaining a structure’s
integrity is essential to eligibility for National Historic Landmark and National
Register of Historic Places status and for preservation grants such as Save America’s
Treasures, the Massachusetts Preservation Projects Fund, and Community Preservation Act funds.
This survey considers the overall shape of the Buckman Tavern and its materials,
craftsmanship, decorative details, interior spaces and features, and various aspects
of its site and environment – all elements that contribute to the building’s unique
character. Features listed in this section should be considered important aspects of
the historic nature of the building and changes to them should be made only after
careful consideration.
The Buckman Tavern presents an interesting challenge when identifying its
character-defining features. As described by Anne Grady in the Developmental
History section of this report, physical changes to the building occurred in
three time periods. Period One comprises the main building block and spans the
period between original construction and the Revolutionary War. Period Two is
associated with occupation by the Merriam family in the 19th century and includes
construction of the post office and kitchen wings and the wood shed. Period Three
encompasses the 1920’s revitalization of the building that included restoration
of the Tap Room and Kitchen and the reintroduction of historically appropriate
features that had been lost. The restoration event in itself was part of a significant
national movement at the beginning of the 20th century to “restore” remnants of
the Colonial past to an historic appearance. The work undertaken at the Buckman
Tavern was firmly within that movement and has historic significance in its own
right.
The National Register/National Historic Landmark nomination identifies two dates
of significance for the Buckman Tavern that bracket Period One as described above
– circa 1690 (construction date) and 1775 (date of the building’s association with the
Battle of Lexington). The aim of this section of the report is to attempt to identify
character-defining elements that are historically significant in the context of the
building’s evolution over more than three centuries. Menders, Torrey & Spencer, Inc. • 2013
101
The Buckman Tavern
SITE AND ENVIRONMENT
The Buckman Tavern faces south towards Bedford Street at the center of a
nearly three-acre park-like property. It
is sited at the top of a gentle rise and
is located adjacent to the historic battle
green. The main entry is approached by a
brick sidewalk.
SHAPE AND MASSING
The main block is rectangular in plan with Georgian proportions; it has a hipped
roof and shed dormers on the front and side slopes. The northeast ell extends parallel to the main block and has a gabled roof. The southeast ell, also with a gabled
roof, extends diagonally from the main block. The two ells are connected by a shedroofed addition along the eastern side of the main block.
STYLISTIC FEATURES
Materials
• Wood (clapboards)
• Wood (shingles)
• Brick
• Stone (granite, field stone)
• Glass
Decorative & Stylistic Details:
Exterior
The main block is characteristically Georgian in form with a
shallow hip roof, deep eaves, second level windows flush with the
cornice, and the stylistic features
listed below.
• Door surround with reeded pilasters, transom window, entablature and denticulated pediment
• Window sills and splayed lintels
• Shed roof dormers
• 12-over-12, 8-over-12 and 6-over-6 light windows
(installed in the 20th century)
• Wood clapboards (early beaded clapboards are visible
through the view port at the Post Office ell)
102
•
•
•
The Buckman Tavern
Raised panel doors
Brick chimneys
Granite foundation and entry steps
Decorative & Stylistic Details: Interior
• Exposed framing
• Paneled doors
• Wood trim, panelling and mantels
• Wide plank floors
• Fireplaces
• Door hardware
103
The Buckman Tavern
104
The Buckman Tavern
PRESERVATION GUIDELINES
This section of the report describes how work performed on historic buildings
should be approached in order to respect and preserve those elements that define
their historic and architectural character. The character defining features of The
Buckman Tavern identified in this report should be retained and preserved when
possible.
Repairs, maintenance, and renovations at the Buckman Tavern should be guided
by the significance of the building and site as framed by the National Register of
Historic Places and their character defining features. The Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties should be used as a guide. The
Standards provide advice on the preservation and protection of cultural resources
and recognize four building treatments: Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration
and Reconstruction. The first three are relevant to this project and are defined
below.
PRESERVATION is defined “as the act or process of applying measures necessary
to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work,
including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally
focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials rather
than extensive replacement and new construction. New exterior additions are not
within the scope of this treatment; however, the limited and sensitive upgrading of
mechanical, electrical and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make
properties functional is appropriate within a Preservation project.”
REHABILITATION is defined “as the act or process of making possible a
compatible use for a property through repair, alterations, and additions while
preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural or
architectural values.”
RESTORATION is defined “as the act or process of accurately depicting the
form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of
time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and
reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The limited and
sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other
code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration
project.”
APPLICATION OF THE STANDARDS
Structural Systems: Minimal Intervention, Compatibility and Reversibility
Working with historic construction involves the careful balance of modern
engineering principles and traditional construction methods to meet established
preservation objectives. The principle of minimal intervention seeks to “do no
105
The Buckman Tavern
harm” to the structure by over zealous efforts to upgrade structural systems to meet
modern building code requirements. Stabilization and strengthening schemes should
address life safety imperatives without compromising the original historic fabric
by minimizing changes to the structure’s materials and appearance and retaining as
much of the existing materials as possible.
Stabilization efforts must be physically and aesthetically compatible with the
original building materials and design concept. New materials must be chosen
for compatibility with existing materials to match physical and mechanical
properties such as strength, stiffness, porosity, density, vapor transmission, thermal
conductivity, etc. Materials compatibility will assure consistent performance and
response to applied loads and environmental conditions.
When structural interventions are required to meet minimum life safety code
requirements, they should be designed to be reversible. This means that they may be
removed in the future without major compromise to the historic building fabric and
do not interfere with or prevent future efforts to maintain the building.
Additions
Additions to a historic structure should be respectful and subordinate to the original
building. Although the addition should possess similar mass, proportions and
materials, and can feature complementary stylistic details, it should not replicate the
original building.
Materials
When repairs are required, original building materials should be replaced in kind –
granite for granite, brick for brick, wood for wood. When traditional replacement
materials are not available or are economically unfeasible, substitute materials that
mimic the look, feel, and workability of original materials may be considered. Care
should be taken when deciding to use a synthetic material, however, since modern
products may interface poorly with traditional building materials, offer limited
longevity versus traditional materials, and often exhibit color shifts and other
deteriorative changes.
Masonry
Stone and brick elements should be replaced with matching material. Cast stone,
which differs from natural stone in appearance, texture and workability, is generally
not an appropriate substitute for natural material.
An appropriate mortar formula should be established and adopted for all repointing
campaigns. Clear records of the mortar mix, proportions of tinting pigments, and
the application technique, including the final strike, should be documented in the
building owner’s maintenance records. Actual mortar samples should be retained
with the records along with a sample panel on the building.
106
The Buckman Tavern
Wood Windows, Doors & Trim
Wood windows and doors are character defining features and essential contributing
elements to a historic building’s distinctive appearance. Repairing and weatherizing
existing wood doors and windows is always the preferred approach for historic
buildings and provides energy efficiency comparable to replacement elements.
When windows have exceeded their useful lives and retention is not practical or
economically feasible, an approach that combines repairing old windows where
possible and introducing new windows where necessary is recommended. Where
original windows cannot be salvaged, historically appropriate, high quality wood
windows with pane configurations matching the originals and true divided lights are
acceptable.
Wood trim, both exterior and interior, should be similarly retained and preserved.
Paint Finishes
Original paint formulations and colors are character-defining elements that are
often lost over time because the paint materials themselves are relatively short-lived.
When repainting is necessary to preserve the integrity of the envelope, the colors
chosen should be appropriate to the style and setting of the building. If the intent is
to reproduce the original colors or those from a significant period in the building’s
history, they should be based on the results of a scientific paint analysis.
Traditional lead-based paints, which offer excellent longevity, durability and color
stability, are no longer available in the United States. The highest quality latex-based
paints available should be employed instead, after thorough surface preparation and
priming. Permanent vinyl or ceramic liquid coating systems are damaging to wood
siding and historically inappropriate.
APPLICATION OF THE STANDARDS AT THE BUCKMAN TAVERN
Preservation of the architectural integrity and character defining features (described
in Part 2-B of this report) of The Buckman Tavern should be a high priority for
the building’s stewards. The guidelines that follow describe how work performed on
the building should be approached in order to preserve and celebrate those historic
elements.
Preservation of the Setting and Landscape
Maintenance of the original setting of the Buckman Tavern is critical to its historic
significance and aesthetic character. Removing or relocating any part of the building
or placing a new building or addition on the site in a manner that disturbed historic
spatial relationships or the street view would compromise the integrity of this
National Landmark. Similarly, the landscape defining the traditional tavern setting
should be retained to the extent possible and altered, if necessary, with respect and
sensitivity for its historic elements.
107
The Buckman Tavern
Preservation of Massing and Form
The form and massing of the Buckland Tavern describes its evolution based on
historic use. If an addition is considered for the building, its design should be
guided by The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for additions to historic properties
and its appropriate location would be at the rear elevation.
Preservation of Exterior Character-Defining Features
Masonry
The brick and stone elements should be retained and repaired as needed. An
appropriate mortar formula should be developed and documented for use in future
repointing campaigns.
Roofing
The cedar roof shingles are historically appropriate and should be retained and
maintained.
Wood Windows, Doors and Trim
All wood materials should be retained and maintained. Original windows and doors
should be restored and protected with historically appropriate storms.
Preservation of the Interior Plan & Character-Defining Features
The interior plan of the Buckman Tavern should retain its historic configurations
and room relationships. All character-defining details identified in this report should
be retained and preserved.
108
The Buckman Tavern
CONDITIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The following is a survey of conditions at the Buckman Tavern. The survey is
divided into building components and starts at the exterior, then the interior
and finally building systems. Each building component is subdivided into three
parts. A description of the building element is provided first, then conditions are
described, and finally recommendations for treatment are made in italics. Some
recommendations are for repairs while others suggest a maintenance activity that
could ameliorate the observed degradation in condition.
The conditions descriptions are categorized
as to urgency by the terms poor, worn and
fair. Poor conditions should be addressed as
soon as possible, worn conditions should be
resolved in the near future, and elements in fair
condition may be addressed after five years but
before ten years have elapsed. Note that this
is a moving scale. While it may be possible to
defer treatment for a period, the condition of
an element will deteriorate. For example a worn
element will weather to poor in a short time if not
addressed. Therefore, the overarching recommendation is to address all conditions
on the exterior that are less than fair sooner rather than later to limit future repair
costs as materials continue to weather and deteriorate. A fourth category, good
condition, applies to actively maintained elements where no work other than routine
maintenance is required to retain the element.
Overall the Buckman Tavern is in good to fair condition. Much of the wear stems
from being a well-loved, often-visited landmark of Revolutionary history and a
maintenance program that has not proactively addressed needs on the building
exterior and at the interior.
Our survey follows a top down, outside in approach. We start with the roof and
work down to the foundation before moving to the interior where we work from the
attic to the basement. We conclude with the building systems.
This conditions survey is prepared in the context of the significant preservation
and rehabilitation planning underway at the Tavern in 2012. This work is aimed at
preserving the Tavern and providing life safety and access accommodations.
The key plan that follows is color coded to illustrate the names used for various
portions of the building in the survey below.
109
The Buckman Tavern
fN
KEY PLAN
TAVERN
KITCHEN AND WOODSHED ELL
POST OFFICE AND CONNECTOR
EXTERIOR
ROOFS
Description:
The hipped roof of the Tavern’s main block is red cedar shingles at sloped areas
with lead-coated copper at the crown of the main roof and dormers. Flashings are
lead-coated copper. At the Post Office and Ell, the slopes are red cedar shingles.
There is aluminum flashing along the east eave of the Ell.
Condition:
Roofing and flashing observed to be in fair to good condition. Leaves have accumulated on the low shingled roofs and there is organic growth on the east and north
slopes of the Tavern at both the upper and lower shingled slopes, the Post Office
110
The Buckman Tavern
and the Ell. The shingles are in poor condition
on the east slope of the Ell around the chimney.
Organic growths and leaf accumulations are the
result of the north orientation and many overhanging trees which unfortunately shade much of
the Tavern and the Post Office connector, exacerbating moisture retention in the wood siding and
roof shingles.
The soldered seams on the Tavern crown roof
are cracking. The copper is in good condition
and there does not appear to be any leaking at the
cracked seams at present. However, over time the
active movement inherent in a copper roof will
cause those seams to open up even further.
Staining and organic growth on the roof shingles; rust at
gutters.
Recommendations:
• Power wash roof to remove lichen and clean the shingles.
• Install lead sheet strips to “wash” the roof during rain to control organic growth and treat
with a durable oil-borne preservative.
• Remove overhanging tree limbs to reduce shade and reduce volume of leaves.
• Clean roof of leaves regularly.
• Monitor joints of flat seam copper. (Unfortunately, resoldering these joints is not possible in
their present state.)
CHIMNEYS
Description: The flues of the Tavern chimneys are unlined with screens on
top. The Ell chimney is open and unscreened. Both chimneys are
constructed of water struck red brick set in gray mortar, probably
standard Portland cement. The original mortar would have been
lime and sand, resulting in a light tan or buff appearance. Substantial restoration of the main block fireplaces occurred in the 1920’s
restoration.
Condition: Exteriors and interiors of the Tavern chimneys are in good condition on first and second floors. Attic flues are open to weather and
disaggregate mortar is collecting in attic fireplaces indicating moisture is attacking the mortar in the upper portion of the flues. The
interior of these fireplaces should be considered in worn condition
by virtue of nearly a century of use.
Kitchen chimney with missing brick at
cap.
The chimney at the kitchen ell is in fair condition. A brick is missing from the top course of the cap. The chimney is also being used to vent the oilfired boiler in the basement. There is no visible liner for the vent gases and there is
111
The Buckman Tavern
an accumulation of brick dust and disaggregate mortar at the vent pipe connection
to the chimney mass in the basement.
Recommendations:
• Remove wire mesh at tops of Tavern chimneys and install low profile copper caps at to protect
opening from weather and minimize change to visual appearance from the ground.
• Demolish Ell chimney as part of the accessibility and life safety improvements. Reconstruct
the stack above the roof line to represent the historic appearance of the exterior. The boiler is
being relocated so the venting issue at the chimney will not be an issue.
• All chimneys should be inspected annually to check condition of mortar, bricks, caps and
flashing.
WALLS
Description:
The Tavern and Post Office are completely clad
in painted clapboards installed in 1993. The Ell is
painted clapboards except for a small area of wood
shingles near the north end of the east wall of the
north ell.
Mildew and algae at siding and sill trim.
Condition:
Except for local areas of failing paint typical of deferred maintenance, primarily on the east side, the
siding is in fair condition. Failing paint appears to
be related to local damp conditions exacerbated by
dense shade trees and heavy foundation plantings.
Recommendations:
• Clean mildew and algae from
siding.
• Remove loose paint, prime bare
wood and replace siding; paint
with two finish coats of paint.
• Thin overhanging trees and remove
encroaching vegetation to speed drying of damp surfaces.
• Regularly inspect conditions, touch
up paint when failure observed.
Secure loose fasteners.
Worn paint finish.
TRIM
Description:
The tavern trim is a restrained combination of flat and molded running trim. Trim
at openings is relatively modest with flat stock trim built up with running molding
and a heavier built up hood. Corner boards are broad, flat stock. The frieze is band-
112
The Buckman Tavern
ed by a simple molding against the deep soffit. The painted copper gutters form the
cornice. The Tavern facade entry trim is a stately pediment with reeded pilasters.
The Post Office window trim on the wall facing the Tavern matches the the windows on the Tavern. Trim on the other elevations is simple flat stock which carries
over to the Ell and all its openings. Condition:
The trim is in generally fair to good condition but with local areas of failing paint
and mildew. The base of the door trim at the Tavern door requires conservation.
There is missing molding at some opening casings.
Recommendations:
• Clean mildew and algae from siding.
• Remove loose paint, prime bare wood and replacedmolding’ paint with two finish coats of
paint.
• Thin overhanging trees and remove encroaching vegetation to speed drying of damp surfaces.
• Regularly inspect conditions, touch up paint when failure observed. Secure loose fasteners.
• Replace missing wood with new rot resistant pieces matched to adjacent features.
WINDOWS AND DOORS
Description:
The windows and doors are painted wood. The
windows are double-hung except for the hopper
cellar windows, the awning window at the rear stair
hall, and two small fixed windows on the east side
of the Ell. The windows at the Tavern first floor
are period reproductions of double hung windows
that replaced 19th century double hung two-overtwo windows. They likely date to the 1920s restoration. On the Tavern second floor, two windows
on the north elevation next to the cupola have
metal tracks in the jambs and likely date to 1948-49
when the caretaker’s quarters on the second floor
were improved. The other windows appear to be
mostly reproductions from the same era as the first
floor windows.
Reproduction windows at Post Office ell. Note deteriorated
paint finish at lintels and sills.
Some windows in the Connector to the Post Office are similar to the second floor
windows with the metal jambs and likely date to the same period. Windows in the
Post Office itself are also period reproductions.
Windows at the Ell are simple, double hung units with multiple lights in several configurations reflecting the evolution of the Ell and years of repairs.
The doors are paneled stile and rail type except for the east (cellar door) and west
113
The Buckman Tavern
doors at the north wing. The front door to the
Tavern was made in 1956 but mimics proper
characteristics of an 18th century door. Doors into
the Ell are simple, flat panelled stile and rail on the
west and north elevations. The basement door on
the east elevation is vertical board sheathed on the
exterior. The door into the kitchen is thick plank
built.
Deteriorated casing and threshold at Tavern door.
worn.
Condition:
The windows are in generally fair to good condition. There are a few cracked g;ass lights. Casing at
the windows is separating from the walls at some
locations. There is minor wood deterioration on
the sills at shady locations and where paint has
The doors are in worn to fair condition. The front door casing at the Tavern is
deteriorated at the threshold and the threshold is showing rot. The southwest and
northwest entries to the Ell are worn from use. The north door on the Ell is not
used and the wood steps are in worn condition. The cellar door is in poor condition, but is repairable. The screen door at the east door into the Ell is in poor condition and the door to the interior is in worn condition.
Recommendations:
• Broken lites should be examined. If the glass is historic it should be repaired with epoxy if
possible.
• Gaps between casing and walls should be made weather resistant by filling with caulking.
• Windows should be spot glazed, deteriorated wood repaired with epoxy or Dutchmen depending on degree of deterioration.
• Interior storm windows should be installed to reduce heat loss and limit draftiness.
• Wood should be allowed to dry out after dampening; this can be helped by removing overhanging tree limbs to reduce shade and removing plantings under and around the windows and
doors.
• Replaced rotted portions of the planks on the east door into the basement of the Ell.
• The east doorway into the the ground level of the Ell and the southwest doorway will both be
modified for life safety requirements. The east door, an early surviving door, will be carefully
removed and retained as an artifact. The southwest door is not historic and the opening will
become an accessible entry.
RAINWATER CONTROL SYSTEM
Description:
These are the gutters and downspouts that collect water from the roof and convey
it away from the building. Gutters are painted copper at the Tavern and Post Office west elevation. The west elevation of the Ell has copper lined painted boards.
114
The Buckman Tavern
Downspouts are cylindrical sheet metal, painted to match the siding. Downspouts
on the south elevation of the Tavern tie into boots that presumably connect to a dry
well. All other downspouts shed directly to the ground.
Condition:
Gutters are in fair to good condition. The Tavern gutters show
stains where water has overflowed due to clogged gutters and
downspouts. There is an open seam at the center of the north run
of gutters. The downspouts at the north and west elevations empty
onto splash blocks. The downspout on the east elevation of the
Tavern is disconnected and would drain directly onto the Post Office connector roof. The downspouts are in fair condition
The painted gutter at the Post Office is in good condition but
shows the same staining as the Tavern gutters. The single downspout also attaches to a boot with an assumed dry well; this is in
fair condition with its seam opening at the back side. Only the west
side of the Ell has a gutter. The gutter is in good condition but
the downspouts are in poor condition. They have split along their
seams and are filled with leaves.
Disconnected downspout on east
elevation of Tavern.
Recommendations:
• Repair seams in gutters and paint during the renovations.
• Replace all downspouts during renovations and provide new dry wells to eliminate splash
blocks and improve drainage around the foundations.
• Clean gutters of leaves twice a year at minimum.
• Remove overhanging tree limbs to reduce shade and reduce volume of leaves.
FOUNDATIONS
Description:
The Tavern foundations are mortared rubble stone
faced with granite slabs. The Post Office and the
south half of the Ell foundations are mortared
rubble and field stone. The north half of the Ell
under the 1860 shed is a concrete block foundation
constructed in 1973. Condition:
The granite facing is in good condition but the
joints must be completely repointed. The various
Granite slab facing on foundation. Rubble stone seen at corner
rubble foundations are in poor to fair condition
behind downspout.
with widespread mortar failure at the rubble stone
areas, most significantly at the southwest corner
of the Post Office where cracks in mortar allow daylight to enter the basement. The block foundation appears to be in fair to good condition.
115
The Buckman Tavern
Recommendations:
• Repoint exterior of foundations with appropriate mortars for the stone. A harder mortar can
be used at the granite joints and a softer mortar should be used at the rubble foundation.
• Include chinking stones at the rubble foundations to reduce the size of larger mortar joints.
• Cut out any loose mortar in the concrete block foundation wall and install new mortar.
INTERIOR
ATTIC
Description:
The Tavern attic contains remnants of the garret rooms extant in 1775. The visible
framing dates to the expansion of the Tavern to its present size and the exposed
brick of the north and south chimneys show ghost evidence of the earlier saltbox
roof configuration. Roof framing once concealed behind the plaster ceiling in the
garrets is now exposed as a result of extensive structural repairs in 1973, revealing
the heavy timbers used to frame the mansard roof. The second floor ceiling framing
is concealed beneath the floor boards.
The floor boards and partitions seem to date
to the 18th century as well. Outside walls at the
north and south are plaster. There are painted
vertical panel walls and doors at the northwest and
southeast rooms. The walls on the west and north
of the southeast room and the south and east walls
of the northwest room are papered with early wall
paper.
The Ell attic above the gift shop may date to the
construction of the shed in 1859-60. The floor
framing is concealed from above and below. The
Attic above current gift shop
Ell attic is used for storage above the gift shop and
is finished with low plaster walls on the east and
west and a plaster wall up to the ridge on the north
and south walls. Rafters are exposed. The south wall divides the attic above the
modern kitchen from the attic above the gift shop. Above the modern kitchen the
space is unfinished and loose insulation fills the ceiling joist bays. All wood framing
is exposed.
Condition:
The attics are both in fair to good condition. The Tavern floorboards are worn
and there are some cracked and loose floorboards. Interior partitions at the Tavern
are layered with wall paper over plaster or show bare plaster with some cracking.
116
The Buckman Tavern
The Ell attic is used for storage above the gift shop. The floor boards are in fair
condition and the roof framing seems to be in good condition. The plaster is in fair
to good condition without much deterioration from the storage use.
Recommendations:
All spaces are minimally used and only the Tavern attic is used as part of museum operations
when the re-enactors use dormer windows.
• Storage use should discontinue in the Tavern attic.
• The Ell attic spaces will be modified in conjunction with the life safety and architectural access
rehabilitation work.
FLOORS
Description:
Basement floor in full height spaces is a concrete slab. Crawlspaces are dirt with a
covering membrane that may be serving as a vapor barrier. First floor in the Tavern
is broad planking, unpainted. The second floor of the Tavern is slightly raised and
carpeted in the room adjacent to the cupola. The second floor bathroom has sheet
goods on the floor. The remaining floors are wide plank, painted.
The first floor of the Post Office is wood planking with clear finish laid
perpendicular to the south wall. The floors in the Connector are covered in
linoleum.
The floors of the Ell are vinyl tiles at the modern kitchen and clear finish planks
with a protective area rug at the gift shop. Condition:
The basement concrete is in good condition with some local wearing. Wood plank
flooring throughout is in worn condition. This is most apparent in the Tavern first
floor where the floors are unfinished and show
clear traces of traffic patterns of visitors with
the most highly travelled routes almost blonde
with wear. The traffic has also forced up some
of the rose head spikes meant to hold down the
floorboards. The finished floor int he Post Office
is in fair condition as is the floor in the Ell at the
gift shop. The painted floorboards on the second
floor of the Tavern and in the cupola are also in
fair condition having been protected by the paint
coating. The vinyl and linoleum are worn and near
the end of their useable life. The carpet is in good
condition.
Sloped store and threshold at door into colonial kitchen
117
The Buckman Tavern
Recommendations:
• No work is called for in the basement except for cuts for footings associated with the life safety
and accessibility work.
• Resecure all nails in the Tavern first floor. Epoxy treatment to harden the floors has already
been considered and rejected because it changed the appearance of the wood too much.
A runner carpet could be installed to protect walking paths, but this would change the
interpretive experience at the Tavern. The other alternative is a protective finish, but again
that would change the interpretive experience.
• The second floor painted boards should be maintained with paint coating to protect the wood
fiber. The linoleum and carpet will be removed as part of the life safety and architectural
access rehabilitation work.
• The finishes should be maintained on the Post Office and gift shop floors.
WALLS
Description:
Basement walls under the Tavern and the Post Office are rubble stone with a
whitewashed surface. Exposed stone extends to the basement door on the east wall
of the Ell.
First floor walls are painted plaster throughout the
building except at the north wall between the Tap
Room and the Colonial Kitchen, which is made of
vertical planks with fading paint. At the gift shop
the plaster is above a horizontal board dado.
Second floor walls are painted plaster.
Vertical plank wall between Tap Room and Kitchen.
Attic walls are plaster at the outside walls and
planks with wall paper at the interior partitions of
the garret rooms.
Condition:
Plaster is in fair to good condition. Plaster is
intact through most of the building. There is a gap
between a post and wall which has been filled with
rags at the Colonial Kitchen in the Tavern. Paint
finish is flaking from the curved plaster at the
chimney of the first and second floor northeast
rooms of the Tavern. Wall plaster at the Post
Office and Ell is in good condition. Attic walls in
the Tavern are in worn to fair condition. Attic
walls in the Ell are in fair condition.
Partition at ballroom was once operable.
118
The Buckman Tavern
Recommendations:
• Basement walls should be left as they are with repointing occurring as required in conjunction
with the foundation repointing.
• First floor plaster walls should be patched at the holes, minor cracks skimmed over and
repainted at failed painting.
• Ell walls will be refinished in conjunction with the life safety and rehabilitation project.
• Attic walls should be left as they are since they do not appear to be actively deteriorating and
the space is not part of the interpretive program.
CEILINGS
Description:
The basement ceiling is exposed framing throughout. The first floor ceiling in the
Post Office and Connector is painted plaster. The two east rooms of the Tavern
have exposed second floor framing and sub floor for ceilings. The two west rooms
have plaster ceilings with partially exposed cased beams. The modern kitchen in the
Ell has a painted plaster ceiling. The gift shop in the shed portion of the Ell has
a plank ceiling. The second floor ceilings are painted plaster. The attic ceilings are
exposed framing and wood sheathing. There is evidence of historic plaster ceilings
in the garret rooms.
Condition:
The exposed framing in the basement has been
repaired and treated with preservatives and
insecticides and seems to be in good condition.
Plaster at the first and second floors is in fair to
good condition; there is little cracking and virtually
no sagging. Failure is occurring in the paint in
the Ell at the modern kitchen, but this does not
appear to be water related and may instead indicate
an adhesion problem. Attic ceilings are in fair
condition, mostly showing historic dark stains
from leaking, but there does not appear to be any
current leakage. The wood ceilings in the Tavern
are in fair condition due to faded finishes, but the
faded appearance contributes to the period feeling
of the spaces.
Exposed framing in the basement. Note rubble foundation.
Recommendations:
• Basement ceilings should remain exposed.
• Adhesion problems with the paint in the Ell will be addressed during the life safety and access
rehabilitation project.
• Attic ceilings should remain unchanged.
119
The Buckman Tavern
TRIM
Description:
In the Tavern and the Post Office the standing and running trim is painted. Casings
at doors and windows have simple molding profiles if any exist. Fireplace surrounds
