Archive - 2025
First, a brief introduction to stucco.
Are stucco and plaster the same thing? Not now.Today stucco is used outside. Its recipe will be different from plaster used inside. In 1814, the names referred to the same thing.
These cherubs are plaster. They cavort in the dining room of the Canfield Casino of the History Museum in Saratoga Springs, NY.
They are forever in motion on the frieze of the entablature,
just below the deep cornice,
a counterpoint to the circular window ringed with energetic vegetation centered under the coffered barrel vault above.
Lots and lots of white plaster. Made from lots of molds. Mass production allowed this extravagance in 1902.
100 years earlier moldings were made from wood. Plaster sealed the wall. It was held in place by lath.
Plaster was lime, sand, hair and water, mixed by hand.
Its keys fit into the spaces between the lath, holding the plaster in place, allowing the plaster to create a 'wall'. That plaster kept out drafts, reflected light and created a space, a place. It still does.
This plaster is applied to lath which was split by hand, thus the uneven shadows.
This image of the back side of lath shows the plaster keys pushing though the spaces between the lath. This lath is even because it was cut by a circular saw. This plaster wall would be much smoother than the image above.
Asher Benjamin shared the latest uses of plaster with aspiring Master Builders in his book, The American Builder's Companion.
It was first published in 1806, then updated in 1814 to include stucco ornaments (Plate 36, prefaced by 3 pages (74-76) of instructions, titled Plate XXXVI.
Benjamin was a Master Builder with apprentices. He also ran a school for carpenters in Boston. He was skilled at describing how to execute the work.
Here is his footnote describing how to make the stucco. He says to just mix it up, beat it well every day, and let it cure for four or five days on a brick wall.
Not too much a stretch from plastering a wall, but seemingly far removed from the Canfield's yards of dentil and corbel moldings and the carefree cherubs.
He describes the best way to make an ornamental stucco ceiling, by hand.
Then he explains how to do it more quickly, cheaper. What he describes is the beginning of mass production, ie: the Industrial Revolution, starting us on the path to those cherubs.
In 2009 I wrote 2 posts about how Asher Benjamin wanted the builders who would read his pattern books to see and enjoy what moldings could create. He clearly loved the "beautiful variety of light and shade".
I included the portrait of Benjamin in the first post. Historic Deerfield recently cleaned it. To see it please google 'Asher Benjamin'.
http://www.jgrarchitect.com/2009/01/beautiful-variety-of-light-and-shade.html
http://www.jgrarchitect.com/2009/12/strong-mouldings-and-falling-water.html
Tuesday, May 13, 2025
The Carpenter Square and the Compass - The Evolution of Practical Geometry
On May 31, 2025, I will present Practical Geometry and Carpenter Squares at the Early American Trades Association (EAIA)* conference in Rochester, New York. I expect I will be introducing Practical Geometry and then explore how the use of a carpenter square began to change the visual character of our architecture. I hope to see tool collections and hear other members' thoughts.
What happened after 1820 when the carpenter square became a reliable drafting tool? When the compass, line, and scribe were joined by an L shaped piece of steel with a dependable, true 90* corner?
The squares shown here were made in southwestern Vermont c. 1830-50. They now live at the Bennington Museum, Bennington Vermont, and can be seen by appointment.
Here you can see the hand stamped numbers on the earliest squares as well as carefully drawn scales. Were the scales as important to the builder as the true 90*angle?
The square made design and layout accurate in fewer steps. Units (inches and feet) were uniform, corners were square, always 90*. A job could be drawn, measured, and laid out more quickly and accurately. However, loosing those steps also changed the proportions. I have written about how this can see seen in vernacular housing design.**** I wanted to learn how an architect might have used the carpenter square. Robert Shaw was a good choice because he wrote a book.
Robert Shaw's The Modern Architect was published in Boston in 1854.**
The pattern book's frontispiece shows the tools of the builder and the architect. The original drawing is an engraving which is quite dark. The color was added when the book was republished in 1995.
In the foreground is a large compass, probably used for stepping off. The architect holds a little one. The architect and builders are shown conferring, syncing the construction dimensions with the drawings .
Here is Plate 4, a 'Grecian Frontispiece'
Where did Shaw begin his design? Conceptually the design surrounds the door, giving it emphasis. So I began there.
Shaw himself stated that the door's height should be "...over twice the breadth of its height as three and seven feet."***
I have added the scale below the door: 3 units for the door's width. Then a half unit for the columns on each side and a full unit for the width of the sidelights.
