ASSESSMENT & TREATMENT REPORT FOR #445 … NPS ORCA/FULL... · table of contents page section 4...

ASSESSMENT & TREATMENT REPORT FOR #445 SMOKEY MAPLE POLYCHROME

A-FRAME MASON MONTEREY CHAIR, OREGON CAVES NATIONAL MONUMENT

A-Frame Monterey Chair #445, before and after treatment, above, in the MPFC studio.

BACKGROUND DATA1. This treatment proposal is prepared by MPF Conservation, hereafter

known as MPFC, by Mitchell R. Powell and Kate Powell.

2. Brian Pietrowski, woodworker, right, was a member of our team.

3. Our contacts for this project were Mary Merryman, Park Curator

and Vicki Snitzler, Superintendent for the Oregon Caves NM.

MPF Conservation www.mpfconservation.com 1 of 69

http://www.mpfconservation.com


TABLE OF CONTENTSPage Section

4 HISTORY OF THE MONTEREY LINE AT THE CHATEAU

6 NPS CONDITION REPORT

7 ASSESSMENT FOR #445 A-FRAME MASON MONTEREY CHAIR

Note: MPFC may have modified the Assessment for brevity and to stop repetition within this report. The images in the Assessment may have been reduced as they are repeated in the Treatment Resume at the end of this report. However, the original assessment “2010 11 5 445 AFRAME CHAIR TRTMNT PROP” will be in “9 Documentation” folder on the hard drive. Revisions may be noted within the Assessment; these were made due to

information discovered during treatment, and MPFC thought it was easier to note the changes within the assessment if misinformation was recorded in that area. We will note when a major decision was reversed.

This Treatment Report stands as our best accurate information or history.

8 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

10 FINISH

13 LEGS

15 SEAT

16 BACK (STILES, CENTER SPLAT + CREST)

18 TREATMENT FOR #357 SMOKEY MAPLE POLYCHROME

A-FRAME MASON MONTEREY CHAIR

18 GENERAL ATTITUDE TOWARD TREATMENT

20 EXCAVATION

24 CLEANING

26 KERF EXCAVATION

27 STRUCTURAL REPARATION


30 SEAT (SEAT + LEGS)

39 KEY LOCKS

42 REPAIR LEGS




Page Section

43 NEW LEGS

46 REASSEMBLY

46 SEAT + LEGS


51 FILL CREST

52 GLIDES

53 FINISH

53 GENERAL NOTES AND APPROACH

55 MYSTERY SOLVED

56 PRACTICE AND TESTING FOR REPRODUCTION

57 SANDING

58 BUILDUP

58 SMOKEY MAPLE

62 SPANISH RED SPLAT + BALL TURNINGS

64 DECORATIVE SPLAT

67 SMOKEY MAPLE GLAZE TOPCOAT ON SPLAT + BALL TURNINGS

68 WAX

70 RESUME BEFORE + AFTER TREATMENT




Images above taken from “Monterey 1,” page 70, left, and 85, right: A-frames with painted splats. The image on the right (Old Wood) is indicative of the probable design of several chairs MPFC will restore from the Chateau, as we also

see this design on the green chair shown below. Note color on the leg turnings on the Old Wood chair.Note the oddly flat seat on the chair on the left; no contours are visible in the seat.

HISTORY OF THE MONTEREY LINE IN THE CHATEAU

4. The furniture in the Chateau was designed and built by Frank Mason, who

founded the Mason Manufacturing Company of Los Angeles in the late

1920’s, and his son George Mason.

5. In our experience, they used alder wood from Oregon.

6. The style is derived from Spanish and Dutch Colonial, Pennsylvania Dutch,

California Mission architecture and furnishings, cowboy accoutrements

(such as might be found in a barn: lariats and branding irons), and simple

ranch furnishings.

7. The line was first marketed by the Barker Brothers; the Chateau purchased the line through Meier &

Frank in Portland.


1 “Monterey,” by Roger Renick and Michael Trotter, Schiffer Publishing LTD., 2000.



8. A word about historical accuracy, finish colors, and the book “Monterey”: while a good retrospective, it

gives the impression that the Mason company used a half dozen colors, and our research shows they

were inventive and experimental and the line of colors was much larger than the book indicates.

8.1. They also do not discuss the materials nor the manner in which the colors were created, other than

to say, “The finishes were oil-stained or base-stained by asphaltum and antiqued by paraffin and

rotten stone. . . . Later we made a finish named ‘desert dust;’ here we bleached the wood with

peroxide and ammonia, then lacquered and rubbed out dry raw umber glazing with a rag until the

highlight effect was accomplished.”

8.2. Without testing, we believe the oil-stains were japan colors or earth-based oil paints.

9. Also, there were more styles than shown in the “Monterey” book, both in form and in decoration.

10. We say much more about color in the General Notes, below.

Other images from the internet, below: an image from www.about.com site with no credits, left, though the finish appears to be original. A poorly refinished A-Frame from The Bungalow Store in San Diego, California, right.


http://www.about.com

http://www.about.com



NPS SURVEY CONDITION REPORT

11. The NPS’s2 most recent assessment by Al Levitan recommended to

“Determine original appearance; Refinish to approximate original

appearance.”

12. Levitan notes: “Requires total refinishing, some have already been stripped

of finish“ and “Some may require minor structural work.”

13. Under condition problems he checked:

13.1. Surface Elements: Scratches, Dents, Abrasions

13.2. Finish: Loss

14. Levitan notes these are companions3 to #357, #358, #439, and #442.

15. We see conditional issues in the chair that are more extensive than was noted in the 2005 CS

(including the information boxes checked on form).

16. Our overview, to be detailed in this report: Two splits in the seat, Loose kerf joints on all four legs,

Loose stile joints, Loose splat joints, Loose crest, and Original Finish compromised.

17. Regarding the latter, in 1964 there was a flood4, and we surmise this A-Frame Chair was in the dining

room, which was flooded.

17.1. Loss of finish from water damage apparently resulted in choices to partially strip the chair,

either chemically and/or through the use of abrasives, or possibly the water itself did the

stripping and finish materials were added over the existing historical materials.


2 Source: National Park Service Condition Survey dates May 2005, by Al Levitan.

3 MPFC what the reference to “companions” is in reference to, as there appears to be 2-3 groupings on the A-Frame Chairs, and they are in all colors from the dark to the light. In our thinking, all the A-Frames are one group.

4 “During the winter of 1964, after much snowfall followed by warm rain, a 17 foot wall of water flowed from the ravine behind the Chalet, through the archway and slammed into the Chateau causing $100,000 in damage.” www.nps.gov/orca/historyculture/timeline.htm



http://www.nps.gov/orca/historyculture/timeline.htm

http://www.nps.gov/orca/historyculture/timeline.htm

ASSESSMENT FOR #445 A-FRAME MASON MONTEREY CHAIR

Left-facing sides, above. Right-facing sides, center; note the open stile and splat connection to the crest.Bottom left, the seat and bottom splat and stile connection. Bottom right, the underside of the chair.




GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

18. The chair was assessed in our studio in

October 2010.

19. The A-Frame Chair was built of alder wood,

with a painted finish that appears to have

been Smokey Maple.

20. REVISION: CLARITY It consists of a seat

with four legs and no stretchers, and the back

is built of two square stiles, a center splat, all

crowned with a concave cupid’s bow crest.

20.1. REVISION: ADDITION While

Mason used mortise and tenon

joinery, kerfed tenons, lap joints, and

other compression joints, they

frequently added brads or nails to

these presumably stable joins.

20.2. This is not to be confused with the

introduction of screws for securing

structural members or lag screws,

which secured strapping brackets

placed over joinery.

20.3. Mitchell surmises the introduced brads and nails during the glue-up phase, penetrating mortice

walls and tenons, and often burying these nails into the wood substrate in an attempt to

circumvent the traditional activity of clamping joinery during glue cures, thereby saving

dollars in labor time, never realizing that their furniture would one day be collectible western

heritage pieces necessitating disassembly for restoration and preservation.

20.4. This singular practice caused many problems during reparation.

NOTE: image shown is of #439 not #445.




21. Overall dimensions5:

21.1. Overall Height = 36-inches;

21.2. Seat Height = 18-inches;

21.3. Seat Width = 15½-inches;

21.4. The width between stiles is 12¾-inches at the bottom of the crest.

21.5. The width between stiles is 17½-inches at the top of the seat.

21.6. The crest is 13⅜-inches at the widest point.

22. Note: During treatment when the chairs were disassembled, we were able to easily see and document

the lack of uniformity in dimensions; this will be noted in the section on “Reparation.”

23. The following assessment will cover both structure and finish on each area of the chair, as applicable.


5 Chair #439 was used to show dimensions; a large image of this is in each A-Frame file. However, the chairs were made by hand and so there are slight variations to the dimensions.



FINISH

24. REVISION: CLARITY Regarding finish colors, Mason’s finish colors were mixed in small batches and

applied by artisans, leading to great variation on pieces.

25. Further, color is subjective item when one is looking through printed books and flyers and on the web

for color matches, and due to cameras and lighting.

25.1. We offer several images from our files6, below, to show diverse samples of Smokey Maple.

25.2. Our opinion as to the original color comes not just from the color we may hope to see on

surface grain or in a crevice, but from the manner in which we know the color was generally

applied: we sleuth for clues.

26. REVISION: CLARITY The original painted pigment still exists on this chair, details shown top and

next page; it appears to have been an oil based (possibly japan) paint combination called Smokey Maple

finish.

26.1. The original paint finish is in poor condition.


6 These images from Eric Berg’s Early California Antiques, at www.earlycaliforniaantiques.com.



http://www.earlycaliforniaantiques.com

http://www.earlycaliforniaantiques.com

26.2. REVISION: CLARITY The original pigment on

the chair, though degraded and missing in areas,

sits below an uneven, often sparse and degraded

top coating of modern pigmented lacquer.

26.3. The original ground still asserts itself beneath

the dirt and shoddy overcoating, detail shown

this page on the seat and leg turning.

26.4. We believe this top coating was one of many

popular products of colored wood pre-

catalyzed lacquers sold in the early 1960’s,

such as Mohawk colored wood lacquers,

partially because of the nature of the drips,

clabbers and pooling, bottom right and page 15,

typical of this type of spray canned lacquer.

26.5. REVISION: OMITTED FOR ACCURACY.

27. The finish has worn or abraded to bare wood around

the feet, legs, back of crest, seat edges, and stiles; white

and mint-colored paint drips are scattered.

28. There are numerous chips and flakes that expose bare

wood.




29. The finish is not protected; it is extremely dirty, also seen previous page and on

pages 7 and 10.

30. MPFC topically tested several of the current pieces in our studio for treatment,

and understands the layering of the painted finish used on the chair, from both

this project and prior experience on similar pieces.

31. Wax was the final coat to protect the finish.

32. The resulting finish was not shiny, but of medium sheen.

33. REVISION: CLARITY In this unusual project, the NPS would like the finish to

be restored to “the original finish;” MPFC has proposed to do this using similar

paints and decorative elements as we determine what those were, using historical

evidence where ever possible, and previous research.

33.1. This piece is not intended for the Museum Collection but must serve

many years of life on the Chateau floor.

34. REVISION: CLARITY Originally we believe the center splat exhibited the floral design pictured in

#290A, a Chateau A-Frame with its original finish still intact, shown right; and shown in the book

“Monterey,” in this report on page 4, top right.

34.1. Paint colors may have been mustard, green, white, blue, red and black, on a base of red on the

splat only.

34.2. REVISION: OMITTED FOR ACCURACY.

35. The ball turnings on legs may have been painted, as shown in the book “Monterey” in this report on

page 4, top right.

36. Unusual finish conditions outside this general finish assessment will be noted on each area, below, if

necessary.




LEGS

37. Legs will be designated as follows: Left-facing front leg,

Right-facing front leg, Left-facing rear leg, and Right-

facing rear leg.

38. The legs were designed as compression joints, though

Mason added glue to the joints.

38.1. The legs are quite rickety and loose.

38.2. Someone attempted to stabilize the right-facing

leg by injecting yellow carpenter’s glue but

failed to resolve the issue.

39. Leg joinery consists of: Angled mortice in seat plank;

Turned upper leg stump tenon; Kerfed leg top (shown

next page top right); and Wedge spreading leg top to

snug joinery (essentially acting as glue by virtue of

compression, to hold the leg into place.)

40. REVISION: CLARITY The leg to seat kerfed mortice

and tenon joint (hereafter called “kerfed joint for

brevity) was constructed as follows: A kerf line was

cut through the center of the end of the leg stump; each leg passed through the seat, and a hardwood

wedge was tamped into the kerf to secure the piece.

41. All kerfed joints on all four legs are loose.

42. The leg is turned to include a ball flanked by oblongs, and a rectangle near the foot, shown top right.

43. REVISION: OMITTED FOR ACCURATE INFORMATION.

44. Bottom end grain on all legs is open showing desiccation, and is an invitation to pest infestation.




Left-facing Front Leg, shown page 10:

45. Leg stump is cracked in two places, shown top right.

46. Paint has areas of moderate flaking and loss; wood is

exposed from flaking, and in need of stabilization.

47. The flaking is from use and shows the age of the chair.

48. The paint at the foot exhibits extreme loss.

Right-facing Front Leg:

49. Leg is as Left-facing Front Leg, but no cracked tenon.

Left-facing Rear Leg:


51. The leg stump tenon collar is raised above the seat

level.