range from rustic, unpainted boards in the Tap Room and Colonial Kitchen to
formal mantelpieces set into raised panelled walls at the west side rooms of the first
and second floors of the Tavern. Beams and plates and posts at
these rooms are cased with beaded or chamfered corners.
Trim in the Ell is simple and painted at the modern kitchen and
clear finished rough sawn at the gift shop including the horizontal
board dado and the vertical posts. There is little remaining trim in
the Tavern attic and simple flat stock trim in the gift shop attic.
Condition:
The trim throughout is in fair to good condition. Most all trim
shows wear and tear commensurate with the building history.
Finishes are nicked, scratched and scraped thin along paths of
travel. Joinery at the panelled walls shows some opening but is
generally in fair to good condition.
Second floor door heights were
measured.
Recommendations:
•
Finishes should be renewed throughout as part of protection for the
underlying fabric.
FENESTRATION
Description:
The basement windows are hopper units. Throughout the building windows are
double hung except for the cupola and the fixed window in the attic of the Ell.
Windows were produced in the 1920s to appear historically appropriate and replaced
mid-19th century, large paned sash. Doors are stile and rail construction with some
raised panel and some flat panel in the Tavern and Post Office. The doors in the
Ell are also stile and rail with the exception of the slab-built and plank faced east
exterior doors.
Condition:
Windows are in fair to good condition, with worn paint on the operating surfaces
and where condensation occurs during winter months. Doors are in fair to good
condition; most seem to operate smoothly, but several bind at the threshold.
Thresholds are generally worn from all the foot traffic and from operation of the
doors.
120
The Buckman Tavern
Recommendations:
• Renew paint on window sash and install interior storm sash.
• Adjust doors as required to operate smoothly and where required, accommodate persons with
disabilities.
• Replace the southwest and sotuheast doors of the Ell with doors sized for egress.
FIREPLACE AND HEARTHS
Description:
There are two attic fireplaces in the garret rooms of the Tavern, three fireplaces
on the second floor, and four on the first floor. Fire places in the Tap Room and
Colonial Kitchen are large open expanses with exposed brick. The other fireplaces
are shallow backed-Rumford style with parging over the brick.
The sole fireplace in the Ell is concealed behind cabinetry. Bricks are painted white.
Condition:
The Tavern fireplaces on the first and second
floors are in good condition. The lintel in the
Ladies Parlor should be inspected for rust. The
attic fireplaces are in worn to fair condition. They
show traces of deteriorated brick and crumbled
mortar in the firebox and daylight is visible from
the open flues above. The Ell fireplace is in fair
condition.
Recommendation:
• Provide low profile caps for the Tavern chimneys that
will limit visibility.
Deteriorated brick and crumbled mortar in attice fireplace
• Shelter the flues from direct weather to reduce the
firebox.
deterioration visible in attic fireplaces.
• Clean attic fireplaces of debris. This will need to be
done once a year.
• The Ell fireplace will be carefully disassembled for the construction of the handicap restroom.
This work will be documented in photographs and representative elements will be retained in
the Historical Society archives.
HARDWARE
Description:
Throughout the Tavern the hinges are mostly wrought iron H and HL hinges.
There are Norfolk and Suffolk style latches at the doors in the four first floor rooms
except for the door into the Ell, which has standard butt hinges and a rim mounted
knob. Window locks are typical cam-type mechanisms. The preserved front door of
the Tavern which is currently displayed adjacent to the doorway has old Suffolk style
strap hinges.
121
The Buckman Tavern
The Post Office doors have similar historic hardware. Hardware on the doors in the
connector consists of butt hinges, rim locking hardware mortise locksets and old
cylinder locks. Knobs are generally brown porcelain with a swirl pattern. Windows
have cam-type locking mechanisms.
Door hardware in the Ell is also a combination of rim locking hardware mortise
locksets and old cylinder locks. Knobs are generally brown porcelain with a swirl
pattern. Windows have cam-type locking mechanisms. In the modern kitchen the
windows operate with cotton sash cord over brass pulleys.
Condition:
The hardware on the Tavern doors is in good condition. It is durable and wears well.
Window hardware is in good condition. Post Office hardware is in good condition,
but in the connector the hardware is in worn to fair condition with many latch sets
on the doors only partly intact, missing knobs and even latches. Most hardware
is thickly over painted. Ell hardware is in fair to good condition with some over
painting and missing sash cords at the windows.
Recommendations:
• Leave Tavern hardware in place as part of the interpretive experience. It is important
to ensure that none of the doors are binding or dragging since forcing a door puts stress
on the hardware and could break it. Also, since none of the hardware meets accessibility
requirements, all doors along the public route should be fully open during visitation hours –
especially with the introduction of self-guided tours.
• Post Office hardware at the entry door will be replaced when the door swing is reversed. This is
an accessible entry to the building and the hardware must be an accessible, lever-type device.
• Doors in the connector will be removed and the passage made accessible in the life safety and
accessibility rehabilitation project.
• The Ell doorways will be removed in the life safety and accessibility rehabilitation project.
• All hardware on new entries will be accessible. Hardware on the northwest and north doors
will remain unchanged since the doorways will no longer be used.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER PAINT ANALYSIS
Bill Finch of Finch & Rose prepared an in-depth paint analysis report that is
included as an appendix to this document. His recomendations for further
investigation are repeated here for the convenience of the reader.
Southwest parlor
1. Take paint samples from the paint shadow under the mantel where moved slightly
in 1921, or alternatively temporarily remove the mantel. This may confirm that the
mantel was installed after paint generation #3 was applied to the room.
2. Take paint samples for cross sections from the plinth block below the casing
of the door to the entry to determine when in the paint sequence the blocks were
122
The Buckman Tavern
added to raise the height of the door. Also examine the door frame on the entry
side for evidence that it was altered.
3. Remove the modern wood panel at the base of the closet to the left of the
fireplace to determine how much the masonry from the kitchen fireplace intrudes
into the original firebox of the parlor fireplace. Also check measurements of the
position of the kitchen fireplace and depth of its oven to verify/correct accuracy of
the floor plan of the fireplaces.
4. Determine whether the wood wainscot was installed over the original lower wall
plaster, and if any of the plaster remains to provide evidence of its 18th century
finishes. A starting point for this would be to pull out the electric box on the west
wall to look behind the wainscot with a boriscope, as well as to accurately measure
the plane of the wainscot in relation to the plaster above it. If this indicates there is
intact early plaster behind the wainscot, temporary removal of a section of wainscot
and/or mop board to reveal the plaster would be worthwhile.
5. Look for nails in wainscot and mopboard to determine if cut or wrought nails
were used - wrought would suggest they were installed 1794-1800, cut suggests after
c. 1800 (but cut were available in the late 1790s, so this is not definitive evidence).
Entry
1. Examine the back side of the treads and risers as visible in the tap room closet
to determine if they are fastened with cut or wrought nails. If only cut nails are
used this would be further confirmation that the staircase was rebuilt in the Federal
period. Also look more carefully for evidence that its direction might have been
reversed. Also look for nail types used in board sheathing.
2. Take additional paint samples for cross sections from the turned balusters and
stringer at the 2nd floor landing, and from the stringer to the attic stairs.
3. In situ sample paint of mop boards, door casings, and wainscot, and possibly take
more samples for cross sections to determine the relative age of these components.
Old Kitchen
1. Take a cross section paint sample from the girt above the door to the tap room,
as this section has not been replaced and appears to retain a substantial paint buildup. This may help to establish the relative age of the fireplace mantel. Also take
additional cross section samples from the mantel woodwork to clarify its extent of
alterations.
Tap Room
1. Take cross section and/or in situ samples of the window casings and seats to
verify the relative age of these elements.
123
The Buckman Tavern
Southwest Parlor Chamber
1. Take cross section and/or in situ samples from door to NW chamber to
determine if its graining relates to the graining on the SW parlor closet door, which
might indicate it was reused from the parlor when its doors were removed c. 1860.
2. Take cross section samples from the old raised panel woodwork to the right of
the door to the NW chamber and from the fireplace woodwork to determine if the
paneling is original to the chamber.
Tap Room Chamber
1. Take cross section samples from the 2 old 6 panel doors and adjacent early
woodwork to determine if the doors are original to the room or are reused.
Exterior
1. Take paint samples from the main cornice and frieze board in hopes of getting
some correlation between early clapboard paint and trim paint. Requires a tall ladder.
Samples taken by Sara Chase in 1987 did not provide any definitive answers to this
issue.
2. Take paint samples from the window head enclosed within the post office attic
(Access is difficult and complicated by the addition of insulation).
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INTERIOR PAINT FINISHES
The architectural evolution of the Buckman Tavern is well documented in the
foregoing sections of this report. From its origins as a vernacular saltbox structure,
it evolved into an impressive Georgian style structure surmounted by a hip roof
and supported by a service ell that witnessed the start of the American Revolution
in 1775, with its echoes of Renaissance classicism and the Enlightenment.
Modifications and improvements continued until the end of the 19th century by
the families that occupied it, including the single story wing added c. 1813 serving
as the post office, now known as the Old Post Office. The understanding of the
historical significance of the Tavern was recognized in the late 19th century with
emerging antiquarian interests and the Colonial Revival movement that focused in
particular on the time of the Revolution. A particularly vivid account by one of the
occupants, Abbie Stetson Griffing, c. 1914, details observations with lore and family
reminiscences.
With the acquisition of the Tavern and its remaining property by the Town of
Lexington in 1913 and the subsequent long term lease to the Lexington Historical
Society (renewed for a second 99 year terms in 2012), the Tavern building was
subjected to extensive renovation and with it, some restoration aimed at recovering
its appearance in 1775. Subsequent maintenance and repairs were supplemented by
occasional forays into restoration, usually superficial such as the 1950s introduction
of wallpaper to the walls of the southwest parlor.
124
The Buckman Tavern
In 1972-73 extensive structural work in the attic had the unfortunate consequence
of necessitating selective removal of portions of the plaster and paneling of
what were finished rooms. While some of that evidence is retained, the overall
appearance is much changed.
In 1987-89 the exterior colors were restored to their appearance in 1775 based on
paint analysis. The transformation from white body with dark window shutters, also
removed for the sake of authenticity, was a courageous one in view of the popular
opposition at that time. The wholesale replacement of the clapboard siding in 1996
took place with the now accepted historic paint colors.
The decision of the Lexington Historical Society to focus on the interpretation of
the Buckman Tavern at the period of the Revolution, specifically its eve in April of
1775, is well established. While recognizing that portions of the building reflected
subsequent architectural treatments, the decision to use finishes based either on
actual surviving physical evidence or treatments known from that period allows the
preservation of later materials without unduly distracting the viewer. In the end,
we may think of the Tavern as a palimpsest wherein the layers of occupation and
taste remain beneath or just peeping through to the keen observer. The intention to
present the Tavern in a way that makes vivid the time and place in April 1775 does
not diminish what has gone before or after that time, but makes signal an important
passage in our history.
Exterior
The paint colors uncovered in 1987-89 and confirmed in 2012 by pigment analysis
should be continued, with refinement on the exact matching for clapboards, trim,
sash and doors.
Interior
As part of the investigation of the physical evolution of the Buckman Tavern, Bill
Finch of Finch & Rose examined the paint history primarily for dating purposes.
That said, the analysis of paint layers was sufficiently detailed that is was possible to
reasonably identify paint colors for purposes of this description. Additional research
is recommended during the construction phase to refine the building evolution story
and the color matching.
As a general note: the Tavern is museum space with intervention limited to systems
improvements. Although post 1775 architectural fabric exists, it will be retained in
situ with finishes to represent the 1775 period. These finishes are superficial and can
be changed at some point in the future if further evidence supports those decisions.
Main Block, the Tavern
125
The Buckman Tavern
Basement The perimeter stone walls can be whitewashed for cosmetic purposes. This is
optional.
First Floor
Tap Room
Significant for its associations as a popular gathering place, its appearance is in
part based on actual physical evidence such as the fireplace, in part on educated
conjecture and in part on lore. This room has been heavily restored with materials
that have been reused from other locations such as the floor boards, doors and the
window seats. Retaining its present appearance is recommended for finishes.
Walls
Plaster walls: Whitewash
Painted woodwork: Continue the present scheme of grey blue and deep red. Ceiling
Retain the worn whitewash as is.
Floors
Clear stain.
Entry and Stair Hall
No longer used as the main entry or indeed as a passage to the second floor by
visitors, this is mainly a display space. The slightly dissonate note is the lower section
of stair balusters, dating from the early 19th century. From the second floor to the
attic, the early turned balusters survive. Both tell the story of changing styles and
tastes and should be retained as is.
Walls
Plaster walls: Whitewash.
Special treatment: Preserve the surviving history wallpaper (dated between 1845
and 1860) of the Cervera patterns in situ, covering by a protective panel so that it
can be whitewashed to be consistent with the other wall surfaces. Make sure there
insufficient air space so that vapor is not trapped beneath the panel. The panel
should be inert material such as Plexiglas.
Painted woodwork: “Venetian Red,” by Ronan Paint, diluted to a thin consistency,
dead flat finish.
Ceiling
Retain the worn whitewash as is.
Floors
Clear stain.
126
The Buckman Tavern
West Room
This is probably the most confusing of the first floor rooms. Its present appearance,
dating from the 1950s, is intended to evoke a Ladies Parlor during the time of
the Tavern history. Subsequent documentary research points to the use of the
Tavern by townspeople and selectman during the 18th century as a place for public
meetings (see appendix for “Buckman Tavern as it appears in the Records of Town
Meetings and Selectmen’s Meetings”). Secondary sources reinforce the idea that
taverns were places where ideas and information of the day were shared through
conversation and reading materials. With the introduction of various taxes and
restrictions by the English government beginning in the 1760s, it is likely that this
“best” room was the site for political and intellectual discourse. Hence it is being
transformed from a Ladies Parlor to the West Room.
The other factors are the significant architectural alterations that seem to have
occurred during the early Meriam ownership, c. 1815. Probably the most prominent
example is the Federal style mantelpiece. Yet there is much other woodwork which
predates this updating of the room. The best contemporary paint color match
for the 1775 era was found on the summer beam casing and is the basis for the
recommendation today.
Walls
Painted woodwork: Benjamin Moore Historic Colors – HC – 108, Sandy Hook
Grey, semi gloss. Ceiling
Whitewash
Floors
Clear stain.
Small Parlor
A room with many uses starting with the “old well room” and other utilitarian uses
including the more elevated status as Landlord’s Bedroom and Rev. Stetson’s Study,
to its present condition restored during the 1920s. With this hybridized history of
use, the intention is to portray it today as a more refined and private parlor.
Walls
Plaster walls: Wallpaper is recommended for this small parlor which will be
interpreted as a multi-use room for small meetings or dining that included lady
visitors to the tavern.
Of the various period wallpapers considered, a leading candidate is Cape Cod
Floral, 1770-90, a reproduction wallpaper by Waterhouse Wallhangings based on a
127
The Buckman Tavern
document in their Archives: charcoal on pale mustard. While no longer printed, 10
double rolls were located on Ebay for $33.50/double roll.
Cape Cod Floral pattern wallpaper from Waterhouse
Wallhangings.
Painted woodwork: Continue the color treatment of the West Room – Benjamin
Moore Historic Colors HC-108, Sandy Hook Grey, semi gloss. Ceiling
Whitewash.
Floors
Clear stain.
Old Kitchen
As previously stated with great detail, this room, intensely evocative as an early 18th
century kitchen, is also a complicated mélange of architectural fabric, restoration
and decorative treatment. In addition to the fireplace meeting all expectations for
what a cooking fireplace should look like, there is the striking decorative painting on
the ceiling consisting of black stripes and chevrons on the whitewashed wood joists
and underside of the floor boards of the second floor. It is appears that the original
design was in painted and augmented by Esther Stevens Frasier in the 1920s.
Walls
Woodwork: No treatment 128
The Buckman Tavern
Ceiling
No treatment Floors
Clear stain.
Old Post Office and corridors (see final accepted design Option 4): This now serves
as the main point of visitor entry and as the gift shop.
Walls
Woodwork: Paint in colors to be selected. Ceiling
Whitewash
Floors
Clear stain.
Exhibit/Orientation Space
This is adapted from the former kitchen and woodshed.
Walls
Plaster walls: Paint in colors to be selected. Woodwork: Paint in colors to be selected. Ceiling
Paint in colors to be selected. Floors
Clear stain.
Bathroom
This is adapted from the former kitchen and woodshed.
Walls
Ceramic tile.
Stair to Second Floor: this is adapted from the former kitchen and woodshed.
129
The Buckman Tavern
Walls
Wood treads.
Second Floor
Galleries – northeast, southeast and northwest chambers
Retain woodwork and plaster walls in present conditions. Walls
Clear stain.
Openings
At second floor ball room of Tavern – replace door with hinged wall section
matching other paneled wall sections to recreate historic folding partition.
Attic
No treatments.
References
Lesley Hoskins, The Papered Wall (New York: Thames and Hudson Ltd), 2005.
Richard Nylander, Wallpapers for Historic Buildings (Washington, DC: The
Preservation Press), 1992. 40 – 41.
Richard C. Nylander, Elizabeth Redmond, Penny J. Sander, Wallpaper in New
England (Boston, Ma: Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities),
1986.
Include whitewash reference by BCA.
130
The Buckman Tavern
MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING & FIRE PROTECTION
Mechanical Description:
Buckman Tavern is heated with hot water distributed through
fin tube radiators to the Post Office and Tavern, including the
basements of both sections. The basement radiation is mounted
midway up the basement walls. The radiators in finished spaces are
along the baseboard with covers painted to match the trim color
of their respective rooms. Heating distribution in the Ell is mostly
concealed behind cabinets. Hot water is supplied to the system
from an oil-fired boiler in the basement of the Ell. The oil tank
is located adjacent to the boiler. Fill pipes penetrate a basement
window on the west side of the Ell. Combustion gases are vented
into the Ell chimney.
Cooling is only provided for the gift shop. This is a split air system
with the condenser outside and the fan coil system. Hot water heat is distributed via the oil
burning boiler.
Mechanical Conditions:
The basement radiators are in fair condition. The covers show
minimal rusting and pipe insulation is missing. The radiators on the
first and second floor appear to be in good condition with considerable scuffing
and chipping of the paint finish in the Tavern and Post Office. The boiler is in
good condition but the masonry chimney for venting is unlined and the chimney is
in worn condition around the vent pipe. The oil tank is relatively new and also in
good condition, but there is no catch reservoir for spilled oil.
The condenser for the air conditioning is concealed behind shrubbery but appears
to be in fair to good condition. Refrigerant lines appear to be in good condition
thought some insulation is loose.
Mechanical Recommendations:
• Retain the boiler, but move it to a new location below the post office and install a direct vent to
the exterior.
• Replace the oil tank and move it adjacent to the new boiler location. Provide new fill pipes.
• Remove the fin tube radiation on the first and second floors.
• Retain the fin tube in the basement.
• Remove the Ell condenser and fan coil.
• Install new hydronic heating and cooling system as part of the life safety and accessibility
renovation work.
Electrical Description:
Underground service feeds an on-site transformer providing 400 amp single
phase power. Main distribution and sub panels are located in the basement of the
Tavern. Electrical distribution is an aggregated collection of wiring styles from early
131
The Buckman Tavern
knob and tube to various eras of non metallic and metal-clad cable. Receptacles
throughout the building are a collection of various ages and configurations.
Lighting consists mostly of incandescent single bulb sconces, residential style ceiling
fixtures and track lighting, some of which is run off extension cords.
The fire alarm system monitors a collection of heat and smoke detectors.
Electrical Conditions:
Overall the electrical systems are in worn to fair condition. The majority of
receptacles are ungrounded. There are a limited number of receptacles in the Tap
Room with some power being provided from extension cords to other rooms.
Some lights at the second floor are not hard wired and have no wall switches. Wall
sconces were made for the Tavern in the 1950s and are in fair condition. There is
no clear indication of live or dead wiring. The fire alarm panel is in good condition
but the number of devices and distribution is inefficient. There are too many heat
detectors in some locations and absent smoke alarms in other locations.
Electrical Recommendations:
• Retain existing 400 amp service.
• Remove wiring back to main panels.
• Replace sub-panels to make distribution more efficient.
• Re-wire wall sconces to be re-used.
• Install new wiring run in conduit or metal clad where exposed.
• Install new fire alarm system in conjunction with sprinkler system.
• Install smoke detectors in lieu of heat detectors for quicker response.
• Replace receptacles in Tavern with grounded units, eliminate redundant or unneeded devices.
• Install new hard wired lighting in Tavern with on-off switching.
• Install new wiring and devices throughout Post Office and Ell in conjunction with life safety
and universal access rehabilitation.
Plumbing Description:
There is limited distribution of plumbing in the Tavern. It is limited to the second
floor bathroom which has a tub-shower, toilet and sink. the Post Office connector
has a rest room in the midst of the connector with toilet and sink. Plumbing in the
Ell serves the modern kitchen. There is a two bowl kitchen sink.
The sanitary line exits the building from the basement at the floor level in the west
corner where the Ell abuts the Tavern. Domestic water enters at ________?
Plumbing Condition:
The plumbing appears to be typical mid-twentieth century fixtures in fair to good
condition. The fixtures are domestic in design and scale and not suited for public
space uses.
132
The Buckman Tavern
Plumbing Recommendations:
• The plumbing systems are outdated, not water efficient and not suited for present use of the
Tavern and should be removed.
• Install new AAB compliant rest room as part of life safety and universal access
rehabilitation.
• Install new plumbing to second floor counter top sink.
• Install new janitors sink in the basement of the Ell.
• Install new frost free hose bibs at the exterior.
Fire Protection Description:
The building is protected by a dry pipe sprinkler system installed in the 1920s.
Distribution covers all spaces except the museum rooms of the Tavern – although
heads are installed in closets – and the second floor rooms of the Tavern. Attics,
closets and crawl spaces are all protected. In the Ell and Post Office connector the
pipes are painted light blue and run through the occupied space at heights that are
sometimes lower than seventy two inches off the finished floor. Pipes are iron and
range in size from the 4” riser down to 1/2” feeder lines. The water supply for the
sprinkler enters through the east foundation wall of the Ell and runs through an
insulated wood shroud to the valve assembly room. The cast iron valve is original
but the compressor is new looking. A four inch riser is tucked into the northeast
second floor bathroom of the Tavern.
Fire Protection Condition:
The outward appearance of the sprinkler piping is good but eighty year old piping
is difficult to evaluate from the exterior. Many of the pipes are less than the 1”
minimum of current codes and could present a significant hazard if the inside
has corroded over the years leading to potential blockage of flow to the heads.
Important rooms in the Tavern and Post Office have no sprinkler protection. The
heads appear to be in good condition throughout the system and are newer than the
piping. The valve on the main line is in worn condition and does not meet current
requirements for a back flow preventer. The water supply to the building could not
be confirmed as to condition but the most recent system test tag showed adequate
pressure available.
Fire Protection Recommendations:
• The piping is too low in public spaces and should be raised.
• Piping is undersized and should be replaced.
• Important rooms are not protected. Heads should be provided with new piping.
• Code compliant valves and fittings need to be installed.
133
The Buckman Tavern
134
The Buckman Tavern
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
Over the history of the Buckman Tavern there have been changes both subtle and
dramatic. The original vernacular saltbox structure was fully subsumed into the
handsome mansard-roofed tavern by 1775 and through the nineteenth century
extensions and ells provided new spaces as the building use evolved. The post
office and kitchen additions at the first floor changed the plan geometry in the early
nineteenth century. By mid-century a shed added off the kitchen created a new
framing ell on the north side of the Tavern, altering the standalone aspect of the
main block of the building. The rear stair cupola, added sometime prior to 1910,
added another dimension to the north extension of the building. The changes to
the Tavern over its life have largely been informed by pragmatic considerations.
It was only with the initial leasing to the Lexington Historical Society that the
programmatic factors began to include interpretation.
As the twentieth century progressed, modifications to the building were largely
internal and related to restoration, convenience and maintenance. The removal of
19th century finishes on the first floor of the Tavern was done as interpretation
focused more clearly on the 1775 era. The kitchen in the north ell, the gift shop
in the shed, the restroom and sitting rooms in the connector, and the restroom
installation on the second floor of the Tavern were all examples of changes
implemented for convenience. The modification of the dormer at the rear stair was
a pragmatic concession to create a second access to the upstairs at the Tavern.
At the start of the twenty-first century and with the approach of the second
century of Lexington Historical Society leasorship, the paradigm has evolved.
Increased understanding of the 1775 period of the Tavern and changing patterns of
interpretation and visitation led the Society to engage Menders Torrey & Spencer to
prepare conceptual designs for a new programmatic charge.
The goals for the rehabilitation of the tavern were multifold and reflect the deeper
knowledge of the past and greater emphasis on access to the building. For the first
time, work at the building would fall under the umbrella of the state building code
and be subject to review by the architectural access board.
The program prepared by the Society, first shared in July 2012, was modified during
the course of conceptual design. The final program in August 2012 follows:
Visitor Reception and Amenities
• Combine current Gift Shop and modern kitchen area – make all one level.
• Create handicapped accessible visitor bathroom - sound proof, custodial sink in
basement.
135
The Buckman Tavern
Visitor Flow
• Tour flow is Gift Shop, Post Office, Colonial ???, Workroom, Ladies’ Parlor, Tap
Room, back to Gift Shop
• Handicapped accessibility to Gift Shop in Post Office orientation (modified
August 2012)
• Add door in corridor to separate Gift Shop in Post Office from corridor from
exhibit space (modified August 2012)
Upstairs Exhibit Space
• Retain three exhibit galleries for existing use – address accessibility (see below)
Accessibility/Egress
• Add lift to provide accessibility to second floor exhibit galleries
• Address sufficient egress from second floor – improved back staircase
• Resolve issues of steps up from room to room
• Back door emergency exit
Storage/Staff Needs
• Relocate shop storage from current attic to basement
• Second floor office area, staff kitchen, lunch table (as at H-C) – full partition or
partial?
• Custodial sink in basement
• Storage closet for Gift Shop on first floor if possible
• Detailed planning for gift shop display areas by Society (Modified August 2012)
Exterior Impact
• Eliminate unused door/stairs to left of current gift shop entrance
• Expanded bump-up to accommodate life and stairs
Buckman Tavern Infrastructure/ Program Needs
• Retain or eliminate brick paths – coordinate with Battle Green plan
• Re-do exterior lighting
• Interior storm windows
• Eliminate foundation plantings, take down tree in back
• Re-do box gutters
• Air conditioning/re-do heating
• Window/door restoration
• Complete interior/exterior painting
• Wallpaper ladies’ parlor
• Dehumidification for basement
• New security system
• New sprinkler system
• New fire panel
• Insulate wherever possible
• Fix outside bench/bricking
136
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Buckman Tavern
Rewiring
Evaluate roof
Phone/internet locations
Chimneys – masonry, lining
Foundation repair
Attic needs?
Floor mats at entry points
Replace modern hardware
Exterior lantern repair
Clapboard repair/replacement
Re-do flag pole
Security cameras/self-guided tour
Ballroom partition – fix to be usable?
Wiring for AV in Post Office
Wiring for sound in 7 spaces with central nexus
Door between Gift Shop/exhibit space (modified August 2012)
Replicate grill for bar? (modified August 2012)
Sound insulation in bathroom (modified August 2012)
Giving ladies’ parlor 18th cent. look (modified August 2012)
Attic windows must open for re-enactment (modified August 2012)
Exterior paint analysis needed? (modified August 2012)
Guided by the list of criteria above and the requirements of the building code,
conceptual designs explored the implications of programming and regulatory
elements in an activity that sought to prepare the Buckman Tavern for another
century of telling the story of life in the “revolutionary” times of 1775.
137
The Buckman Tavern
Option One: 7.25.12
Following the initial program idea a new entrance is introduced at an existing window opening on
the west elevation of the Ell. The Ell floor, including the current gift shop, is made level with the
Colonial Kitchen floor. Windows in the shed portion of the Ell are modified to reflect the new floor
level. The Ell chimney is eliminated. Limited grading is required to make the new entry accessible.
Entry at the Post Office is not accessible. The lift and egress stair are located within the footprint of
the existing building. A ramp is required at the Post Office.
138
The Buckman Tavern
139
The Buckman Tavern
Option Two: 7.25.2012
Following the initial program idea a new entrance is introduced at an existing
window opening on the west elevation of the Ell. The Ell floor, including the
current gift shop, is made level with the Colonial Kitchen floor. Limited grading is
required to make the new entry accessible. Entry at the Post Office is not accessible.
The egress stair is located within the footprint of the existing building. The lift and
new accessible path to the Post Office are constructed along the east wall of the
Post Office connector.
140
The Buckman Tavern
141
The Buckman Tavern
Option Three: 8.29.2012
Following the review of schemes One and Two, entry directly into the gift shop
was identified as a direction to explore. Grade could be raised to allow rampless
entry at a new door at the gift shop. The west and north walls of the shed would
be reframed on new, raised foundation at the location of raised grade. The existing
block foundation might not have the strength to act as a retaining structure for
added earth. The scheme would provide the opportunity to provide roof run-off
retainage away from the Tavern foundations. This would require a retaining wall or
sloping grade. The Ell floor, including the current gift shop, is made level with the
Colonial Kitchen floor. Entry at the Post Office is not accessible. The egress stair
is located within the footprint of the existing building. The lift and egress stair are
located within the footprint of the existing building. A ramp is required at the Post
Office. Three gift shop layout options are examined with this scheme.
menders, torrey & spencer, inc.
architecture

