User talk:Tomticker5

Trumbull Center (Trumbull)

Hi Tom, just a note that I created this page today, was wondering if you would like to collaborate on it and/or can help the history section in particular... Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! Yes, I'll be able to add some content to the history section over time. Route 127 White Plains Road, Pulpit rock, first meeting house, the mills on the Pequonnock, Booth and Hawley houses, cemeteries, Helen Plumb building, Nero Hawley, etc..Tomticker5 (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feake-Ferris House

Hi, I agree, maybe the article should be protected. At the very least, I think we should be able state what the Greenwich Point folks are "alleging" regarding the dendrochronology interpretation and potential timeframe of dates (circa 1645-1689). I have no reason to believe they are lying and I think this could be a very important house according to the articles I read, so people should be able to read about it and do further research. If other sources are published disputing the date, then I have no problem including those and revising the article. Secondary newspaper sources should be good enough for wikipedia, this isn't a peer reviewed journal. Thank you for your help. I haven't toured the house or spoken to the owners, although oldhouses has claimed that he has requested the dendro report and been denied access. I can't verify that, so probably better to stick to the secondary sources we have. Swampyank (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm glad we're in agreement. I don't have a horse in this race either, I just love old homes. However, I think User talk: Old Houses has some skin in the game. Columbia University was one of the first labs in the world to study tree rings and should be considered a reliable source for that. Connecticut Explored is a respected publication and should be considered a reliable source too. Tree ring analysis is quickly becoming a profitable business for two other labs; Oxford and Deerfield. In fact, the Old House (Cutchogue) in Cutchogue, NY (Long Island), always believed to date from the 1640s, did dendrochronology which dated the frame to 1699 (Oxford). They had a second study performed using Deerfield and they confirmed Oxford's 1699 date. User talk: Old Houses insists that unless a house has an exposed decorated frame, it cannot date to the 17th century or to before 1750. The Old House (Cutchogue) has no summer beam and a flat plaster ceiling on one side of it and dates to 1699. User talk: Old Houses has had an ongoing editing war with me on the Ephraim Hawley House in Stratford, CT, which is well known to me, and has concealed summer beams within flat plaster ceilings and has always been dated to 1683 with carbon dating to 1710. The Hyland House Museum in Guilford, always thought to date to the 1660s, had dendrochronology which dated the house to 1713. It also has concealed summer beams and flat plaster ceilings. The timbers analyzed at Feake-Ferris House show the home was constructed in three phases between 1645 and 1689, that's good enough for me. As you said, dendrochronology is uncovering early houses and changing the dates of others to much newer than previously thought. If we need to protect pages from the ongoing edits of User talk: Old Houses we will.Tomticker5 (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lab at Columbia is a reliable source, but has not and cannot be cited here, as the report has not been made public. The Old House in Cutchogue has an exposed, chamfered frame, consistent with a 1699 date.Old houses (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have never claimed a house cannot date before 1750 unless it has a decorated frame. However, to date, no proven 17th century house in the Northeast is without a decorated, exposed frame. You still have not explained your elevation of one source saying 1645, and another saying 1689.Old houses (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Old House has a flat plaster ceiling no exposed framing and no summer beam in the keeping room. Tomticker5 (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Old House has a chamfered frame; images of the house are readily available. Your cherry-picking is contrary to the most basic wikipedia expectations.Old houses (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know the Old House (Cutchogue) well. In the 1940 HABS report, the Keeping Room outside wall and ceiling is plastered (since removed) and there is no summer beam there. The first floor ceiling height is 7' 11" and the second floor is 7' 6". Quite high for a 17th century house, wouldn't you say? There are riven oak clapboards preserved in the lean-to attic with the original casement window frame. Perhaps the dendrochronology date of 1699 is for the Keeping Room side only and this was added later to the original house (Parlor) which has a chamfered summer beam and was always dated to 1640 [Oldest house in New York]. The Oxford dendrochronology report fails to mention that the house was built in phases, if it was. As you previously said, if the dendrochronology report found framing dating to 1640 and also 1699, they'd use the 1699 date, because the 1640 house would be gone. See your remarks regarding multiple dates found at Feake-Ferris House. As summer beams were not phased out until the 18th century, your words, please explain to me how this house can date to 1699, if the dendrochronology is accurate, and not have a summer beam in the Keeping Room.Tomticker5 (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say if they found framing from 1640 and also 1699 that they'd use the 1699 date; that's ridiculous. Now, if they test a summer beam, for example, and get a 1640 date, and everything else they test is 1699, then of course the house is 1699, using a re-used summer beam.