Right-facing Rear Leg:


53. The leg stump tenon collar is raised above the seat level.




REVISION: MISTAKE Second longest split along left facing join, above, runs through the leg mortice. The splits are severe enough to have gone through the seat

SEAT

54. The seat is made of three planks.

55. The seat exhibits two splits; one is stable.

56. The unstable split extends from the left-facing rear leg kerf joint toward the back on the left-facing

side.

57. REVISION: GRAMMAR The second is on the seat center left plank join, and runs from back to front,

caused by shrinkage.

58. The seat is extremely grimy, and white paint splatters the seat.

Longest thorough split along left facing join, bottom left; the splits are severe enough to have gone through the seat




BACK (STILES, CENTER SPLAT + CREST)

59. The back is made of four separate pieces, shown top right: Left-

facing stile, Center Splat, Right-facing stile, and Crest.

60. White and blue and grey paint splatters are all over the back,

next page, small drops, drips and brush marks.

61. The left-facing stile has two types of connections:

61.1. The top is doweled into the crest, is loose, and a

reparation was made with yellow glue; it has separated

from the crest 1/16-inch, shown top right.

61.2. REVISION: DISCOVERY Muslin was used a

shim on the top dowel.

61.3. The bottom stile connection intersecting the

seat plank fits into the seat containing a full

dado housing or notched connection and was

secured to the seat plank with a lag screw and

washer screwed into the side of the seat plank,

shown center right.

61.4. Screws and washer are original and are

patinated, shown center right.

61.5. Finish is abraded and chipped.

62. The right-facing stile is the same, shown bottom right.

63. The Center Splat is created from one piece of alder, top

right, and forms a tenon at the top and bottom of the

splat.

63.1. REVISION: DISCOVERY The tenons were wrapped with cotton scrim muslin and glued into

the crest and seat base mortice with hide glue.

63.2. Paint splatters back and front, small drops.




63.3. The base is extremely filthy at the connection,

bottom left

64. The crest is fashioned from a single piece of alder wood,

routed and shaped slightly concave toward the inside

shoulder and slightly convex toward the outside

shoulder, top and bottom right.

64.1. The crest is loose from the splat and the stiles

on both sides.

64.2. Finish is abraded and chipped, with an odd

splatter-pattern of missing finish as if a

volatile liquid was splattered on the crest.

64.3. There is a repeated saw or knife abrasion

marring and splintering in the right-facing

shoulder hollow.




TREATMENT FOR #445 SMOKEY MAPLE POLYCHROME A-FRAME MASON MONTEREY CHAIR

GENERAL ATTITUDE TOWARD TREATMENT

Note: Images may be borrowed from other A-Frames, as not all aspects of the treatment were photographed on each chair; they will be noted.

65. The report was organized by areas of treatment, not the order the treatment was performed.

66. Treatment was performed in the following order:

66.1. Excavation,

66.2. Cleaning the frame, reusable innards, and show cover,

66.3. Structural reparation,

66.4. Finish reparation.

67. We based all protocol on the following parameters:

67.1. NPS guidelines for museum protocol;

67.2. our own protocol for historic items, in keeping with the AIC;

67.3. the unique nature and appearance of the Mason Monterey furniture line, including historic

materials and methods used;

67.4. the unusual intended use of these historic pieces;

67.5. precedence within these parameters.

68. Regarding the chair’s daily use as a working piece in the Chateau, this parameter took precedence over

all others as a matter of preservation; after deliberation on each issue that arose with both Mary

Merryman and Vicki Snitzler, MPFC recommended leniency in application of reversible methods, and

deviations from certain procedures typically used on objects intended for museum life.

68.1. Reversible methods and barriers typically used in finish repairs were minimized, both due to

the need for durability and preservation of the item, and because the chair’s finish was

extremely damaged; the curator was notified of deviations from reversibility.




68.2. Commentary on specific finish protocol choices is made in “2010 NPS OREGON CAVES

MASON MONTEREY PAINTED FINISHES REPORT”; however, it was determined that we

deviate from museum protocol and, as Al Levitan suggested, “Refinish.”

68.3. However, Al Levitan also gave direction on similar pieces to “Determine original

appearance.”

68.4. MPFC favored the latter as a general instruction and to this end, it became our intention to

reproduce the original painted finish on terribly degraded pieces, using similar paints and

techniques, with the exception of non-toxic pigment substitutions for highly toxic pigments

within the spirit of historical accuracy.

68.5. Detailed finish treatment for all finish colors is noted in the report “2010 NPS OREGON

CAVES PAINTED FINISHES MASON MONTEREY.”

69. MPFC reused all existing original parts, unless it was detrimental to the overall life of the piece.

70. In other areas of treatment, such as reparation of structure or materials used, normal protocol was

used, with one other exception: where the viability of a structural part was compromised to the

detriment of the structural whole, that part was replaced with a replica using the same materials.

70.1. Leg tenons (and lost stiles) broken beyond repair: in a museum setting, where the chair would

not be used, possibly the tenon could be repaired, however, again, the protocol of daily use in the

Chateau required that the leg be replaced.

70.2. However, all historic legs not used were returned to the NPS, thereby allowing for potential

reuse in future if the NPS so desired.

70.3. Insertion of key locks to sustain weight on properly repaired breaks is not reversible.




EXCAVATION

71. All compromised and loose parts of the chair were

disassembled; in the process of excavation several new

hidden conditions were uncovered.

72. Mitchell began by removing the back stile lag bolts.

72.1. Both original lag bolts disassembled relatively

easily.

72.2. The lag bolt bores in the stile were in working

condition.

72.3. The lag bolt bores on both sides of the seat

were in working condition, and would be

conserved, center bottom right.

73. The splat was loosened from the seat.

73.1. Hide glue was dissolved by injecting

undiluted hot vinegar into the mortice, right.

73.2. The splat was gently tamped from the seat,

bottom right; bits of muslin shim are seen on

the tenon.

73.3. Hot vinegar loosened the glue in all other

parts, and splat then stiles were removed

from the crest by gentle tamping, shown next

page top right.

74. The crest was loosened from the splat and stiles, next

page top right.

74.1. Second generation yellow carpenter glue and

original hide glue were dissolved by injecting

undiluted hot vinegar into the crest mortice and




stile mortice.

74.2. The stile dowels released with no damage.

74.3. The splat was gently tamped from the crest.

74.4. On the back splat tenons, thin cotton muslin

scrim was used as a shim top and bottom,

shown right.

75. The legs and seat were excavated.

76. Kerfed joinery, being a compression joint, normally

exhibits play over time; however, compromised joints

(screws, nails, kerf tenon splits) or loose joints that are

likely to fail were repaired.

76.1. Occasionally the compromises caused legs to

be replaced.