preservation
123 North Washington Street, Boston, MA 02114
Buckman Tavern - Approximate Areas
POST OFFICE
248 SQ FT
CORRIDOR
220 SQ FT
5’ - 9”
5’ - 0”
17’ - 11.5”
0”
5”
’-
19
4.
PROPOSED GIFT
SHOP/RECEPTION
21’ - 11”
’-
22’ - 4”
12
14’ - 11”
270 SQ FT
EXISTING GIFT SHOP: 245 SQ FT APPROX
142
The Buckman Tavern
Buckman Tavern - Gift Shop Layout 1
architecture

preservation
DISPLAY
RACKS
DISPLAY
SHELVES
REGISTER
DISPLAY
STORAGE
SHELVES
DISPLAY
4’
RACKS
ENTRY
architecture

preservation
RACKS
DISPLAY
SHELVES
RACKS
4’
DISPLAY
DISPLAY
REGISTER
STORAGE
DISPLAY
RACKS
DISPLAY
ENTRY
143
The Buckman Tavern
architecture

preservation
SHELVES
DISPLAY
SHELVES
RACKS
SHELVES
REGISTER
STORAGE
DISPLAY
SHELVES
RACKS
4’
SHELVES
RACKS
DISPLAY
ENTRY
144
The Buckman Tavern
Option Four: 9.13.2012 (Preferred)
After consideration and discussions about interpretive flow and concerns about
costs involved with building a new foundation for the gift shop, a change in
topography for grading the Post Office is proposed as a point of entry and the
gift shop is made accessible with a sloping walkway. This configuration allows
the current gift shop to serve as new interpretive space; not raising the floor was
discussed as that would create inaccessible space. Design proceeded with the idea
of a “floating” floor that hovers above the existing gift shop floor. This interpretive
space would also serve as the gathering and orientation space for large groups
visiting the Tavern. With the new gift shop location an additional shop layout is
developed.
BUCKMAN TAVERN - LEXINGTON HISTORIC DISTRICT COMMISSION, OCTOBER 4,2012
FRONT VIEW EXISTING
REAR VIEW EXISTING
FRONT VIEW PROPOSED
REAR VIEW PROPOSE
145
The Buckman Tavern
TRICT COMMISSION, OCTOBER 4,2012
REAR VIEW EXISTING
REAR VIEW PROPOSED
architecture
n
preservation
146
The Buckman Tavern
Project Name
Enter address here
architecture

preservation
123 North Washington St.
Boston, MA 02114
t. 617.227.1477
f. 617.227.2654
ISSUE:
REVISIONS:
Date:
Issue Date
Scale:
Drawn By:
Checked By:
Project Number:
Author
Checker
Project Number
Do not scale the drawings. All
prior to construction.The contractor
discrepancies to the architect.
Project Status
OPTION 1 AXON
SD-101
1
GIFT SHOP 3D
147
The Buckman Tavern
Project Name
Enter address here
architecture

preservation
Boston, MA 02114
t. 617.227.1477
f. 617.227.2654
ISSUE:
REVISIONS:
Date:
Issue Date
Scale:
Drawn By:
Author
Checked By:
Checker
Project Number:
Project Number
N1
Project Status
SITE SECTION
SD-112
Project Name
Enter address here
architecture

preservation
Boston, MA 02114
t. 617.227.1477
f. 617.227.2654
ISSUE:
REVISIONS:
Date:
Issue Date
Scale:
Drawn By:
Author
Checked By:
Checker
Project Number:
Project Nam
Project Number
Enter address here
Project Status
architecture
Unnamed
SD-113
5' - 0".
19
14' - 11 23/32"
CORRIDOR
17' - 11 3/4"
8
9
2"
/3
19
Gift Shop
1
381 SF
5' - 9".
96 SF
BATHROOM
3
ISSUE:
DN
DN
LIFT
REVISIONS:
UP
292 SF
CORRIDOR
4' - 3 3/8"
10
---
96 SF
Date:
Issue D
Scale:
Drawn By:
1/8" = 1
Au
Checked By:
Project Number:
1
preservation
22' - 3 13/16"
DN
11
EXHIBIT /
ORIENTATION
SPACE
'-

