William Pitcher Farmstead HSR

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.


Historic Structure Report<br />

Emily M. Majer<br />

University of Massachusetts<br />



____________________________________________________________________________<br />



The Schuyler Patent and the Palatines 3<br />

The <strong>Pitcher</strong>s, Generations I-III 9<br />

The <strong>Pitcher</strong>s, Generations IV-VII 13<br />

The Last 73 Years 19<br />


The Site 20<br />

The House<br />

Exterior 22<br />

Recommendations 31<br />

Interior 32<br />

Recommendations 97<br />

Green Renovation Recommendations 98<br />


I<br />

II<br />

III<br />

IV<br />

V<br />

VI<br />

VII<br />

VIII<br />


Deed Chronology and Maps<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> Genealogy<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> Population Schedule<br />

Drawings<br />

Existing 2004<br />

Structural Evolution<br />

Masonry Analysis<br />

Wood Analysis<br />

Finishes Analysis<br />

Wallpaper Samples


____________________________________________________________________________<br />

The <strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong> farmhouse is located near the hamlet of Upper Red Hook, New York<br />

and was likely built between 1725 and 1746, but certainly prior to 1768. On May 25<br />

of that year, the property was deeded to <strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong> by his father and referred to<br />

as “the farm now in the possession of the said <strong>William</strong> Bitcher(sic).” 1 It is an important<br />

domestic building for the fact that is one of the oldest surviving examples of timberframed<br />

Dutch/German vernacular architecture in the area. The house is set back 250<br />

yards from the north side of <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane, a quiet east-west road, a mile and a half long<br />

connecting Route 9, known prior to 1776 as the King’s Highway, to County Route 79,<br />

formerly referred to as the road to Red Hook Landing.<br />

Members of the <strong>Pitcher</strong> family lived in the house continuously until the later years of<br />

the 19th century. After that it became an incidental structure. The farmhouse<br />

remained in the family, likely a lodging for seasonal workers on the large fruit farm,<br />

until 1942. The larger farm property was sold seven times in the second half of the<br />

20th century, becoming a dairy enterprise by the 1970s. The <strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong> house<br />

was intermittently occupied, most recently by the herdsman of Linden Farms and his<br />

family. Since 2000, the farmhouse has been vacant, home to raccoons and occasional<br />

vandals. The roof, which is at least 100 years old, has kept the weather out, but there<br />

are some failures in the building envelope.<br />

1<br />

Dutchess County Clerk’s Office, Poughkeepsie, New York

This historic structure report is intended to document the farmhouse, should it prove<br />

to be beyond repair; or to serve as an owner’s manual to assist in restoration, should<br />

the current owner choose such an undertaking.<br />

The information in this report was collected and assembled between February 2014<br />

and April 2015 in fulfillment of the capstone project requirement for the University of<br />

Massachusetts Master of Science in Historic Preservation program. The process has<br />

involved investigation of deeds, wills, and church records; census and agricultural<br />

schedules; newspapers, maps, and tax rolls; structural assessment and analysis of<br />

bricks, mortar, wood, plaster, finishes, and coverings. It has also involved vagrant and<br />

large animal exclusion. Additional information about this building will certainly be<br />

uncovered through future physical exploration and further sleuthing through human and<br />

institutional repositories.<br />

The <strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong> <strong>Farmstead</strong> is historically significant for its association with early<br />

settlement, architectural patterns, and economic development of this area of the<br />

Hudson Valley. The amount of local interest that this project has generated to date<br />

bespeaks an enthusiasm that has been encouraging.<br />




The primary interest of the Dutch in New Netherland was the collection of beaver pelts.<br />

As such they had established nearly evenly spaced trading posts along Hudson’s River<br />

at New Amsterdam (Manhattan), Wiltwyck (Kingston), and Beverwyck (Albany), but<br />

the rest of the colony was essentially a howling wilderness. The Treaty of Breda, which<br />

ended the Anglo-Dutch War, confirmed the blood-less conquest of New Netherland by<br />

the English on July 21, 1667. Colonial Governor Thomas Dongan was tasked with<br />

settling the land between Manhattan and Albany in order to generate revenue, as well<br />

2<br />

as to secure the Crown’s claim to it. To that end, he granted patents of large tracts of<br />

land to entrepreneurial and well-connected men of means, and turned over to them the<br />

responsibility for populating and clearing the land, hoping that self-interest and the<br />

promise of profit would provide adequate motivation.<br />

Pieter Schuyler, the first mayor of Albany, having first purchased land from the natives,<br />

was granted a patent to it by Governor Dongan on June 2, 1688. This patent was<br />

confirmed and recorded in 1704. The 22,400 acres was thus described,<br />

“Situate, lying and being on the east side of Hudson’s River in Dutchess County, over<br />

against Magdalene Island, beginning at a certain creek called Metambesem, thence running<br />

easterly to the southmost part of a certain meadow called Tanquashqueick, and from that<br />

meadow easterly to a certain small lake or pond called Waraughkameek; from thence northerly<br />

so far till upon a due east and west line it reaches over against the Sawyer’s creek, from thence<br />

2 “Colonial Land Grants in Dutchess County, N.Y. A Case Study in Settlement,” <strong>William</strong> P.<br />

McDermott, The Hudson Valley Regional Review, September 1986, Volume 3, Number 2<br />


due west to the Hudson’s river aforesaid, and from thence southerly along the said river to the<br />

said creek called Metambesem” 3<br />

The Schuyler patent was bounded to the north by the Livingston Manor, 160,000 acres<br />

awarded to Robert Livingston in 1686; by the Little Nine Partners patent to the east;<br />

Dutchman Henry Beekman’s Rhinebeck patent on the south; and the Hudson River<br />

along the western edge (MAP 1).<br />

Although a patent for Kipsburgh Manor, the present hamlet of Rhinecliff in the town of<br />

Rhinebeck, had been granted to Kingston Dutchmen Adrian Roosa, Jan Elting, and<br />

Hendrick and Jacobus Kip by Governor Dongan June 2, 1688, on account of Henry<br />

Beekman’s considerable influence and enthusiasm for development, the Kipsburgh<br />

patent was subsumed by Beekman’s Rhinebeck patent, which was confirmed by<br />

Governor Cornbury in 1703.<br />

In 1689 Peter Schuyler sold approximately one half of the north quarter of his patent<br />

bordering Livingston Manor to Harme Van Gansevoort, an Albany brewer, who<br />

transferred the land in 1704 to Harme Janse Knickerbacker. In 1722 Peter Schuyler<br />

had the north quarter of his patent surveyed and divided into 13 lots; seven were<br />

granted to the Knickerbacker heirs, the other six were sold to Captain Nicholas<br />

Hoffman of Kingston. The remaining three-quarters of Schuyler’s patent had already<br />

been divided into six lots of approximately 3,000 acres each and sold in pairs as<br />

4<br />

described in a deed dated February 11, 1717/18. The southern pair, bordering Henry<br />

Beekman’s patent, were sold to Tierck DeWitt of Ulster County; Joachem Staats of<br />

Rensselaerwyck and Barent Van Benthuysen of Dutchess County bought two lots each<br />

3 Documentary History of Rhinebeck, Edward M. Smith, Rhinebeck, Dutchess County, NY, 1881<br />

p.22<br />

4<br />

History of Dutchess County, James H. Smith, D. Mason & Co., Syracuse, NY, 1882, p.173<br />


5<br />

(MAP 3). By 1725, Tierk DeWitt had sold his lots to Henry Beekman, and the heirs of<br />

Staats sold their land to Barent Van Benthuysen and his sons: Pieter, Jacob, Abraham,<br />

6<br />

and Gerrit; and his nephew Andries Heremanse(sic)(MAP 5).<br />

The Van Benthuysen and Heermanse families, who moved across the Hudson from<br />

Kingston, were related by marriage. Three Van Wagenen sisters: Jannetje, Annatjen<br />

and Neeltje, daughters of Gerrit Aartsen, one of the original patentees of Rhinebeck,<br />

married Barent Van Benthuysen, and brothers Hendricus and Andries Heermanse<br />

respectively. Jannetje and Barent Van Benthuysen married in Kingston in 1701 and<br />

had Gerrit, Jan, Catryntje, Anna, Peter, Jacob, and Abraham between 1702 and 1718.<br />

Annatjen and Hendricus Heermanse settled in Rhinebeck to raise their six children on<br />

land that would become “Ellerslie,” the estate of Levi P. Morton. Neeltje and Andries<br />

Heermanse had fourteen children between 1711 and 1737: Jan, Engeltie, Jacob,<br />

Annatje, Janneka, Clara, Gerrit, Petrus, Hendricus, Catrina, Wilhelmus, Nicholas, Phillipus,<br />

7<br />

and Abraham. The Van Benthuysens and Heermanses, along with the Hoffmans and<br />

Vosburgs, who also moved from Kingston around the same time, intermarried and<br />

populated their purchase.<br />

In the census of 1714, there were 67 heads of households, 445 residents total,<br />

including 29 slaves, recorded in what was then Dutchess County; from the north line of<br />

Westchester County to the Roelof-Jansen Kill (creek) in what is now Columbia County.<br />

By the first tax assessment in 1723, there were 97 households in the North Ward alone<br />

8<br />

(MAP 2).<br />

5 referenced in a deed dated April 3, 1720 between heirs of Barent Staats and Pieter, Jacob,<br />

and Abraham Van Benthuysen, recorded November 27, 1744<br />

6 Dutchess County Clerk’s Office, Liber 10: 137, April 1, 1747 between Pieter, Jacob, Abraham,<br />

and Barent Van Benthuysen along with Andries Heremanse; and Gerrit Van Benthuysen<br />

7<br />

8<br />

Documentary History of Rhinebeck, E.M. Smith, Rhinebeck, New York, 1881, p.35<br />

Historic Old Rhinebeck, Howard H. Morse, Pontico Printery, Tarrytown, New York, 1908, p.421<br />


This population increase was due in large part to the arrival in 1710 of an indentured<br />

workforce from the Palatinate region of southwestern Germany, sent to New York by<br />

Queen Anne at the invitation of Robert Livingston. This group, referred to as “the<br />

Palatines” or “the Poor Palatines,” had left their homes in the Rhine Valley en masse as<br />

conditions deteriorated. French troops, engaged in the War of Spanish Succession,<br />

went wilding through the southwest in 1706. The brutal winter of 1708 and the<br />

instability of living in an area of tiny, ill-managed principalities made for a restive<br />

population. In 1706 a Lutheran minister from Wurttemberg named Joshua Kocherthal<br />

wrote a promotional pamphlet called A Complete and Detailed Report of the Renowned<br />

District of Carolina Located in English America. In 1708 Kocherthal and fifty followers<br />

went to London where they secured passage to the colonies by claiming to be victims<br />

of attacks by the French. This successful gambit, although they had been taken to New<br />

York rather than Carolina, encouraged Kocherthal to return to the Palatinate and try<br />

again. Kocherthal enhanced his pamphlet with even more glowing descriptions of the<br />

colonies, so much so that it was referred to as “The Golden Book,” exciting such<br />

9<br />

interest that three new editions were printed in 1709. Kocherthal’s pamphlet implied<br />

that Queen Anne was eager to have her colonies settled and would be happy to provide<br />

passage to anyone willing to go. This unsupported claim caused a stampede of 13,000<br />

souls to London, where encampments were hastily set up at Camberwell and<br />

Blackheath. Public sentiment turned against the immigrants as their numbers<br />

increased. In December 1709 Robert Hunter, the recently appointed Governor of New<br />

York, proposed a plan that would both benefit the Crown and remove the Palatines<br />

from London.<br />

The British Navy relied on trade with Sweden for “naval stores”(tar and pitch) that<br />

were necessary for waterproofing the ropes and sealing the hulls of ships. For financial<br />

and security reasons, this was not an ideal situation. Hunter suggested that the<br />

9 Becoming German: The 1709 Palatine Migration to New York, Philip Otterness, Cornell<br />

University Press, Ithaca and London, 2006, p.27<br />


Palatines could be settled in New York along the Hudson River and would serve the dual<br />

purpose of producing naval stores from the forests there AND their presence would<br />

serve as a deterrent against the French. Hunter’s plan was that the Palatines would<br />

repay the Queen for the cost of their transport and early settlement from the profit<br />

from this enterprise, and, once their debts were repaid, each person would be granted<br />

40 acres of land.<br />

Three thousand Palatines set sail for New York in April 1710, 4,000 were given<br />

passage back to Rotterdam, a few hundred remained in London, and the rest dispersed<br />

to Ireland and Jamaica. Due to casualties in transit, 2,200 Palatines arrived in New<br />

10<br />

York City, which at the time had only 6,000 inhabitants.<br />

During their long journey from their homes, the Palatines had become a tight group.<br />

Adversity had broken down regional, religious, and material differences. Losing such a<br />

large portion of their number on the voyage had left many adults single and many<br />

children orphans. Since Hunter’s plan had a narrow profit margin to begin with, he was<br />

not inclined to provide for those who would not be contributing to the naval stores<br />

project. He arranged for orphans and children of widows to be apprenticed out as<br />

11<br />

young as three or four. The remarriage rate among the Palatines was high due to the<br />

importance of each member of the nuclear family for the survival of the group. This<br />

intermarriage further cemented the bonds among the group, who were also bound by<br />

their dissatisfaction with the naval stores enterprise. The average age of the Palatines<br />

was 35. They had left their homeland on the promise of freedom from serfdom in the<br />

bloated duchies of petty princes. They wanted to be farmers, not to live as servants,<br />

dependent upon the whims and wishes of others.<br />

10<br />

11<br />

Otterness, p.81<br />

Otterness, p.81<br />


In September 1710, Governor Hunter purchased 6,000 acres of land on the Hudson<br />

River, 100 miles north of New York City, within the manor of Robert Livingston. The<br />

trees from which the Palatines would be deriving the naval stores were a few miles<br />

inland, also on Livingston’s land. This arrangement had many benefits for Livingston:<br />

the Palatines would be clearing and improving his land, which had been previously<br />

unsettled; Livingston would have right to all trees cut down; and he was given the<br />

contract to provide the Palatines with bread and beer. Three camps were established<br />

on the west side of the Hudson and four situated on the east side, south of the Roelof-<br />

Jansen Kill: Haysbury, named for Hunter’s wife, Lady Hay; Queensbury and Annsbury,<br />

both named for Queen Ann; and Hunterstown.<br />

While the Palatines’ resentment was growing, Governor Hunter was running into trouble<br />

from England. The naval stores project was far from reducing the British navy’s<br />

dependence on Sweden, having not produced even one barrel of tar. Parliament<br />

refused to reimburse Hunter for the money he had put out for the support of the<br />

Palatines. In early September of 1712, the naval stores endeavor was shut down and<br />

the Palatine project was abandoned.<br />

Aside from his early arrangement with Harme Van Gansevoort, Pieter Schuyler appears<br />

to have been content to let the rest of his patent languish. In contrast, Henry<br />

Beekman was eager to get his land settled and actively encouraged the families of<br />

12<br />

disenfranchised German immigrants to rent or purchase farms from him. Culturally,<br />

the Dutch and the Palatines were quite similar, having come from an area sharing a<br />

border. Thirty-five Palatine families took Beekman up on his offer and moved to<br />

Monterey, renaming the larger area Rhine (for their homeland) beck (as a nod to<br />

Beekman). A union church, which served both Lutheran and Dutch Reformed<br />

congregations, was established in 1716. Lutheran minister and author of “The Golden<br />

12 Frank Hasbrouck ed., The History of Dutchess County New York, Chap. XXIX, S.A. Matthiew,<br />

Poughkeepsie, NY, 1909<br />


Book,” Joshua Kocherthal, who had sailed from London with the Palatines and<br />

ministered to them at the camps, shared the pulpit with pastor Johann Fredrick Haeger,<br />

who had served the Reformed congregation. The Lutherans and the Dutch Reformed<br />

congregations shared the church until 1723, when the Lutherans built a stone church,<br />

St. Peter’s, approximately half a mile north on the Post Road.<br />

As of 1718, there were still 91 Palatine families, 359 people living on the east camp<br />

land in what had become known as Germantown. Apparently they were holding out for<br />

title to the land that had been promised them by Queen Anne. In 1724 Palatine<br />

settlers Jacob Sharpe and Christopher Hagadorn petitioned the Provincial Council on<br />

behalf of the 63 families that had been willing to remain, to be granted title to the<br />

land. Cadwallader Colden, the Surveyor-General at the time, supported this petition and<br />

the patent was granted on August 26, 1724. 13<br />


Johannes Hermann Betzer (alternately written as Bitzer, Pitsier, Pitzer, and finally<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong>) and his wife, Elsen Maria Franz, were born in Hachenburg, in the Rhineland-<br />