77. Three legs were removed from their mortise.

77.1. Second generation yellow carpenter glue (where

applicable) and original hide glue were dissolved by

injecting undiluted hot vinegar into kerf tenons and

mortice.

77.2. Legs were tamped out of the mortice using a hard wood

dowel padded with a felted leg glide, shown right on chair

#357.

78. The left-facing front tenon was cracked in two places; yellow glue

had been used to secure the tenon after manufacturing, shown

next page.

78.1. The tenon released leaving pieces behind.

78.2. The tenon was previously fractured and a prior repair used yellow glue.

78.3. This leg would be replaced.




Above, the front left-facing tenon, fractured, during excavation. Hot vinegar loosened the yellow glue.

Below, the left-facing rear tenon with the small nail previously embedded to secure.




79. A small nail had been placed into the left-facing rear

tenon; the tenon was quite worn, shown previous page

bottom.

79.1. The nail was extracted.

80. The kerf wedges were wider than we had seen in other

A-Frames.

81. Kerf wedges were removed from their kerf at a later

date (see KERF EXCAVATION page 26); ultimately all

wedges were cut from their kerf.

82. All parts were disassembled and ready for cleaning,

shown bottom left.




CLEANING

83. The finish was extremely dirty.

84. MPFC tested Vulpex and Triton X but found the finish reacted unreliably; deionized water was used to

wet clean.

85. NOTE: MPFC began by cleaning the chairs.

85.1. Decisions regarding the finish restoration were not concluded, however, during this time.

85.2. Ultimately the decision was made to restore the chairs, described in the Finish section.

85.3. Sanding during this phase cleaned the surface of paint and other unmovable surface grime, and

to knock of loose flaking finish, top left and right, not to unify the existing pigmentation, which

would be seen through the glaze.

85.4. The chairs were also sanded later as part of the choice to apply an oil topcoat, described in

“FINISH: SANDING,” page ??

85.5. The distressing patterns created during the

second sanding were as important to the final

finish appearance as the application of finish:

see the section on “FINISH: SANDING,”

page ??

85.6. Glue and paint were removed with chisels,

shown bottom right.




Removal of grime, paint, and accretions took cleaning and sanding, above.

Below, the seat, with grey paint (center and splatters on the edges and all over), thick grime along the rear. Note the buildup of darkened pooled modern top-coating at the back of the seat.




.

KERF EXCAVATION

86. Yellow carpenter glue (where applicable) and original

hide glue were dissolved by injecting undiluted hot

vinegar into kerf tenons.

87. All kerf wedges were ultimately removed with a tenon

saw, as the hot vinegar was not adequate to the job.

87.1. A score was made in the kerf.

87.2. Chisels opened the kerf.

87.3. Tenon saws finished the cuts.

87.4. Leg kerfs were removed, bottom right.

88. Images taken were very general; however, all of

#445’s leg kerf wedges were removed by saw.




STRUCTURAL REPARATION

Cleaning the seat splat mortice, top left, of muslin. Cleaning the splat tenons of muslin and glue,

top right and center left. Injecting hot vinegar into the crest mortice, center right.

REPAIR BACK: SPLAT, CREST, STILES

89. Mitchell cleaned the degraded and dirty seat mortice of muslin using chisels and plane, above, after

using hot vinegar to soften glue.

90. The splat was cleaned of muslin top and bottom using chisels and plane, above, after using hot vinegar

to soften glue as necessary.

91. The crest has two broken dowels stuck into the mortice,

bottom right and top of next page.

91.1. The dowels presumably broke due to yellow glue

in the mortice and hairline cracks in the dowels.

91.2. Hot vinegar softened glue in the crest mortice,

center right.




91.3. Hot vinegar loosened the glue around the stuck

dowels and into the dowel tenons, top left.

91.4. Glue was chiseled from around the dowels.

91.5. The dowels were cut at the base when they

would not release, right.

91.6. Dowel mortice were redefined by drill bits, right.

92. A new dowel was fitted to the crest tenon, below;

however, it was glued first into the repaired stile, shown

next page.

93. The stiles were repaired, shown next page.

93.1. Old hide glue was chiseled from around the

dowel mortice, next page top left.




93.2. Hot vinegar was used to soften glue in the stile

mortice; a rounded chisel removed the stuck

dowel, top right.

93.3. A drill bit cleaned the mortice to ready it for

the new dowel from stile to crest, right.

93.4. The stile lag bores were thoroughly cleaned of

old hide glue.

94. The right-facing stile was tangentially split, shown above.

94.1. The split was injected with warm hide glue, cauled, and clamped to cure.

95. The back (stile, crest and splat) was ready to reassemble.




Conservation of lag bolt holes: hide glue into the hole, top left, a soft wood shim inserted into the hole,

REPAIR SEAT: LEFT-FACING LAG

96. The left-facing lag bolt connection was in good condition, and conserved:

96.1. Soft wood shims were used when the bores were not enlarged and in good condition; otherwise,

hard wood dowels of differing sizes were used and the bores had to be drilled.

96.2. Hot hide glue was inserted into the bore, top left, and onto soft wood shim.

96.3. The soft wood was snugged into the bore and

allowed to cure.

96.4. After curing, the soft wood was cut to the

surface, chiseled flat to the dado.

96.5. Glue was cleaned off the full house dado wall

around the lag bore, right.

REPAIR SEAT: RIGHT-FACING LAG

97. The right-facing lag bolt connection was in good condition and conserved as described above.




REPAIR SEAT: LEG MORTICE

98. Mitchell cleaned old glue from around the three leg mortice collars with chisels.

99. No repairs were necessary.

REPAIR SEAT: PATTERN KEY LOCKS

100. The underside of the seat was patterned to determine

the best location for key locks in order to preserve

the unification of the planked seat, shown page 33.

101. One size was used for a total of two key locks.

102. In the process of patterning, it became apparent to

us that the seat was not symmetrical and the leg

mortices were in varying positions.

102.1. A mini view of measuring is shown next page on #444 to illustrate.

102.2. Next page bottom is an image of the trapezium shape in chalk showing the inconsistent

design or execution and workmanship.

103. All other seats were reviewed, and most have some or all of the same characteristics.




The A-Frames in #444 were inconsistent in their design and execution. Mitchell found the square from top and bottom, and worked the T-Square up the sides and along the bottom, in order to show you how absolutely nothing lines up. If not for the proper trajectory of the bore one might be tempted to conclude that Mason bored the seat mortice willy-nilly, where the drill bit just happened to land. If you look at the seat below, we have drawn lines from the center point of each leg to the next. We surmise their goal was to make primitive, "cowboy" furniture,

and this may have been part of their plan; it is true that the legs sat square on the floor, after all.