Boston, MA 02114
t. 617.227.1477
f. 617.227.2654
First Floor Annotated
1/8" = 1'-0"
Che
Project Num
Project Statu
148
LEVEL 1 PLAN
SD-106
The Buckman Tavern
Option Five: 11.11.2012
A scenario where the second floor is not accessible and no lift is provided is
examined. This scenario also retains the chimney and fireplace of the Ell, but it does
not meet the criteria for full accessibility.
Historic wall line of kitchen
could be partly retained as
interpretive element
Chimney remains
Larger vestibule at entry
32 square feet added to
interpretive space
149
The Buckman Tavern
Saltbox roof to proposed cupola
Current cupola
extends to here
Dashed outline - existing cupola
Saltbox roof
to proposed
cupola
150
The Buckman Tavern
Saltbox roof to proposed cupola
Current cupola extends to here
Mansard height
Dashed outline existing cupola
Low slope shed at
back to minimize
size of mansard
151
The Buckman Tavern
After concluding the examination of scenarios it was determined the most preferred
option was the fourth option. With some finalizing of the shape and size of the
cupola to accommodate slightly changed mechanical parameters.
152
The Buckman Tavern
REGULATORY ANALYSIS
This section of the report briefly describes the applicability of the current
building code (2009 International Existing Building Code – with Massachusetts
Amendments), architectural access regulations, and the Town of Lexington zoning
regulations. These evaluations are made with the assumption that Conceptual
Design Option Four is completed.
The main purpose of the building code is to protect public health, safety and
general welfare as they relate to the construction and occupancy of buildings
and structures. Some issues affecting the life safety of occupants are left up to
interpretation by the local building official. It is generally a good idea for owners of
historic buildings to know the local official and discuss renovation ideas with them
prior to filing for a building permit.
The improvements contemplated by the Historical Society are voluntary and are
being undertaken in an effort to improve the life safety and architectural accessibility
of the structure. To conform with the code requires a determination of the type of
building construction, dimensions of the building, assessed value of the building
and the use of the building.
Building Code Summary
The following square footages are net areas within the Buckman Tavern. The total
square footage is an important factor in evaluating compliance with building code
requirements.
SF Basement* SF Ground Floor SF Second Floor SF Attic**
N/A
2,014
1,140
922
SF TOTAL
4,076
* The basement is reserved for mechanical equipment and incidental storage.
Ceiling height is insufficient for occupancy.
** The Attic is not occupied except for the annual April 19th event. SF (allowable area)
22,500
The figure above shows the square footage that would be allowed for new
construction of a building like the Tavern assuming full sprinklering and open space
around the entire perimeter. The Tavern is well below this theoretical maximum.
Type of Construction: 5 B unprotected
This refers to a wooden building where the framing is not covered with fire resistive
materials.
153
The Buckman Tavern
Primary Use: A-3 (Museum)
The building code categorizes structures by how they are used. Use determines many
factors, primarily the measures that will be required for the life safety of the users.
A-3 refers to a building where there are groups of visitors. At the Tavern, tours and
gallery events both fall under the umbrella of assembly use.
Existing Buildings
The building code has a full volume devoted to the requirements of existing
buildings. Though there are many provisions and exceptions, all new work is
typically required to conform to the current building code. Existing conditions
outside of work areas may remain without improvement unless deemed hazardous
by the Building Inspector. Most of the renovation work in the north ell and the
connector is effectively new construction and will be carried out according to those
requirements. Much less intervention is occurring in the Post Office and Tavern and
in those locations alternatives may apply.
House Museum
Specially recognized buildings are deemed historic and the building code allows
certain exemptions. Although the term used by the code is “house museum,” a
specific use is not meant to be construed; rather, it refers to buildings designated
by the Massachusetts Historical Commission as especially historically significant.
Buckman Tavern is certified as a House Museum in the state building code. This
allows special considerations including:
•
•
•
Reconstruction without conforming to the requirements of new construction.
Exemption from energy code mandates.
Exemption from wind and seismic load requirements.
Occupant Load
The number of people in a building at any one time is calculated for building code
purposes as the maximum number of persons who could possibly be simultaneously
occupying the building. This aggregate number is used for determination of size and
number of life safety features such as exits and doorway widths.
Second floor: < 50 based on the new 36” wide stairway; without making a code
compliant stair the existing stairs could be deemed unsafe for large occupancy on
the second floor and the public gallery space might be disallowed by the building
inspector.
First floor:
= 70 ( 55 for exhibit room + 15 for staff and individual visitors to
Tavern museum rooms)
154
Attic: = 2 (one day per year)
Total: = 121 maximum
The Buckman Tavern
Though it is very unlikely the building will ever have this many occupants at one
time, designing safety features to accommodate this number ensures a level of added
safety for building users.
Full Sprinkler System
The full sprinkler system at the Tavern is an added safety feature that exceeds the
code requirement for a building of this size and occupancy. It is prudent to have
this system for protection of the historic asset and the added safety it provides for
building users. Because the building is sprinklered, no fire extinguishers are required;
this only applies because this is an historic structure.
Architectural Access
Although published separately, the accommodation of users with special needs is an
integral part of the building code.
One of the primary goals of the renovation and restoration project is to ensure the
greatest possible access to the historic and public features of the Tavern.
•
•
•
•
Improvements will provide access to both public entries.
Access to second floor public spaces.
Making the rest room accessible.
Accessible public door hardware.
Zoning
Municipalities often regulate building types and dimensions. These regulations
typically apply to specific regions of a Town or City and generally attempt to gather
compatible uses together and limit or restrict other uses altogether. At times these
zones may be layered with other guidelines or requirements. In Lexington the Tavern
is located within a residential zone and also within a Historic District.
RS One Family Dwelling is the designation for the zone where the tavern is located.
The columns below indicate the spacial and use parameters of this zoning.
Zoning Parameters
Special Permit for museums
15,500 s.f. minimum lot size
125 feet minimum lot frontage
30’ minimum front setback
15’ minimum side yard setback
15’ rear yard setback
2.5 maximum stories
40’ maximum height
Buckman Tavern
Museum use - grandfathered
116,741 s.f.
752’
40’
208’ and 50’
171’
2.5
28’-6” Menders, Torrey & Spencer, Inc. • 2013
155
The Buckman Tavern
Battle Green Historic District
Under Massachusetts’ law, the Lexington Historic Districts Commission must issue
a Certificate of Appropriateness before any external alterations visible from a public
way or place can be made to any building, structure or sign.
Proposed changes to the Tavern occur at the entries and at the north ell and involve
accessibility. The changes are relatively minor but still require a Certificate of
Appropriateness obtained through the public hearing process.
156
The Buckman Tavern
OUTLINE DRAWINGS & SPECIFICATIONS
The drawings and specifications that follow established the basis for concept
costing. There will be small modifications as the project moves into construction,
but the significant portions of the anticipated project are shown on the following
pages. Menders, Torrey & Spencer, Inc. • 2013
157
The Buckman Tavern
DASHED LINES INDICATE REMOVAL
POST
OFFICE
BATHROOM
GIFT SHOP
KITCHEN
MUSEUM
SPACE
MUSEUM
SPACE
UP
DN
MUSEUM
SPACE
1
MUSEUM
SPACE
First Floor Plan - Existing Conditions
1" = 10'-0"
CREATE CODE
COMPLIANT CORRIDOR
AT A CONTINUOUS
LEVEL HEIGHT
REMOVE LOFT ABOVE
BUILD NEW FLOOR
LEVEL W/REST OF TAVERN
GIFT SHOP
DN
CORRIDOR
CORRIDOR
ORIENTATION SPACE
DN
BATHROOM
DN
LIFT
UP
MUSEUM SPACE
MUSEUM SPACE
CORRIDOR
HANDICAP
ACCESSIBLE
WALKWAY
UP
DN
NEW EGRESS STAIR
HANDICAP LIFT
ACCESSIBLE
RESTROOM FOR CODE
COMPLIANCE
DN
MUSEUM SPACE
MUSEUM SPACE
HANDISCAP
ACCESSIBLE WALKWAY
2
First Floor Plan - Renovation
1" = 10'-0"
Buckman
Tavern

preservation
10/9
1" =
C
Project N
menders, torrey & spencer, in
architecture
Boston, MA 02114
t. 617.227.1477
f. 617.227.2654
ISSUE:
REVISIONS:
Date:
Scale:
Drawn By:
Checked By:
Project Number:
prior to construction.The contracto
FIRST FLOOR PLA
A-101
158
The Buckman Tavern
DASHED LINES
INDICATE
REMOVAL
BATHROOM
EXHIBIT SPACE
OFFICE/STORAGE
UP
DN
EXHIBIT SPACE
1
EXHIBIT SPACE
Second Floor Plan- Existing Conditions
1" = 10'-0"
EGRESS STAIR HANDICAP LIEFT
FOR CODE COMPLIANCE
DN
CORRIDOR
EXHIBIT SPACE
OFFICE
CORRIDOR
UP
NEW PARTITION
@ LOCATION OF
19TH CENTURY
PARTITION
DN
EXHIBIT SPACE
2
EXHIBIT SPACE
Second Floor Plan - Renovation
1" = 10'-0"
preservation
Buckman
Tavern

10/9/
1" = 1
A
Ch
Project Nu
architecture
Boston, MA 02114
t. 617.227.1477
f. 617.227.2654
ISSUE:
REVISIONS:
Date:
Scale:
Drawn By:
Checked By:
Project Number:
SECOND FLOOR PLA
A-102
159
160
•
•
•
•
2
NORTH ELEVATION NEW
CONSTRUCTION OPTION 2
1/8" = 1'-0"
NEW EGRESS
STAIR &
HANDICAP
LIFT CUPOLA
NORTH ELEVATION EXISITING
1/8" = 1'-0"
BEVELED SIDING.
EXPOSURE TO MATCH
EXISTING
WOOD TRIM TO MATCH
TRIM ON EXISTING
ELEVATION
WOOD SHINGLE
MANSARD
W/EXPOSURE
MATCHING EXISTING
ON TAVERN
WOOD TDL WINDOWS
W/INTERIOR STORMS
MATERIALS FOR NEW
CUPOLA:
1
REMOVE EXISTING
CUPOLA STAIR
REMOVE &
STORE WINDOW
OPENING FOR CHAIR LIFT & EGRESS STAIR
3
9' - 9".
NEW CUPOLA
PARTIAL ROOF PLAN EXISTING
1/16" = 1'-0"
PARTIAL ROOF PLAN NEW
1/16" = 1'-0"
SLOPED WALKWAY
4
EXISTING CUPOLA

Project Number
Checker
As indicated
Author
A-200
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
Project Number:
Checked By:
Scale:
Drawn By:
Date:
REVISIONS:
ISSUE:
10/9/2012
preservation
Boston, MA 02114
t. 617.227.1477
f. 617.227.2654
architecture
Buckman
Tavern
10' - 10".
The Buckman Tavern
EAST ELEVATION NEW CONSTRUCTION
OPTION 2
1/8" = 1'-0"
EAST ELEVATION EXISTING
1/8" = 1'-0"
NEW EGRESS
STAIR &
HANDICAP
LIFT FOR
CODE
COMPLIANCE
REMOVE EXISTING CUPOLA

Project Numbe
Checke
1/8" = 1'-0
Autho
Project Number:
Checked By:
Scale:
Drawn By:
Date:
REVISIONS:
ISSUE:
10/9/201
preservation
Boston, MA 02114
t. 617.227.1477
f. 617.227.2654
architecture
Buckman
Tavern
2
1
4' - 5".
6' - 9".
A-201
EXTERIOR ELEVATION
The Buckman Tavern
161
162
SOUTH ELEVATION NEW
CONSTRUCTION OPTION 2
1/8" = 1'-0"
SOUTH ELEVATION EXISTING
1/8" = 1'-0"
SLOPED HANDICAP ACCESS PATH & MOVED LANDING
FOR CODE COMPLIANCE
1' - 4".
NEW EGRESS STAIR &
HANDICAP LIFT CUPOLA
FOR CODE COMPLIANCE

Do not scale the drawings
dimensions shall be confir
prior to construction.The con
shall immediatly report a
discrepancies to the archit
Project Number:
Checked By:
Scale:
Drawn By:
Date:
REVISIONS:
ISSUE:
Proje
preserv
Boston, MA 02114
t. 617.227.1477
f. 617.227.2654
architecture
menders, torrey & spenc
2
1
Buckm
Taver
The Buckman Tavern
A-2
EXTERIOR ELEV
NEW HANDICAP LIFT & EGRESS STAIR
CUPOLA FOR CODE COMPLIANCE
WEST ELEVATION EXISTING
1/8" = 1'-0"
SLOPED HANDICAP ACCESS WALKWAY FOR CODE COMPLIANCE
SLOPED
HANDICAP
ACCESS PATH
& MOVED
LANDING FOR
CODE
COMPLIANCE