Palatinate region. They were 40 and 43 respectively when they arrived in New York in<br />

July 1710 with their seven children. Arriving on the eighth of Governor Hunter’s ten<br />

ships, the Betzers were settled at Annsbury, the most northern of the east camps,<br />

located on the Hudson River at what is now considered North Germantown. Johannes<br />

Betzer was among those who volunteered to join the Walker Expedition to Quebec in<br />

14<br />

1711 to fight in “Queen Anne’s War.” As of 1717, Johannes Hermann and Elsen<br />

13 History of Columbia County, New York, Captain Franklin Ellis, Everts and Ensign,<br />

Philadelphia, 1878<br />

14 Documentary History of New York,Vol.III, E.B. O’Callahan, Weed, Parsons & Co. Public<br />

Printers, Albany, New York, 1850, p. 571-572<br />


15<br />

Maria were still living in Annsbury with two of their children. In 1724 he was among<br />

the signers of the petition submitted to the Provincial Council as being willing to stay if<br />

land were finally granted.<br />

Johannes and Elsen Maria had three sons: Peter, born 1697; Adam, born 1702; and<br />

Johan Theiss, born 1708. Apparently Johann Theiss was the first of them to move<br />

16<br />

south. Early tax records for Rhinebeck place him there in 1732. In 1740, Cadwallader<br />

Colden surveyed the land that had been granted to the Palatines as a result of their<br />

petition in 1724; the resulting map shows Adam and Peter <strong>Pitcher</strong> each owning two<br />

17<br />

parcels of land (MAP 4). Perhaps they had inherited this land from their father. Adam<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> held onto his Germantown land and purchased 123 acres from Nicholas<br />

Hoffman in the north portion of the Schuyler patent in 1746 where he established his<br />

homestead farm. He also acquired land in the Little Nine Partners patent; in 1747 he<br />

bought 2/3 of small Lot 8 from the Van Benthuysens and Andries Heermanse, just east<br />

of small Lot 7, which Peter <strong>Pitcher</strong> had purchased the year before.<br />

On March 17, 1746 Peter <strong>Pitcher</strong>, age 49, purchased Lot 7 from the Van<br />

Benthuysens and Andries Heermanse for the sum of 550 pounds current money of the<br />

province of New York “together with all and singular the houses barnes buildings lands<br />

meadows pastures commons feedings trees woods underwoods profits advantages and<br />

with all the appurtenances to the said lott number seven.” 18<br />

Peter <strong>Pitcher</strong>’s neighbor to the west, on Lot 6, was Andries Heermanse himself. It is<br />

possible that, since reference is made to existing structures “houses” and “barnes” in<br />

15 “Ulrich Simmendinger Register, 1717”, http://immigrantships.net/v4/1700v4/<br />

simmendinger17100100A_L.html, also at New York Public Library Rare Books Room<br />

16 Dutchess County New York Tax Lists 1718-1787, Clifford M. Buck, Kinship (Press),<br />

Rhinebeck, New York, 1991<br />

17<br />

18<br />

see Colden map<br />

Dutchess County Clerk’s Office, Deeds; Liber 2 Page 349, 17 March 1746<br />


the deed, Peter and his family had already been living on the property as tenants<br />

before the purchase, and that more than one house was on the property prior to 1746.<br />

The Heermanse homestead farm, located in the northeast quadrant of that parcel is<br />

listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It is noted for being a rare example of<br />

an 18th-century (circa 1733 or 1745) stone farmhouse. The Heermanse farm is on a<br />

road that connected the King’s Highway (now Route 9) to the Hudson River at<br />

Hoffman’s Landing, which was subsequently known as Cantine’s Landing, Upper Red<br />

Hook Landing, and now is called Tivoli. In 1749, Pieter Pitser (sic) is listed as having<br />

been the overseer of the road to “Hoffman’s Landing,” which is now County Route 78<br />

(Kerley’s Corners Road). 19 This information places the original <strong>Pitcher</strong> farm to the east<br />

of the Heermance Farm, near the intersection with the King’s Highway (MAP 6). In<br />

1719, Peter <strong>Pitcher</strong> married Anna Catherine Phillips and they had Maria Catherine,<br />

Wilhelm, Magdalena, Gertraudt, Christina, Elizabeth, and Adam between 1720 and<br />

1738. Wilhelm was baptised at the union church in Rhinebeck in 1725. 20<br />

At the age of 71 on 13 May 1768, Peter Pitser (sic) divided his property in half, north<br />

and south (MAP 7). He deeded his own dwelling house and 275 acres to his younger son<br />

Adam. Two weeks later Adam, only 30 years old but “weak in body but of sound and<br />

perfect mind,” willed all his property to his wife, Anna Maria Richter, but gave his father<br />

continued use of half of the farm that had been deeded over to him, and refers to the<br />

arrangement that they have made regarding said farm. He also instructed that his<br />

three daughters (Elizabeth, Gertien, and Catherine) be sent to school to learn “reading,<br />

writing and sewing.” In this instrument, Adam <strong>Pitcher</strong> also makes reference to his<br />

21<br />

“negro girl named Flora” and to his indentured boy, Fred.<br />

19 H.H. Morse, Historic Old Rhinebeck, Pocantico Printery, Flocker & Hicks, Tarrytown-on-<br />

Hudson, NY, 1908<br />

20<br />

21<br />

“Dutch Selected Reformed Church VItal Records, 1660-1926,” Holland Society of New York<br />

Dutchess County Surrogate Court, will of Adam <strong>Pitcher</strong>, probated 12 September 1768<br />


The southern half of the property Peter deeded to his older son <strong>William</strong> “in<br />

consideration of the natural love and affection which he hath and beareth to his<br />

22<br />

son...also for the sum of five shillings.” The deed specifies “the parcel of land...or<br />

farm now in the possession of <strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong>.” In 1768 <strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong> was 43 years<br />

old. According to the Rhinebeck tax records, he had been paying property taxes there<br />

23<br />

since 1753.<br />

<strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong> married Magdalena Donsbach on 5 November 1748 at the Germantown<br />

Reformed Church, when he was 23 and she was 21. The first of their children, Peter,<br />

was born in 1750 and baptized at St. Peter’s Lutheran Church in Rhinebeck.<br />

Subsequent children of <strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong> were baptized at St. Paul’s Lutheran Church in<br />

what is now Red Hook. They did not precisely follow the tradition of the Dutch and<br />

Germans of naming the first son after the paternal grandfather, the first daughter after<br />

the maternal grandmother, second son after the maternal grandfather, and second<br />

daughter after the maternal grandmother. After Peter (named for Peter <strong>Pitcher</strong>) came<br />

Margaretha in 1752 (for Margaretha Scheffer), Magdalena in 1754, then Wilhelm in<br />

1756, Heinrich in 1762 (for Heinrich Donsbach), and Catherina in 1764 (for Catherina<br />

Phillips). It is not clear what happened to Magdalena Donsbach.<br />

After Adam <strong>Pitcher</strong>’s death in 1768, his widow, Anna Maria Richter married his brother,<br />

<strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong>. Together they had Elizabeth in 1771 (named for Elizabeth Stahl), Philip<br />

in 1774 (sponsored by Philip Staats and Anna Maria Benner), John W. in 1776 (named<br />

for Johannes RIchter), Anna in 1779 (sponsored by Hendrick Bender and Annatjen<br />

24<br />

Richter), and Jacob in 1781 (sponsored by Jacob Richter and Magdalena Phillips).<br />

The first US Census data, from 1790 has nine people in the household of <strong>William</strong><br />

22<br />

23<br />

Dutchess County Clerk’s Office, Deeds, “Peter Bitcher” to “<strong>William</strong> Bitcher,” 25 May 1768<br />

Dutchess County New York Tax Lists 1718-1787, Clifford M. Buck, Kinship (Press),<br />

Rhinebeck, New York, 1991<br />

24<br />

“Dutch Selected Reformed Church Vital Records, 1660-1926,” Holland Society of New York<br />


<strong>Pitcher</strong>: four free white males, one over 16 years old and three under 16; three free<br />

white females; and two slaves. The free white males would have been <strong>William</strong> and his<br />

sons, Philip, John W., and Jacob; the free white females, Anna Maria Richter, Elizabeth,<br />

25<br />

and Anna.<br />

The <strong>Pitcher</strong>s, Generations IV-VII<br />

Before <strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong> died in 1800, he willed that his property “all that farm which I<br />

got from my father, Peter <strong>Pitcher</strong>, on which I now live and reside, together with the<br />

houses, and buildings standing on the same” go to his three youngest sons: Philip (26),<br />

John W. (24), and Jacob (19). <strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong> instructed that the remainder of his<br />

estate be divided between all of his children: Peter, Hendrick, Philip, John, Margaret,<br />

Catherine, Elisabeth, and Annatie, and the children of his son Wilhelmus. Jacob<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong>’s health or habits were questionable based on the following line in his father’s<br />

will: “…if in case my son Jacob should die before he can receive the estate hereby<br />

divised to him… .”<br />

At the time of his death, <strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong>’s house and farm were valued at $4,370 and<br />

his personal property at $824. In 1800, after their father’s death, Philip and John W.<br />

were jointly assessed (no mention of Jacob) for the house and farm valued at $4,370<br />

and personal property, presumably farm equipment and livestock, of $257. Their tax<br />

bill was $8.09.<br />

John W. and Philip <strong>Pitcher</strong> owned their father’s farm jointly, but apparently lived<br />

separately on it. The 1800 US Census lists John W. and Philip <strong>Pitcher</strong> each as heads of<br />

households. A map surveyed by Alexander Thompson in 1797 (MAP 9) shows five<br />

houses on the north side of <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane and a red building labeled “Martin’s Inn.” The<br />

25 1790 United States Census, s.v. <strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong>, Rhinebeck, Dutchess County, New York,<br />

accessed through ancestry.com<br />


uildings, matched with the names on the 1800 census are, from west to east,<br />

Nicholas Hoffman, <strong>William</strong> Vredenbergh (sic), John W. <strong>Pitcher</strong>, Philip <strong>Pitcher</strong>, Ebenezer<br />

Punderson, and Henry Martin. A map surveyed in 1799 by Philip Reichert confirms the<br />

properties at the west end of <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane (MAP 10). John W. <strong>Pitcher</strong> had married<br />

Catherine Kip on 4 November 1797 at St. Paul’s Lutheran Church, and in 1800 they<br />

shared their household with a free white female between 10-16, probably a servant; a<br />

26<br />

free white female under 10; their infant daughter Helen; and two slaves. Philip<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> had married Catherine Wilson around 1796, and in 1800 they were living with a<br />

free white male (servant) between 16 and 26; two young daughters, Elizabeth and<br />

27<br />

Anna Maria; and two slaves.<br />

Rhinebeck tax records, available through 1803, assess John W. and Philip jointly for the<br />

28<br />

house and farm. In 1806, the brothers divided the farm north and south based on a<br />

survey by their neighbor Nathan Beckwith (MAP 8), but the division was not recorded<br />

until 1860, after both Philip and John W. were dead.<br />

In 1810 the household of John W. <strong>Pitcher</strong> and Catherine Kipp <strong>Pitcher</strong> was comprised of<br />

themselves, their sons John Henry (5), Abraham (3), and <strong>William</strong> (0), their daughter<br />

Helen (9), two white male and one female laborers between 10 and 15 years old, and<br />

29<br />

two slaves, for a total of eleven people.<br />

26 1800 United States Census, s.v. John W. <strong>Pitcher</strong>, Rhinebeck, Dutchess County, New York,<br />

accessed through ancestry.com<br />

27 1800 United States Census, s.v. Philip <strong>Pitcher</strong>, Rhinebeck, Dutchess County, New York,<br />

accessed through ancestry.com<br />

28 “Assessment of all the Real and Personal Estate in the Town of Rhinebeck” 1799-1803,<br />

Series B0950, New York State Archives, Albany, New York<br />

29 1810 United States Census, s.v. John W. <strong>Pitcher</strong>, Rhinebeck, Dutchess County, New York,<br />

accessed through ancestry.com<br />


John W. <strong>Pitcher</strong> is always referred to with his middle initial because a John <strong>Pitcher</strong>, born<br />

in 1750 and distantly related, also lived in Dutchess County in the nearby town of<br />

Northeast.<br />

By the early 19th century, <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane had become a major thoroughfare between<br />

Upper Red Hook and beyond into Northeast and Connecticut and also the landings on<br />

the Hudson River at Barrytown and Tivoli. The Hudson had always been a link to the<br />

steady demand of New York City for produce, livestock, and grains. Robert Fulton<br />

perfected the steamboat in 1807, which made trade on the river more reliable and<br />

efficient. John W. <strong>Pitcher</strong> had inherited a large agricultural operation and increased its<br />

acreage by purchasing land that had belonged to his grandfather Peter. According the<br />

1816 Agricultural Schedule, the assessed value of John W. <strong>Pitcher</strong>’s farm was $6,700<br />

and he had personal property of $400. Until the opening of the Erie Canal in 1825,<br />

farmers in the Hudson Valley, along with taking care of their own and local needs, grew<br />

wheat for production as well as potatoes, onions, and other sturdy crops that could be<br />

easily shipped. Competition from the West, along with an insect blight in the<br />

mid-1830s, pushed local farmers toward sheep, which supplied the woolen mills on the<br />

nearby White Clay Kill and Sawkill creeks, and fruit, which the loamy soil of the area<br />

proved well suited.<br />

Along with being a successful farmer, John W. <strong>Pitcher</strong> was an active member of the<br />

Upper Red Hook community. He served in the New York State Militia, attaining the rank<br />

30<br />

of First Lieutenant in 1807 and Captain in 1812. Along with his brother Philip,<br />

Nicholas Hoffman, Nathan Beckwith and other neighbors, John W. contributed to the<br />

founding of the Mountain View Academy in 1822, with the following statement:<br />

Believing that well conducted schools affording the opportunity of moral and literary<br />

improvement to our youth are in every respect highly beneficial, and desirous of establishing a<br />

Classical School or Academy in the village of Red Hook, which is intended to place under the<br />

30 Military Minutes of the Council of Appointment of the State of New York, 1783-1821 Vol.I, J.B.<br />

Lyon, State Printer-New York, 1901, p.939 and Vol. II, p.1324<br />


direction of twelve trustees to be annually elected by the subscribers to the Academy in which<br />

school it is intended that reading, writing, arithmetic, English grammar, surveying, navigation,<br />

geography, public speaking together with the Latin and Greek languages shall be taught and a<br />

scrupulous attention to the moral and religious habits of the students shall be observed: Under<br />

these impressions and desirous of public utility, we, the subscribers promise to pay to the<br />

Trustees of Red Hook Academy the sums affixed to our respective names to be appropriated for<br />

the object above mentioned. 31<br />

The <strong>Pitcher</strong>s—John W. and Catherine, Philip and Catherine, all of their children and their<br />

extended families—were members of St. John’s Reformed Church, which was built in<br />

1787 as an adjunct to the Red Church at the Lower Red Hook Landing (now Tivoli) in<br />

response to the developing settlement at Upper Red Hook. The new church was<br />

referred to as “the Church at the Road” because it was located at the Post Road. John<br />

W. and Catherine became members of St. John’s Low Dutch Reformed Church in Upper<br />

Red Hook in 1806, transferring their allegiance from St. Paul’s. John W. became a<br />

deacon in 1807 and their youngest son, born in 1812, was named Andrew Kittle<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> after the long serving minister, who was also instrumental in the founding of<br />

the Academy, Andrew Kittle.<br />

The <strong>Pitcher</strong> household reached a peak population of 14 in 1820 with John W.,<br />

Catherine, John H., Abraham, <strong>William</strong>, Andrew, Helen, one white male over 45 (a laborer<br />

or father-in-law), one free white female 26-44, in addition to Catherine (a servant or<br />

other relative), one slave male under 14, one slave male over 45, and two<br />

32<br />

“foreigners.”<br />

Prior to 1850, only the name of the head of household is listed on the US Census, and<br />

each census records slightly different data. Between 1790 and 1820, individuals were<br />