REPAIR SEAT: BUILD JIG + GLUE SPLITS7

104. Custom contoured glue jigs were created, next page top right.

105. A number of condition issues were present in the seat planks: Broken joins, delaminated joins,

splintering radial grain within some of the delaminating joins, shrinkage within the join walls,

occasional tangential splits and lifts on planking tops adjacent to joins.8

106. Further, lumber sizes for the seats were random widths and placed in a random pattern.

106.1. Mitchell assumes that Mason “batch” joined many pieces of alder in random widths, glued

the boards and clamped them as one large slab.

106.2. They then traced out multiple seats on the slab and did not pay attention to the join

positions on the seats, which by example accounts for seats where a 2-inch wide board was

positioned at the edge of the seat.

107. The above issues interfered with regluing, making it difficult to keep boards under even pressure

during glue cure.

108. Additionally, it was necessary to install inset butterfly key locks into the seat bottoms in order to

secure already broken or delaminated joins, prevent future breakage or delamination of

compromised joins.

109. These were the factors considered in when designing our jigs.

110. Kiln dry clear vertical grain fir lumber was ultimately selected for the project, because milling

specifications, along with inherent qualities of fir, insured certainty of strong, flexible, straight,

level, non-distorted surfaces which would withstand a great deal of clamping pressure without

splitting or bruising the historic wood.

111. Each seat was cut a bit different, one from the other, by Mason.

111.1. Therefore individual jigs had to be cut in order to maintain even contact with the seat

planking side walls and maintain proper contour.


7 This section applies to all the glue jigs, and to all the seats that needed glue jigs to a lesser or greater extent.Images of the glue jigs are from #444.

8 All the seats exhibited these issues to a lesser or greater extent, which could be seen by a knowing eye.



112. A tracing of the contour of each seat was drawn onto

2x8 fir KD/CVG.

113. The seat plank at its rear terminus was cut at an

angle, center right, just behind the full dado housing

which holds the back stile supports.

113.1. The angle varied slightly from chair to chair.

113.2. Additional forces nearing the back

termination line of this angle were the

rear leg mortice and the back splat

mortice, bottom right.

113.3. Because of the nature of the exposed end

grain the planing on the angle, the random

placing of the seat board joins, and the

competing forces associated with the

backward and downward thrust of leg

tenons + splat tenons + back stiles created

a dynamic which necessitated the

wrapping of the angled edges with the jig

in order to gain traction and compaction

during clamping (note the edges, top right).

113.4. Additionally, the front seat wall coved or chamfered, and was contoured to accommodate

human legs, giving way to multiple termination points of joinery, adding to the necessity

of a wide single board which would house the entire seat during the glue-up.

113.5. The jig openings, front and rear, allowed access into the seat planking surface for

stabilization through the installation of clamps and cauls.

113.6. Deep jawed clamps were installed strategically as necessary along join lines over cauls,

and held join lines for two boards.




113.7. This mitigated warping or twisting board

joining toward the seat terminus, where

the end grains absorbed moisture over

decades.

113.8. It also acted in tandem with the jigging to

place the seat in stasis.

114. Traced fir lumber was cut into individual lengths

and then contour cut using a band saw.

115. Jig walls were sanded then padded with dense, self

adhesive, furniture leg padding in order to assure

that bruising would not occur during clamping, top

right.

116. Glue was installed into cracks, fissures, and open

surfaces of the seat.

117. The chair seat had one long radial grain tangential

split, right.

117.1. The splits had spread wide and left a void;

the shrinkage was too severe to gain a

complete reconnection of join walls.

117.2. The join was thoroughly cleaned of hide

glue and debris.

117.3. Hot hide glue was injected into the split

along the rear seat edge, previous page

bottom right, and the split was squeezed to

move the glue deeper into the opening.




117.4. Thin pieces of alder veneer were placed into

the voids, top left.

117.5. Glue was cleaned from the surface, shown

top right.

117.6. The veneer was shaved to the seat edge,

then the seat was clamped, right, while the

veneer was tamped deep into the split,

bottom right.

117.7. The veneer along the back edge was shaved.

117.8. The seats were clamped across twin widths while

inside their glue jig frames before cross bars were

installed, shown next page top in #444.

117.9. Cases where excessive shrinkage and warping

occurred, screw clamps were included in addition to

the quick clamps to gain additional torque.




Images of the glue jigs in use, and with stretchers, are from #444.

118. 1x2 and 1x3 fir KD/CVG were selected as structural stretchers, cut to width and screwed to the jig

surface using a flange headed, non tapered, cabinet installation screw.

118.1. This screw style was selected to minimize the risk for splitting the 1x during multiple re-

installations of the stretchers.

118.2. The primary function of the stretchers were to hold the jigs together under constant

pressure after the clamps were removed and during the mortising process and the creation

of the key locks; therefore, the stretchers were placed to allow for the eventually routing of

the key lock mortice.

119. The stretchers served two purposes:

119.1. First was to assure that the jigs kept the seat plank under constant pressure equal to

clamping pressure.

119.2. Second was to assure that the warped top and bottom of the seat planking could not cup or

distort during re-gluing.




119.3. The stretchers surfaces where they met the seat surfaces were also padded with large,

dense leg pads in order to act as internal jig pressure points and eliminate any risk for

bruising of the historic seat surfaces.

119.4. Wax paper was slipped between the pads and the seat surface to insure that any residual

hide glue would not adhere the stretcher and pads to the historic surfaces.

120. Because of the severity of join degradation and the atrophy of grain surfaces we did not want to

minimize pressure within the glue jig during the mortise procedure thereby risking failure of

repairs gained during the jigging, clamping gluing process.

120.1. Therefore we determined that individual stretchers could be removed selectively if

necessary during the mortise/routing process while at the same time decreasing the

pressure to the jigging walls only slightly overall.

120.2. To mitigate the loss of pressure during the temporary removal of stretchers we secured a

commercial quick clamp in the stretchers place while still allowing access to the seat plank

bottom and still making adequate space for the router.

121. Conserved seat planks were ultimately left in the jigs under pressure for 4 weeks in a room with a

medium low RH in order to assure the complete curing of glue and the redirecting of formerly

warped or twisted grain channels.

121.1. Routing of key lock mortice was performed at the end of the 3-4 week stasis, followed by

the gluing of the inset key locks with warm hide glue.

121.2. Again the stretchers were selectively removed as necessary while keeping pressure on the

jig walls with commercial quick clamps.

121.3. Key locks were set into mortise and stretchers were placed back over the curing keys with

leg pads between the keys and stretchers, to shim and add downward pressure during cure.

121.4. Stretchers were resecured to jigs and allowed to cure at least one week.

122. Finally the stretchers were removed and the jigs released from the seat plank surface.

122.1. The key locks set proud of the seat plank bottoms, and were planed level with the historic

seat plank bottom.