Project Numb
Check
1/8" = 1'Auth
Project Number:
Checked By:
Scale:
Drawn By:
Date:
REVISIONS:
ISSUE:
10/9/20
preservation
Boston, MA 02114
t. 617.227.1477
f. 617.227.2654
architecture
WEST ELEVATION NEW CONSTRUCTION
OPTION 2
2
1/8" = 1'-0"
1
REMOVE EXISTING CUPOLA
Buckman
Tavern
A-203
EXTERIOR ELEVATION
The Buckman Tavern
163
The Buckman Tavern
164
The Buckman Tavern
OUTLINE SPECIFICATIONS
These outline specifications are meant to capture the scope and type of work on
the project. They are not construction specifications. Those will be more detailed
descriptors of work elements and will guide contractors in the construction of the
work.
For purposes of this outline scope the one story ell on the north side of the Tavern
will be called the Ell. The Post Office and Connector are the shed-roofed hall along
the east side of the Tavern and the one-story angled projection from the southeast
corner of the Tavern. The Tavern is the two-story main block.
The Cupola is the new constructed head house for the chair lift and egress stair.
References to Munroe indicate the Munroe Tavern.
Exterior
Site work:
• Regrade at post office entry. 5% slope from Mass Avenue sidewalk, minor grading at Ell north exit.
• Added drywells, drainpipes for run-off control.
• Grub and root out foundation plantings.
• Loam and seed at former planting areas.
• Surface at sloped walk to Post Office entry to match gravel surfaced asphalt at
Munroe.
• Landings at all three exterior entries to be granite slab.
• Steps at north entry and Post Office to be granite.
Demo:
• Wood steps at west entry to Ell.
• Roofing and framing at existing kitchen of Ell at new cupola location.
• Existing cupola.
Masonry:
• Repoint foundations – entire.
Wood, Plastics, Composites:
• Repair Tavern cornice
• Modifications to Tavern cornice at new cupola attachment.
• Replace tavern entry threshold
• Miscellaneous trim repair.
• Replace damaged beveled siding ~ 200 l.f. of boards.
• Beveled siding at cupola walls.
• Flat stock and molded trim at cupola.
165
The Buckman Tavern
Thermal & Moisture Protection:
• Replace all downspouts (lead coated copper – round) and box in similar to
Munroe. Move down spout flanking Tavern door toward corners of Tavern.
Pipe to existing drywells.
• Reline tavern gutters – pitch gutters to new downspouts at entry elevation to
Tavern.
• Reline Ell gutters.
• Resolder seams on Tavern roof and dormers.
• Wash down wood shingle roofs with biocides and clean off lichen.
• Wood shingle and flat seam lead coated copperroof on new cupola.
• Wood shingle and leads coated copper flashing at Ell roof section at new cupola.
• Install copper flashing 24” high along south wall of Post Office along sloped
walkway and at new landing. Install drainage mat and protection board over
flashing. Install drainpipe pitched to new dry well.
Openings:
• Remove, reglaze, reinstall single glaze windows throughout (47), replace cotton
sash cord with new in Ell (14). Install new, interior storm windows – similar to
Munroe. Make one attic window and one second floor window operable for
Battle Green minutemen.
• Three new true divided lite fixed windows in new cupola with interior storm
windows.
• Remove, repair and reinstall Tavern door, Post Office door and north door on
Ell. Reinstall Post Office door with outward swing, new weatherstripping, closer
and new latch and lockset. Provide new door 3’-0” by 7’-0” door and frame and
hardware at Ell entry with closer – raised panel door. Weatherseal unused east
and west ell entries.
Finishes:
• Paint all exterior woodwork.
Electrical:
• 4 exterior waterproof convenience receptacles.
• Site lighting – allow for conduit for building lighting and path lighting at Ell south entry and Post Office entry.
Plumbing:
• 4 frost free hose bibs.
Interior
All Floors
General:
• Tavern is museum space with limited intervention.
• Ell and Connector floors and ceilings will be reframed.
166
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Buckman Tavern
Spray foam insulation at Ell and Connector and cupola roof framing.
Acoustic insulation at all new partitions.
Repairs to roof trusses and framing members – report from Aberjona coming.
Fire suppression (sprinkler) and detection systems on all floors (basement
through attic).
New HVAC on all floors.
New electrical wiring and service.
New emergency lighting.
New plumbing.
Basement
Demo:
• All mechanical.
• All electrical.
• All plumbing – including extant fire protection system.
• Partition around present sprinkler system.
• Partitions in stairway from gift shop into basement. Salvage for Owner window. sash in old kitchen wall, sample of shingles.
Concrete:
• Footings for support of partitions and lift shaft – see S-1.
• New slab on existing slab for mechanical equipment.
• New slab for check valves.
• Raised slab for storage enclosure – 8’x10’ location t.b.d.
Masonry:
• Repoint 10% of masonry.
Rough framing:
• 2x6 walls and PSL posts at partitions and supporting chairlift. S-1.
• Supplemental framing – allowance – confirm with Aberjona Engineering.
• New columns supporting “floating” floor at Ell.
• 2x4 stud enclosure for storage 8’x10’ location t.b.d. ½” Plywood on walls.
Openings:
• Door with storeroom latchset on enclosure for storage.
Walls:
• Whitewash perimeter stone walls.
Plumbing:
• Janitors sink with hot and cold water near Sanitary line.
• Interior hose bib near janitor’s sink.
Fire protection
• Dry pipe sprinkler distribution throughout.
167
The Buckman Tavern
HVAC:
• Forced air and hot water similar to Munroe.
• Assume new through wall venting for heating equipment.
Electrical:
• New protected porcelain fixtures – mounted to framing – with switches (10).
• Convenience receptacles. (10).
First Floor
Demo:
• Framing in floor of kitchen in Ell for new stair and lift.
• Salvage floor boards for re-use in Connector. Remove framing to allow for dropped floor.
• Loft flooring and framing above current gift shop.
• Ceiling and ceiling framing in current kitchen and Connector.
• All mechanical.
• All electrical.
• All plumbing.
• Miscellaneous wood framed partitions .
• Chimney mass at first floor – salvage wood door in mantle and fireplace hardware. Salvage for re-construction of chimney from roof line up all exterior
bricks (reconstructed chimney will be only 1 wythe thick) and supported on
framing above new restroom.
Rough framing:
• Floating floor framing at old gift shop.
• New 2x6 stud construction at stair and lift shaft
• New 2x6 stud at restroom for increased acoustic insulation
• New columns and beams.
• New partitions closet at west side of restroom.
• New ceiling framing/cross ties at rafters.
• New rafters.
• Sanded plywood treads and risers at stair up and to basement.
Openings:
• New doors and frames with new hardware – hinges, locksets by function
Flooring:
• Reinstall and re-finish salvaged wood floor at Connector.
• New wood strip – prefinished – at Ell.
• Allow $5000 for edge treatment of floating floor.
• Rubber treads at stairs.
• Restroom – Tile floor, cove base.
• Set raised nails in historic flooring in Tavern.
168
The Buckman Tavern
Walls:
• Plaster repairs at cracking – Allow
• New partitions 5/8” gypsum, skim coat plaster, finish paint.
• Repair wainscot, baseboards, chair rails, door and window trim. Painted or clear
finish.
Ceiling:
• Patch plaster cracks – Allow for 300 linear feet of cracks.
• New ½” gypsum, skim coat plaster, finish paint.
Plumbing:
• Unisex toilet – WC, sink.
Fire protection
HVAC:
Electrical:
• New distribution throughout.
• New track lighting in exhibit room.
• Refurbished wall sconce.
Second Floor
Demo:
• Restroom, carpet at second floor of Tavern.
• All mechanical
• All electrical
• All plumbing
Salvage for re-use:
• Exterior window at new stair entry.
Rough framing:
• 2x4 partition at new office space in Tavern.
• Header for entry from lift and stair.
• Landing, walls and roof for cupola.
Openings:
• New doors and frames with new hardware – hinges, lockset stairway door, office door. Stile and rail doors similar to existing interior doors.
• At second floor ball room of Tavern – replace door with hinged wall section
matching other paneled wall sections to recreate historic folding partition.
169
The Buckman Tavern
Flooring:
• Wood strip at landing of stairs.
• Set raised nails in historic flooring in Tavern.
Walls:
• Plaster repairs at removed utilities, scrape and paint with latex enamel
• Repair baseboards, chair rails, door and window trim. Painted or clear finish.
• New partitions to have skim coat and paint.
• New wood baseboard, wood casing similar to existing at new openings.
Ceiling:
• Where salvageable, patch plaster at removed lights and paint with latex enamel
• In new cupola gypsum board with skim coat plaster and paint.
Furnishing:
• Wood cabinetry and laminate countertop in kitchenette.
Plumbing:
• Kitchenette – sink. Route venting to re-use existing.
Fire protection
HVAC:
Electrical:
Attic
Demo:
• All mechanical
• All electrical
• All plumbing – including extant fire protection system
Rough framing:
• Framing for air handler pads.
Thermal protection
• Batt insulation below floor boards assumed 6”.
• Install rigid insulation on underside of roof sheathing between purlins - assume
4” insulation.
170
The Buckman Tavern
Fire protection
HVAC:
Electrical:
171
The Buckman Tavern
172
The Buckman Tavern
OPINION OF PROBABLE COST
The following cost opinion is derived from the outline specifications and outline
plans above. These documents were provided to M.J. Mawn Inc., a construction firm
familiar with the nature and peculiarities of historic buildings. Mawn also visited the
site with sub-consultants to ensure familiarity with the work and conditions.
The cost opinion is broken down into the categories of the Construction Specifications Institute.
In addition to the construction figures there is a breakdown of related costs that are
not direct contractor costs. These soft costs and the construction costs together give
the projected complete project cost.
173
The Buckman Tavern
Buckmans Tavern
Preliminary Budget Pricing
10/23/12
Buckman Tavern - Restoration and Renovation
Construction Costs
Description
Division 01 - General Requirements
General Conditions
Temporary Facilities
Site Maintenance & Protection/Clean
Supervision
Insurance
Overhead & Profit
Division 2 - Site Existing Conditions
Demolition
Amount
8,000
7,000
14,000
39,000
73,600
9,300
Miscellaneous removals for construction of
architectural access, removal of 20th century
restroom upstairs in Tavern
Division 03 - Concrete
Concrete
Concrete footings for load bearing partitions
for architectural access, pads for HVAC
equipment, raised slab for basement storage
room
Division 04 - Masonry
Masonry
26,200
Repointing rubble and granite slab foundation,
reconstruction of chimney at ell, caps for
chimneys at Tavern
Division 05 - Metals
Metals
4,400
Posts, plates and brackets for structural work
Division 06 - Woods and Plastics
Rough Carpentry
28,100
Lumber, studs, rafters and joists for
architectural access at adjusted floors, lift and
stair cupola, handicapped restroom
Finish Carpentry
Door and window casings, baseboards at
rehabilitated ell
Architectural Woodwork
11,000
17,300
7,600
Cabinetry at shop and kitchenette
Division 07 - Thermal and Moisture Protection
Insulation
14,100
Crawlspace, opened walls per code, attics
Roofing & Flashing
18,000
174
Buckmans Tavern
New accessible stair and chair lift cupola, ell
roof
Gutters & Downspouts
Repitch for proper drainage, replace split
downspouts with new
Siding & Exterior Trim
New siding to match existing at new
accessible stair and chair lift cupola, selected
replacement at modified openings for access,
repairs where required
Division 08 - Openings
Doors & Windows
New doors at accessible entry, interior
rehabilitated spaces, restore existing windows,
interior storm windows
Division 09 - Finishes
Board & Plaster/Restoration Plaster
Wall finish at rehabilitated spaces
and new partitions within the ell, restore
plaster at penetrations made for electrical and
mechanical in the historic Tavern
Flooring
New flooring in the ell, stair treads for the
accessible stair, restroom tile flooring, office
flooring
Painting, Exterior
Siding, trim, windows and doors
Painting, Interior
Siding, trim, windows and doors
Division 10 - Specialties
Bath Accessories
Grab bars, paper holders, waste receptacles
Division 11 - Equipment
Equipment
Refrigerator, etc
Division 14 -Conveying Equipment
Chair Lift
Eight foot rise, 90-degree door configured
chair lift
Division 21 -Fire Suppression
Sprinkler
Dry pipe, concealed head or sidewall mount
system
Division 22 -Plumbing
Plumbing
New accessible restroom, kitchenette sink,
janitors sin, plumbing as required
Division 23 - Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning
The Buckman Tavern
10/23/12
8,900
4,100
39,200
22,500
23,100
27,500
19,500
1,700
1,000
32,000
82,500
27,500
175
The Buckman Tavern
Buckmans Tavern
HVAC
New hydronic heating and cooling system,
duct distribution, condensers, air handlers and
controls
Division 26 - Electrical
Electrical
New distribution throughout, all new
receptacles and lighting in rehabilitated ell,
power to chair lift, power to HVAC, improved
lighting and receptacles in Tavern
Lightning Protection
Terminals at high points, grounding rods
Division 28 - Electronic Safety and Security
Fire/Security Alarms
New distribution throughout, integration with
new sprinkler system
Division 31 - Earthwork
Site work
Clearing shrubs, rough grading, trenching
Site Improvements
Paving, finish plantings and seeding
81,400
80,000
9,000
33,000
24,800
13,200
Total
Contingency
Total Direct Cost
808,500
40,425
848,925
Construction Cost by Work Goal
Percentage of Total Cost
25%
Chair lift, accessiblity stair and lift cupola,
restroom, door modifications, site grading,
walkways, etc.
Life Safety
19%
Sprinkler system, detection systems, lightning
protection
Preservation
27%
Restore windows and doors, roof repairs,
masonry repairs, paint exterior, paint interior,
plaster repair, improve site drainage
Infrastructure Rehabilitation
28%
Replace HVAC, electircal distribution,
plumbing, etc.
Total Direct Cost
Soft Costs
Description
Architecture and Engineering
176
10/23/12
100%
215,606
160,905
231,547
240,867
848,925
Amount
55,935
Buckmans Tavern
Professional services from architects,
engineers and consultants for bidding and
construction administration
Regulatory Requirements
Professional participation in Historic District
Commission hearings and Architectural
Access Board requirements
Historical Investigation
During construction: documention of revealed
historic fabric, evaluation of integrity to historic
period (1775), integration of findings into
Historic Structure Report Appendix
Historical reproduction
Replication of historic items such as wallpaper
Owners project representative
Building professional retained by Owner as
advisor and observer of the construction
process
Expenses
Printing, postage, travel aggregated for all
tasks above
Total Soft Cost
Total Project Cost
The Buckman Tavern
10/23/12
3,960
13,500
7,500
20,000
3,000
103,895
Direct cost plus soft cost
952,820
177
The Buckman Tavern
178
The Buckman Tavern
CYCLICAL MAINTENANCE PLAN
Introduction
This section of the Historic Structure Report provides an anticipated cost for
work that would be considered typical responsible exterior maintenance at the
Buckman Tavern. These simple activities, most consisting of inspection and minor
repairs performed at regular intervals, will slow deterioration and extend the life
of the already durable materials. The goal here is to recommend a limited annual
investment that will help limit the scope and cost of future repairs.
Maintenance Plan
The following maintenance plan follows an itemization of exterior features and
building systems.
The first columns on the chart describe the feature, its location, and its maintenance
cycle. The recommended tasks and procedures will not prevent wear and tear on
the building but will increase the lifespan of materials and will allow the cost to be
amortized over a longer period of time.
Perhaps the single most important maintenance activity is an annual inspection. The
building exterior should be carefully inspected from the ground, preferably by two
people and the same people each year, who document any signs of deterioration on
any portion of the envelope. When changes are noted, consultation with an architect
or engineer may be warranted. Digital photographs should be taken to accompany
the written record and stored for comparative referencing the following year.
Listed below are the column headings on the accompanying chart with a brief
explanation of their meanings.
Material
The building system is the feature or characteristic that requires a maintenance and/
or capital budgeting line item. For example, exterior brick walls comprise a building
system that requires periodic pointing of mortar joints.
Location
A brief narrative description of the element location is provided.
Scheduled Frequency, Cost, Annual Cost
The fourth, fifth, and sixth columns describe maintenance activities with intervals
and costs for the locations identified. Maintenance activities are largely housekeeping
tasks and straightforward proactive work. The frequency is in years and the
maintenance work is considered routine upkeep which might require special
attention from maintenance personnel or an outside contractor. The intervals
are suggested as the maximum span of time between maintenance activities. For
example, the wood trim should be painted every six or seven years to retard
179
The Buckman Tavern
deterioration of the wood. Note that fractional yearly frequency means more
than once a year. The cost is the estimated cost for the work based on historical
information gleaned from industry standards. The annual cost is calculated for
convenience to provide a total annual maintenance stipend for the building. This is
idealized since some activities occur more than once a year and others only once in
several years.
Comments
More detail on the building system and the maintenance work is provided. General
observations about access to work or special requirements are made here.
Annual Maintenance Total
The chart has a bottom line showing the cumulative maintenance total per year
which is approximately $4,884. This total assumes that all exterior preservation work
has been completed and applies only to the building exterior. This figure should be
applied on top of annual expenses for maintenance staff, housekeeping, consumable
replacements (light bulbs, etc.), snow removal, landscaping and interior maintenance
items. Note that this total is averaged. Depending on the frequency of individual
maintenance activities, the yearly figure may be greater or less. By budgeting the total
amount annually and setting aside as a reserve funds not expended in a particular
year, there should be sufficient funds for years when the scheduled maintenance
expenditures are higher. This total does not include reserves for capital budget items
which have been itemized under the repairs section of this report. Capital Budgeting Total
Based on the projected endurance of materials and yearly maintenance, an estimated
replacement year and cost for replacement is provided (not including inflation.) 180
Doors
Masonry
Roofing
Tavern
Basement door East
7.5
7.5
7.5
$53
$210
$105
$875
$2,240
$1,120
$28
$175
$175
$438
Cost
$7
$28
$14
$88
$224
$112
$28
$175
$175
$438
Annual Cost
Projected
endurance
25
10
40
40
Inspect, spot pointing,
assumes repaired with
CPC and maintained includes access
assumes full repointing
during CPC
Lubricate hardware, touch
up paint, check weather 15
seal at hatch.
15
up paint.
up paint - assumes
15
repaired during CPC
40
assumes repaired with
CPC and maintained includes access
Clean out, clean out drain
25
system
Clean out, check lining
Inspect seams
Inspect, replace damaged
10
shingles
Comments
2029
2029
2029
2054
2054
2054
2039
2039
2024
2024
$58
$233
$82
$766
$217
$126
$19
$280
$930
$2,420
Capital Budgeting
Sinking
Replacement
fund per
Year
annum
$875
$3,500
$1,225
$30,625
$8,680
$5,040
$476
$7,000
$9,300
$24,200
Probable Cost
Repaint, repair wood, adjust
hardware
hardware, reseal around
perimeter
hardware
Deep repointing, assumes well
maintained in meantime
Deep repointing, assumes well
maintained in meantime, includes
access
Assumes reconstruction in 2014
Assumes replaced in 2014
Assumes repaired and reworked
in 2014
Should replace with wood
shingles
Assumes cleaned with CPC and
lead anti-algea strips installed,
assumes north ell roof replaced in
2014
Comments
Wood exterior
Ell
doors
Wood entry
door
All elevations
Rubble
foundation
10.0
10.0
Tavern
Brick
Chimneys
1.0
10.0
West elevation Ell,
Tavern, Post Office
Boxed
downspouts
1.0
Brick Chimney North Ell
West elevation Ell,
Tavern, Post Office
1.0
Lead Coated
Copper
Wood gutters
1.0
Frequency in
years
Scheduled Inspection/Maintenance
Wood shingle
Maintenance and Preservation
BUCKMAN TAVERN
Material
Location
The Buckman Tavern
181
182
Wood Siding
Wood trim
Windows
Location
42 items
Window and
Door Casings
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.5
Frequency in
years
$1,667
$1,551
$1,838
$766
$74
$306
$53
Cost
$238
$222
$263
$109
$11
$44
$7
Annual Cost
Projected
endurance
2039
Painting, minor wood
repair. Consider rolling
schedule for painting and 25
repair of one elevation
every two years.
2049
2039
35
Spot painting, minor
wood repair.
2049
2049
2049
2029
$667
$621
$175
$137
$88
$875
$58
Capital Budgeting
Sinking
Replacement
fund per
Year
annum
every two years.
35
35
Spot painting, minor
wood repair.
Inspect, clean
Inspect, touch up paint,
assumes spot glazing and 35
painting done in CPC
15
up paint.
Comments
$16,669
$15,514
$6,125
$4,788
$3,063
$30,625
$875
Probable Cost
Replace siding, consider rolling
schedule for replacement and
painting.
painting.
Repaint entirely, wood repair,
damaged wood replacement.
Assumes wood stripped during
CPC - otherwise double figure
Repaint entirely, wood repair,
damaged wood replacement.
Clean, repair.
Clean, repair, reglaze, repaint.
hardware, reseal around
perimeter
Comments
East elevation
Beveled siding South elevation
All elevations
24 units north, east
and west elevations
Wood storms
(interior)
Soffits,
cornerboards
water table.
35 units north, east,
west and south
elevations
Historic DH
and fixed
Wood exterior
Post Office
door
Material
The Buckman Tavern
183
SYSTEMS
First and second floors
Wood floors
Interior Wood
All floors
Doors
Basement mechanical
Concrete floor spaces and archive
space
7.0
Interior walls and
ceilings first and
second floor
Plaster
3.0
10.0
5.0
3.5
4.0
First and second floor
rooms and stairway
sloped walkways
7.0
North elevation and
dormers
Painted wood
trim museum
rooms
Paved
walkways
7.0
Frequency in
years
$315
$252
$1,063
$1,313
$525
$328
$1,181
$1,667
Cost
$105
$25
$213
$188
$150
$82
$169
$238
Annual Cost
West elevation
Location
15
up paint/finish
Reseal
$405
$420
$800
$919
$338
$476
2027
$175
NO REPLACEMENT
2027
Re-oil with linseed oil at
clear finish, touch up
15
paint at painted - assumes
work done in 2014
2027
2037
15
25
Patch minor cracks.
Assumes work done in
2014.
Touch up for protection
of underlying wood at
high traffic areas
2024
2049
every two years.
Inspect annually, work in
10
new gravel
2049
Projected
endurance
Capital Budgeting
Sinking
Replacement
fund per
Year
annum
every two years.
Comments
$2,625
$6,075
$10,500
$12,000
$9,188
$11,813
$16,669
Probable Cost
hardware
strip, clean and reseal
Strip and refinish
Readhere loose sections
Assumes first repainting, after
this the interval will be closer to
25 years.
Strip and renew gravel
painting.
painting.
Comments
Doors
Finishes
INTERIOR
Site work
Material
The Buckman Tavern
184
Plumbing
HVAC
Electrical
Handicap restroom
Secon floor
Lavatory
Kitchenette
sink
Piping
Handicap restroom
Condensers, Air
Handlers
Cooling
Water closets
Boiler
Building wide
Location
Heating
Wiring
Material
10.0
10.0
10.0
6.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
$219
$258
$258
$88
$163
$203
$284
Cost
$22
$26
$26
$15
$163
$203
$284
Annual Cost
Frequency in
years
Inspect fittings and
resolder/repair
Check valves, sensors,
washers, etc.
Check valves, washers,
etc.
Service tanks, valves
Check ducts and piping,
filters, fans.
Check lines and piping,
pumps, burner
Test breakers, GFI
outlets, replace lights
interior/exterior, etc.
Comments
30
30
30
25
25
35
40
Projected
endurance
2042
2042
2042
2037
2037
2047
2052
$88
$15
$6
$16
$1,463
$580
$2,133
Capital Budgeting
Sinking
fund per
annum
Replacement
Year
$2,625
$438
$193
$394
$36,563
$20,313
$85,313
Probable Cost
Replace plumbing distribution
Replace sink and faucet
Replace lavatory
Replace with more efficient units
Replace condensers and fan coils
with more efficient units
Replace boiler and oil tank assumes tank replaced in 2014
Assumes full system replacement
done in 2014- switches and
wiring.
Comments
The Buckman Tavern
Tele/Data
Chair Lift
Detection Fire and
Intrusion
Annual Maintenance Total
Tel/Data
Vertical
circulation
Fire
Protection
8.0
1.0
0.5
10.0
Water meter
Frequency in
years
$284
$439
$5
$263
$284
Cost
$4,884
$36
$439
$11
$26
$284
Annual Cost
1.0
Location
Sprinkler
piping
Material
30
50
Repair wires, add lines.
Annual inspection
30
30
975
Projected
endurance
Check lights, alarms,
annunciators, signals and 30
detectors.
Inspect
Annual inspection
Comments
2042
2042
2042
2042
2062
$17,940
$190
$1,167
$73
$18
$910
Capital Budgeting
Sinking
Replacement
fund per
Year
annum
$5,688
$35,000
$2,176
$525
$45,500
Probable Cost
Replacing phone wiring/data
cables
Replace lift mechanism
Replace detector components for
fire, heat, and intrusion systems.
Replace panels.
Replace water meter
Replace valves, pump, sprinkler
heads. Assumes pipe still good.
Comments
The Buckman Tavern
185
The Buckman Tavern
186
The Buckman Tavern
APPENDIX:
187
The Buckman Tavern
Buckman Tavern Paint & Woodwork Dating Report - 2/4/13
Page 1
Southwest Parlor Paint & Woodwork
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Wood Substrate
1: Cross section of paint sample from summer beam of SW parlor with numbers assigned to successive paint generations. Photo at left is in visible light, right photo is in ultra-violet (UV) light.