These proportions follow those recommended by James Gibbs in 1732. ****
Was Shaw using 'circle geometry' for his layout? I don't think so. The circles don't offer much information.
While the layout is 2 circles tall, the 12 points around the circumference of the circles give only the height, the width of the entry including the side lights, maybe the location of the transom. Note the arrows.
I think Shaw used a simple geometric pattern that is derived from the circle, but which doesn't need to start with a length - a radius - and compass. It starts with the square which is easily laid out by the carpenter square.
The width of the door and its sidelights was the dimension for a square. That shape was easy to lay out and make true with a carpenter square. Beginning with a length, he set up the corners with the square, added the lines for the 4 sides, trued the box with diagonals. The diagonals used to find the additional height comes directly from the square. Done. Note the arrows.
Was there a name for it? Not one I've found. It's basically a 'square and diagonal geometry'.
The door, its transom, sidelights, and columns are also a square.
Here the quarter circle arcs, based on the width, cross at the top of the door frame, just below the transom. This layout, creating a slightly smaller rectangle within the square, was often used in layout and design. **** I think here it is incidental.
I've extended the scale across the bottom and up the right side. It confirms the geometry.
The whole frontispiece is 8-1/2 units wide and 10-3/4 units tall. The door, the pilasters and the sidelights are 6 units wide; the columns are 1-1/4 units each. The columns' capitals are a half unit tall. The entablature is 2 units; the pediment, 3/4 of a unit tall.
Each unit and its parts could be stepped off with a compass. In 1854 the length could also have been stepped off in 12 inches intervals as marked on the carpenter square. As shown in Shaw's frontispiece in his book, it seems the builders used both.
The geometry used for the door and its parts is also used for the overall size: the height of the frontispiece is equal to the diagonal of the square.
The lightly drawn dashed line is the arc of the width of the door, showing how it lays out the square. This geometric proportion is also used for the sidelight glass panes (see the image above), but not those in the transom.
When we architects, restoration trades people, and historians note from visual observation that a particular building is Greek Revival, not Late Georgian, we are seeing geometry. I think we are recognizing, even if subconsciously, that the rhythms, the proportions of Federal architecture are different from the Greek Revival proportions shown here.
* EAIA, Early American Trades Association https://www.eaia.us/
https://www.eaia.us/2025-rochester-ny
** Robert Shaw, The Modern Architect, Boston, 1854, originally published by Dayton and Wentworth, republished (unabridged) by Dover Publications in 1996.
*** Shaw, The Modern Architect, page 63.
**** For more information about James Gibbs' use of the door width as a unit of measure see: https://www.jgrarchitect.com/2025/01/james-gibbs-and-rockingham-meeting-house.html
For more information about the square and its rectangle see:
https://www.jgrarchitect.com/2023/11/the-practical-geometry-of-parson_20.html
For information about buildings using the 3/4/5 triangle for layout:
https://www.jgrarchitect.com/2014/03/railroad-warehouse-frame-c-1850.html
https://www.jgrarchitect.com/2014/10/the-cobblers-house-c-1840.html
https://www.jgrarchitect.com/2013/10/1820s-farmhouse-north-of-boston.html
Here's the Old First Church, Bennington, Vermont.
In 1803 the church elders invited the Master Builder, Lavius Fillmore, to build a new church in Bennington. He had already built 4 churches in Connecticut. The latest had been included in Asher Benjamin's first pattern book, The Country Builder's Assistant, published in 1797.**
Pattern books were architectural guide books for builders. Their images were studied and copied by gentleman scholars and master builders; their instructions studied and followed by apprentices, journey men, and carpenters.
William Pain, in London, had written many pattern books, 8 of which are known to have been available through book sellers and in private libraries in the States. While there is no written record of what pattern books Lavius Fillmore owned or might have seen, I think he must have studied Pain's The Practical Builder, printed in London in 1774.***
Here is the evidence:
This engraving, part of Plate XIV, The Practical Builder, explains the proper design for the 'Frontispiece of the Dorick Order'. Note the fanlight tracery.
Compare Pain's tracery to that in the fanlight of the Old First Church.
Fillmore has elaborated upon and refined Pain's design. ****
The columns however, do not match the illustration of a Doric frontispiece. They are topped by Ionic volutes.
In this photograph they look like the ends of rolled up paper. Or maybe balls of white yarn?
This is Pain's 'Frontispiece of the Ionick Order', part of Plate XVI.
The volutes match those of the Old First Church.
On the left side the 'entablature' (the section between the door frame and the roof) also matches that of the church.