31 St. John’s Reformed Church archives, printed in Upper Red Hook: An American Crossroad,<br />

Roger M. Leonard, published by the author, 2012, p.70<br />

32 1820 United States Census, s.v. John W. <strong>Pitcher</strong>, Red Hook, Dutchess County, New York,<br />

accessed through ancestry.com<br />


noted based on gender, age, race, and free or slave status. Slavery was outlawed for<br />

all in 1827, but in the 1830 census only gender and age were recorded. In the 1840<br />

record, gender, age, and race were noted. After 1820, the <strong>Pitcher</strong> household gradually<br />

declined in size: son John Henry became a minister after attending Union College in<br />

Schenectady and New Brunswick Seminary; Abraham acquired land on the south side of<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane to farm and built or moved into an existing house there; <strong>William</strong> graduated<br />

from <strong>William</strong>s College and Princeton Seminary, becoming a minister as well<br />

33<br />

; Andrew<br />

K., the youngest son, stayed on his father’s farm. In 1830 there were eight people<br />

34<br />

living in John W. <strong>Pitcher</strong>’s house. In 1840 there were only six: John W., his wife<br />

Catherine, their son Andrew, a 15-20 year-old female (white), a ‘free colored male’<br />

10-24, and a ‘free colored female 24-36.’ 35<br />

Beginning in 1851 the Hudson River Railroad became the mode of transportation for<br />

shipping farm goods to market in New York City and abroad. The river landings at<br />

Tivoli and Barrytown became station stops. Red Hook became known for its apple<br />

orchards. In 1855 the town production was 14,873 bushels; by 1865 it was up to<br />

36<br />

38,230 . On the 1850 Gillette map (MAP 11), the farms along <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane from west<br />

to east belonged to Cornelius Elmendorf, who had married John W. <strong>Pitcher</strong>’s niece Anna<br />

Maria; John W. <strong>Pitcher</strong>; <strong>William</strong> W. <strong>Pitcher</strong>, son of J.W.P.’s brother Philip (who had died<br />

in 1844); and on the south side of the road John W.’s son Abraham. In 1850,<br />

according to the census, John W. <strong>Pitcher</strong> shared the house with his son Andrew (38),<br />

Andrew’s wife Mary Ann Hoffman (36), their children Laura (5), and <strong>William</strong> (2), and<br />

Susan Hoffman, Mary Ann Hoffman <strong>Pitcher</strong>’s mother (66). John W. had by then<br />

33 Upper Red Hook: An American Crossroad, Roger M. Leonard, published by the author, 2012,<br />

p.60<br />

34 1830 United States Census, s.v. John W. <strong>Pitcher</strong>, Red Hook, Dutchess County, New York,<br />

accessed through ancestry.com<br />

35 1840 United States Census, s.v. John W. <strong>Pitcher</strong>, Red Hook, Dutchess County, New York,<br />

accessed through ancestry.com<br />

36<br />

Benedict Seidman, “Agriculture in Red Hook,” Bard College Senior Project, 1940<br />


transferred his farm to his son. Andrew <strong>Pitcher</strong>’s property was valued at $7,000 and<br />

his farm implements at $200. In 1850 he had 78 acres of improved land and 10 acres<br />

of wood lot; 2 horses, 6 milk cows, 1 other type of cattle, 22 sheep, 5 swine, all valued<br />

at $422. He was producing rye, corn, and oats. After John W. <strong>Pitcher</strong>’s death in<br />

1859, Andrew lived in the farmhouse with his wife, five children, one 28-year-old<br />

37<br />

female servant, and a laborer, John Millham (50). The Agricultural Production<br />

Schedule of 1860 shows that Andrew <strong>Pitcher</strong> had increased his yield of rye from 260<br />

bushels to 300, and doubled his oat crop since 1850; but his Indian corn production<br />

decreased by 75% . He had also replaced all of his sheep with swine.<br />

Andrew K. <strong>Pitcher</strong>’s cousin and neighbor to the east, <strong>William</strong> Wilson <strong>Pitcher</strong>, died in<br />

1864 and his one-fifth portion of the original Peter <strong>Pitcher</strong> farm was sold to P.H. Coon.<br />

Abraham <strong>Pitcher</strong> died in 1874 without a will. Six months later a fire destroyed his<br />

house. Abraham’s wife, Eliza Sanderson <strong>Pitcher</strong>, and their children sold his piece of the<br />

original Peter <strong>Pitcher</strong> land on the north side of <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane in addition to the land he<br />

had purchased on the south side to Francis and Margaret Elting.<br />

On the north side of <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane, to the west of Andrew <strong>Pitcher</strong>’s house, the Eltings<br />

built a large, ornate Victorian house with a cupola. In 1881, Andrew <strong>Pitcher</strong> sold all of<br />

his land to the Elting’s son, Henry Snyder Elting. One year later, Andrew <strong>Pitcher</strong>’s<br />

daughter, Sarah Jansen <strong>Pitcher</strong>, married Henry Elting. Andrew <strong>Pitcher</strong> lived in the old<br />

house until his death in 1885.<br />

When Margaret Elting died in 1905, she willed all of the land that had belonged to her<br />

and her late husband to her son. Henry Elting farmed this land, growing primarily fruit<br />

and grains until his death in 1927. Henry Elting and Sarah J. <strong>Pitcher</strong>’s daughter<br />

Florence and son-in-law Ezra Cookingham continued farming until 1942 when they sold<br />

37 1860 United States Census, s.v. Andrew K. <strong>Pitcher</strong>, Red Hook, Dutchess County, New York,<br />

accessed through ancestry.com<br />


the enterprise to Victory Farms Inc. based in New York City. Intact through several<br />

transfers, the property was sold in 1955 to Robert G. Greig, who in 1942 had<br />

purchased and was farming the land next door that had belonged to Philip <strong>Pitcher</strong>. For<br />

a short time, the south half of Peter <strong>Pitcher</strong>’s original farm was reassembled.<br />

The Past 73 Years<br />

The <strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong> farm was sold again several times between 1955 and 2000.<br />

Six generations of <strong>Pitcher</strong>s and their descendants lived within the original 550 acres<br />

purchased 200 years before. Andrew was the last <strong>Pitcher</strong> to live in the old farmhouse.<br />

After his death it was insconsistently inhabited by seasonal or tenant farmers. In each<br />

census after 1880, the names in the house are different and they are all listed as farm<br />

laborers and renters.<br />

The house has been empty since 2000, but the land is under cultivation, providing feed<br />

crops and produce for local consumption and farmers’ markets as far south as<br />

Manhattan and into southwestern Connecticut.<br />

Other than the one-story circa 1900 addition, which may have been added as a second<br />

kitchen to make the house more comfortable for two families at a time, and the later<br />

insertion of a bathroom, no major alterations have been made to the house since<br />

before 1800.<br />

The <strong>Pitcher</strong> house is an excellent example of an early to mid-18th-century Dutch<br />

building with a Palatine overlay, which was common in this area. For the sake of study,<br />

neglect has been its salvation.<br />



THE SITE<br />

The <strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong> Farm is set back 250<br />

yards from the north side of <strong>Pitcher</strong><br />

Lane, approximately three miles north<br />

of the village of Red Hook. <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane<br />

is a quiet east-west road, a mile and a<br />

half long connecting Route 9 (formerly<br />

known as the Post Road or the King’s<br />

Highway), to County Route 79, also<br />

known as Budds Corners Road, formerly<br />

referred to as the road to Red Hook<br />

Landing. The house faces due south<br />

with a line of large locust trees marking<br />

the route that the driveway followed<br />

years ago.<br />

The current driveway continues past the<br />

house on the east side to a barn<br />

complex. The core of this structure is a<br />

mid-19th century, square-rule Englishstyle<br />

hay barn, built into a bank, with a<br />

dry-laid bluestone foundation that has<br />

remnants of limewash or parging on the<br />

Aerial photo of the <strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong> farm property,<br />

house and barns in south-east corner, 2014.<br />

(http://geoaccess.co.dutchess.ny.us)<br />

inside. On the north side there is a late<br />

19th-early-20th century addition that housed calves. Attached to this section is a<br />

concrete silo. Beneath the hay barn, and extending out from the west <br />


side is a mid-20th-century concrete-block<br />

framed dairy barn. This section has a concrete<br />

floor with gutters, remnants of stanchions, and<br />

a dairy room. The last addition is a two-bay<br />

structure coming off the south gable end of the<br />

hay barn. One bay is for storage and the other<br />

appears to have been a common room for<br />

laborers with lockers and a table and chairs. To<br />

the east of this complex are a free-standing<br />

horse shed and a corn crib.<br />

The house and barns are located at the southeast<br />

corner of an 86-acre parcel of land, nearly half of which<br />

is under cultivation. The property is bordered to the<br />

north, east, and west primarily by open agricultural land.<br />

The southern boundary of the property is <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane.<br />

Carved out of the southern edge of the property to the<br />

west of the WIlliam <strong>Pitcher</strong> farmhouse is a three-acre<br />

parcel of land with a large Italianate Victorian house on<br />

it that dates to 1875. This lot was part of the <strong>Pitcher</strong><br />

family property until the mid-20th century.<br />





The <strong>Pitcher</strong> house is a one-and-one-half story, five-fenestration bay, Dutch-framed<br />

wooden structure with a moderate to steeply pitched gable roof that runs parallel to<br />

the main facade, a small, one-story addition off the west gable end, and an ell that<br />

extends from the north side of the east end. The main house and the ell sit on<br />

foundations of dry-laid bluestone, and both are clad in cement-asbestos siding.<br />

There is an inboard brick chimney at the peak on the east gable end and a patch on the<br />

west gable end, where a chimney was removed following a chimney fire in the later<br />

20th century. There is also one brick chimney at the north gable end of the ell.<br />

The roof is covered with hand-worked, standing-seam metal.<br />

The house appears to have been a nine-bent structure of two rooms with a Dutch-style<br />

jambless fireplace located in the middle. The ell was a free-standing, five-bent<br />

structure, perhaps a summer kitchen, which also had a jambless fireplace set off about<br />

eight feet to the north of the house and staggered eight feet to the east. Visible<br />

evidence inside the house supports the contention that the two structures were joined<br />

near the end of the 18th century.<br />

Recommendations for repair in this section are merely for stabilization and preservation<br />

purposes as first steps toward a full renovation. A more comprehensive approach is<br />

outlined in a later section.<br />



South elevation 2004 (Darlene S. RIemer Architect P.C. ) The dotted line shows the east end of the original house.<br />

The main section of the house is 46’ long by 25’ deep with a one-room addition at the<br />

west end. The main entrance is located two feet off center to the east. The<br />

architrave around the door and 6/6 sidelights date to their installation, but the door is<br />

a “colonial-style,” six-panel metal door that is substantially both narrower and shorter<br />

than the original, and the door frame is filled to make up the difference. This entrance<br />

configuration was likely created during the major renovation around 1775, which saw<br />

the east gable end extended by two anchor bents (eight feet) in order to line up with,<br />

and join with, the auxiliary five-bent structure; abandonment of the center jambless<br />

fireplace in favor of English-style fireplaces at the east and west gable ends; creation of<br />

a center hall by removing an anchor beam and reframing the ceiling.<br />

The asbestos siding was installed around a porch, nine feet wide, which had handrails<br />

that returned to the building. This may have been a version of an early Dutch-style<br />

stoop with facing benches.<br />

There are two 1/1 replacement windows nearly symmetrically placed on either side of<br />

the entrance. Early flat window casing is visible with aluminum triple-track storm<br />


South elevation 2014<br />

windows applied to it. A wall-dormer with 6/6 single-hung sash sits off-center two feet<br />

to the west above the entrance, with its face on the same plane as the front of the<br />

house.<br />


• The standing-seam metal roof is in fair condition. It was last recoated with aluminum<br />

paint around 2004.<br />

• The asbestos siding is in poor condition, especially at the lower courses as a result of<br />

the house being at grade, with no drainage.<br />

• All six panes of glass are missing from the bottom sash of the west sidelight.<br />

• All of the window sills are deteriorated.<br />

• All door and window trim need consolidation and repair, replacement, or<br />

reconstruction.<br />


• A 6’x8’ concrete slab, poured directly against the sill outside the entrance door,<br />

caused catastrophic rot and failure of the mortise pocket holding the joist spanning<br />

the depth of the house. This joist has been jacked up and supported recently.<br />

East elevation 2004 (Darlene S. RIemer Architect P.C. ) The dotted line shows the end of the five-bent structure.<br />


The east elevation of the <strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong> house faces an expanse of fields, which were<br />

part of the original Peter <strong>Pitcher</strong> farm. At the far east end of these fields is a small<br />

house that was built by <strong>William</strong>’s son Philip, around 1800.<br />

The east elevation of the <strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong> house, which is 25’ wide and 22’ tall at the<br />

peak, has a bulkhead to the basement, which replaced an earlier entrance on the south<br />

side. The brick of the back of the fireplace is exposed as is common in this area. On<br />

either side of the brick, asymmetrically placed, are two 1/1 double-hung replacement<br />

windows with triple-track storm windows. Above there are two windows, the southern<br />

is a single nine-light sash, which appears to be quite old, and the north is a single-hung<br />

6/6 unit that appears to be original to the circa 1775 renovation. The windows are<br />


East elevation 2014<br />

not evenly spaced in relation to the peak. The brick chimney extends up through<br />

through the roof approximately three feet at the peak. The north ell 27’ deep and is<br />

shorter than the main house by 18”. There are two 1/1 double-hung replacement<br />

windows with aluminum storms on the east side of the ell.<br />


• Biological growth is overtaking the chimney at the east gable end.<br />

• Asbestos siding is compromised, broken, and in some places missing.<br />

• The bulkhead door is missing, leaving the basement open to the weather and<br />

intruders.<br />

• The house is sitting right at or slightly below grade, which has likely caused sill<br />

damage.<br />

• Window sills are rotted due to moisture trapped by storm windows.<br />



North elevation 2004 (Darlene S. RIemer Architect P.C. )<br />

The north gable end of the ell is 22’ wide and 20’ tall at the peak. The ground slopes<br />

away to the north, exposing two feet of the dry-laid stone foundation at this end. One<br />

foot in from the east corner is a single-light metal door with brick-mold casing. This<br />

door opens onto a wooden landing with three steps down to grade. Placed<br />

symmetrically above are two window openings, covered with sheets of plexiglass. The<br />

trim around these windows is wood. The roof does not project out beyond the walls of<br />

the house beyond an inch or two. There are no eaves or rakes. The brick chimney at<br />

the north gable end of the ell extends up through the roof at the peak by one foot or<br />

less.<br />

The north elevation of the main house, which is nine feet high at the eave in addition to<br />

two feet of exposed foundation, has no visible windows or doors. A 20th-century<br />

block chimney for a wood stove runs up the outside, piercing the eave and extends up<br />

another nine feet.<br />

There is a bulkhead opening to the basement (B1) under the west addition.<br />


The north elevation of the west addition has one 6/6 double-hung sash with an<br />

aluminum storm.<br />

North elevation 2014<br />


• Biological growth is causing damage to the chimney and the siding.<br />

• The chimney is in need of reconstruction above the roof.<br />

• Asbestos siding is missing, exposing asphalt shingle siding and sheathing beneath.<br />

• The metal door is badly rusted.<br />

• Door and window trim are rotted as a result of years without maintenance.<br />

• There is no bulkhead door covering the stairs to the basement.<br />

• The stone foundation on the north side was at some point, perhaps when the west<br />

addition was added, coated with concrete, which over time has trapped moisture and<br />

in places damaged the foundation through freeze-thaw cycles.<br />



West elevation 2004 (Darlene S. RIemer Architect P.C. )<br />

The story-and-a-half ell extends out 25’ from the north side of the main house. There<br />

is one 6/6 single-hung window with an aluminum storm, which lines up with the window<br />

on the other side of the ell, nine feet in from the gable end. One foot in from the main<br />

house, beginning four feet up, is a late 20th-century, single-pane, awning window.<br />

The west gable end of the main house has one replacement 1/1 window on the first<br />

story, tight against the west end addition. There are two replacement 1/1 windows<br />

above and nearly centered on the peak.<br />

The one-story addition on the west end, circa 1900, is stepped back five feet from the<br />

front facade and sits on a poured concrete foundation. The extension, which contains<br />

a kitchen, extends west 16’ and is 14’ wide across the gable end. On the front, the<br />

south side, there is an entry door with a 6/6 double hung window to the right. The<br />

west and north sides each have one 6/6 double-hung sash. The exterior cladding is<br />

asbestos shingle, with asphalt shingle beneath and novelty siding as the original finish.<br />