SW Parlor Paint - Introduction
The earlier paint layers in the SW parlor are light tans or beige that all very similar. They are typically are
composed of a somewhat granular base layer that may be a primer that grades into a smoother top layer
that is the finish paint. Thin dark lines of dirt and/or yellowed oil on top of a layer usually indicate it was a
finish coat and provide the basis for dividing the layers into distinct “generations” of paint (i.e., a sequence
of layers consisting of primers topped by a finish layer, although in some cases there is only a finish layer).
A tendency to split or delaminate between layers also usually indicates a demarcation between generations
of paint. These markers are not always present in the samples, making it difficult to clearly distinguish between the generations of similarly colored light tan paint that were used in the 18th and early 19th century
in the SW parlor. Unless there are obvious deposits of dirt in the wood substrate under the initial layer
of paint, it is difficult to determine if woodwork remained unpainted for a number of years before it was
painted.
The summer beam provides the most complete sequence of paint layers in the room. Its paint generations have been assigned numbers which are used throughout the following discussion to place the paint
finishes on other elements in relation to the full sequence of finishes on the summer beam (see illustration
above).
The layers in the paint samples from the SW Parlor summer beam provide several clear visual benchmarks
for assigning relative dates to the other woodwork elements. Generation #3 has a distinct yellowish cast
in visible light and becomes a light brown under UV light that is unique in relation to all the other paint
layers. Generation #6 is a stark white in visible light and has a slight bluish cast in UV light. The appearance of generation #7 varies in visible light from sample to sample from off-white to a translucent grey
green, but in UV light it becomes bright blue a sparkling quality. This is a marker for zinc white pigment
in the paint, a pigment that did not come into commercial use until the mid-1840s.The absence of generations #6 and #7 on woodwork that was covered with wallpaper in the late 19th century dates these layers to
between c. 1850 and c. 1900.
Summer Beam - c. 1730, first paint probably by mid-18th century or earlier
The uncased summer beam is obviously original to the c. 1730 construction of the SW parlor, and its paint
layers include the earliest painted finishes in the room. Its wood pores are somewhat dark adjacent to the
first paint layer suggesting that it may have received a coat of oil as a sealer, or possibly was unpainted for
Finch & Rose Paint & Woodwork Dating Report , Buckman Tavern - March 14, 2013
Page 2
number of years. As the paint sequence on the early 19th century mantel indicates it was probably installed
when generation #3 was already present on the wood work, generations #1 and #2 both likely date to the
18th century. If one assumes that #1 was applied by 1740, #2 was likely applied c. 1760 when the NW Parlor was added behind the SW parlor and probably remained in place as the finish woodwork in 1775.
Girts and Posts - c. 1730, first paint probably by mid-18th century or earlier
The cased girts have the same paint sequence of early paint generations as the uncased summer beam.
Whether they were initially uncased is not clear, but certainly they were cased by the time the first paint
treatment was applied to the woodwork of this room. The posts were examined in situ without removing
samples. The casing on the southeast corner post is modern along with the thick board next to it on the
east wall, probably due to the repairs in the 1970s.
3
2: Cross section of paint sample from south girt casing in SW parlor. Arrows indicate paint generation #3. The
demarcation between generation #2 and #3 is less clear on this and the paneling samples than on the summer beam
Paneling - East Wall - mid-18th century or possibly c. 1730
Generation #3 is clearly present on the paneling on the east wall to the right of the fireplace, indicating that
was not reused material added in the 1921 restoration. The initial generation of paint on the paneling is
clearly separated from next layer of paint by a heavy dirt layer, but the lack of a clear demarcation between
the next layer and the obvious yellowish tan marking generation #3 makes it unclear whether the first
layer corresponds to generation #1 or generation #2 on the summer beam. This ambiguity is underscored
by generation #1 appearing slightly darker in UV light than generation #2 on the summer beam and girt
samples, while it remains light in the samples form the paneling. However one interprets this evidence, it is
clear that the paneling was installed in the 18th century and almost certainly prior to 1775.
The paneling lacks generations #6 and #7, as it was covered with wallpaper when these paint generations
were applied to summer beam, girts, and other woodwork that remained painted during the second half
of the 19th century. The wallpaper was probably applied directly over the paneling with out adding lath
and plaster (except perhaps a plaster fill to level the panel bevels). Otherwise the depth of the reveal at the
returns of the mantel visible in the late 19th century photo would be much less than they are currently.
Lumps of paint about 6” above floor indicate that a mopboard was applied across the base of the paneling
when the Victorian wallpaper was installed.
There are two distinct generations of dark red paint present on the lower 6” of the paneling. Their appearance in UV light suggests the treatments were graining rather than a uniform dark red. The earliest treatment follows the first generation of paint on the paneling (i.e., generation #1 or #2 on the summerbeam).
The next generation of graining follows a generation of light tan, and includes an off-white ground under
the red layers. As generation #3 with its distinct appearance in UV light is not present on samples for this
area, this graining probably corresponds to generation #3.
Page 3
3
3: Cross section of paint sample from stile of paneling in SW parlor. Arrows indicate paint generation #3.
4: Cross section of paint sample from bottom rail of paneling in SW parlor.
Door Frame to Entry Hall - mid-18th century or possibly c. 1730, altered c. 1860
The architrave molding on the door frame to the front entry hall shares the same early paint sequence as
the adjacent paneling, and was probably installed at the same time as the paneling in the 18th century. As
it was not covered by wallpaper in the late 19th century, its paint sequence include generations #6, and #7.
The door frame has several curious details that suggest it was altered during the mid-19th century. First,
there is a horizontal thumbnail molding at the base of the top rail of the door frame (the rail is part of the
wall paneling). The thumbnail molding is barely visible just above the top edge of the architrave molding.
The architrave molding terminates on a plinth block at the bottom of the door frame. The plinth blocks
lack the early paint layers that are present on the architrave, indicating they were probably added in the
first half of the nineteenth century (cross section samples were not taken from the plinth blocks, but the
lack of the red graining on them indicates they were added sometime after paint generation #3). Curiously, the bottom couple of inches of the architrave moldings has the same red graining as the adjacent
paneling, with the top edge of the graining being several inches higher than on the paneling.
A plausible explanation for this is that the original 18th century door was shorter than the current door
(probably by the height of the plinth), with the wider space above the door frame being filled in with a narrow horizontal panel. To accommodate a higher door (probably the c. 1860 door described by Griffing in
Page 4
1914 removed in the 1921 restoration), the panel was removed, the architrave moldings moved up higher
, and the plinth blocks added to fill in at the bottom of the opening. The current door is about 6’ 7” in
height, which is high for a typical mid-18th century door. The door frame on the entry side does not show
evidence of a height change, but likely dates from the early nineteenth century when were made changes
to the staircase.
3
5: Cross section of paint from architrave on door frame to entry in SW parlor. Arrows indicate paint generation #3.
Window Casings - mid-18th century or possibly c. 1730
The paint sequence on the molded window casings corresponds to the sequence on the paneling, except
for the period when the paneling was covered with wallpaper. All the samples taken from the casings
tended to delaminate with their earliest layers being less clear than on other woodwork, but the similarity
to the paneling sequence was still apparent. A raised paint line across the bottom of side casings indicated
that the Victorian wallpaper covered the bottom the molded casing at the bottom of the window opening.
3
6: Cross section of paint from architrave on door frame to entry in SW parlor. Arrows indicate paint generation #3.
Wainscot - 1794 to c. 1805
The first paint generation on the plain board wainscot on the south, west, and the westerly portion of the
north walls corresponds to generation #3 on the summer beam (the layer that appears light brown in UV
light). The finish layer of generation #3 is preceded by an distinctly off-white primer that is embedded in
the pores of the wood. As plain wainscots like this are distinctly Federal period in character, it, along with
the generation #3 paint probably date to initial remodeling efforts by the Meriam family after they acquired the property. Perhaps the drapery paper found under the c. 1819 paper was installed at this time.
The chair rail on the wainscot dates to the 1921 restoration, as its initial paint corresponds to generation
#8 on the summer beam. The section of wainscot and mopboard on the north wall from the door to the
northeast corner post also dates to the 1921 restoration.
Page 5
3
7: Cross section of paint from wainscot in SW parlor. Arrows indicate paint generation #3.
Mop Board - Early 19th century
The first generation of paint on the mopboard is a dark red similar to the later generation of graining on
the lower 6” of the paneling. As the layer (#3) that appears as light brown in UV light is not present on the
mop board and the mop board was installed to finish off the base of the wainscot, the dark red likely was
painted at the same time that #3 was painted on the wainscot. The next generation on the mopboard is a
darker tan than #4 on the wainscot, but may have been chosen to show less dirt than the lighter tan on the
wainscot. As the wainscot was not covered with the Victorian wallpaper, it includes layers #6 and #7.
8: Cross section of paint from wainscot mopboard in SW parlor.
Fireplace Mantel - C. 1815-20s
The first generation of paint on the mantel is a light tan with a granular texture similar to the early tans
seen on other woodwork. Counting back from generation #6 (white), the first generation on the mantel
aligns with #3 on other woodwork, but does not appear light brown under UV light and also lacks the
smooth yellowish appearance in visible light of #3. If it was installed at the same time the wainscot was
installed, one would expect it to be painted with generation #3 like the wainscot, or possibly marbelized or
painted black as was often done with mantels. This suggests the mantel was installed sometime after generation #3 was applied to the other woodwork, but before generation #4. It was painted to visually match
the light tan of generation #3 that was the visible paint on adjacent woodwork, but used a new batch of
Page 6
paint that did not have the component in generation #3 that causes it fluoresce light brown in UV light. For
reference purposes this generation is designated #3A. Perhaps the c. 1819 blue wallpaper was also installed
over the earlier drapery paper at this time.
3A
9: Cross section of paint from architrave molding of mantel in SW parlor. Arrows indicate paint generation #3A.
The mantel shelf was apparently removed during the 1921 restoration to work on the fireplace. When it was reinstalled it was
slightly offset from its previous position as evidenced by a 1/4”
wide paint shadow on the right side of the mantel where it covered the woodwork before it was removed and reapplied in 1921
(arrows in photo at left). A paint sample taken from the paint
shadow that was originally covered by the mantel revealed that
Generation #3 had been applied prior to the installation of the
mantel, confirming that the mantel was installed a few years after
the wainscot was installed.
8
3
10: Cross section of paint from the paint shadow marked by the left hand arrow in the photo above showing generation #3 at the top of the area that was covered by the mantel when it was originally installed in the 19th century. #3 is
directly under generation #8 that was applied c. 1921 when the mantel shelf was reinstalled in a slightly different position. The brownish color of that layer in UV light confirms that the layer is #3. The dark lines that divide the lower
portion of the bottom layer are the walls of wood cells rather than separate paint layers.
Paint samples from the mantel shelf and the top of the plinth blocks at the base of the architrave moldings
presented some variations from the samples taken from the architrave. The first two generations on the top
was a red graining similar to the mop boards, and the third generation was somewhat different graining.
The graining lapped over onto the top of the molding that covers the face edge of the mantel board. This
verifies that the board forming the shelf was not a piece of wood from anther location reused to make up the
shelf. The explanation may be that the top of the shelf was painted to match the grained panels on the doors,
and was repainted more frequently than other woodwork because it got damaged from objects placed on it.
The first generation(s?) on the underside of the shelf are a deeper tan than others and also appear darker in
UV light.
Page 7
11: Cross section of paint from top of mantel shelf in SW parlor showing several layers of graining indicated by arrows.
A sample from the top of a plinth block at the base of the mantel architrave moldings had a layer of white
with a lot of dirt on top of it under generation #3A. Perhaps the blocks were reused from a previous fireplace surround at this location.
Fireplace Masonry - C. 1921 rebuilding of c. 1820s fireplace
The current exposed masonry is a c. 1921 partial rebuilding of the c. 1820s firebox. The square hearth
brick are set in cement from the 1921 restoration. Portions of the back and south side wall of the original
18th century firebox remain in place behind the current firebox. The current north wall consists of modern (i.e., c. 1921?) cement parging over a bulge that may be the back of a previous bake oven serving the
old NE kitchen. The current configuration of the NE kitchen fireplace and oven is of a type that usually
dates to between c. 1780 and c. 1810, but this one may be early as c. 1760. The bulge that intrudes into the
left side of the parlor closet appears to be the back end of the current kitchen fireplace.
12: Looking down into
early firebox behind the
current fireplace. The
lower 4 courses of brick
appear to be undisturbed
early bricks. The section
marked with the white
double arrow is set back
slightly from the section
marked with the black
double arrow. It may
be the original central
smoke channel for the
fireplace.
13: Looking up into flue of parlor fireplace that
rises above the early firebox.
14: Looking across smoke
shelf of current fireplace into
early firebox. Black arrow
points to left jamb of current
fireplace, white arrow indicates current smoke shelf that
appears to have been rebuilt
c. 1921. Red arrow marks the
left side of the early firebox
that appears to have been
reworked and parged with
cement mortar in c. 1921.
Page 8
Door to Closet - C. 1820s
The later paint on this door matches generations #6-#10, but the earlier generations are distinctly different
from the other woodwork. The initial paint on the panels is a thick buildup of several light tan layers that
do not show obvious separation lines or dirt between them making it difficult to determine if there are
two generations or an unusually thick buildup of primers for a single generation. This is followed by a thin
dark layer that UV light reveals to be graining. Assuming there are two generations, the initial generation
is #3A matching the mantel, and the second is the ground for the dark layer of graining. The sample from
the bottom rail of the door shows an initial thin layer of dark red followed by a light tan and then more
graining. The generation following the graining is a thick light tan having a smooth texture and small visible bits of red and yellow pigment. As it fluoresces a sparkling blue is based on zinc white rather than lead
white and is not earlier than the mid-1840s. In sequence this would appear to correspond to generation #5,
but is unlike the #5 that appears on all the other woodwork and is therefore designated #5A. The graining is probably the old, crackled orange to red graining that Stetson Griffing describes being on the parlor
doors about 1860. While the other doors were replaced at that time, the closet door was left in place and
was probably repainted with #5A.
5A
3A
15: Cross section of paint from lower panel of 2 panel door to closet next to fireplace SW parlor showing graining
indicated by white arrows.
Stiles and Top Rail Framing Closet Door - C. 1820s or 30s, altered c. 1921
Based on their paint these boards appear to date to generation #4 as there are only two generations of light
tans before they were covered over with Victorian wallpaper. This is curious, as both the mantel and closet
door appear to have been installed prior to paint generation #4 (i.e., generation #3A). The top rail and the
portion of the stile above the mantel shelf have a distinct paint shadow several inches wide that defines an
area that was not painted until the 1921 restoration. This is likely an area that was covered by the architrave
molding forming the casing for the closet door prior to 1921. The left hand stile above the door does not
align with the door frame below it. Probably this woodwork was removed during the 1921 restoration and
reinstalled several inches to the right of its original position. Millar’s 1916 elevation of this wall shows the
right hand stile being much wider than it is currently is. Perhaps the wood was damaged and/or had to be
radically altered to fit the new panel that was installed above the mantel in 1921.
Page 9
17: Paint samples taken from of stile marked with the red circle
in photo at left.
16: Stile between panel above fireplace and door
to closet. Red line indicates width of area that did
not receive any paint until c. 1921. Black arrows
indicate the paint shadows marking edges of area
that was unpainted until c. 1921.
Door opening to Northwest Room - altered C. 1860s - 80s
This door opening was probably widened and increased on height between c. 1860 and c. 1880s and its
18th century door discarded. The late 19th century photo shows it with a portier instead of the door.
Cracks in the wall plaster above the opening indicate its original width, as does a added section of band
molding at the head of the door in the northwest parlor.
Architrave Moldings and Plinths on Door openings to Closet and Northwest Room - C. 1921
These moldings and plinths date to the 1921 restoration. They are copies of the architrave moldings on the
door to the front entry. The moldings drawn by Millar in 1916 are slightly different (a cove and bead) and
were apparently discarded as being Victorian.
Chair Rail over Wainscot - C. 1921
The chair rails above the board wainscot on the south, west, and north date to the 1921 restoration based
on their paint and statements by Willard and Brown.
Door to Front Entry - C. 1921
The current 6 panel door was installed in 1921 to replace a Victorian door. Its paint sequence starts with
generation #8 (1921). As noted in the section on the door frame casings, the original Gerogian door was
probably several inches shorter. One would think it was a 4 panel door to match the adjacent paneling layout, but the presence of two 6 panel doors dating to the 18th century in the tap room chamber makes this
unclear (the paint buildup on these other doors was checked in-situ and indicated they are probably original to that chamber. Any paneling in that room was replaced by the current Federal period woodwork.
18: Top of frame of door to
entry. Black arrow points to the
thumbnail molding for a former
narrow horizontal panel above
the original door.
Page 10
Panel over Fireplace Mantle - C. 1921
The large single panel along with the horizontal rails above and below it down to the top of the mantel shelf
were installed in the c. 1921 restoration to replace the flat plaster and related woodwork that are shown in
Millar’s 1916 drawing. The stile that frames the right side of the panel is original of the 18th century paneling to the right of the fireplace, but the thumbnail molding that receives the panel was added c. 1921. The
stile framing the left side of the panel dates to c. 1820s-30s (see section above) but was altered and repositioned in 1921 with a new thumbnail molding to receive the panel.
19: Sample from panel above fireplace. The first layer (off-white) is from the c. 1921 restoration.
Bed Moldings under the East Chinney Girt - C. 1921
The current bedmolding consists of large crown molding with a bed molding beneath it. These were installed in 1921, as neither element has paint earlier the 1921 restoration. No bedmolding is present in the
late 19th century photo. Millar includes an double ogee crown molding under the chimney girt in his 1916
drawing that probably reflects his conjectural view of the 1775 appearance rather than an actual molding.
The current moldings should be removed and underside of the girt and top rail of the paneling examined to
determine if there is paint evidence for an 18th century bed molding in this location. Whether the current
moldings were installed as a restoration or to conceal damage to the top rail of the paneling is not known.
Bed Moldings Under South, West, and North Girts (not present) - C. 1860s, removed c. 1921
Bed moldings under these girts are visible in the late 19th century photo and are shown in Millar’s 1916
drawing. There is an obvious paint line on the underside of the girts and front casing of the chimney girt
and the that outlines the placement of the bed molding. Paint samples from both sides of the paint line
indicate that the moldings were not installed until the Victorian wallpaper was installed (paint generations
#6 and #7 are missing in the area occupied y the bed molding, but #1-#5 are present). The description of
Brown and Willard of finding strips of early wallpaper on the plaster that was covered by the bed moldings
further confirms their late date. Their description seems to indicate that a narrow strip of the blue federal
period paper was directly under the molding with another beneath it. Therefore, the blue Federal paper was
probably on the walls from its installation c. 1820s until sometime after c. 1860.
Crown Moldings on all Girts and the Summer Beam (not currently present) - mid-18th century or possibly c. 1730, removed c. 1921
Both the late 19th century photograph and Millar’s 1816 drawing show crown moldings at the top of all
girts and both sides of the summer beam. There is an obvious paint line on the face of the girts and summer beam that outlines the placement of the crown moldings molding. Paint samples from both sides of
the paint line indicate that the moldings are original to the first 18th century generation of paint on these
elements (the first paint generation in the areas covered by the crown moldings is #8 from c. 1921). Comparison of the exposed height of the girts in the late 19th century photograph as well as the Millar drawings
with their current exposed height indicates that the current ceiling plaster is about an inch lower than at
that time. This is further confirmed by the 1”± height of the ceiling above the paint line from the lower edge
of the crown molding, as compared to the 2 1/2” height of the crown molding on Millar’s drawing. Although the current ceiling plaster looks old and lumpy with the apparent lines of the wood lath telescoping
through it, the ceiling must have been lowered in the 1921 work, perhaps to accomodate structural repairs
the framing above it.
Page 11
Entry Paint &Woodwork Dating Report - Draft - 1-2-12
Entry Paint - Introduction
Paint samples taken from the first floor portion of the staircase indicate that most of its components
were constructed at the time when the current square stair balusters were installed. Assuming the square
balusters date to the Federal period, the entire first floor portion of the staircase including its stringers and
board sheathing date to that period. This lends some credence to the statement of Brown that the direction
of the staircase was reversed when the square balusters were installed, although we saw no specific evidence for its direction being changed. The early layers on the samples were very similar light greyish tans,
making it was difficult to correlate the paint sequence between some of the samples. However, the samples
from the front the square balusters and the stringer had clear correlation and make it clear that the square
balusters did not simply replace the turned ones that remain at the second floor level while leaving the
rest of the 18th century stair case unchanged. In situ sampling revealed that the SW cornerpost casing is
modern, as is the molded cap on top of the west girt. The c. 1890 photo of the stairs shows a post or vertical board in the NW corner of the first stair landing that is no longer present. Likewise the molding on the
mopboard below the stair was removed in 1921.