122.2. Glue accretions were removed by light scraping with a chisel.

123. Ultimately the jigs performed exactly as they were designed, redirecting competing malign forces,

(warps, misalignments, twists, shrinkage, etc.), much like dental braces do on a badly misaligned

palate, but in a much shorter period of time!

KEY LOCKSCREATE KEY LOCKS

124. Key locks were cut from Oregon alder in two sizes,

however, the large one alone was used on #442.

125. There is a reasoning behind coving the corners on

the butterfly key locks.

125.1. Because of the inherent design limitations of

a plunge router jig base apparatus applied to the

creation of sharp corners, plus the inherent roundness

of bits and plunger collars, the plank routing

butterfly corners were routed as coves rather than

sharp corners.

125.2. Rather than risking chipping during a hand-chiseling

process in the morticed corners, which would cause

imprecise wall edges and possibly future splits in the

historic seat plank, Mitchell opted to allow the coved

corners.

125.3. The offset of the tension long the key wall from the cove was minimal and considering the

primary sheer along the mortice wall was asserted primarily along the lateral walls

rather than the corners.




126. Coarse sandpaper was glued to a board, previous page bottom

right, and the key lock corners were sanded to accommodate

the routed mortice.

ROUTE + INSERT KEY LOCKS9

127. The jigged seat with chalk pattern marks, right, was turned

upside down and secured to the work table.

128. Two key locks were patterned for installment, shown page

next page.

129. Butterfly insets were routed into the seat bottoms using a

router to the pattern edges, shown bottom.

129.1. Chisels were used to remove excess material and give it the final clean depth and shape,

shown next page; key locks were loosely set into the inset for gluing.

This is the plunge router key mortice guide pattern. Key lock inset was cleaned and detail using a chisel.


9 Routing images are all the same; tornado shortened the time for photographing in effort to move the process along.



#357A, below left, key locks glued into place. Wax paper covered the key locks to keep seeping glue from adhering to

the wood caul, which was placed on top of the key locks and clamped to cure, bottom right.

129.2. Both key locks and key lock mortice were covered in

warm hide glue.

129.3. Key locks were gently tamped into place with a rubber

mallet.

129.4. The seat was again placed into the jig.

129.5. Wax paper covered the key locks to keep seeping glue

from adhering to the 1x2 wood cull, which was placed

on top of the key locks and clamped to cure

130. After curing, the cauls and jig were removed.

130.1. The key locks sat proud of the seat plank

bottoms, as seat depths differed slightly

from chair to chair; they were planed

level with the historic seat plank bottom.

130.2. Excess glue accretions were removed by

light scraping with a chisel.

131. A butterfly key lock repair effectively lowers the

possibility for future shrinking or breaking of the join or crack; key locks installed shown right and

bottom.




REPAIR LEGS

132. Two original legs and one new leg were to be reassembled; one

leg was secure and left untouched.

133. The two original legs have no conditions to repair, but one had

a chip of the seat attached to it, which was removed with a

chisel, right.

133.1. That chip was set into the edge of the mortice on the

underside of the seat using warm hide glue.

134. Leg bottoms on the original legs had open end grain; Mitchell

embedded the ends with pigmented paraffin and carnauba wax to completely seal off the open end

grain.




Two new alder legs below: the top leg was distressed as per the manner Mason abused their freshly turned new legs.

NEW LEGS, TURNED AND DISTRESSED

135. New legs were turned by Jim Root, Abbaroot Co. one was

slated for #445.

136. The leg had crisp edges and symmetrical shape shown on the

bottom of the image above; we distressed them.

137. The leg was run across a sand belt to remove parts of the

turns, and to put deep 1/4 to 1/2-inch ruts in the sides, right.

138. Coarse sandpaper was glued to a board and the new leg was

dragged across the sandpaper, causing scratches,

right.

139. Various rasps added deeper marks, bottom.

140. The crisp edges of the turnings were softened,

bottom right.

141. The leg looked like they had been run over by a

herd of horses; they were ready for reassembly.




The distressing is worth a

large detail image, top:

distressed legis on top.

142. Kerfs were cut into the tenon of the new leg, below, with a

tenon saw, and the wedge removed.

143. New wedges were created from alder, right.

144. The new leg was created a bit longer in both the foot and the

tenon, so they could be custom fit, as each chair’s leg bores were

a bit different, one from another, necessitating variable leg

lengths, shown next page bottom left.

144.1. Custom fit meant setting the leg into the mortice in the

seat, next page bottom left, to trim the leg

flush to the top of the seat, next page

bottom right.




144.2. Next the foot was trimmed to the proper length, at a slight angle, shown bottom right.

145. The seat and legs are ready to be reassembled.

The top of the left-facing front leg tenon trimmed to length, above.Below, details of tenons and feet show the angles of tenons and feet.




REASSEMBLY

SEAT + LEGS

146. All parts were ready for reassembly.

147. The legs were initially refitted to the seat mortice.

148. Kerf wedges were slipped into the kerfs to test the

number needed to spread each kerf above (#444

shown), as each kerf had twisted and displayed

varying kerf widths ad configuration.

149. The tenon collars were leveled, and all vestiges of

hide glue were removed with chisels to allow for a

snug fit.

150. Legs tenons were covered with warm hide glue, top

right.

150.1. Leg mortice was covered in warm hide

glue, center right.

150.2. Each leg was reinserted into the original

mortice based on our markings, and excess

glue was wiped from underneath.

150.3. Kerf joints were lined up as before, bottom

right.

150.4. Seat and legs were secured on a level work

surface, and legs were positioned as they were to be in future.




151. Glue was inserted into the kerf, previous page

bottom right.

151.1. Hot hide glue was brushed all over the kerf

wedges.

151.2. Kerf wedges were inserted and tamped into

place, top.

151.3. Excess glue was wiped clean.

151.4. Seat and wedges were allowed to cure.

152. Mitchell used a Japanese tenon saw to level the

kerf wedges after curing, bottom left.

153. Proud areas were carefully hand planed creating a

finish quality surface, bottom right.

154. The seat was reassembled, next page top right.




Top the finished seat and legs assembled.

The seat had its own anomalies: the mortice was not cut perpendicular to the seat rear apron on the back of the chair, center images.

Below, the conserved lag bores in the seat dado.




REASSEMBLY: BACK (CREST + SPLAT + STILES) ONTO SEAT

MUSLIN SHIMS

155. Strips of cotton muslin were cut to form shims, as

was originally done by Mason.

155.1. Round muslin shims were cut using an

upholstery button cutting die, top right.

STILES

156. Original lag bolts were used.

157. The seat back stiles were set into place as a mock

up, right, and were held on temporarily by clamps,

center right, while the seat lags were screwed into

the original conserved bores through the stiles bores.

158. Lag bolts were attached through the stile into the

seat and secured loosely.