The north side of the main house is windowless. The ell off the north side on the east<br />

end extends back 25’ and is 22’ wide at the gable. The west side of the ell has one<br />


original 6/6 single-hung window on the first floor, a door in the north wall and a<br />

replacement 1/1 double-hung window on the east side.<br />

West elevation 2014<br />


The west side of the ell has experienced significant failures and losses.<br />

• The corner where the ell meets the main house has been significantly damaged by<br />

water over time. Siding, sheathing, and the small awning window are gone.<br />

• The 6/6 window in the ell took on and held water at some point, which caused the sill<br />

to rot away completely, taking with it all the nogging, sheathing, and siding in and on<br />

the wall beneath. Given the amount of water damage, and that the house is very<br />

near grade along the west wall of the ell, the sill is likely compromised as well.<br />

• Asbestos siding is missing, exposing asphalt shingle siding and sheathing beneath.<br />

• Window sills are rotted from storm windows and years without maintenance.<br />

• The stone foundation on the west side was at some point, perhaps when the west<br />

addition was added, coated with concrete, which over time has trapped moisture and<br />

in places damaged the foundation through freeze-thaw cycles.<br />



• Remove all biological growth from exterior.<br />

• Reconstruct, repoint chimneys as needed.<br />

• Remove flaking roof material and rust; repair as needed (where ell meets main house)<br />

and coat with elastomeric acrylic.<br />

• Regrade around the building and install curtain drains daylighting to low area to the<br />

northwest of the house.<br />

• Remove cement from foundation on north and west; repair as needed.<br />

• Remove lower courses of siding and sheathing to inspect sills; scarf in repairs/replace<br />

sills as needed.<br />

• Remove aluminum storms and repair, restore, reglaze old sashes. Remove<br />

replacement 1/1 units, repair and restore old jambs, sills, and trim.<br />

• Repair bulkhead door areas and enclose.<br />





The <strong>Pitcher</strong> farmhouse consists of three levels: the cellar, the main floor, and the<br />

garret. The house originally had two rooms on the main floor, separated by a central<br />

jambless fireplace, a garret above, and a cellar below under the east half. The house as<br />

originally built was a nine-bent structure, 38’ along the eave by 25’ deep. It was<br />

framed in the Dutch style typical of the area.<br />

“The hallmark of Dutch American framing logic is its simplicity.” 1<br />

Dutch structures consist of a series of H-<br />

shaped “bents that are lined up, one<br />

behind the next (figure 1). Massive beams<br />

connect each pair of posts with a pegged<br />

mortise-and-tenon joint, to form a bent.<br />

Bents are closely spaced, typically 3-1/2’<br />

and 5-1/2’ apart. Each bent is mortised<br />

into sill and top plates that run the length<br />

of the eaves. Rafter pairs are generally set<br />

above each bent. The typical joint<br />

between the rafter and collar beam is a<br />

half dovetail. The size of the house is<br />

determined by the number of bents. For<br />

example, a five bent house would be<br />

between 14’ and 22’ long and as wide as<br />

the anchor beam. The Dutch tended to<br />

live compactly, often in a one-room<br />

structure with a garret for storage and<br />

figure 1- the eight-bent, center-chimney Winne<br />

House 1751 (Timothy J. Gallagher 2005,<br />

Metropolitan Museum of Art)<br />

1 Clifford W. Zink, p. 273, “Dutch Framed Houses in New York and New Jersey,”<br />

Winterthur Portfolio, Vol. 22, No. 4<br />


some sleeping, accessible by a ladder or by an<br />

enclosed set of stairs to keep the heat in the living<br />

space. The defining feature of a Dutch house is the<br />

jambless fireplace (figure 2). The large open hearth<br />

supported by either an arch or a cradle braced<br />

against a lintel or corbel stone projecting from the<br />

foundation wall, and a chimney beginning on the<br />

second floor, supported by short trimmer beams,<br />

to extend through the roof. What is now the ell off<br />

the north side was a separate five-bent structure,<br />

with a jambless fireplace at the north gable end,<br />

and a garret above. This structure, likely a summer<br />

kitchen, was situated approximately eight feet to<br />

the north of the main house and offset about eight<br />

feet to the east.<br />

The interior spaces reflect, with the exception of<br />

the insertion of a bathroom into the front hall, a<br />

reconfiguration and renovation that likely<br />

occurred in the last quarter of the 18th century.<br />

figure 2- jambless fireplace (Dutch Barn<br />

Preservation Society, Newsletter Spring 1998,<br />

Vol. 11, Issue 2)<br />

There were three campaigns of alterations to this structure, each likely corresponding<br />

to a population increase, to a death in the family, and a change of ownership.<br />

This change of configuration from center chimney to center hall was a common update<br />

to mid-18th-century houses in the area. The first and most structurally significant<br />

renovation involved removal of the center chimney, shifting the third anchor bent,<br />

removing the fourth anchor bent completely, creating a center hall, adding two bents<br />

to the east gable end of the house, which increased the total length to 46’ and<br />

brought the gable end in line with the east wall of the summer kitchen, constructing<br />

English-style fireplaces at the east and west ends, applying Federal-style windows and<br />

moldings, and attaching the free-standing five-bent summer kitchen building to the<br />

north side. These alterations reflect stylistic changes that were appropriate between<br />

2<br />

1770 and the early 1800s. The renovation also reflected changes in the life of <strong>William</strong><br />

2<br />

Nancy Kelly, Dutchess County Historical Society 2005-2006 Yearbook , Vol. 85, p.76<br />


<strong>Pitcher</strong>. When he received title to the farm, house and 275 acres from his father Peter<br />

in 1768, <strong>William</strong> was already living in this house with his wife Magdalena Donsbach, five<br />

children, and probably two slaves. Six years later, <strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong> had married a second<br />

time and had produced five more children with his brother Adam’s widow, Anna Maria<br />

Richter. The confluence of the death of his father, becoming the owner of a substantial<br />

farm, and the increased population of his household, likely spurred the first campaign of<br />

improvements to the homestead. Often, as in the case of the Christian Moore house<br />

approximately one mile away to the northwest, and in the Heermance house one mile<br />

to the northeast, the later 18th-century renovation involved adding four or five bents<br />

and an end chimney to an existing five-bent structure that already had a chimney at<br />

one gable end.<br />

The door hardware upstairs—HL hinges and the ghosts of HL hinges, and Norfolk<br />

latches—suggests that rooms were first partitioned in the late 18th or early 19th<br />

century. <strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong> died in 1800, leaving the house to his son John W. <strong>Pitcher</strong>.<br />

The population of the household grew from nine people in 1790 to thirteen people in<br />

1820. The combination of these factors, along with changing attitudes toward privacy<br />

and access, would have contributed to this second campaign.<br />

The last significant stylistic change to the house occurred around 1860, when Andrew<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> inherited the property upon the death of his father, John W. <strong>Pitcher</strong>. Plain<br />

beaded door trim and baseboard on the main floor in rooms 106 and 107 reflect the<br />

taste of that time.<br />


THE CELLAR: Description and Condition<br />

N<br />

B4<br />

LINTEL<br />

B3<br />

B2<br />

B1<br />

patched opening<br />

sill rotted<br />

Cellar- plan view 2004 (Darlene S. Riemer Architect P.C. )<br />

B1 B2 B3<br />

Section view, from rear/north 2004 (Darlene S. RIemer Architect P.C. )<br />



Beneath the eastern end of the main house, the east room (105) and the center hall<br />

(103/104), Room B1 is 26’ east-west by 25’ north-south and 6’ 6” from the floor to<br />

the bottom of the beams.<br />

Floor: The cellar appears to have a dirt floor, but it is unclear if this is due to<br />

infiltration.<br />

Walls: The foundation is bluestone rubble, which appears to have been laid up with<br />

mortar. It has been repointed and there is remnant lime parging indicating that the<br />

space was functional. The foundation was expanded 8’ to the east to accommodate<br />

the enlarged circa 1775 footprint of the house. It appears that the bulkhead entrance<br />

was relocated at that time, allowing access from the east side rather than from the<br />

south.<br />

At the west end of B1, 3’ from the floor surface, the lintel stone for support of the<br />

hearth projects out 5”. This stone is 8’ long and centered on the wall (photo B1-1). In<br />

the northwest corner are stairs leading up to an exterior door (hidden behind asbestos<br />

siding) on the north side, and to a door beneath the stairs, which would have opened<br />

into the center hall (now Room 104).<br />

Rubble walls support the English-style fireplace above at the east end. This enclosed<br />

area has rough plank shelves.<br />

Ceiling: The ceiling is made of the original floorboards from the rooms above. The<br />

massive beams that span the cellar north-south are 10”x14” by 25’ long and appear to<br />

be chestnut. Trimmer beams, 10”x14” by approximately 4’ long span the first two<br />

beams at the east and west ends.<br />

Systems: An oil-fired furnace was installed in B1. It appears to be at least 40 years<br />

old and is vented through the chimney. There is also a retro-fitted 55-gallon drum for<br />

burning wood attached to the duct system. Sheet metal ducts deliver hot air through<br />

floor vents downstairs. Crude openings in the foundation on the west and north side<br />

allow vents to pass heat to the rest of the main floor. There is a panel box to the left<br />

of the lintel stone on the west wall. Also visible in the basement is the plumbing for<br />

the only bathroom in the house (104), including the main waste line that exits the<br />

building on the north side. None of these systems are functional at this time.<br />


Condition: B1 has moisture issues. Water is able to infiltrate through several large<br />

openings in the envelope. Most notably, there is a lack of appropriate covering over<br />

the bulkhead opening, and the area under the front entrance where the sill rotted away<br />

completely due to having had a concrete pad poured against it sometime in the 20th<br />

century (photo B1-2). The loss of this section of sill caused one of the main support<br />

beams spanning the cellar to drop about two feet, taking the trimmer beams with it.<br />

This beam has since been jacked back up and stabilized.<br />

Lack of gutters and the fact that the house sits at grade or slightly below on the south<br />

side are contributing to this moisture problem.<br />

The foundation is bowing in considerably where the original bulkhead entry was located.<br />

The vertical lines of the patch are quite clear where the opening was.<br />


photo B1-1- bulge in foundation at orignial<br />

bulkhead<br />

photo B1-2- top view of lintel stone projecting out from west wall of basement<br />


photo B1-3- fallen beam due to water<br />

and concrete slab<br />

photo B1-4- furnace and ducts<br />



Due to the position of ductwork, it is not possible to get more than a peek into the<br />

crawlspace that is B2 and verify that it is, in fact, a crawlspace and support beams,<br />

similar to those visible in B1.<br />


At the west end of the main house, beneath the circa 1900 addition is cellar space B3.<br />

The cellar is accessed through a bulkhead on the north side of the addition.<br />

Foundation: The foundation is poured concrete, 16’ east-west, 14’ north- south and 7’<br />

deep with a slab floor.<br />

NOTE: At this time it is not possible to get into B3 for further inspection. This<br />

situation will be resolved with a bit of effort and a machete.<br />


Due to the position of ductwork, it is not possible to get even a peek into the<br />

crawlspace that is B4.<br />

B3-1 access to B3<br />



• Remove ALL systems and related ducting, wiring, pipes, etc…<br />

• Support all framing for examination and stabilization.<br />

• Rebuild and repoint foundation as needed.<br />



107<br />

106<br />

104<br />

101 102<br />

105<br />

103<br />

Main level plan view 2004 (Darlene S. Riemer Architect P.C. )<br />

The main block of the <strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong> house is a one-room deep rectangle, 46’ along<br />

the eaves and 25’ deep, with a small one-room, one-story addition at the west end and<br />

a story and a half ell off the north side. As it stands now there is a central entry<br />

chamber 10’ wide and 14’ deep. A doorway through the left wall of the entry leads to<br />

the west parlor (102), which is 17’ wide. At the far west end of the west parlor is the<br />

circa 1900 addition that appears to have housed a modern kitchen. A doorway<br />

through the right wall of the entry hall leads to the east parlor (105), which is also 17’<br />

wide. At the back of the entry hall are two doors: the left hides a stair that rises and<br />

turns to the left; the right leads to a pass-through full bathroom, beyond which is a<br />

narrow hall that runs along the west side of the ell. The hall gives access to 106,<br />

which is also accessed through the east parlor (105), and opens onto the dry kitchen<br />

(107).<br />



Description: Room 101 is a one-story addition 16’ wide by 14’ deep. Based on the<br />

poured foundation, novelty-style siding and interior finishes of wainscot paneling, it was<br />

built around 1900. Except for the insertion of the bathroom into the center hall, this<br />

was the last major change to the <strong>Pitcher</strong> house.<br />

A modern, metal-clad door gives entry to this room from the outside on the south side<br />

of the house. In the northwest corner is a pantry closet, with a trapdoor cut into the<br />

original sub-floor, which leads to the B3 Cellar Space. The flooring in the rest of the<br />

room is linoleum tiles on top of at least one layer of plywood, on top of the original<br />

pine flooring. Walls are a combination of wallboard and 1960s chipboard paneling over<br />

plaster on lath on all but the north wall and on the outside of the pantry closet, which<br />

are plaster on lath. There is a simple chair rail on the north wall and on the outside of<br />

the pantry with vertically installed bead-board paneling beneath, which appears to be<br />

original. Door trim is flat 1”x6” pine. The windows are 6/6 double-hung sashes which<br />

appear to be from the date of construction. There is one window on each of the south,<br />

west, and north walls. The windows have rounded sills that match the chair rail, and are<br />

trimmed with flat 1”x4” pine. The east wall has a doorway into the west parlor (102)<br />

and a half-wall with a pass-through “window” taking up most of the wall. This opening<br />

was likely created in the 1980s after a fire in the chimney that stood against this wall.<br />

Systems: Room 101 has an antique enamel covered gas stove on the north wall and<br />

feed and drain lines for a sink, which have been cut off at the floor on the east wall.<br />

Electric service in this room consists of one 110-volt outlet on the north wall where BX<br />

wiring has been snaked through the wall; one 220-volt outlet on the west wall for a<br />

stove or dryer; and a florescent light fixture recessed into the wainscot-paneled ceiling.<br />

Finishes: The bead-board ceiling is coated with a thick calcimine-type product. The top<br />

layer of finish on the walls is a latex paint. The surface layer of paint on the door and<br />

window trim contains lead. (APPENDIX VII: Finish Analysis)<br />


101-1 looking west from room 102 doorway<br />



Description: Room 102 is 17’ wide and 24’ deep.<br />

The flooring material is plywood, laid over 2”x3”<br />

sleepers, on top of the original flooring. The<br />

north and south walls are plaster on top of riven<br />

lath, nailed to the posts of the anchor posts.<br />

Wall infill is the local version of wattle and daub,<br />

which consists of splits of wood, approximately<br />

3” in diameter and 4’ long, which are tapered at<br />

the ends and fitted horizontally into v-grooves<br />

cut into the sides of the posts of each anchor<br />

bent. (figure 3 and figure 4) The splits serve as a<br />

matrix to hold an infill of mud and straw. At the<br />

west end, next to the doorway and pass-through<br />

window opening to 101, a patched area of the<br />

floor approximately 8’ wide by 3’ deep is<br />

evidence of there having been a hearth stone in<br />

the floor, for a fireplace that was removed in the<br />

1980s. The east wall divides room 102 from the<br />

entry hall (103). The doorway between the two<br />

is centered. To the left of the door, the wall is<br />

covered with horizontally laid planks 12” wide.<br />

To the right of the door, the wall is plaster over<br />

wattle and daub. A portion of the south wall,<br />

between and beneath the windows, is clad in<br />

drywall, as is the west wall. This was likely done<br />

when the replacement windows were installed,<br />

after the west end fireplace and chimney were<br />

removed. The anchor beams are partially clad in<br />

painted “1-by” pine. Macro and microscopic<br />

analysis has determined that they are poplar, as<br />

can also be seen in the Palatine <strong>Farmstead</strong> of<br />

Franz Nehr and the Mathias Progue house in<br />

Rhinebeck, both of which date to the mid-18th<br />

century. The anchor beams, which<br />

figure 3- split lath infill matrix with<br />

mud and straw removed<br />

figure 4- detail of grooved post<br />


were 10” wide by 14” deep, have had the bottom 6” cut off, sometime in the 19 th<br />

century, as was the fashion, to give more headroom. Nail holes and lime burns show<br />

that the ceiling was, at that point, plastered over (photo 102-2). The ceiling space<br />

between the anchor beams is filled with patches of plywood, T-111 paneling, and<br />

acoustical tiles. There are two windows on the south wall and one on the west wall. All<br />

three are 1/1 replacement windows installed in existing openings. Older sills are visible,<br />

but otherwise there is no casing. Casing on the doorway between 102 and 101 is flat<br />