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
3
4
2
1
Wood Substrate
20: Cross section of paint sample from first floor stair baluster with numbers assigned to successive paint generations.
Photo at left is in visible light, right photo is in ultra-violet (UV) light.
#11 - Current finish, applied in 1994
#10 - Applied in 1974
#9 - c. 1921 restoration treatment
11
#8 - Late 19th century paint contain10
ing zinc oxide pigment - wall9
paper covered adjacent wood
8
sheathing
7
#7 - Late 19th century paint containing zinc oxide pigment - wall6
paper covered adjacent wood
5
sheathing
4
#6
Mid
19th century
3
#5
Mid
19th century - layer is dis2
tinctively whiter than the layers
1
preceeding it - #4 may be prime
for this layer
#4
Slightly
more yellowish than the
Wood Substrate
layers preceeding it
21: Cross section of paint sample from the top surface of the stringer with dirt
#3 - light greyish tan C. 1830s?
clearly separating the early paint generations from each other. #4 and #5 may
#2 - light greyish tan C. 1820?
be the prime and finish of a single generation, as there is minimal separation
#1 - C. 1800 - first finish paint on
between them in UV light.
square balusters - light greyish tan
Page 12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
3
4
2
1?
Wood Substrate
22: Cross section of paint sample from the face of the stair stringer. The paint is clearly identical from the current generation down to generation #7 with the baluster paint. Below that the
alignment with the baluster paint is less clear and one or two generations may be missing. The
number of layers below #7 is certainly not greater than on the baluster, suggesting the stringer
and baluster were installed at the same time c. 1800.
4
23: Cross section of paint sample from the vertical board sheathing below the stair stringer. The sample appears
somewhat jumbled and is missing a number of layers. Some of the missing layers are because the sheathing was covered with wallpaper during the late 19th century, but the 1921 restoration treatment also appears to be missing, perhaps because it was covered with the “Cervera” wallpaper in the 1921 restoration discussed below. The layer marked
with the arrow has a yellowish quality similar to #4 on the other samples. Although not conclusive, the sample
suggests the sheathing is no older than the c. 1800 stair balusters and may be later. Society records identify wallpaper
fragments found other the mopboard molding below the stair as a French paper commemorating a manned balloon flight of 1783 (the “Cervera” wallpaper). As it was thought to be a late 18th or early 19th century paper it was
reproduced and installed in the entry in the 1921 restoration. On reviewing the photos of the wallpaper fragments,
Richard Nylander commented that they are from an 1845 or 1860 version of the paper. They were probably the initial
wallpaper treatment on the sheathing, preceeding the paper that is present in the c. 1890 photograph of the entry.
Samples taken from the board sheathing under the west girt, and from the face of the west girt are also difficult to
interpret as their paint sequence is interrupted by periods when these elements were covered with wallpaper.
A cross section of the paint from the board sheathing on the west wall had a similar sequence of off-white layers with
no more than 5 generations prior to the 1921 restoration paint.
Page 13
24: Overview of 2nd floor stair hall showing differences between
first and second floor stair detailing. The stringer and handrail
for the section rising to the attic have entirely different molding
profiles from the first floor stringer and handrail. The cut in the
stringer molding at the arrow does not align with newel for the first
floor stair and may relate to newel of the previous 1st floor stair.
The section of the stair to the attic was probably not built until the
current roof was constructed c. 1760 to replace the original lower
gable roof, as the headroom at the top of the stairs would have
required people to stoop under the roof framing. The earliest paint
in the second floor stair hall woodwork was a red that shows up
as fragmentary patches on various elements including the turned
balusters. The wood substrate at the samples of early woodwork
without red tended to have a blotchy brownish surface suggesting
either an oiled surface or oxidation from being exposed without
paint for a number of years. The lack of red in many places could
also be the result of the paint wearing off or being scraped off for
later treatments (At some elements one sample showed the red,
while another an inch away did not). The only cross section sample
was from the base of a turned baluster on the attic run. Samples
taken from other elements fell apart. However, in situ samples
were done on a number of elements. These were examined with a
10X “Dermlite” with cross-polarized LED lighting (which tends to
increases the contrast between layers and brighten some pigments).
The first layer above the red )or above the wood substrate where
red was not present) was a very light grey that looked blueish under
the Dermlite. This was followed by a very few off-whites and light
greys, the total number of generations being substantially less
than on the first floor balusters and stringer. In situ paint sampling
revealed fragments of an early red paint treatment at the locations
marked with red circles. The white circles mark samples where the red was not found. The door to the attic is later
than the stair (early 19th century?). The infill panel marked with the yellow circle is modern. The handrails show
multiple generations of reddish mahoganizing. The initial paint on the risers of the attic stairs is the same yellow
ochre as on the floor. The window casing in the south wall is late 19th century. See next page for paint details at large
red circle.
25: Cross section of paint sample from a turned baluster on the stairs leading to the attic. The sample shows far fewer
generations of paint than the square balusters and other woodwork at the first floor stair with only the 20th century
layers having any correlation with the first floor. Traces of red on top of the wood substrate indicate that the balusters
were initially finished with a thin red paint. The irregular fracture line just above the red layer may indicate some
layers are missing, or that red was not repainted for many years resulting in a poor bond with the next layer. The red
is consistent with the red on the interior side of the original front door, but the sample provides no other evidence
that similar turned balusters were originally used at the first floor stair. The cause of the blue florescence on the wood
substrate in UV light is not known. The turned balusters ... from the attic stringer.
Page 14
8
7
26: Detail of west wall of 2nd floor stair hall at door to SW
parlor chamber. Black arrows point to where horizontal beaded
boards have been shaved back, probably to install the door
casing/jamb c. 1730. Originally they probably extended to the
front wall. Red arrow points to evidence that the height of the
door frame may have been increased. The molding on the casing is from the mid-19th century period. In situ paint sampling
revealed fragments of an early red paint treatment similar to the
turned balusters were at the locations marked with red circles.
The white circles mark samples where the red was not found.
As the red was on portions of the door jamb, it was used after
c. 1730 (but possibly earlier on the boarding). The lack of red in
many places may be the result of the paint wearing off or being
scraped off for later treatments. The 4”± thickness of this wall
is somewhat of mystery - it may contain studs from the west
exterior wall of the original c. 1710 construction, but it seems
to align more with posts of the c. 1730 addition than the c. 1710
frame. A pin in the first floor west girt of the entry suggests
there was once a rising brace at the corner. The second floor
girt above board sheathing does not show any evidence of stud
pockets of pins for studs within the wall, but should be examined more closely.
27 & 28: Cross sections of paint
samples from a riser of the first floor
stair (top pair), and a second floor
landing floor board (bottom pair - the
sample is split). The arrows on the
riser sample indicate paint generations that match #8 and #7 on the
baluster dating from the late 19th
century. Counting back from #7 to
the wood substrate there are one or
possibly two more generations than
on the baluster and stringer samples.
However, as stairs are subject to heavy
wear, the extra layers may be due to
more frequent repainting and do not
clearly indicate the treads and risers
are older than the balusters. There
are four generations of yellow ochre
on the riser. The sample from the
tread was similar, and neither sample
showed any staining of the surface
of the wood substrate that would
indicate the surface was initially unpainted. The floor board from the 2nd
floor landing has at least 3 generations
of the same yellow ochre as its early
paint treatments, but did show dark
staining of the substrate that may
indicate the floor was unpainted for
some years prior to the application
of yellow ochre. This was a common
color for painting floors.
Page 15
29: Cross section of paint sample from front face of first floor newel post. The sample is missing its top layer, which is
the current grey. UV light shows that the top red layers are three separate generations of graining (probably mahoganizing), with the lower one probably being the dark finish visible in the c. 1890 photograph. The bottom dark brown
and red are probably similar graining, and were followed by a very dark green. The blue in the wood pores of the substrate in the UV photo may indicate the newel was treated with a clear sealer prior to graining. It is difficult to correlate the middle layers of off-whites and light greys with the somewhat similar layers on the balusters and stringer,
but the overall number of paint generations does not suggest that the newel dates back to the 18th century. In situ
samples showed that the late 19th century dark graining was only applied to the front face of the newel, the rest being
painted to match the stringer. The early graining was applied to all sides of the newels. In situ sampling of the top of
the handrail revealed multiple layers of mahoganizing.
29: Cross section of paint sample from front face of second floor newel post. The sample is split. UV light shows that
the top black layers are three separate generations. The reds below the first black correlate with the reds in the first
floor newel sample. The layers below that indicate the second floor newel was painted less frequently than the first
floor and that it lacks the early graining. That the sample does not show the initial red that is on the turned balusters
may be another case where the first generation of paint wore off.
Page 16
Tap Room Paint
No cross section paint samples were taken in the Tap Room, but some limited in situ sampling was done at
the windows and doors. The two panel doors and their casings and related woodwork to the left of the fireplace are clearly reproductions installed in the 1921 restoration. The board sheathing adjacent to the doors
and on the return to the fireplace wall are old, but whether the sheathing is made up of reused old boards
or is mostly early material that was preserved behind the 19th century plaster and wainscot is difficult to
determine and deserves further examination. The surfaces facing the tap room are beat up but have fragments of old paint on them that includes a dark green. Could this green be related to the dark green found
on the bar post in the 1921 restoration? The surfaces facing into the under-stair closet are unpainted with a
dark oxidized surface. The back side of the sheathing board between the two doors is exposed and painted
in the entry. In situ sampling revealed a layer of dark paint under a few off-white layers. The dark paint is
not present on the sheathing below the stair stringer (which probably dates to the early 19th century).
The six panel door to the old kitchen is made up of an old reused door on the tap room side with new
woodwork added to its kitchen side to make a 1 1/4” thick door. As the late 19th century photograph
of this room shows a Victorian 2 panel door in this location, the current door was created in the 1921
restoration reusing an old six panel door that may have probably came from another building. The paint
shadows of former casings around the door opening that are visible in the c. 1925 photo of the room
indicate that the height of the opening was raised an inch or two, probably to accommodate the Victorian
door. The plain board casing on the kitchen side is also c. 1921. The door to the post office also appears to
be modern perhaps reusing a Victorian door for the post office side.
Minimal in situ sampling at the south windows and related woodwork verifies that some of the woodwork
is old window casings are old, perhaps from the mid-late 19th century. However, The woodwork under
the seats other components appear to be relatively new based on its their paint, probably from the 1921
restoration. The installation of the south windows (i.e., windows of their current size) required that the
bottom of the beaded south girt be cut away. The current window casings obviously were installed to meet
the former plaster ceiling that had been installed under the joists. Whether that ceiling was put in the late
18th or the early-mid 19th century is not known. We suspect the former, because the girts were exposed
and painted below the ceiling for a number of years before they were covered with the casings that are visible in the late 19th century photo of the room (the currently visible paint surfaces on the girts above and
below the plaster line are evidence of this). Looking closely at the few lath nails that remain in the underside of the joists should help verify the date of the plaster ceiling. More rigorous sampling is needed to
more clearly determine the relative age of the various elements of the south wall and windows.
30: Sample of paint from
the top of the stile to the
right of the bake oven at
the old kitchen fireplace.
Page 17
Old Kitchen
Only limited in situ sampling and two cross section samples were taken in the kitchen, primarily at the
fireplace woodwork. The arrangement of the current fireplace and bake oven indicates it was re-configured
in the early 19th century or perhaps the late 18th century. Examples with firm dates of fireplaces like this
one with its bake oven placed on the side and opening to the outer face of the fireplace without a cast iron
door on the oven usually date from c. 1780 to c. 1820, although Richard Irons states that a very few may
date to the 1760s (see the last paragraph of this section for further speculation as to the evolution of this
fireplace). Post c. 1820 examples usually have cast iron doors at the face of the oven. According to Richard,
that the base of the dome of this oven is formed with stretcher bricks rather than a soldier course suggests
it may be c. 1800 or earlier. The horizontal mantel above the fireplace could be older and reflect the full
width of the original firebox, which would have had its oven opening to the back wall or back corner of
the fireplace. In situ sampling indicated the horizontal mantel board is old with some episodes of graining,
while some of the vertical rails and other elements have considerably less paint and may reflect alterations.
However, whether any elements predate the current firebox and oven cannot be determined without more
rigorous cross section sampling. The historic photographs show 19th century style paneled door covering
the bake oven section. It was probably original to the current configuration of the fireplace. If that door
can be located, comparing its paint with other elements would establish whether any predate the early 19th
century remodeling.
The ceiling joists were examined with limited in situ sampling and one cross section sample to determine
if any of the grey diagonal stripes are earlier than the restoration work. Although the cross section was
inconclusive, the in-situ sampling indicated that some joists had a layer of oil or grease from the cooking
fires on them. The stripes on at least one of these joists were darker and more crazed than the stripes on
the ceiling boards, and seemed to be somewhat embedded in the oil surface. Examination of the c. 1925
photograph of the room that shows the beams and joists with their casings and the ceiling wallpaper removed shows faint diagonal dark stripes to be present on the same joist we examined, but not yet restored
to the other elements. This is probably the evidence cited Society records for recreation of the stripes on
the other ceiling elements in the room, and may well date to the 18th century. Similar early decorative
treatments have been found in other early 18th century house kitchens such as the White-Ellery house in
Gloucester and the Winslow House in Marshfield.
Further examination of the ceiling framing and boards revealed that the evidence of the stripes is quite
widespread. The early striping is almost black,whereas the restoration striping is a medium grey. In some
places the grey restoration paint was applied over the early black paint where it can be clearly seen as an
applied layer. The early striping is present on a number of ceiling boards and on the west wall girt and the
center girt (actually a continuation of the chimney girt in the tap room).
The presence of early striping along with soot and grease soaked into the wood, and nails from the former
plaster ceiling lath, provides clear evidence of the sequence of changes in the layout and ceiling finishes of
the kitchen. The section at the east end of the current kitchen that Brown describes as the later bar for the
tap room (the easterly 6’) appears to have been partitioned off from the kitchen for most , if not all of the
18th century. Its ceiling boards and the east girt do not have any clear evidence of the original striping or
soot that is in the rest of the kitchen (however, the striping on the northern end of the east girt should be
looked at more closely to verify there are no remnants of the early striping). The joists do not provide any
evidence of early finishes, as they were replaced in this section following the removal of the former stair at
its south wall. This probably occurred in the 19th century. Presumably this room was separated from the
kitchen by a simple board partition. The extent of the soot and grease along with the decorative painting
indicates that the ceiling framing and boarding of the kitchen was exposed for much of the 18th century.
Remnants of whitewash on the ceiling and in some cases under the striping indicate it was unpainted durFinch & Rose Paint & Woodwork Dating Report , Buckman Tavern - March 14, 2013
Page 18
ing the earliest period with the striping being later. Eventually a plaster ceiling was installed on the undersides of the joists. The few lath nails that remain in place are wrought nails, indicating the plaster ceiling
was installed in the late 18th or perhaps very early 19th centuries. Probably the girts remained exposed
below the plaster ceiling and were whitewashed. The section of the south girt above the door to the tap
room retains a fairly intact layer of paint and whitewash over the soot and grease stains. This may date to
the period of the plaster ceiling.
31: Detail from c. 1925 photo of old kitchen taken after the casings and wallpaper had been removed form the beams and ceiling boards. Arrow points to
the diagonal stripes on the joist that appear to be the evidence for the c. 1920s
painting on the beams and ceiling.
32: Photo of similar 18th century
painting in the leanto section of
the 1710 White-Ellery House in
Gloucester.
33: Photo of similar
18th century painting in the leanto
section of the 1710
White-Ellery House
in Gloucester.
34: Detail of at west girt showing wrought lath nails
in ceiling joist (white arrow), original stripes in
dark paint at the top of the girt (yellow arrow), and
restored stripes in lighter grey paint on the ceiling
board and lower part of the girt (black arrows).
35: Detail of ceiling boards showing surviving original paint stripes (yellow arrows) that are on top of the
fragments of whitewash with bits of the lighter grey
1921 restoration paint (black arrow) on top of the
original strips. The restoration paint is flaking off.
Page 19
The late 19th century photo of the kitchen shows that by that time the plaster ceiling had been removed
and the joists and beams covered with wood casings (the bottom 1” including the bead of the center girt
was cut off to provide room for the casings). The ceiling boards were covered with wallpaper. Presumably
this was done in the mid-late 19th century. Changes at that time also included the installation of a strip
wood floor and relaying the hearth brick. In the c. 1921 restoration all casings and wallpaper were removed, the strip floor replaced with wide boards, and the hearth again relaid.
The question of the age of the current fireplace/oven and whether there was an earlier one is difficult to resolve. The skewed beam that functions as a header for the half arch supporting the second floor hearth was
added to the existing framing sometime after the original construction. It lacks the soot staining and decorative painting that is on the adjacent original framing, but does have a coat of early whitewash on it right
up to the ceiling boards. It has two unused mortise pockets (actually butt cogs) that also have whitewash in
them, and appears to have been let into open mortises in the original center and west girts. Its skewed orientation was obviously to support the skewed hearth of the second floor fireplace on the half arch springing from the first floor fireplace, and relates to the construction of the north chimney that is presumed to
be c. 1755-60. If that is the case, both the decorative painting and the soot stains on the framing predate c.
1760 and indicate there was a previous cooking fireplace. The lack of a bake oven in the tap room fireplace
along with less extensive soot staining on the ceiling also suggest there must have been a cooking fireplace
in the kitchen early on. This may have been oriented in line with the north wall with its flue joining the
back side of the south chimney (perhaps the abandoned flue observed by Brown in the closet of the tap
room chamber?) , and its bake oven in its southwest corner extending slightly into void that would eventually by occupied by the SW parlor fireplace. The need for additional fireplaces in the rooms added in the c.
1755 alterations may have resulted in the complete rebuilding of the fireplace with its new skewed orientation and the construction of the north chimney along with changes to the north side of the south chimney
that are now obscured by parging and changes in the closets.
37: Detail of
south girt above
door to tap room
showing extensive dark soot
and grease stains
under later paint.
36: Detail of reused beam added at a skewed
angle to support hearth of kitchen chamber
fireplace. Note whitewash extends into obsolete
mortise (arrow) and beam lacks the extensive
soot and grease stains present on original joists.
38: (Right) Detail of center girt at left side of kitchen fireplace.
This girt appears to be a continuation of the chimney girt in the tap
room. The arrow points to where it is visible passing over the bricks
at the back of the cabinet with its corner bead still intact. The bricks
may be supporting the girt. The blue arrow ponts to where the bottom 1” of the girt was hacked off to install a casing in the late 19th
century. The board marked with the white arrow appears to be modern and could be removed to examine the connection of the center
girt to the south girt, to determine if it and the tap room chimney
girt is a continuous piece of wood, and to examine its support.
Page 20
Northwest Parlor
No paint samples were taken in this room for cross sections, but the surface of the fireplace mantel was
visually reviewed for evidence of its age and past changes and some in-situ sampling was done at the mantel. Most of the mantel woodwork looks to be 18th century with a good buildup of paint, but the doors to
the shelves along with the panel and stiles between them are reproductions from the 1921 restoration. The
ropey, dry texture of the paint on the shelves is characteristic of 19th century paints and suggests they are
original to the over-mantel woodwork. A clear horizontal paint shadow across the center of the horizontal
panel above the fireplace indicates there was a mantel shelf that was removed in the 1921 restoration. Cross
section paint samples would need to be done to establish the age of the former shelf relative to the full
sequence of paint on the woodwork. The crown molding was not examined. The splay of the firebox seems
shallow for c. 1760, but may have been dictated by the corner position of the fireplace. The hearth was
relaid c. 1921.
The casing of the door opening to the SW parlor has clearly been altered to increase the height and width
of the opening, probably in the 2nd half of the 19th century, portions of the casings are old. The door
opening to the old kitchen has also has been made higher by removing part of its horizontal casing, The
casings for the door frame to the kitchen are old (late 18th or early 19th centuries, but was altered at the
top to increase the height of the door and the door is a c. 1921 reproduction 6 panel door.
The window casings were not closely examined, but their with their wide flat board casings are old, perhaps as early a the 18th century, but the apron below stool is c. 1921.
Room 202 - Tap Room Chamber
Limited in situ paint sampling was done to date the doors. The mantel, closet door, all door casings, and
the window casings including the beaded apron below the stool had a consistent paint buildup with the
bottom layers being similar tans. This suggests that these elements were all added at the about the same