SPLAT-TO-SEAT

159. The splat was attached to the seat.

159.1. Warm hide glue was applied to the seat

mortice, right.

159.2. Warm hide glue was applied to the bottom

splat tenon, bottom left.




159.3. A muslin strip was laid across the seat

mortice and the splat tenon was set into the

mortice using the muslin as a shim,

previous page bottom right, and tamped

gently but securely into place, top right.

CREST-TO-SPLAT+STILES

160. The crest was attached to the splat and stiles,

below.

160.1. Warm hide glue was placed onto the top of

the splat tenon; muslin was laid over the

glue, and a bit more glue was applied by

brush.

160.2. Warm hide glue was applied in the crest mortice, including the dowels mortice for the stiles.

160.3. The muslin was set over the top of the glue saturated dowels, center right.

160.4. Additional glue was brushed over the surface of the muslin, center right.

160.5. The crest was set

onto the splat tenon

using the muslin as a

shim, and onto the

stile dowels, and

tamped gently but

securely into place,

next page.

LEVELING

161. The chair was again set onto

a level surface and trued, then clamped for 48 hours, bottom right.

162. The chair was tied, clamps removed, and allowed to cure for several weeks, bottom far right.




FILL CREST163. Deep score marks were filled with Araldyte®, this

page

164. Crest was masked off, Araldyte® was applied and

shaped, then the masking was removed.

165. After curing, Araldyte® was sanded to finish.




GLIDES (AFTER FINISH WORK)

166. Leg bottoms on the original legs had open end grain; Mitchell embedded the ends with

paraffin to completely seal off the open end grain.

167. New glides were placed on the bottom of the chair legs (shown on chair #354 after finish).

167.1. Leg bottoms were bored with a small bit to accommodate a leg glide shank.

167.2. Glide was carefully tamped into position.




FINISH TREATMENT

GENERAL NOTES AND APPROACH

168. The finish information is as stands, with revisions, in the Assessment Report, pages 10-12.

169. Images may be borrowed from other Smokey Maple A-Frames, as not all aspects of the finish were

photographed on each chair, and will be noted.

170. Original Smokey Maple pigment was intact in many areas of the chair; many areas were degraded

and flaking, and the chair had been previously painted with a modern topcoat.

171. As noted in our GENERAL ATTITUDE TOWARD TREATMENT, protocol choices outside

standard museum protocol were made in the finish treatment, and is detailed in “2010 NPS

OREGON CAVES MASON MONTEREY PAINTED FINISHES REPORT.”

171.1. However, it was determined that we deviate from museum protocol and, as Al Levitan

suggested, “Refinish;” Al Levitan also gave direction to “Determine original appearance.”

171.2. MPFC favored the latter instruction and to this end, it became our intention to reproduce

the original painted finish to the best of our ability based on clues from the remaining

pigment on the chair, and historical clues as to how it might have been done when images

were not forthcoming.

171.3. In the case of #436, we chose the color based upon remaining original pigments on the

chair.

171.4. We understood a gesso undercoat was used; however, as there was a substantial amount of

pigment on the chair, MPFC did not re-gesso.

171.5. We based the splat design on the the combination of the original Chateau A-Frame #290A.

171.6. We took our cues on the ball turnings based on the the image top of page 4.

171.7. We used similar paints and techniques, with the exception of non-toxic pigment

substitutions for highly toxic pigments.




172. MPFC and Mary Merryman chose Gamblin Oil Paints,

known for their conservation work and for their commitment

to non-toxic paints to create a match for the original oil

painted finish.

173. Kate created a very light Smokey Maple Glaze topcoat.

174. Our finish information on all pigments and colors is included in

the “2010 NPS OREGON CAVES MASON MONTEREY

PAINTED FINISHES REPORT.”

175. MPFC mixed and bottled the Smokey Maple Glaze, and then

modified it on each chair as necessary.

175.1. This base was modified by the addition of either pigments and/or diluent depending upon

the existing level and color of finish present on the chair.

176. There is evidence that Smokey Maple may not have always had the matte finish assumed by

many due to pieces seen in a degraded condition; we believe these A-Frames were medium gloss.

176.1. It may be that because these were marketed as dining chairs, they allowed the topcoat to be

glossier, so that the chairs could be wiped down with a damp rag.




MYSTERY SOLVED

177. A mystery until the writing of this report was why Mason

typically painted a gesso undercoat on the seat but not on

splats, crest, stile or legs, right.

177.1. The key is in the image bottom right, from #357, which

was the best example of original Smokey Maple

pigment left on a leg top.

177.2. If this were stripped of all paint, the grain on the leg

and the kerf (notice the line across the

round leg top) were cut cross grain, which

is visually different from the grain on the

seat, which is tangential, and can be seen

best in the three different grain patterns

shown in an image center right from #436.

177.3. Mason gessoed the entire seat (and leg top

and kerf wedge) then painted it to appear

as if it were all a radial surface (and

possibly to look like mahogany graining).

177.4. The marching directional lines you see on

the seat, bottom right, are not really grain

but a coarse bristle brush distributing

paint.

177.5. Now we also understand why Mason

occasionally undercoated other pieces as well; he did so when he had a piece of alder (or

possibly another wood) and wanted to unify the grain with the same technique.

177.6. MPFC did not use a gesso undercoat on #445.




FINISH: PRACTICE AND TESTING FOR REPRODUCTION

178. The Oregon Caves allowed several chairs and a table to be used as

practice and tests for the Gamblin Paints.

179. Durability and wear and drying times were all part of the testing

process, as well as giving Kate a “canvas” on which to practice the

strokes and layering used on the Mason pieces.

179.1. Each side of the table was tested with varying mixtures

and techniques; all were evaluated and cauled

into the method used for reproduction of

finishes: brushing, wiping, scrubbing paints!

179.2. Consistency and movement were noted, such

as the dripping paint shown in the center, right;

the failures were as informative as the

successes, and were noted.

179.3. Finally recipes were finalized and methods perfected.

180. Kate’s observations regarding the decorative painting:

180.1. Brush strokes are quite easy to reproduce, but finger-

painting is like a signature, and very hard to reproduce.

180.2. Kate practiced on several children's’ chairs for the NPS

(the first one shown bottom), feeling for the right finger

pressure to make the images look like the original on

#290A; however, the first chair splat (#439

Chateau Green) she sanded and repainted.

181. Having studied the images while reproducing the floral

patterns, she can now recognize various artisans who

painted specific decorative images; unfortunately, we

probably will never know their names.




FINISH: SANDING

182. Smokey Maple is a transparent glaze; Kate

selectively sanded with an eye to the manner in

which the chair’s finish would have worn as

“antiques,” much as Mason did when creating the

chairs.

182.1. Kate balanced exposing bare alder with

pigmented alder through sanding, shown

right.