1”x4”. Casing on the doorway between 102 and 103 is a typically Federal-style<br />

architrave, about 5” wide with a 3/4 round-bead and a back band (photo 102b). This<br />

reflects the major renovation that took place in the second half of the 18th century.<br />

Systems: There are outlets run through conduit along the baseboard and two registers<br />

in the floor for hot air.<br />

Finishes: The surface coating on the walls and flat pine trim is latex paint. The top<br />

layer of finish on the door trim between 102 and 103 is a lead paint. (APPENDIX VII:<br />

Finish Analysis)<br />


102-1 view from southwest corner; stones<br />

stacked against north wall behind<br />

woodstove, small closet, doorway into<br />

entry hall (103), half-clad anchor beams<br />

102-2 south wall between windows, brick<br />

infill of alterations, arrow to tenon of cut<br />

portion of anchor beam<br />



Description: The configuration of the center hall is due to the installation of a<br />

bathroom sometime in the second half of the 20th century. Originally, this space<br />

would have been the west end of the east room. The jambless fireplace was positioned<br />

on the west wall, where the doorway to 102 is now. A ghost of the crown of the<br />

jambless fireplace smoke hood is visible on a post within the stair area (photo 203-1). In<br />

the renovation circa 1775, the anchor beam (IV) to the east of the central chimney<br />

was cut out, as were the trimmer beams on either side of the chimney. The ends of<br />

these are visible where they were cut off in their mortises (photo 203-2) Lighter framing<br />

members were installed in the ceiling between anchor beams III and V. Flooring above<br />

was installed running north-south, in contrast to the rest of the house. At this time, a<br />

staircase was added at the rear of the hall, on the west wall, where previously there<br />

had likely been a ladder or very steep enclosed stair to the garret. This staircase would<br />

have risen toward the north side to a landing and then turned to the east, based on the<br />

what can be observed in the flooring above, and in other local examples such as the<br />

Palatine <strong>Farmstead</strong>. To allow for the installation of the bathroom, the stairs above the<br />

landing were turned to the west and three feet from the northern end of anchor bent V<br />

was cut out to make room for the steps. In order to create the center hall, anchor<br />

bent III was shifted approximately 2’ to the east. The center hall is 10’ wide and,<br />

before the insertion of the bathroom, was 24’ deep. On the south wall is the main<br />

entry, a door more than 3’ wide and approximately 86” tall, hung with strap hinges as<br />

evidenced by the top pintel, which remains in place, and flanked by 6/6 single-hung<br />

sidelights (photo 203-4) The bottom pintel, still visible, is below the level of the flooring.<br />

The west and east walls each have a doorway into 102 and 105 respectively. As it is<br />

now, the entry hall is 10’ wide and 14’ deep. The flooring is 1”x10” pine laid on top of<br />

“2-by” sleepers, linoleum, at least one layer of plywood, and finally the original flooring.<br />

The walls, south, east and west are plaster over riven lath.<br />

Entering through the main door, which is metal-clad, colonial-style, straight ahead are<br />

two flat-panel hollow-core doors that swing into the entry room. The door on the left<br />

opens to the stairs (photo 203-6). The door on the right opens onto the bathroom. This<br />

wall is vertically-installed, 20th-century, 1/4” thick bead-board strips, except for the<br />

area over the door that opens to the stairs. This area is drywall suggesting that the<br />

stairs were enclosed before the bathroom was created.<br />


The ceiling of the front hall is the flooring of the floor above, planks approximately 12”<br />

wide, laid down on top of the 6”x6” framing. Casing around the entrance door and<br />

doorways into 102 and 105 are 5” wide Federal architrave with a back band. The stair<br />

door has flat 1”x4” trim, and the bathroom door trim is missing. The baseboard is<br />

mostly buried behind layers of flooring material and is covered by painted wallpaper.<br />

The bathroom inserted into the hallway is a pass-through into the side hall of the ell<br />

(photo 203-7). Immediately upon entering, there is a small vanity cabinet with sink on<br />

the right and next to that, the toilet. On the left wall is a fiberglass tub surround with<br />

2”x4” walls built around it, almost to the ceiling. The flooring is linoleum over plywood.<br />

Because it is at the same level as the entry hall, there is likely a similar stratigraphy.<br />

The walls and ceiling are drywall. There is no casing on the entry hall door or on the<br />

hollow core door that leads to the side hall of the ell. The most interesting feature of<br />

room 104 is the door to the basement, under the stair. It is a clinch-nailed, chamferedbatten<br />

door, with a primitive wrought handle and a box lock made of wood, also held in<br />

place with hand-wrought nails (photo 204-1). Based on the angle cut across the top<br />

batten, which faces out into the room, and the modern brass-coated hinges, this door<br />

was not originally hung this way. It appears to have been turned around and hung on<br />

the face of the plank wall to accommodate the raised floor. On the other side of this<br />

door, on the landing of the basement stairs, is a door to the outside, which has been<br />

covered over with siding on the exterior.<br />

Systems: Room 104 has water and drain lines, an overhead light fixture with a pull<br />

chain, and a heat register in the floor.<br />

Finishes: The ceiling, walls, hollow-core doors, and new pine trim are coated with latex<br />

paint. The door to the basement has a lime-based finish. (APPENDIX VII: Finish Analysis)<br />


103-1 empty mortise for trimmer beam<br />

above post with jambless hood ghost<br />

103-2 west wall; arrow to cut off end of south trimmer beam<br />


14”<br />

105-3 Federal architrave and full height of anchor beam<br />

105-4 view from south looking north into 106<br />


103-3 entry door and sidelights<br />

103-4 sidelight detail<br />

<br />


103-5 astrigal detail<br />

103-6 north wall of entry; stair door door open<br />

<br />


103-7 north wall of entry; bathroom doors<br />

open to side hall of ell<br />

104-1 bathroom door to basement (B1)<br />



Description: The east parlor is 16’ wide by 24’ deep, with an English-style fireplace<br />

(photo 105-1) at the east end. Before the circa 1775 renovation and the partitioning of<br />

the center hall, the east room of the <strong>Pitcher</strong> house was approximately 19’ wide and 24’<br />

deep. The addition of 8’ to the east end of the house at that time lined up the gable<br />

end with the five-bent summer kitchen allowing for attachment. Evidence of this 8’<br />

extension is visible on the south wall of 105. Where the rest of the main block of the<br />

house has the split wood matrix with mud and straw infill between the anchor posts,<br />

this two-bent add-on and the entire east gable wall has an infill of unfired brick nogging<br />

with lime-less clay mortar. (APPENDIX V: Masonry Analysis) Also, the original southeast<br />

corner post, anchor post I, has an empty mortise pocket that would have held the knee<br />

brace and a vertical groove that would have held the split wood infill matrix of the<br />

gable end wall. (photo 105-2)<br />

Flooring material in 105 consists of 1”x10” pine atop “2-by” sleepers, linoleum,<br />

plywood, and the original floorboards. Walls are plaster. The ceiling and anchor beams,<br />

which were cut down like the beams in 102 to allow for more headroom, are clad in<br />

beadboard. There are two 1/1 replacement windows on the south wall and one on<br />

either side of the chimney breast on the east wall. Window casing is flat 1”x4”. The<br />

doorway casing into the center hall has the 5” wide Federal architrave (photo 105-3),<br />

while the doorway trim on the north wall into 106 is approximately 4” wide with a 3/8”<br />

bead (photo 105-4). The baseboard in 105 is inconsistent. The west wall is mostly<br />

buried in flooring material; the area in front of the fireplace has 1”x4”; the rest of the<br />

east wall has 5/4”x 6”or 8” with a 3/8” bead on top. The chimney breast was opened<br />

up to allow for the installation of a cinderblock flue to vent the furnace in the<br />

basement. After this intervention, the whole fireplace structure was framed up with<br />

2”x4”s and covered with particle board.<br />

Systems: Heat is delivered through floor registers. There are two overhead light<br />

fixtures with pull chains and outlets along the baseboard with exposed bare Romex.<br />

Finishes: Walls are covered with wallpaper that has been painted over. The woodwork<br />

has accumulated between four and ten layers of paints and varnishes. (APPENDIX VII:<br />

Finish Analysis)<br />


105-1 English-style fireplace at east gable end<br />

105-2 anchor post I, south wall, arrow to<br />

empty knee brace mortise; unfired brick<br />

nogging and lime-less mortar<br />



Room 106 is 16’ wide and 12’ deep. There is a 1/1 replacement window on the east<br />

side with 1”x4” casing; a doorway on the north wall with 4” wide casing with a 3/8”<br />

bead, leads to the north room of the ell; a doorway on the west wall also with 4” wide<br />

casing with a 3/8” bead leads to the west side hallway of the ell. Room 106, which is a<br />

5” step down from 105 clearly shows the means of connection between the original<br />

main house and the separate five-bent structure. The flooring is random-width, wide<br />

pine running east-west for the first 8’ from 105 with a discernible hump in the floor.<br />

This signifies the location of the sill of the summer kitchen structure. Beyond that<br />

point, the floorboards are laid north-south. The walls are a combination of plaster and<br />

plywood. The ceiling is 4” wide, 3/8” thick, fir tongue-and-groove with a single bead.<br />

Where ceiling boards have been removed, the framing above is visible. The joists<br />

running north-south connecting the south gable end of the summer kitchen structure<br />

to the north wall of the main house are rough-hewn red oak on the north half, and<br />

finished poplar on the south side. The poplar joists have a delicate ogee detail on the<br />

bottom edges. This profile also appears five miles north as a facia detail at the Ten<br />

Broeck family home, The Bouwerie, in a section that was constructed in 1762.<br />

A sideboard type of cabinet, approximately 6’ long and 40” tall and 20” deep, is built in<br />

against the north wall of 106, to the right of the doorway into 107 (photo 106-1).<br />

There is a doorway in the north wall of 106, offset slightly to the west, which leads<br />

into 107. The casing on this doorway is 1”x4” flat stock with a 3/8” bead. There is<br />

also a doorway in the west wall, similarly clad, which leads into the side hall (photo<br />

106-2).<br />

Systems: There are two ungrounded outlets and a thermostat mounted approximately<br />

48” off the floor on the east and south walls; an overhead light with a pull chain; and<br />

two floor registers.<br />

Finishes: The walls and hollow-core doors are covered with latex paint. The ceiling,<br />

door trim, and sideboard top finishes contain lead. (APPENDIX VII: Finish Analysis)<br />

Interpretation: Due to the presence of the sideboard in 106 and proximity to 107 that<br />

was, for most of the life of the structure a dry kitchen, it seems that 106 may have<br />

served as a dining room. Without any furnishings, and given the condition of the<br />

house, it is hard to know how the spaces were used. Knowing that the <strong>Pitcher</strong>s always<br />


had at least one domestic servant until the census of 1870, the side hall between the<br />

kitchen and the front hall makes sense. In 1880 Andrew <strong>Pitcher</strong> was living in the house<br />

with his son <strong>William</strong> (27) and daughter Sarah (32), both of whom married within the<br />

next two years. WIlliam married Laura Lasher and moved to Tivoli to live with her<br />

parents. Sarah married Henry Elting whose parents lived next door in a house built on<br />

the site of Andrew’s brother Abraham’s house, which had burned down in 1875.<br />

Perhaps the west addition (101) was constructed to be a second kitchen in order that<br />

the large house could be divided into a two-family dwelling.<br />


106-1 floor board direction change; sideboard; doorway into 107<br />

106-2 ceiling covering; doorway into side hall<br />

<br />



Description: Room 107 is 12’ deep and spans the interior width of the ell at 20’. This<br />

room was originally a separate building, likely a summer kitchen or perhaps an entire<br />

small house, possibly moved from somewhere else. The latter option seems less likely<br />

since the <strong>Pitcher</strong>s went to a great deal of trouble to align the two buildings before<br />

joining them together. If 107 could have been moved easily, arguably it would have<br />

been.<br />

Based on visible framing, 107 is 4/5ths of a<br />

five-bent building that originally had a jambless<br />

fireplace at the north end. At approximately<br />

20’ wide by 16’, this building would have looked<br />

like the summer kitchen at the Mabee Farm in<br />

Rotterdam, New York. (figure 107a)<br />

The posts of the bents are infilled with the<br />

same matrix of split lath with mud and straw, as<br />

in the original block of the main house. The<br />

exception to this is to the left of the window on<br />

the east wall, which is a 1/1 replacement with<br />

no trim, where a post was added about 4”<br />

inches from the anchor post, and the space<br />

between was filled with stacked bricks (photo<br />

107-1).<br />

figure 107a- Mabee Farm summer<br />

kitchen<br />

On the north wall there is a one-light, metal-clad door with flat 1”x4” casing. The west<br />

wall has an old 6/6 single-hung window, which, based on the muntin profile, dates to<br />

the circa 1775 renovation (photo 107-2). The casing around this window is 4” wide with<br />

a bead stop and a back band. The infill beneath this window is the split wood matrix,<br />

but instead of a groove in the posts, the splits are held in place between vertical strips<br />

of wood, affixed to the posts with small wrought nails. Perhaps this was an early<br />

doorway, or a new opening was created for this 6/6. Paint sampling shows 18 layers<br />

of finish on this window trim (see Paint Analysis).<br />

Flooring in 107 is 1/4” masonite over random-width wide pine. The baseboards in 107,<br />

as in 106, are 1”x6” with a 3/8” bead. The walls are plaster directly over mud and<br />

straw, no lath. The ceiling is the same fir material as in 106. In the northwest corner<br />


of 107 there is a closet 90” wide by 37” deep. This closet, a mid-19th-century<br />

addition based on visible cut lath and 1”x4” trim with a radius bead on each doorway<br />

inside and out, has two doorways and is plastered outside and clad with plywood inside<br />

(photo 107-3). The left door was access to a very steep staircase as evidenced by the<br />

angle at which the right door trim is cut inside the closet (photo 107-4). A charred<br />

trimmer for the jambless fireplace is visible. The door on the right probably served as<br />

access to a pantry cupboard. In the middle of the north wall, a brick chimney with a<br />

stove pipe thimble is cantilevered approximately 3’ down from the ceiling. Visible lath<br />

in the support for this chimney appears to be the same era cut lath as that which is in<br />

the stair closet. Both 106 and 107 appear to have had their last major alterations in<br />

the middle of the 19th century. The trim details are appropriate for that time period<br />

and, if that is the case, it is also possible that the doorway between 105 and 106 was<br />

cut through at that time.<br />

Systems: Floor registers. Ungrounded outlets on the south wall and an overhead<br />

fixture with a pull chain.<br />

Finishes: The bead-board ceiling of 107 is coated with an oil-based paint that contains<br />

lead. The walls are covered with multiple layers of wallpaper. The wood work—<br />

baseboards, window and door trim, and stair closet—has a top coat of paint that<br />

contains lead. (APPENDIX VII: Finish Analysis)<br />


107-1 east half of 107; north door; visible anchor posts; arrow to brick nogging<br />


107-2 view south from 107, through<br />

side hall and bathroom to front entry;<br />

6/6 single-hung window<br />

107-3 northwest closet/stair; chimney with stove thimble<br />



Upper level plan view 2004 (Darlene S. Riemer Architect P.C. )<br />



Description: Room 201 is at the west end of the upper level. It measures 24’ along<br />

the gable end by 12’ along the eave. Entry is from the hallway. There are two 1/1<br />

replacement windows in the gable end, which flanked the chimney that has been<br />

removed. Knee-walls are approximately 3’ high.<br />

The flooring is random-width wide pine, lightly nailed, mostly at the ends, with handwrought<br />

nails. There are visible marks from a water-driven, sash-style reciprocating<br />

saw. The floor boards appear to date to the original construction, due to their width,<br />

irregularity, saw marks, and type and pattern of nailing (photo 201-1).<br />

The north and south knee-walls are drywall over a thick lime coating applied directly to<br />

mud and straw infill between the anchor posts. The plaster and the posts have a thick<br />

coating of a limewash or casein-based paint (APPENDIX V: Masonry Analysis). The east<br />

wall covering, north of the hall doorway, is horizontal planks that appear to be 1”x8”<br />

tongue-and-groove. The east wall covering, south of the hall doorway is T-111<br />

paneling, installed vertically. There is a decorative, scalloped valance nailed to the<br />

collar tie that is the top of this wall.<br />

The hand-hewn collar ties are exposed and wallboard is applied between them. The<br />

sloping sides are wallboard over tongue-and-groove 1”x8” (photo 201-2).<br />

The door into the hall is a 6’ tall clinch-nailed, chamfered-batten door. The beveled<br />

battens are on the hall side of the door.<br />

There is no baseboard. There is no casing on the windows. The door is trimmed in flat<br />

stock which sits flush with the horizontal planks.<br />

Hardware: The hinges are modern, but there are ghosts of earlier HL hinges. The<br />

thumb latch is a decorative Norfolk latch that appears to be original to the door, as<br />

there is no evidence of an earlier latch (photo 201-3a, 201-3b).<br />

Systems: There is a ceiling fixture with a pull chain. The wire runs out of the south wall<br />

and is draped to the fixture. There are no outlets. Heat arrives through a hole cut in<br />

the floor with a decorative register grate over it.<br />

Finishes: The drywall and other woodwork are top coated with latex paint. There is no<br />

suggestion that there was ever a finish on the flooring. (APPENDIX VII: Finish Analysis)<br />