Here is Pain's detail of the capital. The right side of the entablature matches the 2 sections, the 'architrave' and 'frieze' of the Old First Church door.
The volutes on the columns in the church sanctuary also match those on the frontispiece. The columns also have the same architrave, frieze (the top part above the volutes) and the very top part with the dentils - the cornice - as are shown in the drawing.
Notes:
*For more about the Old First Church, see the church website:
https://oldfirstchurchbenn.org
** Asher Benjamin's first pattern book is available on line. The original can be read at the Historic Deerfield Library, Deerfield, Massachusetts. We know what books Benjamin studied; he copied their engravings and used them in his own books.
*** William Pain, The Practical Builder, or Workman's General Assistant, I Taylor, London, 1774, Dover Press reprint.
****I have drawn the practical geometry for the fanlight. See:
https://www.jgrarchitect.com/2021/10/geometry-of-old-first-church-fanlight.html
I also drew the geometry of the church, 10 years ago. It needs to be rewritten, made simpler and clearer.
https://www.jgrarchitect.com/2014/11/old-first-church-and-daisy-wheel-part-3.html
Friday, January 24. 2025
James Gibbs and the Rockingham Meeting House
This blog post assumes you, the reader, are familiar with James Gibbs' architecture. If you need an introduction or a review, check the end of this blog. You will see links to what I wrote about him and his work. See also Wikipedia.
Did anyone in the States study James Gibbs' books?
Yes. Gibbs' On Architecture*, published in 1723, was imported to the Colonies. We know the steeple designs were studied and copied**.
His book, RULES for DRAWING the several PARTS of ARCHITECTURE*, was also in the Colonies.
Both books were in bookstores and private libraries.
Were the rules Gibbs drew standard knowledge? Or was he simply the first to write them down?
Did builders follow his layout instructions?
I don't know yet. I'm studying historic doors, leaving surrounds and architraves for later research.
HABS has measured drawings of the Rockingham Meetinghouse in Rockingham, Vermont. It was built from 1787 to 1797. The Master Builder was John Fuller. The Master Joiner - who would have built the doors - is not recorded. He could have been John Fuller.
I know the Meetinghouse well. I've studied it, given tours, taught and written about the geometry of its construction as well as how the door paneling fits by the Rule of Thirds.**
The main door
The HABS drawing of this door
That drawing with the dimensions inked out in order to make James Gibbs' geometry easier to read.
2 squares.
The width divided into 6 parts, 3 noted. Then one part (1/6 the width of the door) determining the width of the surround.
I have used the arcs and lines that Gibbs used for his door layouts. The radius of the arc is the width and height of the square. This is a builder's 'shorthand'.
This layout matches the door on the left in Gibbs' drawing shown above.
The door for the right stair wing at the Rockingham Meetinghouse
The HABS drawing for the right stair wing door
The geometry:
2 squares and 1/6 added to the height ( the red rectangle at the top)
This geometry matches the layout of the middle door in Gibbs' drawing of 3 doors shown above.
Then, I tried using the 1/6 part of the door width as a radius.
I placed 3 circles on the width, the red line across the middle of the door. The dimension of the circles is the radius x 2: simple geometry.
Beginning at the bottom of the door I stepped off 8 semi-circles up the right hand side. They are the same width as those across the width of the door. Those semi-circles lay out the height of the door surround, the beginning of the architrave and its height.
Finally, I saw that the width of the pilasters on each side of the door was the same width as the circles. See the circle on the left pilaster.
The HABS drawings are small. The dimensions were made to record the building, not to record the geometry. Either the recorder or I may have missed nuance. This year, when the Meeting House is accessible, I will measure the doors to see how close what I've drawn is to the actual doors.
* James Gibbs, On Architecture, 1728, London, Dover Press reprint
** https://www.jgrarchitect.com/2021/12/james-gibbs-book-of-architecture.html
http://www.jgrarchitect.com/2022/02/james-gibbs-steeples.html
https://www.jgrarchitect.com/2014/04/rockingham-meetiinghouse-rockingham-vt.html
https://www.jgrarchitect.com/2024/05/how-to-layout-pediment-350-years-of.html
Tuesday, July 29, 2025
Asher Benjamin explains how to make stucco
Tuesday, May 13, 2025
The Carpenter Square and the Compass - The Evolution of Practical Geometry
Friday, Februart 21, 2025
William Pain's 'The Practical Builder' and Lavius Fillmore
Friday, January 24, 2025
James Gibbs and the Rockingham Meeting House
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