182.2. Kate used images of Monterey chairs with

original finish intact, noting wear in

certain areas, more pigment intact in

others, and reproduced the affects as

Mason would have done in each chair.

182.3. Kate also mimicked the directional quality

in sanding on the seat, shown bottom, and

splat, shown right, so that distressing

mimicked the original finish.

182.4. #445 had uneven remnants of finish

embedded into the wood, shown bottom.

183. #445 was quite scratched before treatment, with

uneven puddles of modern pigmented top coating

and large patches of completely bare wood; more

were added during removal of large grey, green,

and white paint drippings.




FINISH: BUILDUP

184. The new distressed leg needed an additional coat to balance its finish.

185. Unlike any second coats applied, the new leg was painted, then distresses so it would have some

highlights and not look completely even in tone.

FINISH: SMOKEY MAPLE

186. Testing for opacity was performed on the underside

of both the seat and inside of old and new legs (shown

on #357A), right.

187. In additionally to the Smokey Maple container, a

container of diluent and pigment were open during

treatment, right, as Kate needed to be able to dip into

each as needed to artfully apply the new Smokey

Maple finish.

188. Brushes of various hair (bristle, synthetic) were used in flats (size 8, 16, + 20).

189. Once determined, painting was done methodically so that gradually the piece was upright, the paint

would still move and not drag in the time taken to complete, and the chair would need minimal

handling.

190. With the chair face down, Kate started with the inside of the stiles, and proceeded to the inside of the

legs, alternating between diluent and glaze and pigment as necessary.

190.1. The chair was stood on its legs while the outside legs were painted in the same manner.




The new leg, above, required more pigment artfully placed to mimic the appearance of the original legs; the new leg absorbed the paint immediately. Below, an original leg is coated evenly, because the distressing was already present.

190.2. The chair was turned on its back, and the splat and crest were painted in the same manner.

190.3. The chair was turned upright and the crest, then outside back splat were painted.

190.4. Finally the seat was painted, shown next page (seat images are of 444).




This set of images of 444 shows the laying in of diluent then Smokey Maple paint, top left,

blending it as we believe it should look, lighter on the top edge, top right and below.

Bottom left, the scrubbing action on 444 pushed the oil paint deep into the distressed areas,

then the paint was blended directionally in long strokes to set the stress lines of the paint, right

191. The chair was allowed to cure for 8 days, though it was dry to the

touch within 48 hours.

192. Note the original Smokey Maple finish, untouched, on wingback

141A, behind A-Frame 445.

193. Parts of the chair were in need of a second coat, shown next page.

193.1. The leg was lightly sanded overall, and distressed in

appropriate areas, such as along the edges.




193.2. The second coat of Smokey Maple glaze was artfully applied, using diluent and pigment as

necessary.

193.3. Notice the difference in the first and second coat, top.

193.4. Bottom, the Smokey Maple glaze showing an evenness to the finish though the distressing

is still present.

194. The chair was allowed to cure for 7 days, though it was dry to the touch within 72 hours.

195. A third coat of diluent was put on the new leg to seal.

Bottom: #445 A-Frame chair after sanding, left; after second coat, right.




FINISH: SPANISH RED SPLAT + BALL TURNINGS

196. Spanish Red base color was mixed, matched to items

we had on hand and previous color boards, and

placed into tubes.

197. Kate applied with diluents as necessary to cover; .

198. The sides of the splat was edged with a small flat,

center left.

199. The inside back splat was edged with a small flat,

center right and bottom left, and infilled with a larger flat, shown bottom right in images of 444.

The two images of A-Frame 444, above, show edging and blending on the splat.

200. The chair was turned right-side up, and the back

splat was edged and infilled in the manner of the

front of the splat, right.

200.1. NOTE: Image top right shows the infill to

allow the Araldyte® to blend with the crest.

201. The chair was turned on its head, and the inside of

the ball turnings were painted with a small flat,

shown below.

202. The chair was turned on its feet, and the outside of the ball turnings were painted with a small flat.

203. The chair was allowed to cure for close to three weeks; it was dry to the touch within 72 hours.




Center, the new leg versus an original leg. Center bottom, the depth of the many layers.

Bottom right, the red paint on the splat and ball turnings.




FINISH: DECORATIVE SPLAT

204. The decorative design was taken from the only existing

original A-Frame, #290A, shown right during tracing.

205. From the original tracing a pattern and method of laying in

color was determined, shown center left.

206. A transfer was made to the red splat, center.

207. The transfer was made with an erasable pencil.

208. Synthetic brushes were used in flats (size 6 + 8) and liners of

varying lengths.

209. Six paint colors were applied, shown next page; curing time was given between each.

209.1. Pale Decorative Yellow was mixed on a palette; it created leaves (painted using a small

flat) and petal on the center flower (made by finger-painting.)

209.2. The chair was allowed to cure for 7 days, though it was dry to the touch within 72 hours.

209.3. Decorative green was mixed and placed into a tube; it created leaves (painted with a small

flat) and stems (painted with a liner.)


209.5. Straw Ivory base color was mixed and placed into a tube; it created petals (made by finger-

painting) and center of a flower (made by finger-painting.)




The stages of the color applications: Above: Tracing, left; Pale DecorativeYellow, center; and

Decorative Green, right. Below: Straw Ivory, left; Decorative Black, center; and Spanish Blue, right. Next Page, the final color on the decorative panel, Decorative Blue.


209.7. Decorative Black was mixed and placed into a tube; it created leaves (painted using a

small flat) and parts of the flower (made by finger-painting.)

209.8. Spanish Blue base color was mixed and placed into a tube; it created the center of the twin

flowers (made by finger-painting.)

209.9. The chair was allowed to cure for three weeks, though it was dry to the touch within 48

hours to two weeks.




209.10. Decorative Blue was

mixed and placed into a

tube; it created the tips

of the flowers (made by

finger-painting.)

Finished decorative splat before glaze and wax.




FINISH: GLAZE TOPCOAT ON SPLAT + BALL TURNINGS

210. A thinned coat of Smokey Maple glaze was applied

to the splat and ball turnings, top right, with a stiff

bristle flat size 8 and 16.

211. The chair was dry to the touch within 48 hours;

however, MPFC gave it a full month to cure before

waxing due to the pressure involved in the process.




FINISH: WAX

212. The finish on the entire chair was scuffed using

abrasive pads in fine and medium grit, shown top

right.

213. Pigmented wax with a high amount of carnauba

was applied and worked into all the crevices, right,

then artfully removed to allow accretions, bottom.

214. After allowing the wax to set, the chair was

polished with a soft diaper cloth to a medium

sheen, bottom left.

215. The chair was completed, shown next page.




#445 is completed!




Date post:	11-Feb-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	trinhcong
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

ASSESSMENT & TREATMENT REPORT FOR #445 … NPS ORCA/FULL... · table of contents page section 4...

Documents