201-1 saw marks in flooring<br />

201-2 collar beams, anchor posts…<br />


Evolution: Room 201 shows evidence of having been divided into two rooms of equal<br />

size. A paint ghost on the floor shows the absence of a wall that ran from the middle<br />

of the gable end wall to the middle of the hallway wall. There appears to have been no<br />

door between these two rooms. The room on the north was accessed through the<br />

existing doorway. The room on the south was accessed through what is now 202.<br />

This south doorway is hidden behind the T-111 paneling (photo 201-4).<br />

201-3a, 201-3b door with HL ghosts, Norfolk-style latch detail<br />


201-4 view from northwest corner; dotted line marks former doorway to 202 (dormer room)<br />



Description: Room 202 is situated over the entry hall. The room is 10’ deep and 13’<br />

6” along the eave. A dormer is centered on the south side.<br />

The floor of the eastern two-thirds of 202 is planks of approximately 12” wide, laid<br />

north-south. The western 4’ of 202 has plywood as flooring. This 1/2” plywood, along<br />

with a platform framed with 2”x6” stock, compensates for the drop of 6”.<br />

The walls are covered with particle board or masonite. The east and west walls have<br />

machine-cut lath beneath the masonite, affixed to dimensioned studs. The north wall<br />

has no lath, but the studding, which is more primitive, shows lime burns implying that<br />

there was lath at an earlier point, or that the material was reused from elsewhere<br />

(photo 202-1).<br />

The western 4’ of the south wall has mud and straw with stick matrix as infill covered<br />

with thick coats of limewash or casein-based paint, as in Room 201. The rest of the<br />

south wall is open and the changes that were necessary to create the center hall are<br />

visible (photo 202-2).<br />

All of the ceiling surfaces and the cheeks of the dormer are clad in 1”x10” planks with<br />

a small bead. Beneath the planking on the flat section there is plaster and lath. The<br />

dormer has a band molding at the roof line on a 1”x12” with a 3/8”- 7/16” bead at<br />

the bottom (photo 202-3).<br />

The dormer has a pair of 6/6 sashes, the profile of which matches that of the<br />

sidelights in the entry hall and the window in 107.<br />

The door to the hall is not extant. The door casing is a variation on the delicate Federal<br />

trim of the main floor, but it is a bit coarser. The band molding is not quite as refined<br />

and the bead at the inside edge is a 3/8”- 7/16” simple bead rather than the 5/16”<br />

bead rounded over. There are two doorways that were covered over with wallboard.<br />

One is in the north end of the west wall and leads to the south room that was half of<br />

102, and the other is in the north end of the east wall, and leads into the east room,<br />

1-4. Both of these doorways are cased with flat 1”x4”.<br />


Hardware: The only hardware in 202 is the top pintel that was driven into the trim on<br />

the left-hand side of the doorway to 203 (photo 202-4). There is a slightly rectangular<br />

hole where the bottom pintel had been.<br />

Systems: There is a electric box hung on the hall doorway. A piece of Romex runs from<br />

the south wall and spans the room droopily. A second length of Romex runs up from<br />

the south wall and pokes out the dormer window, through the gap above the sash, for<br />

an outside light.<br />

Finishes: The surface coat of paint on the ceiling paneling and woodwork in 202 is an<br />

oil-based paint that contains lead. The drywall is coated with a latex-based paint. On<br />

the south wall, where the framing is exposed, the top plate, anchor posts, and<br />

plastered infill are covered with a whitewash containing lime. (APPENDIX VII: Finish<br />

Analysis)<br />

Evolution: Reconfiguration of the building to create the front hall required the removal<br />

of anchor bent IV, numbered from east to west. The split lath infill was removed in this<br />

area and the siding was turned over and repurposed as flat sheathing. Paint lines are<br />

visible to support this assertion (photo 202-2). A lighter piece of hewn framing, which<br />

appears to be tapered like an English-style gunstock post, was inserted in place of<br />

anchor post IV as a siding nailer. There are three pieces of true 2”x4” beneath the top<br />

plate, which have lime burns showing that they once supported lath and plaster.<br />

Perhaps the south wall had lath, but it seems equally plausible that the knee wall was<br />

planked. This wall was opened up again and dimensioned 2”x4”s were inserted<br />

vertically among the true 2”x4”s, fiberglass batts were stapled up, and drywall was<br />

nailed on.<br />


202-1 view of northwest corner, dotted lines mark former doorway to 201<br />

202-2 south wall; infill partially removed for center hall project<br />


202-3 dormer cheek; beaded plank paneling, back band on beaded board<br />

202-4 pintel in door trim between 202/203<br />



Description: Room 203 is situated above the bathroom and incorporates the stairs.<br />

This area is 13’6” deep and 13’ 6” along the eave. The stairs rise to a 30”x30”<br />

landing at the north wall of the house. At that point they turn to the west and rise one<br />

step to another landing approximately 30”x30”. Turning to the right, one rises one<br />

more step to face south and proceed into the hall area. A person of average height<br />

cannot navigate this course without hitting their head. A 3’ section at the north end of<br />

anchor beam V on the west side of the stairs was cut out to allow for the landings.<br />

The stairs and landings are partially carpeted. The floor is random-width wide pine.<br />

The western 4’ of the hall area and Room 202 are 6” lower than the rest of the upper<br />

level of the house. Floor boards run east-west in the previously described area,<br />

perpendicular to the anchor bents. The flooring in the rest of 203 is not uniform. It is<br />

all installed perpendicular to the framing that was put in to create the center hall, but<br />

there is a large, patched area to the east of the existing stair throat. Two pallets stand<br />

in place of a railing (photo 103-1).<br />

The walls are random-width horizontal planks with a 3/16”-1/4” quirked bead. They<br />

are butted together at intervals; the joints are not staggered. The planks are hand<br />

planed (photo 203-2). The western 4’ of the south wall was built later based on the use<br />

of round-headed, wire nails as fasteners. The door casing on the hall side of 201 is flat<br />

1”x4”, flush with the wall planking. The door casing on the hall side of 202 is 1”x4”<br />

with a 3/8” bead, flush with the wall planking. On the east wall, the door casings to<br />

204 and into the garret of the ell are 1”x4” with a bead as well.<br />

The flat and sloped areas of the ceiling are clad in the same beaded planking as the<br />

walls. Beneath the planking on the flat section, there is plaster and lath.<br />

There are no windows.<br />

Systems: There is a box hanging from the ceiling for a fixture with exposed BX wire to<br />

it.<br />

Finishes: A portion of the ceiling of 203 is top coated with latex paint. The remainder<br />

of the surfaces are covered with oil-based paint. (APPENDIX VII: Finish Analysis)<br />

Evolution: This area didn’t exist as proper living space before the circa 1775<br />

reconfiguration. Prior to that time, the upstairs was likely just a garret for storage and<br />


perhaps sleeping. It was accessed by a ladder or steep staircase on one side of the<br />

central jambless fireplace, which was a common placement. The current awkward<br />

placement of the stairs and the crude way that the anchor beam was cut to allow for<br />

them, along with the patched flooring, imply that the staircase was previously laid out<br />

with a turn to the east rather than west. There are square holes in the outboard side<br />

of each step tread for spindles, verifying that the stairs are on the proper side of the<br />

hallway. This alteration was made in the later mid-1900s to allow for the installation<br />

of the bathroom in the main level hall. At the same time, the wall with hollow-core<br />

doors was put up to separate the bathroom and the stairs from the entry hall, and the<br />

stair wall was clad in 5/16” tongue-and-groove wainscot strips. There is a similarly<br />

clad wall dividing the stairs from the east half of the stair area on the upper level.<br />


203-1 upstairs hall, looking east; pallet railing; middle left door to passage into garret<br />

(Room 206); view into Room 204<br />

203-2 west wall; plank wall and ceiling<br />

<br />



Description: Room 204 is at the east end of the house. Access is from the hallway.<br />

The room is 18’ wide at the gable and 17’ along the eave. The knee-wall on the south<br />

side is approximately 3’ high. The north wall is a full height partition wall. There are<br />

two windows in the gable end. One window is on either side of the fireplace. The<br />

chimney is 5’ wide and protrudes 2’ into the room. On the left side is a small fireplace,<br />

2’ high, 30” wide, and 1’ deep. The sides and back are sharply angled, rising to a small<br />

flue. The brick to the right of the fireplace was opened to allow for the installation of a<br />

cinderblock flue for the furnace. The chimney was, at one time, covered with plaster,<br />

then later framed out with modern, kiln-dried 2”x4”s and clad in drywall (photo 204-1).<br />

The flooring is random-width pine, ranging from 6”-13”. This is the only floor in the<br />

house that is painted.<br />

The walls are covered with drywall. On the west wall, to the north of the doorway to<br />

the hall (203), the drywall is hung over plaster; south of the doorway drywall is hung<br />

on sleepers that horizontally span the wall, hiding a doorway to the dormer room (202)<br />

and the rest of the wall, which is framed with true 2”x4”s and cut lath (photo 204-2).<br />

The drywall on the south and east wall is undamaged. The north wall is drywall over<br />

modern, kiln-dried 2”x4”s (photo 204-3).<br />

The ceiling is a particle board material with 1/4”x 2” strips covering the joints, beneath<br />

which plaster and lath are visible.<br />

The north window at the east gable end is a single-hung 6/6. The muntin profile<br />

matches that of the 6/6 in the dormer, the north window in 107, and the entry side<br />

lights (photo 204-4). The south window sashes at the east gable end are missing. The<br />

jamb, which matches the one to the north, is still in place. There is a nine-light sash<br />

hung from the exterior trim, serving as a storm window.<br />

The door to the hall is a clinch-nailed batten door, constructed of four beaded planks.<br />

The door has been modified. The paint evidence suggests that at least 2” was cut off<br />

the latch side (photo 204-5).<br />

Hardware: The door swings south into the hallway on an HL and H hinge that are not<br />

original. The ghosts of pancake hinges are visible on the batten side of the door, which<br />

leads to the inside room of 204 (photo 204-6). There is not an operable thumb latch on<br />


the door to 204. There is a broken Norfolk latch; only a portion of the back plate and<br />

the handle remain. The size of this door, along with the paint ghosts of strap hinges,<br />

suggests that it may have been the original door to 202 at the time of the circa 1775<br />

campaign of renovation.<br />

Systems: There is a ceramic light fixture with a pull chain on the ceiling. There is a hole<br />

in the floor to the south of the chimney with a grate to allow heat to rise from below.<br />

Finishes: The ceiling and walls of 204 are coated with latex paint. The flat stock trim is<br />

coated with latex as well. The jamb of the south window on the east gable end which,<br />

based on it being single hung and having the muntin profile, dates to the later 18th<br />

century (along with the 103 sidelights and the 107 west window). It has traces of a<br />

grainy bright green pigment. (APPENDIX VII: Finish Analysis)<br />

Evolution: Room 204 is the most finished of the upper level rooms. The relatively<br />

recent partitioning of the storage area 205, painted floor, drywall cladding, baseboard<br />

molding, closed ceiling, and the fact that it is the only room upstairs with a fireplace,<br />

make it by far the most comfortable seeming room in the house. (Note: 201 may have<br />

also had a fireplace before the chimney was removed in the 1980s.) Given that at<br />

some point in the 19th century, there were two doors into 204, one from the hallway<br />

and one from the dormer room, it is likely that 204, like 201, was divided into two<br />

rooms. <br />


204-1 looking east<br />

204-2 looking west into hallway (203) through right doorway; into dormer<br />

room (202) through drywall covering doorway on the left<br />


204-3 looking east; north wall partitions off a storage area (205) accessed<br />

through the garret.<br />

204-4 window to the north of the chimney<br />

breast<br />


204-5 door to 204; ghosts of pancake hinges; battens cut back and latch<br />

edge ripped<br />



Description: Room 205 is tucked into the eave at the north side of 204, and accessed<br />

through a door just inside the “foyer” to the garret (206).<br />

The floor in 205 is random-width pine.<br />

The gable end wall is clad in 1”x8” planking. The inside of the partition wall is unclad.<br />

The knee-wall is plaster over the matrix of horizontal riven sticks, mud, and straw,<br />

except for the eastern two bays, which are infilled with unfired brick nogging.<br />

The ceiling is clad in 1”x8” planking as well.<br />

Windows: None<br />

The door to 205 is a two-plank, clinch-nailed batten door, which is original to this<br />

location. The top of the door is cut to match the roof-line. (photo 205-1)<br />

Hardware: The door is hung with HL hinges.<br />

Systems: None<br />

Finishes: All of the layers of finish on the door to 105 are chalky and react with<br />

vinegar. (APPENDIX VII: Finish Analysis)<br />

Evolution: Room 205 is separated from 204 by a wall of modern kiln-dried 2”x4”s,<br />

which are not covered on the 205 side. The west end of this dividing wall, however, is<br />

framed with light riven and hewn posts, suggesting that the bulk of this wall is a 20thcentury<br />

addition, dating to the improvements to 204, which included closing off the<br />

door to the dormer room, covering the plaster ceiling with particle board, hanging<br />

drywall and installing baseboard trim. The western 3’ of this wall, however, was put up<br />

earlier in order to create a passage from the garret above the ell, into the upper level<br />

hall of the main house. (photo 205-2 & photo 205-3)<br />


photo 205-1 view of outside of 205 door, seen from upper hall area (202)<br />

<br />

photo 205-2 view into passage way from<br />

upper hall area (203) into the garret (206)<br />


photo 205-3- view from north end of garret; red arrow points to passage to upper level hall<br />

(203); knee brace at original northeast corner of main house<br />


ROOM 206, GARRET<br />

Description: Room 206, the garret of the north ell, is 21’ wide across the gable end<br />

and 26’ deep. Room 206 is an unfinished space, except for Room 207 which is<br />

partitioned off in the northeast corner (photo 206-1). Current access is through the<br />

passageway described previously.<br />

The flooring in 206 (and 207) is random-width pine. The widest board is 25” across.<br />

The flooring is fastened lightly with hand-wrought nails.<br />

The south end of 207 is the exterior of the main house: beneath the top plate are<br />

various infill materials, covered with thick layers of whitewash or limewash (photo 206-2).<br />

The other walls have no cladding or infill.<br />

There is no ceiling, as such. The roof structure is exposed. The rafters of 206 are<br />

slightly tapered to a pegged lap or bridle joint at the peak. The rafters are either<br />

pegged or nailed to the top plate (photo 206-3), there is no bird’s mouth. The collar ties<br />

are lapped and pegged (photo 206-4). Live edge slabs serve as purlins, to which wood<br />

shingles are nailed.<br />

Window: At the north gable end, there is a window opening on either side of the<br />

chimney. The sashes have been replaced with a single piece of plexiglass.<br />

The door from 203 into the passageway to 206 is like the other doors in the upper<br />

level of the house. It is a clinch-nailed, beaded plank, chamfered-batten door (photo<br />

206-5, 206-6).<br />

Hardware: The door to 206 has HL hinges, clinch-nailed in place, which appear to be<br />

the only hinges that have ever been on this door. There is an intact Norfolk thumb<br />

latch that matches the broken one on 204 (photo 206-7, 206-8).<br />

Systems: None<br />

Finishes: (APPENDIX VII: Finish Analysis)<br />

Evolution: The northern five bents of 206 comprised a separate structure as evidenced<br />

by the change in rafter material after Bent V; nail holes corresponding to siding at what<br />

was the south gable end; knee braces at the four corners of the original building (photo<br />