time during the Federal Period. Both of the six panel doors had at least one similar dark layer under the
tans, indicating that they predate the Federal period. At the door to the kitchen chamber, paint shadows
from former H-hinges matched on the door and casings, indicating the door had been in this location
since the Federal Period (they are currently mounted with butt hinges). At the door to the stair hall, there
was a similar paint shadow for H-hinges on the door, but not on the door casing. To explain the lack of
paint shadow on the door casing, we suspect the H-hinge probably broke when the door was removed to install the Federal
period woodwork and was then re-installed with butt hinges.
The wood wainscot to the right of the fireplace lacks the tan
layers and appears to be a mid-late 19th century alteration. As
the Millar drawing indicates the wall to the left of the fireplace
is only 2” thick, it may be an earlier board wall with plaster
applied to both sides. Brown indicates the c. 1921 restoration
work was limited to the removal of wallpapers, so exploration
of the wall for earlier finishes behind the plaster may not have
been done.
39: Detail at door between tap room chamber
and kitchen chamber. Paint shadows from
former H hinges on the door and the Federal
period casing are in alignment indicating this
door has been in this position since the Federal period or earlier.
Page 21
Fireplace Hearths
All the fireplace hearths on the first floor have been relaid in cement mortar during the 20th century. The
19th century photo of the old kitchen shows the hearth had square tiles similar to the existing ones, but
that it did not extend beyond the current open fireplace (i.e., the tiles were not in front of the bake oven
section. Apparently it was reduced in size and probably reset when the Victorian strip flooring was installed. Probably the tap room hearth was treated similarly. It is now supported on an iron substructure
installed c. 1921. Most of the hearths in the second floor and attic appear to retain their original tile and
have not been reset.
Cellar
The masonry in the cellar was briefly examined with Richard Irons. Under the SW Parlor the masonry
base of the central chimney extends several feet west of the fireplace hearth, presumably to where it would
support the full width of the original fireplace hearth. That said, it is curious that early joists extend over
the top of the masonry. The top of the masonry has been rebuilt with modern bricks, probably in 1973.
At the extreme left side of the masonry there is a space where one can look back to a stack of old , quite
uniform bricks that appear to be set in clay mortar for their first three course. These brick extend up into
the extreme left side of the closet above where they appear to provide the base for the current kitchen bake
oven.
40: Black arrow points to bricks in cellar that appear to form the base for the
bake oven of the kitchen fireplace. The face of these bricks aligns with the
east wall of the SW Parlor. The bricks extend through the floor and up at the
extreme right side of the SW parlor closet. Yellow arrow points to sprinkler
pipe that rises up next to these brick in the closet. White arrow points to the
beam under the wall between the SW parlor and the NW parlor.
41: Closet of the SW parlor. Red arrow points to the continuation of the bricks shown in the photo of the cellar. Black arrow
points to back of the kitchen bake oven. White arrow points to
the sprinkler pipe that is also visible in the cellar photograph. The
board marked “A” is modern and should be removed to further
investigate the evidence for the early parlor fireplace.
A
Page 22
Under the Tap room masonry for the chimney base probably extended originally to the girt under the
front of the hearth, but appears to have bee cut back to the face of the fireplace in the 19th or early 20th
century to accommodate central heating equipment. The hearth is now supported by iron beams installed
c. 1921.
The chimney base for the NW parlor fireplace and kitchen fireplace is a jumble of loose stones that roughly
corresponds to the angles of the fireplaces above. They do not appear to extend under the hearths. The
framing under the kitchen floor appears to have been largely replaced in the late 19th and/or early 20th
century. The masonry bases may have originally extended further out under the hearths, but were removed
in conjunction with past floor repairs and other alterations and do not provide any obvious evidence regarding the evolution of the kitchen fireplace.
42: Stone base of the kitchen fireplace in the crawl space
below the kitchen. Arrow points to the end of the girt that
runs under the tap room at the outer edge of the fireplace
hearth. All the framing appears to date to the late 19th
and early 20th century, and the portion of the stone base
that supported the hearth in front of the fireplace has
been removed.
43: Stone base of the NW parlor fireplace. Its jumbled
condition suggests that has been somewhat altered.
White arrow points to the beam under the wall between the NW and SW parlors. The original half log
framing for the floor of the NW parlor remains in
place, but the sub-floor boards have been replaced.
Exterior Paint
Three 18th century clapboards were examined for evidence of the early paint treatment of the house, and
possibly identifying the layer that was present in 1775. One was the example with a bullet hole in it that is
on display in the tap room, and the other two were in the collections of the Society. All three are riven and
were attached with wrought nails based on the depression from the heads at their nail holes. These are the
only known remaining early clapboards from the house. Society records indicate that 100 clapboards were
supposed to have been saved when the house was re-clapboarded in 1994, but they could not be found. It
is not known where the three clapboards were originally located on the house, and whether they date to
the original construction or the later 18th century alterations. As the c. 1760 alterations were extensive, it
seems most likely that the surviving clapboards date from that period, although they could also be from
the c. 1730 alterations .
The front faces of all three clapboards are weathered under many layers of 19th and 20th century offwhites paints with no visible evidence of earlier paints(including the area around the bullet hole). However, all had a few tiny fragments of earlier paint remaining where the clapboards are overlapped by the next
course. Several of these fragments were removed and mounted for cross section analysis. The sequence of
layers in these fragments starting with the earliest that was in contact with the wood substrate is:
Page 23
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Deep (i.e., dark) yellow ochre
Thin off-white that appears translucent and greyish in cross section
Light green with visible chunks of bright green verdigris pigment
Medium yellow ochre (much thicker than the other layers)
Light tan
Light yellow ochre
Light tan, followed by a succession of off whites.
1
2
5
4
3
6
7
44: Paint sample in visible light (left) and UV light (right) with fragments of the earliest surviving paint treatments.
The sample was taken from the lap between clapboards. The numbers correspond to the layers listed in the text
above. Pigment analysis by Susan Buck revealed that layers #1-#4 used pigments available prior to 1775.
6
4
7
5
45: Paint sample in visible light (left) and UV light (right) showing the continuation of the sequence of paints shown in the photo of the earliest layers (photo is of
another sample). The red arrow points to the current finish paint. In the UV photo,
the black bar marks the paints that fluoresce yellow indicating they contain white
lead, the red bar marks paints that fluoresce light blue indicating they contain zinc
white, a pigment that did not become available until the 1840s, and the white bar
marks paints that appear very dark indicating they contain titanium dioxide, a pigment that did not become available until the 1930s.
Page 24
One sample was sent to Susan Buck in Williamsburg, VA for further analysis to identify the specific pigments in layers 1-4 and determine whether they were available in the 18th century. If the pigment in one of
these layers was not available until after c. 1775, one could eliminate it and all following layers from being
present during the Revolution. The analysis indicated that all four layers used pigments that were readily
available in the 18th century. Layer #1 when viewed casually on the clapboard appears to be bits of brown
wood clinging to the next paint layer, but the analysis showed it to be a distinct layer with deep yellow
ochre pigment that was discolored by bits of wood mold within it. The translucent quality of #2 is due to its
having a high percentage of calcium carbonate (i.e., whiting) in it as a filler. It was essentially a very cheap
paint with poor hiding qualities that has degraded to its current appearance. The verdigris used in #3
frequently degrades to a light tan or brown, which is why most of the fragments of this paint appear to be
tan rather than light green. #4 is very similar to the light yellow ochre currently used on the clapboards (it
seems to be slightly deeper than the current color), and is probably the layer that Sara Chaser matched in
her 1987 analysis of the paint. The report of the analysis by Susan Buck is attached.
Identifying the appearance of the building in 1775 is further complicated by the weathering of the clapboards due to the lack of paint at various periods. To clarify the weathering evidence, The end of one of
the early clapboards was cut into several thin slices to identify any fragments of paint embedded with the
weathering fissures. As no fragments of early paint were observed within the weathering fissures on the
front face of the clapboards, that weathering may not have occurred until the 19th century. However, on
the lower butt edge there are some weathering fissures in the wood with layers #2 and #3 embedded in the
fissures, meaning #2 and #3 were applied after the weathering had occurred. #3 was also observed in some
fissures just below the lap between clapboards. This suggests that the clapboards were initially unpainted
for a number of years, or perhaps were unpainted between #1 and #2.
In the hope of finding a paint layer that could be firmly dated to the early 19th century, samples of the
trim on the 1813 post office addition were taken from its cornice and door casing where there was a heavy
buildup of paint. Unfortunately, the earliest layers on these samples were the dark browns that are visible
on the trim in the late 19th photographs of the house. The 1987 analysis by Sara Chase did take samples
from the main cornice of the house that included layers previous to the late 19th century browns, but there
is no way to be certain whether they included 18th century layers, or how they might correlate with the
clapboard paint layers. The sample she took from the window head that is encapsulated within the attic of
the 1813 post office addition does not provide any clear answers.
46: Weathering fissure in butt of
clapboard with layers #2 - #4 in
the fissure. Arrows marks #2.
47: Paint sample from crown molding on 1813 post office addition. Layers
marked with the white bar are the browns and tans visible on the trim in the
various late 19th century photographs of the house.
Page 25
We did look briefly at the various 18th century window casings on the first floor main house for any surviving early paint, but did not find any.
The beaded weatherboards that are encapsulated within the attic of the 1813 post office addition have a
thin wash of red paint on them. However, because of the relationship of these clapboards and their red
paint to the sheathing boards at the corner with the front facade of the house, we suspect they were an interior finish for an unknown addition that preceded the post office addition. There was no evidence of any
red paint or stain on the exterior clapboard samples.
48: Beaded weatherboards on the east wall of the tap room chamber as
visible in the attic above the post office. Arrow points to red paint from
the weatherboards on the edge of the sheathing from the south wall.
This suggests the corner was not finished to be exposed to the weather
in conjunction with the weatherboards.
49: Arrow points to the 18th century window head encapsulated in the attic of the
1813 post office. Although this is difficult
to get to reach, getting new paint samples
from this might shed some light on the
early exterior paint.
Page 26
Attic Chimney Photographs
50: South chimney in attic showing evidence of former gable roof. Black arrows point to
lines of mortar marking the pich of the original c. 1713 gable roof. Yellow arrows point to
the remains of the original brick drip course above the roof line. White arrow points to the
section of brick added to the chimney c. 1760 when the current fireplace was built in the
SW attic chamber.
51: South face of south chimney showing creosote stains.
Page 27
Paint Match for Southwest Parlor
A sample from the summer beam was prepared to expose generations #1 and #2 for matching. The sample
was subjected to Ultra Violet light for 7 days to reverse the effect of yellowing of oil in the paint prior to
matching. This had only very minimal effect on the color. Generations #1 and #2 are very similar, and
either might have been the finish paint in 1775. The color can be characterized as a greyish tan.
An approximate match is the following.
Benjamin Moore Historic Colors
Sandy Hook Grey
HC-108
52: Scan of sample from the SW parlor
summer beam. Black arrow points to the
section used for the match. Red arrow
points to generation #3, which is slightly
warmer (i.e., more yellow) than #1 and #2.
White arrow points to the current blue.
The appearance colors of the paint in the
scan should not be considered accurate
due to color balance issues.
Page 28
Notes on the age of doors
Most of the doors on the first and second floors are either reproductions or reused doors(i.e, probably
salvaged from other buildings).
Room 107 - Tap Room
Door to Post Office - reused with some new components - Victorian style on Post Office side
Doors to entry and closet under stairs - 2 panel reproduction doors c. 1921
Door to old kitchen - reused period 6 panel door on tap room side combined with new 6 panel door on
kitchen side c. 1921
Door to room 105 - new 6 panel door c. 1921
Room 108 - Entry
Exterior door - Modern
Room 109 - Southwest Parlor
Door to Entry - new 6 panel door c. 1921
Door to fireplace closet - C. 1800 2 panel door
Door to room 110 - No door, opening enlarged 2nd half of 19th century
Room 110 - Northwest Parlor
Door to old kitchen - new 6 panel door c. 1921
Room 111 - Old Kitchen
Door to room 102 - old 6 panel door, c. 1800?
Door to room 103 - old Federal period door
Room 202 - Tap Room Chamber
Door to fireplace closet - old Federal period 2 panel door
Door to room 200 - old 6 panel door (18th Century - always in this room)
Door to room 203 - old 6 panel door (18th Century - always in this room)
Room 204 - SW Parlor Chamber
Door to fireplace closet - old 2 panel door (18th Century - may be original to room)
Door to room 205 - Old reused 6 panel door widened to fit opening (has graining)
Room 205 - NW Parlor Chamber
Room 200 - Old Kitchen Chamber
Doors to bathroom and closet -both modern
Door to attic
Early - mid 19th century
Page 29
Suggestions for further investigation
Southwest parlor
1. Take paint samples for cross sections from the plinth block below the casing of the door to the entry to determine when in the paint sequence the blocks were added to raise the height of the door. Also examine the door
frame on the entry side for evidence that it was altered.
2. Remove the modern wood panel at the base of the closet to the let of the fireplace to determine how much the
masonry from the kitchen fireplace intrudes into the original firebox of the parlor fireplace. HIGH PRIORITY
5. Look for nails in wainscot and mopboard to determine if cut or wrought nails were used - wrought would
suggest they was installed 1794-1800, cut suggests after c. 1800 (but cut were available in the late 1790s, so this
is not definitive evidence).
3. Remove bed moldings under Chimney girt to look for evidence of original moldings, etc.
Entry
1. Examine the back side of the treads and risers as visible in the tap room closet to determine if they are fastened
with cut of wrought nails. If only cut nails are used this would be further confirmation that the staircase was
rebuilt in the Federal period. Also look more carefully for evidence that its direction might have been reversed.
Also look for nail types used in board sheathing. This requires removal of plywood board at the back of the
closet. HIGH PRIORITY
2. Take additional paint samples for cross sections from the turned balusters and stringer at the 2nd floor landing,
and from the stringer to the attic stairs. Did some in-situ sampling - cross sections would be helpful but not
critical
3. In situ sample paint of mop boards, door casings, and sheathing next to doors, and possibly take more samples
for cross sections to determine the relative age of these components.
Old Kitchen
1. Take a cross section paint sample from the girt above the door to the tap room, as this section has not been
replaced and appears to retain a substantial paint build-up. This may help to establish the relative age of the
fireplace mantel. Also take additional cross section samples from the mantel woodwork to clarify its extent of
alterations.
2. Remove modern board at top of side cupboard to access the center girt and determine if it is continuous with
the tap room chimney girt as well as its connection to the south girt and how it is supported. The hidden section may retain exposed early paint. HIGH PRIORITY
3. Have Richard Irons temporarily remove a few bricks from the back of the firebox to look for evidence of earlier
fireplace.
Tap Room
1. Take cross section and/or in situ samples of the window casings and seats to verify the relative age of these elements. Did some limited in-situ samples, but more rigorous sampling would clarify extent of alterations - same
for sheathing next to doors in west wall.
Southwest Parlor Chamber
1. Take cross section and/or in situ samples from door to NW chamber to determine if its graining relates to the
graining on the SW parlor closet door, which might indicate it was reused from the parlor when its doors were
removed c. 1860.
2. Take cross section samples from the old raised panel woodwork to the right of the door to the NW chamber
and from the fireplace woodwork to determine if the paneling is original to the chamber.
3. Remove small area of plaster on east wall to detemine the construction of this 5” thick wall, look for hidden
paneling and/or original c. 1713 exterior wall construction. Could start with 1” hole and use boriscope, but bigger opening would be better. HIGH PRIORITY
4. Take cross section samples from the fireplace panels, pilasters and eared surround to determine if the eared
surround was added later.
Northwest Parlor Chamber
1. Take cross section samples from the fireplace panels and eared surround to determine if the eared surround
was added later.
Page 30
Tap Room Chamber
1. Remove small area of plaster on west wall to determine the construction of this 2” thick wall, look for hidden
paneling or sheathing.
Exterior
1. Take paint samples from the main cornice and frieze board in hopes of getting some correlation between early
clapboard paint and trim paint. Requires a tall ladder. Samples taken by Sara Chase in 1987 did not provide any
definitive answers to this issue. This would be a long shot.
2. Take paint samples from the window head enclosed within the post office attic (Access is difficult and complicated by the addition of insulation).
The Buckman Tavern
The Buckman Tavern
Buckmans Tavern
10/23/12
Buckman Tavern - Restoration and Renovation
Construction Costs
Description
Division 01 - General Requirements
General Conditions
Temporary Facilities
Site Maintenance & Protection/Clean
Supervision
Insurance
Overhead & Profit
Division 2 - Site Existing Conditions
Demolition
miscellaneous removals for construction of
architectural access, removal of 20th century
restroom upstairs in tavern
Division 03 - Concrete
Concrete
concrete footings for load bearing partitions
for architectural access, pads for HVAC
equipment, raised slab for basement storage
room
Division 04 - Masonry
Masonry
Amount
8,000
7,000
14,000
39,000
73,600
9,300
11,000
26,200
repointing rubble and granite slab foundation ,
reconstruction of chimney at ell, caps for
chimneys at tavern
Division 05 - Metals
Metals
4,400
posts, plates and brackets for structural work
Division 06 - Woods and Plastics
Rough Carpentry
28,100
lumber, studs, rafters and joists for
architectural access at adjusted floors, lift and
stair cupola, handicapped restroom
Finish Carpentry
17,300
door and window casings, baseboards at
rehabilitated ell
Architectural Woodwork
7,600
cabinetry at shop and kitchenette
Buckmans Tavern
10/23/12
Division 07 - Thermal and Moisture Protection
Insulation
14,100
crawlspace, opened walls per code, attics
Roofing & Flashing
18,000
new accessible stair and chair lift cupola, ell
roof
Gutters & Downspouts
8,900
repitch for proper drainage, replace split
downspouts with new
Siding & Exterior Trim
new siding to match existing at new
accessible stair and chair lift cupola, selected
replacement at modified openings for access,
repairs where required
Division 08 - Openings
Doors & Windows
new doors at accessible entry, interior
rehabilitated spaces
restore existing windows, interior storm
windows
Division 09 - Finishes
Board & Plaster/Restoration Plaster
wall finish at rehabilitated spaces
and new partitions within the ell, restore
plaster at penetrations made for electrical and
mechanical in the historic tavern
Flooring
new flooring in the ell, stair treads for the
accessible stair, restroom tile flooring, office
flooring
Painting, Exterior
siding, trim, windows and doors
Painting, Interior
siding, trim, windows and doors
Division 10 - Specialties
Bath Accessories
grab bars, paper holders, waste receptacles
Division 11 - Equipment
Equipment
refrigerator, etc
Division 14 -Conveying Equipment
Chair Lift
eight foot rise, 90-degree door configured
chair lift
4,100
39,200
22,500
23,100
27,500
19,500
1,700
1,000
32,000
Buckmans Tavern
Division 21 -Fire Suppression
Sprinkler
dry pipe, concealed head or sidewall mount
system
Division 22 -Plumbing
Plumbing
new accessible restroom, kitchenette sink,
janitors sin, plumbing as required
Division 23 - Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning
HVAC
new hydronic heating and cooling system,
duct distribution, condensers, air handlers
and controls
Division 26 - Electrical
Electrical
new distribution throughout, all new
receptacles and lighting in rehabilitated ell,
power to chair lift, power to HVAC, improved
lighting and receptacles in tavern
Lightning Protection
terminals at high points, grounding rods
Division 28 - Electronic Safety and Security
Fire/Security Alarms
new distribution throughout, integration with
new sprinkler system
Division 31 - Earthwork
Site work
clearing shrubs, rough grading, trenching
Site Improvements
paving, finish plantings and seeding
82,500
27,500
81,400
80,000
9,000
33,000
24,800
13,200
Total
Contingency
Total Direct Cost
808,500
40,425
848,925
Construction Cost by Work Goal
Percentage of Total Cost
25%
chair lift, accessiblity stair and lift cupola,
restroom, door modifications, site grading,
walkways, etc.
Life Safety
19%
sprinkler system, detection systems, lightning
protection
Preservation
27%
restore windows and doors, roof repairs,
masonry repairs, paint exterior, paint interior,
plaster repair, improve site drainage
Infrastructure Rehabilitation
10/23/12
28%
215,606
160,905
231,547
240,867
Buckmans Tavern
10/23/12
replace HVAC, electircal distribution,
plumbing, etc.
Total Direct Cost
100%
Soft Costs
Description
Architecture and Engineering
professional services from architects,
engineers and consultants for bidding and
construction administration
Regulatory Requirements
professional participation in Hisotric Distric
Commission hearings and Architectural
Access Board requirements
Historical Investigation
during constrcution documention of revealed
historic fabric, evaluation of integrity to
historic period (1775), integration of findings
into Historic Structures Report Appendix
Historical reproduction
replication of historic items such as wallpaper
Owners project representative
building professional retained by Owner as
advisor and observer of the construction
process
Expenses
printing, postage, travel aggregated for all
tasks above
Total Soft Cost
848,925
Amount
55,935
3,960
13,500
7,500
20,000
3,000
103,895
Total Project Cost
952,820
direct cost plus soft cost
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
The Buckman Tavern
April 8, 2013
Presentation to Community Preservation Committee
Menders, Torrey & Spencer 
BUCKMAN TAVERN
• Universal access
• New visitor experience
• Restored exterior and interior
Menders, Torrey & Spencer 
Looking to the future
Renovated Areas
st
1
Floor
Renovated Areas
nd
2
Floor
Lights & alarm at
group entry
GROUP ENTRY
MAIN ENTRY
Entries
Public entry at
Gift Shop
New stair, restroom and lift
Interior Changes
Interior Changes
Second exhibits and support uses.
Interior Changes
Back Hall & Post Office
Interior Changes
Outline of existing
dormer
Exterior changes
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Roof and gutters
Painting
Carpentry repairs
Plumbing and sprinklers
Electrical
HVAC
Historic finishes
Renovation Improvements
Lexington Historical Society
will start its second century
of stewardship
Buckman Tavern will enter
its fourth century
2014
The Buckman Tavern

historic structure report - Lexington Historical Society

Transcription

Similar documents

SPRING, SUMMER, FALL, HOLIDAY

The Story of the Daniel Gebhart Tavern Museum

FOR SALE

bethel inn bands 2011 summer

Public Houses and Their Place on Blue Printed Transferware

duncan sheik wishful thinking lyric