Next, HABS images clearly show a summer beam. The house has heavily chamfered beams, molded boarding, etc. Dendrochronology results of 1699 fit perfectly with the house's many post-medieval features.Old houses (talk) 01:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no summer beam in the keeping room. I know this house well. BTW, it’s 90 miles from New York City and only 30 from Connecticut shoreline at Stratford. Tomticker5 (talk) 01:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The left side is very narrow; maybe ten feet or so. The joists could handle the load; no need for a summer. The lack of summer (I'll take your word for it) in no way is an indication of age in this case. The two dendrochronologists that tested The Old House have tested more houses than anyone in the Northeast. I think what you're suggesting is that the side without the summer wasn't tested, and that it could be older than the other, larger side of the house?Old houses (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been to the house; I'll research further, but I wonder if that small side was originally a leanto kitchen. But if that section has no decorative elements (chamfering or molded boarding) then it would be a much later addition; but that would have been noted in the dendrochronology report. Again, all proven 17th century houses have an exposed, decorated frame, and The Old House is a great example.Old houses (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Old House (Cutchogue), either the Keeping Room side was added in 1698/1699 or it was the more formal room of the two. Refer to HABS sheet 12 of 17: [1]. The Keeping Room ceiling height is 7' 11", no summer beam, 4" by 5" ceiling joists without decoration, and a flat riven lath and plaster ceiling. The lintel was decorated with a chamfer stop. There's a note on the sheet that says: "later lath and plaster ceiling" but I believe the plaster ceiling is original. See Hyland House in Guilford, CT. Isham felt that the flat lath and plaster ceiling was original and that house dated no earlier than 1720, due to the flat plaster ceiling and the tall ceiling height. Isham was nearly right, because dendrochronology arrived at a 1713 date, and they now consider the flat riven lath and plaster ceiling to be original to 1713. However, at the time, the museum went ahead with the earlier date of 1660 when they renovated the house into a museum.Tomticker5 (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For that very narrow room, the lack of summer is not a surprise, especially given the large joists; this is not a stylistic element at all. Basically it's a 3/4 house; not uncommon. The plaster is likely later; 1699 would be early for plaster. If there was whitewash or smoke stains on the ceiling, then it was exposed for sure. Takes a close look, but the joists probably have just a bit of chamfering on the edges.Old houses (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Feake and Pratt houses, no known 17th century architectural details, no survey by an architectural historian. No way do they date to the 1640s. For the Feake, do what you want, but for the Pratt, when the museum itself states 1701, that's the date to cite. Most likely, given the gambrel roof, the house dates to much later, but without a citable source for that, the 1701 is the best we have.Old houses (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Fairbanks House official website uses 1637 as the construction date [2]. 1637 is even engraved on the chimney. Why is that date not used on the wiki page?Tomticker5 (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That 1636 on the chimney has been there for decades. Dendro says 1641, so that's what it should be.Old houses (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the hyperlink I sent you. It says 1637! Tomticker5 (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chimney says 1636; website says 1637. So the ownership is off by four years; the group that did the Feake House might be off by a hundred years. Hawley House is off by at least forty. Owners want an older house.Old houses (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not to beat a dead horse, but the Fairbanks House chimney, shown in the video on their website, has 1637 emblazoned in white numbers on it. The Ephraim Hawley House rooms are only 14’ at the longest point with 6”x6” joists. Tomticker5 (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So the Fairbanks board of directors is pushing the date of construction by four years. Feake is pushing by maybe 100. Hawley is pushing by forty; no decorated framing or pre-Georgian details means 1725+.Old houses (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If those joists at Hawley were exposed at the start, then it's probably a pre-1730 house.