206-9); and the change in flooring direction from north-south to east-west at the point<br />


where the ell is attached to the main house with short lengths of assorted light framing<br />

material (photo 206-10). When this small structure stood alone, the garret was accessed<br />

via a steep staircase, or a ladder, on the west side of the jambless fireplace. The<br />

throat of this opening is now covered over with plywood (photo 206-11).<br />

Room 206 provides a clear view of the evolution of the house in total. The two bents<br />

that were added to the east end of the house are visible, as is the fact that bent III was<br />

shifted east from its original position to allow for the width of the center hallway (photo<br />

206-2).<br />


206-1 view from southwest corner, room 207 and roof structure; dotted line at south<br />

gable end rafter of original five-bent structure, note the different collar ties<br />

I<br />

I<br />

II<br />

II<br />

III<br />

III<br />

206-2 looking south; marriage marks in red; arrow to main attic access<br />


206-3 nails holding rafter of main house to top plate<br />

206-4 collar tie joint<br />


206-5 door to garret, standing open<br />

206-6 batten detail<br />

206-7 latch on door between 203 and 206 206-8 latch on 204 with broken plate<br />


206-9 knee brace at southwest corner of<br />

original five-bent building<br />

206-10 looking south; change in flooring direction<br />


206-11 covered stair throat, northwest corner<br />



Description: Room 207 is the northeast corner of 206, divided from the rest of the<br />

garret by walls that appear to be the first rips off of trees sent to a sawmill, arranged<br />

vertically. The outside of the room, the live side of these off-cuts, is whitewashed<br />

(photo 207-1). The room is 11’ 6” wide, slightly more than half the width of the garret,<br />

and 13’ deep.<br />

The flooring is a continuation of the flooring in 206.<br />

The walls are clad with riven lath nailed to the vertical boards, plaster, and then a 1/4”<br />

thick cardboard-type material that has a two-layer, dense cellulose core. The<br />

outermost layer is a printed wallpaper (photo 207-2).<br />

The ceiling is the same combination of treatments as the walls.<br />

Window: A window at the gable end, to the east of the chimney, is the same as<br />

described in 206 (photo 207-3).<br />

There is not an extant door.<br />

Hardware: The doorway, which is at the southwest corner of 207, shows paint ghosts<br />

from either H or HL hinges on the exterior (photo 207-4).<br />

Systems: None<br />

Evolution: The census recorded no names beyond the head of household prior to 1850,<br />

so it is hard to know exactly whose room was up in the garret above the summer<br />

kitchen. Based on those records, <strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong> owned two slaves in 1790. His son<br />

John W. <strong>Pitcher</strong> owned two slaves in 1800 and 1810. The 1820 census lists two<br />

slaves, a boy under 14 and a man of over 45. In 1820, there were also two<br />

“foreigners” in the <strong>Pitcher</strong> household. After the abolition of slavery in 1827, the<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong>s consistently had servants and other hired labor. In 1840, there was a “free<br />

colored male 10-24” living in the house who could conceivably have been one of the<br />

3<br />

slaves in 1820; there was also a “free colored female 24-36” in residence. These two<br />

may have been living in the house in 1830, but the census data for that year were not<br />

specific as to race. <br />

3<br />

1840 United States Census<br />


207-1 outside of 207 wall, vertical log splits with riven lath visible<br />

207-2 view from inside 207, toward upstairs hall (203)<br />


207-3 north wall; boxed chimney; wallpaper, pressed cellulose board, whitewashed planks<br />

207-4 looking north at 207; arrows to H or HL<br />

ghosts<br />



The attic of the main house is accessed by climbing up the main house roof sheathing<br />

in the garret of the ell (206) and climbing through a small opening (photo attic-1). The<br />

sheathing boards visible from the garret are tightly spaced and do not have nail holes,<br />

which would have been present if this area was ever covered with shingles. The roof<br />

structure appears to be consistent throughout the main section of the house, implying<br />

that it was put on AFTER the addition to the east end, and at the same time that the<br />

ell was attached. The rafters, as in the garret, are slightly tapered to a bridle or lap<br />

joint (photo attic-2). The collar ties are attached to the rafters with lapped half-dovetail<br />

joints (photo attic-3). The ends of the rafters are nailed to the top plates. The western<br />

end of the attic, above Room 201, has planks laid over the collar ties, perhaps to allow<br />

for more storage early on. The rest of the attic, above the center hall area, the dormer<br />

room, and Room 204 has lath attached to the bottom of the collar ties and plaster<br />

keys visible beneath.<br />


attic-1 access<br />

attic-2 bridle or lap joint at peak<br />


attic-3 lapped half-dovetail joint on collar tie<br />



The current condition of the <strong>Pitcher</strong> farmhouse is such that a conventional room-byroom<br />

condition assessment is not possible at this time. In order to get to that point, it<br />

is recommended that all 20th-century materials, systems, and adaptations be removed<br />

from the house.<br />

That the house remains standing is a testament to the original builders. The roof and<br />

rafters are in good condition. There are no obvious leaks or water damage. The top<br />

plates and posts where visible are also undamaged. The main section of the house is<br />

relatively square and stable, the exception being the front hall area. The failure of the<br />

central joist, due to the concrete slab outside, caused the floor to sag significantly and<br />

cracks to open up in the plaster walls on either side of the entry hall. The post at the<br />

northeast corner of the ell has been replaced with a temporary pressure-treated 6”x6”,<br />

and there is reason to believe that the sill is no longer extant. Removal of all electric<br />

wires, ceiling cladding, drywall, and layers of material atop the original flooring will allow<br />

for proper inspection of the conditions of the building.<br />



The <strong>Pitcher</strong> <strong>Farmstead</strong> presents a unique opportunity as a model for sustainable<br />

preservation/rehabilitation to balance retaining historic fabric with “green” technology<br />

and efficiency.<br />

Due to the structure’s 20th-century identity as an auxiliary building, it has been passed<br />

over for modern interventions. It is nearly all historic fabric. From this position it is<br />

possible to look at how best to carefully insert some modern systems, strategies, and<br />

materials while respectfully leaving those that have worked for more than 250 years.<br />

The property, along with the Heermance <strong>Farmstead</strong> is one of the earliest established<br />

farmsteads in northern Dutchess County. For more than 250 years, the agricultural<br />

identity of this property has been maintained; the land is still providing food crops for<br />

New York City as it did in the 18 th century. The house may be the oldest surviving<br />

example of Dutch-style timber framing in the Town of Red Hook. Alterations to the<br />

house in the second half of the 18 th century are consistent with local patterns<br />

reflecting an influx of German immigrants after 1712 and the improvement of fortunes<br />

that extremely good soil allowed them.<br />

Property Description<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane is a quiet road that runs east-west through a valley that has supported<br />

subsistence farms and woodlots, fruit farms, dairy farms, and now has fields of rye,<br />

corn and alfalfa; orchards of apples; acres of blueberries; asparagus and other<br />

vegetables for sale at farmers’ markets up and down the valley. There are only a<br />

dozen houses on the road; most are clustered at the east end where <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane<br />

meets Route 9, a two-lane truck route. The southern 1/3 of the <strong>Pitcher</strong> <strong>Farmstead</strong><br />

property is open field; behind the barn complex and running the width of the property<br />

is a marshy area with a seasonal stream; and the north half of the property is divided<br />

between open field and woods.<br />

Outbuildings<br />

The remaining outbuildings of the farmstead include a horse shed, corncrib, and barn<br />

complex, constructed on the foundation of a much earlier structure, the core of which<br />

is a 19th-century English-style hay barn. Attached to the east side is a concrete silo;<br />

to the north a 20th-century two-story structure with calf pens and a basketball hoop;<br />


to the west, and one level down, a concrete-floored milking parlor; and on the south<br />

side, an attached wing for storage and also lockers for farm workers.<br />

Building Description<br />

The building is a south facing, one-and-a-half story, five-fenestration bay, eleven-bent,<br />

Dutch-style, framed wooden structure with a side gable roof. It is 45’ across the front<br />

and 25’ deep. The house has a 16’x16’ one-story, side gable addition off the west<br />

end, and a perpendicular ell, 22’ wide and 27’ deep that extends north at the east end.<br />

The main house sits on a foundation of dry-laid bluestone. The siding is cementitious<br />

asbestos shingle in fair to poor condition. Where it is compromised, there is asphalt<br />

shingle siding visible beneath. The sheathing material is vertically sawn 1”x12” that<br />

bears paint lines and nail holes suggesting it had an earlier use installed as clapboard.<br />

The roof is standing seam metal.<br />

Condition Assessment<br />

The <strong>Pitcher</strong> house has been unoccupied since 2000 and received little attention in the<br />

century prior to that due its use as a seasonal worker or tenant farmer dwelling after<br />

about 1885. The condition of the building is fair. The roof does not leak though the<br />

chimneys are in need significant repair, having been compromised by biological growth,<br />

human intervention, and the sacrificial nature of lime-based mortars. The siding can be<br />

patched and reattached as needed, but the sills, particularly in the northeast corner of<br />

the ell and on the south side, are likely in need of total replacement. The foundation<br />

appears to be in largely good condition under the main house, with the exception of a<br />

bulging area in the south wall of the cellar that appears to be infill of an earlier<br />

doorway. Due to the position of the house, directly at grade, it is not possible at this<br />

time to assess the condition of the foundation sections B2 and B4.<br />

The interior condition appears far worse than it is. The structure is solid, but the<br />

finishes are damaged. The plaster walls downstairs, made of a fragile blend of clay,<br />

slaked lime, and animal hair (likely ox), have suffered at the hands of vandals. The<br />

walls are mostly filled with nogging, split lath that serves as a matrix for clay mixed<br />

with chopped straw. In some places, notably the last 8’ of the east gable end of the<br />

main house, and the first 8’ where the ell attaches on the north side, the infill is of<br />

poorly fired brick and lime-less clay mortar. Walls upstairs in the main section of the<br />

house are finished with a combination of wallboard, horizontally applied hand-planed<br />


tongue-and-groove planks with a quirked bead, and a lime coating applied directly over<br />

plaster. These walls are infilled as below, except for Room 103, directly over the front<br />

hall. This room has no infill at all along 2/3 of the south wall due to the reconfiguration<br />

of the house circa 1775, when the center hall was created where none had been<br />

before.<br />

Existing Systems<br />

The existing systems are primitive. There is an oil-fired, hot-air furnace attached to<br />

ductwork that serves the downstairs only. A modified 55-gallon oil drum is also<br />

attached to the ductwork for burning wood as an auxiliary heat source. The furnace<br />

and oil tank in the cellar appear to be at least 50 years old.<br />

Most rooms have only an overhead light fixture with a pull chain switch. The wiring is<br />

BX and some Romex; in the west addition and the ell, some wiring is in the walls. In the<br />

rest of the house the wiring is exposed; either run through conduit, stapled to the face<br />

of trim, or loose wires snaked across rooms. Plumbing is limited to two areas: the<br />

16’x16’ west gable end addition and the full bathroom that was created in what had<br />

been the north end of the center hall.<br />

Previous Renovation/Preservation Strategies<br />

The only changes to the building made in the last quarter of the 20th century,<br />

nominally made in the interest of efficiency or at least efficacy, are that the exterior<br />

doors were replaced with metal clad units, and the windows, except for the front<br />

sidelights and five sets of single-hung 6/6 sashes, were replaced with 1/1 double-hung<br />

units and triple-track aluminum storms.<br />

Preservation efforts since 2004 include painting of the roof with fibered aluminum roof<br />

coating; installation of padlocks and “No Trespassing” signs; and the jacking and<br />

stabilization of a 25’ long 10”x14” floor joist in the cellar beneath the center hall,<br />

which had dropped two feet after the sill rotted away due to a concrete stoop being<br />

poured directly against it.<br />


Original Green Design Strategies<br />

In the mid-18th century, the builders of the <strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong> farmhouse employed design<br />

logic and strategies based on their experience with the climate and the availability of<br />

resources in the area.<br />

• Passive Solar<br />

The house faces south, oriented to the property lines rather than square to the road,<br />

with the bulk of the glazing on that facade, in order to maximize solar gain. There are<br />

only three windows on the north side, two narrow casements to light the garret of the<br />

ell, and a later small 6/6 in the addition on the west end. It would seem too that the<br />

placement of the barns in relation to the house was likely intentional to provide a<br />

buffer against the north wind.<br />

• Use of Local Materials<br />

The primary framing members are 25’ lengths of poplar approximately 10”x14”, which<br />

was abundant in the area in the 18th century. The wall infill and de facto insulation of<br />

the walls—clay, straw and riven sticks—would have been harvested nearby. The soil on<br />

the banks above the Hudson River, especially at Tivoli, is rich in clay deposits, making it<br />

likely that the bricks in the walls and chimneys were locally made. By about 1730<br />

there were sawmills on both the Sawkill Creek, less than a mile to the south of the<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> farm, and the White Clay Kill at Hoffman’s Mills, about 3.5 miles to the<br />

northeast. Either mill could have been the source for the slab sheathing on the roof,<br />

the siding planks, and the flooring, which ranges from 14” to 25” wide.<br />

Iron nails and hardware might have been wrought by blacksmith Ryer Schermerhorn,<br />

who had purchased land from Barent Van Benthuysen in 1741 and operated half a mile<br />

to the east of the <strong>Pitcher</strong> farm.<br />

• Low/No-VOC Materials and Finishes<br />

The mortars and plasters in the house are clay and lime-based. Wall finishes upstairs<br />

are lime-based with a protein binder, likely casein. Wall finishes downstairs are a<br />

thinner whitewash with wallpaper on top. Doors, windows, and other woodwork are<br />

predominantly linseed oil-based. The original floorboards are unfinished.<br />

Recommendations<br />

★Site Work: Excavation and Landscaping<br />


The grade is currently too high around the house to allow for adequate drainage;<br />

footing drains should be installed around the perimeter of the building along with a<br />

catchment system for use in irrigation.<br />

Deciduous trees should be planted on the south side for summer shading, and a screen<br />

of evergreens on the north side of the house to provide wind buffering in the winter.<br />

★Building Envelope<br />

The <strong>Pitcher</strong> Farmhouse has performed well for a long time, with very little attention.<br />

Modifications to the structure should be undertaken sensitively and with respect for<br />

the craftsmanship of the original builder.<br />

• The hand-crimped, standing seam roof is made of heavy gauge metal and is in<br />

good condition. It should be coated with a light colored elastomeric epoxy, which will<br />

add years to the viability of the roof itself and also reduce the cooling load.<br />

• The cementitious asbestos siding should be carefully removed, along with the<br />

asphalt shingles beneath and the sheathing as needed, in order to access the sills for<br />

structural repairs. The sheathing will need to be inspected and patched.<br />

• Felt paper should be stapled to the sheathing as a water-resistive barrier. Locally<br />

sourced softwood like hemlock, treated with a borate solution and then coated on all<br />

surfaces with an oil-based primer before installation would be an appropriate siding<br />

material.<br />

• The chimneys need to be repointed and/or reconstructed using a mortar that<br />

approximates the historic recipe originally used, but with the addition of white<br />

Portland cement for strength.<br />

• Existing sashes should be rehabilitated and returned to service with appropriate<br />

sealing and weather striping.<br />

The insulation strategy for the building needs to be handled creatively in order<br />

to get the maximum R-value while taking into consideration different issues,<br />

structural and aesthetic, of each part of the house with regard to original material<br />

and desired finishes. Since the attic above the main house will never be living space,<br />

dry cellulose blown in (at R-3.2 per inch) as deep as possible would provide the<br />

greatest benefit for the most reasonable cost. The garret of the north ell is open and<br />

has a high ceiling in contrast to the rest of the upstairs. In order to retain this feeling<br />

of spaciousness, polyisocyanurate sheets should be installed between the rafters<br />

(minimum 4” at R-6.8 per inch), applying wire lath and plaster over the insulation and<br />

leaving the face of the rafter proud of the surface. The garret knee walls are also<br />


completely uninsulated, and due to the wide spacing between bents and irregular<br />

framing where the two sections are joined, I think that polyisocyanurate covered with<br />

lath and plaster is the best option for those areas as well. In places where the infill is<br />

not compromised, it should be left as it is, spot insulating with Roxsul or another preor<br />

post-consumer recycled insulation, and then patching the existing plaster. The<br />

cellar ceiling ought to be fitted with polyisocyanurate as an insulator and a vapor<br />

barrier between the dirt-floored cellar and the living space above.<br />

★Systems<br />

The <strong>Pitcher</strong> <strong>Farmstead</strong> could be renovated to operate without any fossil fuel<br />

consumption.<br />

•A solar array could be installed behind the barn complex; the land back there is<br />

seasonally marsh and thus not desirable for crops or livestock. The electricity needs<br />

of the property could be met entirely by solar.<br />

•For heating and cooling, a high-velocity small duct system coupled with a ground<br />

source heat pump with a vertical closed loop set-up would disturb the structure very<br />

little. The air handler would be housed in either the cellar or the attic.<br />

•The addition of a desuperheater, or secondary heat exchanger, to the ground source<br />

heat pump system, to harness heat produced by the heat pump but not used to heat<br />

the house, can provide hot water. This strategy requires some electricity, which<br />

would be provided by the solar array, in the winter but is completely efficient in the<br />

warmer months.<br />

★Other Green Strategies<br />

Simple strategies should be installed for continued efficiency: energy efficient<br />

appliances, low-flow plumbing fixtures, CFC or LED lighting, programmable lighting and<br />

temperature controls, the continued use of low or no-VOC finishes.<br />

Use Scenarios<br />

At 3600 sq. feet, the <strong>Pitcher</strong> farmhouse is 1000 sq. feet larger than the average<br />