Dendrochronology has dated Georgian flat plaster ceilings to 1713 Hyland House Guilford, Connecticut. Tomticker5 (talk) 00:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hyland has first period features, though; chamfered exterior girt, most obviously, and I assume others.Old houses (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ephraim Hawley House had exposed posts and girts in the kitchen, and exposed framing and riven oak clapboards on second floor. The posts and girts in the Parlor and Hall were plastered over, and the ones in the kitchen were dark in color and were cased in pine during renovations that caused them to refer to the house afterwards as “new” in the land record when it was gifted father to son in 1787. Getting redundant here. Mr. Curtis, whose family owned the house from 1881 to 1965, told his daughter that J. Frederick Kelly confirmed the construction date of 1683-1690 that Joan Oppenheim arrived at after completing her research on the house while studying architecture at Yale.Tomticker5 (talk) 17:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J. Frederick Kelly was obviously not qualified to "confirm" any date on any house, as history has proven. No one was able to confirm any date until building permits became the norm in the late 19th century. Notation of interior details, drawings, measurements- all valuable contributions from Kelly, Oppenheim, whoever, but the dates they came up with are of no value.Old houses (talk) 18:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dates of construction are changing across the board, and we now know that an exposed, decorated frame is the key feature defining seventeenth century architecture; again, no house has been dated to the 17th century that doesn't have a decorated frame. Exposed, chamfered framing endured well into the 18th century, and the lack of chamfering at Hawley makes it very unlikely it's pre-1725. That 1683 date is based on land records, etc., not on architectural style.Old houses (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Historic Buildings of Connecticut web site is primarily a genealogy site; not a reliable source.Old houses (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Historic Buildings of Connecticut website is a reliable source when it suites you. For example, when you cited it and changed the Thomas Wheeler House date from 1680 to ca. 1720, because that's what the website used.Tomticker5 (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, won't do it again; definitely not a reliable source. Genealogy and title records have no value without a survey. At this point, it would be justifiable to add twenty years to all dates not verified by an architectural historian or dendrochronology, or put those houses in a different category altogether.Old houses (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have already created categories for the List of the oldest buildings in Massachusetts; "verified by dendrochronology" and "estimates." I commend your work. The MA list certainly has far more buildings on it than CT or any other New England state. You see, that's because we're still building the List of the oldest buildings in Connecticut. I must ask you to have some patience while we create the articles and then add those houses to the CT list. For example, there are 4 first period private homes in the Stratford Center (Connecticut) NRHP district alone. None of these have a Wikipedia article written yet. Theses houses date to: 1647, 1690, 1720, and 1722 respectively [3]. According to the log of Dutch Captain David de Vries, there were 50 buildings under construction in 1639 when he sailed by Stratford on his return to New York. At the time of the American Revolution, Stratford's population was 5,555 and it was the largest town in Fairfield County. General Tryon (British) did not burn Stratford during the Revolution when he raided the coastal towns. I'm sure there are other first period houses there, and in the other towns settled in CT before 1725. Windsor (settled 1633) and Wethersfield (settled 1634) both have large NRHP districts but very few individual Wikipedia articles on their historic houses. Also, these other towns that were all settled before 1641; Hartford, Deep River, New Haven, Milford, Greenwich and Stamford. They must have first period houses without Wikipedia articles. The Feake-Ferris House is a fine example of the potential houses added to the List of the oldest buildings in Connecticut.Tomticker5 (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not my work on the Massachusetts page, though I support it. I'm sure there are over 100 first period houses in CT. The number of actual 17th century houses may be in the single digits, however. Feake-Ferris I suspect is a mid-18th century house; mid-17th century houses, of which there are a very few, just don't look anything like that house.Old houses (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Hempstead is the oldest house in Connecticut; most of the woodwork in the Whitfield is replaced, so may be impossible to date it.Old houses (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Joshua Hempstead house will date to 1644 at the earliest. Isham and Kelly agreed on this one.

Tomticker5 (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hempstead is 1678 by dendrochronology.Old houses (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the Joshua Hempstead House dendrochronology report posted for the public?Tomticker5 (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Hempsted made it up; 1678 sells more tickets than 1647.Old houses (talk) 01:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CT Oldest Houses

I agree with you about oldhouses inserting his point of view (POV) on the dating of these houses. Other than his opinion and alleged original research, he doesn't cite his specific sources on the "List of the oldest buildings in CT", "MA" and "United States" lists and related articles. I'm not sure if there's a way to contact an administrator to block him. It's a bit tiresome reverting his vandalism. Swampyank (talk) 01:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Between you and I, we've created a lot of content of this subject. Are we considered administrators?Tomticker5 (talk) 01:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems personal for you. Dendrochronology and Cummings have made dating a building possible. The old way of figuring out when a house was built was to look at the deeds and genealogy, and homeowners and historical societies would pick the earliest possible date. You clearly want Connecticut houses to be as old as possible, but the dates of construction are getting pushed back decades by science and, before that, by architectural historians like Cummings and Anne Grady who studied physical details, not deeds.Old houses (talk) 03:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How about we at least agree that historibuildingsct is not a reliable source?Old houses (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harris house

Was the removal of the Samuel Harris house here accidental? ɱ (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That house doesn't have an article yet. Once an article is created, it will be put onto the list. Originally, when we were building this page, we stated in the intro "no reds".Tomticker5 (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's just an informal practice some users like to stick to in order to counter vandalism, as IP users will often tack in their names into lists of notable residents, alumni, etc. It's not a guideline or policy anywhere, and definitely improper here. If you're to make a list of all the oldest houses, you need to list all verifiable oldest houses, not just the ones with Wikipedia articles. ɱ (talk) 22:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I’ll add this house back to the list. There are many other buildings, dozens perhaps, that are part of Stratford, Milford, Wethersfield and Windsor NRHP districts that are pre 1725. Tomticker5 (talk) 12:10, 7 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]