American home built in 2013. Evolving over two centuries, the building made sense in<br />

relation to the needs of its inhabitants, both spacial and social. Census records show<br />

that at any given time there were 3-14 people living in the house; it was always a<br />

multi-generational, working household. Leaving the existing floor plan, the house could<br />


e used as a single family dwelling. Without altering the floor plan significantly, it could<br />

also be converted for use as a main house with an auxiliary duplex apartment.<br />

Conclusion<br />

The challenge in renovating the <strong>Pitcher</strong> <strong>Farmstead</strong> is to make it an efficient structure<br />

without compromising its historic integrity. Due to the advantages of the site and the<br />

raw state that the building is in, the <strong>Pitcher</strong> house can be improved upon exponentially<br />

and renovated to sustain itself without any loss of character.<br />

As expectations change about what we need to be comfortable, how we want to live<br />

and work, and how desperately we need to protect the environment, the conversation<br />

between preservation and sustainability needs to progress. Ultimately, vernacular<br />

buildings will not be preserved unless they can be operated as efficiently (taking into<br />

account embodied energy, reparability, quality of materials) as new construction.<br />

Ideally, this house could be used in the future as a model for respectful and sustainable<br />

preservation.<br />




Deed Chronology and Maps<br />

Emily M. Majer<br />

University of Massachusetts<br />




1688 Pieter Schuyler<br />

1717 Barent Staats<br />

Lot Six- 3,000 acres<br />

1725 Barent, Pieter, Jacob & Abraham Van Benthuysen and Andries Heermanse<br />

Lot Six- 3,000 acres<br />

1746 Pieter Pitsier(sic)<br />

Small Lot 7 of Lot Six- 550 acres<br />

1768 <strong>William</strong> Bitcher(sic)<br />

South half of his father’s farm- 275 acres<br />

1800 <strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong> dies at age 75<br />

John W. and Philip <strong>Pitcher</strong> inherit all of their father’s farm<br />

1806 John W. and Philip <strong>Pitcher</strong> divide the farm<br />

John W. and Catherine <strong>Pitcher</strong> acquire more property; parts of original Peter<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> farm and land south of <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane<br />

1859 John W. <strong>Pitcher</strong> dies at age 83<br />

Andrew K. and Abraham <strong>Pitcher</strong> purchase their father’s property from their<br />

siblings and divide it between them. Andrew K. has the east parcel, including<br />

the house.<br />

1874 Abraham <strong>Pitcher</strong> dies at age 67<br />

1875 Abraham <strong>Pitcher</strong>’s farmhouse burns down.<br />

Abraham’s heirs sell his farm (131 acres) to Francis and Margaret Elting of Cairo,<br />

Greene County, New York<br />

1881 Andrew K. <strong>Pitcher</strong> sells his farm (80 acres) to Henry S. Elting, son of Francis and<br />

Margaret<br />

1882 Andrew’s daughter, Sarah Jansen <strong>Pitcher</strong>, marries Henry S. Elting<br />

1885 Death of Andrew K. <strong>Pitcher</strong>, the last <strong>Pitcher</strong> to live in the house

1905 Henry S. Elting inherits the farm of Abraham <strong>Pitcher</strong> upon the death of his<br />

mother<br />

1927 Florence Elting and her husband, Ezra Cookingham, inherit the farm upon the<br />

death of her father, Henry (approximately 210 acres)<br />

1942 Florence and Ezra Cookingham sell the entire property to Victory Farms, Inc.<br />

date unknown- acquired by Hans Umland<br />

1950 Hans Umland to Eleanor Bonn (possibly a relative)<br />

1955 Eleanor Bonn to Robert G. Greig (210 acres)<br />

1956 Robert G. Greig to Jesse and Helen Salisbury<br />

1956 Jesse and Helen Salisbury to T. Roosevelt Allen, a Westchester real estate<br />

broker and builder (Larchmont)<br />

1959 T. Roosvelt Allen to Hunter Holding, a banker (Larchmont)<br />

1972 Hunter Holding to Frank A. Migliorelli and Salvatore James Leone (Pelham)<br />

2000 Frank A. Migliorelli and Salvatore James Leone to Doriedale Farm, LLC

MAP 1<br />

Lower Hudson Valley Patents from Old Dutchess Forever! Dr. Henry Noble MacCracken,<br />

Hastings House, New York, NY, 1956 (endpaper)

MAP 2<br />

Dutchess County Wards Map from Old Dutchess Forever! Dr. Henry Noble MacCracken,<br />

Hastings House, New York, NY, 1956 (endpaper)

MAP 3<br />

Peter Schuyler’s Patent after 1718

MAP 4<br />

1740 Cadwallader Colden Germantown Map showing parcels owned by Peter and Adam<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong>, sons of Johannes Hermann Betzer (courtesy of the Germantown History<br />


MAP 5<br />

Division of Lot 2 & Lot 6- April 1, 1747 attached to deed of Barent Van Benthuysen, his sons<br />

and nephew, Andries Heermanse (Note: Piet. Pitsier (sic) had purchased small Lot 7 March<br />

17, 1746/7, and his brother Adam purchased 2/3 of small Lot 8)

MAP 6<br />

1746<br />

Detail of 1746 division of Van Benthuysen/Heermance large Lot 6 Heermance and Peter<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> house on the road to Hoffman’s Landing

MAP 7<br />

1768 Second Generation division of Lot 7 Peter <strong>Pitcher</strong> to sons Adam, 30, and <strong>William</strong>, 43.

1800 Third Generation division of south half of Lot 7 <strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong><br />

to sons John W. , 24 and Phillip, 26<br />


1798 Alexander Thompson map detail red arrow to <strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong>’s house<br />

(courtesy of Historic Hudson Valley)<br />


1799 Philip Reichert Map showing Hoffman-Van Vredenburgh- <strong>Pitcher</strong> property<br />

relationship<br />

MAP 10

1815 Red Hook road map by John Cox, based on Thompson’s 1797 survey<br />

MAP 11

MAP 12<br />

1850 Town of Red Hook arrow to John W. <strong>Pitcher</strong>, son Abraham to the southwest, nephew<br />

<strong>William</strong> W. <strong>Pitcher</strong> to the east having inherited Philip <strong>Pitcher</strong>’s house

1867 Town of Red Hook detail arrow to Andrew K. <strong>Pitcher</strong>, brother Abraham to the<br />

southwest; fourth generation<br />

MAP 13

MAP 14<br />

1938 US Geological Survey arrow to <strong>Pitcher</strong> homestead, owned by Florence Elting, greatgreat-granddaughter<br />

of <strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong> and her husband, Ezra Cookingham

2014 Parcel Access Map with 1746 overlay<br />

MAP 15

MAP 16<br />

Map re-drawn by Frank J. Teal, Surveyor<br />

(1867-1949) John W. <strong>Pitcher</strong>’s portion of<br />

his father’s farm, divided between JWP<br />

and brother, Philip in 1806: star and arrow<br />

indicate <strong>Pitcher</strong> farmhouse<br />

Parcel Access 2014<br />

159 <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane, Red Hook, New York

MAP 17<br />

Survey of lands of John W. <strong>Pitcher</strong>- January 17, 1860 Division of “Homestead Farm<br />

of John W. <strong>Pitcher</strong>”- east 52 acres to son, Abraham; west 48 acres to son, Andrew

1943 survey map for Robert G. Greig<br />

red dot- John W. <strong>Pitcher</strong> Farm<br />

yellow dot- Philip <strong>Pitcher</strong> Farm<br />

green dot- approximate location of original Peter <strong>Pitcher</strong> house (1746)<br />

MAP 18


Peter b.1750<br />

Wilhelm b.1756<br />

Margaretha b.1762<br />

Heinrich b.1762 Helen C. b.1801<br />

Catherina b.1764 Rev. John Henry b.1805 Laura b.1846<br />

Elizabeth b. 1771 Abraham <strong>Pitcher</strong> (1807-1874)<br />

m. Eliza Sanderson (1806-1899)<br />

<strong>William</strong> Hoffman b.1847<br />

Adelaide Harris Elting<br />

(1882-1967) m. Harry Arnold<br />

Anna Christina b.1693 Maria Catherina b.1720 Philip <strong>Pitcher</strong> (1774-1844) m.<br />

Catherine Wilson<br />

Rev. <strong>William</strong> (1810-1833) Anthony Hoffman b.1850 Lottie Hoffman b.1884<br />

Johannes Herman Betzer<br />

(1669- aft.1724) m.<br />

Elsen Franz (1666-aft.<br />

1714)<br />

Peter Betzer (1697-1768)<br />

m. Anna Catherina Philips<br />

LOT #7<br />

<strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong> (1725-1800)<br />

m.Magdalena Donsbach b.1728-<br />

m.Anna Maria Richter b.1732<br />


John W. <strong>Pitcher</strong> (1776-1859) m.<br />

Catherine Kipp (1775-1844)<br />

Andrew Kittle <strong>Pitcher</strong><br />

(1812-1885) m.<br />

MaryAnn Hoffman (1814-1876)<br />

Sarah J. <strong>Pitcher</strong><br />

(1852-1922) m.<br />

Henry Snyder Elting<br />

(1855-1927)<br />

Florence Margurite<br />

Elting (1887-1955) m.<br />

Ezra Burger<br />

Cookingham<br />

(1885-1966)<br />

Anna Gertrude b.1700 Magdalena b.1727 Anna b. 1779 Hoffman b.1856<br />

Adam Betzer (1702-1760)<br />

m. Catryn Funck LOT #8<br />

Gertraudt b.1729 Jacob b. 1781<br />

Catherina b.1704 Christina b.1732<br />

Elisabeth Catherina b.1706 Elizabeth b.1736<br />

Johannes Theiss b.1708 Adam <strong>Pitcher</strong> (1738-1768)<br />

m. Anna Maria Richter<br />




<strong>Pitcher</strong> <strong>Farmstead</strong><br />

Red Hook, New York<br />

Drawings<br />

Emily M. Majer<br />

University of Massachusetts<br />



south elevation original 9-bent<br />

structure<br />

east elevation<br />

original 5-bent<br />

structure<br />

5-bent<br />

gable end original 9-bent<br />

structure<br />

gable end original<br />

5-bent structure

<strong>Pitcher</strong> <strong>Farmstead</strong><br />

Red Hook, New York<br />

Masonry Analysis<br />

<br />

Emily M. Majer<br />

University of Massachusetts<br />



Introduction<br />

Methodology<br />

Findings<br />

Conclusions<br />

Appendices<br />

Sample Key<br />

RILEM Test<br />

Capillary Absorption Test<br />

Mortar and Plaster Analysis<br />

__________________________________________________________<br />


This report contains the results of brick, mortar, and plaster analysis conducted at the<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> <strong>Farmstead</strong>, located in Red Hook, New York.<br />

The purpose of this study is to: (1) compare the porosity and absorption rates of<br />

bricks used in chimneys from those used as nogging, (2) determine the types of<br />

mortar, the ratios of binder to aggregate, and the general characteristics—similarities<br />

and differences—between mortars in the chimney and in the brick nogging of the wall<br />

infill of Room 105, and (3) analyze plasters from different rooms of the house to try to<br />

determine areas that were likely constructed or renovated contemporaneously.


The testing project began with the removal of bricks, mortar and plaster samples on 14<br />

November 2014. One brick sample was taken from each of the two chimneys (Room<br />

105 and Room 207), one brick sample was taken from the each of the two areas that<br />

had that material as wall nogging (Room 105 and Room 107); one chimney mortar<br />

sample (Room 105) and one wall nogging mortar sample (Room 105); and twelve<br />

plaster samples from various spots throughout the house.<br />

RILEM Test 11. 4 One brick from near the top of the chimney at the north gable end<br />

of Room 207 and one nogging brick from inside the east wall of Room 107 were<br />

selected and removed. The RILEM tube was affixed to each brick in turn, sealed with<br />

putty, and filled with water. At intervals up to one hour, data was collected reflecting<br />

the absorption of water through capillary pathways in the brick.<br />

Experiment 10: Penetration of Water One chimney brick from above the mantle in<br />

Room 105 and one nogging brick from inside the wall in Room 105 were selected and<br />

removed. Both bricks were placed on end in a pan of water and over the course of<br />

three hours the rate of vertical absorption was recorded.<br />

Mortar Analysis Samples of mortar were collected from the chimney of Room 105, and<br />

from the between the wall nogging bricks of Room 105. The samples were tested<br />

using the wet-chemical method: Each sample was crushed with a mortar and pestle and<br />

digested in white vinegar and water. The samples were allowed to digest for 12 hours,<br />

after which they were filtered using a funnel and paper filter. The fines and sand that<br />

remained in the filter paper were dried on cookie sheets over the hot air vent in my<br />

guest room for 24 hours. Samples were then sieved and weighed; proportions of<br />

aggregate size were recorded and graphed.<br />

Plaster Analysis Samples of plaster were collected from Rooms 102, 103, 105, 107,<br />

201, 202, 203, 207. The samples were also tested using the wet-chemical method.


The RILEM tests showed that poorly fired brick, of the kind commonly used in nonstructural<br />

applications like nogging, absorbs more water. The nogging brick (107)<br />

absorbed more than three times the water than the chimney brick (207) did.<br />

Experiment 10: Penetration of Water confirmed the results of the RILEM tests, with the<br />

quick deterioration of the nogging brick (105), as opposed to the relative stability of<br />

the chimney brick (105). Given how poorly each of the nogging bricks performed when<br />

exposed to water shows, however, that water has not been able to get into the walls<br />

of Rooms 105 and 107. If the building envelope had been compromised, there would<br />

have been significant damage and undeniable failure of the infill.<br />

The Mortar Analysis showed that the chimney mortar (105) is a lime-based mortar with<br />

a high percentage of very fine sand and silt, while the wall nogging mortar is clay-based<br />

also, with a high-percentage of very fine sand and even more silt. This finding suggests<br />

that lime would have been saved for use in structural applications.<br />

The modified Mortar Analysis used for twelve plaster samples produced these findings:<br />

1. The rooms downstairs (102, 103, 105 and to a lesser extent 107) all have a<br />

brown coat of plaster that is similar in color, texture and hardness and contains<br />

a large amount of red animal hair (ox?).<br />

2. Rooms 105 and 107 have a gray coat of plaster on top of the brown, which is<br />

radically different. The gray plasters have a much higher percentage of coarser<br />

sand.<br />

3. The rooms upstairs (201, 202, 203, 207) have plasters that are very similar in<br />

color, texture, and hardness. All of the samples have a thick layer, or as many<br />

as seven layers, of whitewash. The notable absence is the relatively bare<br />

surface of 203 NE. The upstairs samples contain no animal hair, except for a<br />

few stray fibers in the sample from 206.


Analysis of the collected samples show that plastering inside the <strong>Pitcher</strong> house<br />

happened in three different events. The main floor brown coats are similar as regards<br />

aggregate size distribution and hair content, suggesting that they were done<br />

contemporaneously. The exception to this is Sample 107B from the east wall of room<br />

107. This sample has the same aggregate distribution as the other main floor brown<br />

coats, but has no hair. This supports the theory that the ell was a separate freestanding<br />

structure. This similarity and dissimilarity in the recipe implies brown coats in<br />

the ell and the main house were done at different times, likely before the two<br />

structures were joined in about 1770.<br />

Samples of gray coat from 105 and 107 have a much higher percentage of large<br />

aggregate and very little silt, especially as compared to the main floor brown coat<br />

samples.<br />

The upstairs was a more utilitarian space and the plaster may have been applied later.<br />

The coating upstairs contains about the same percentage of sand as downstairs, but<br />

has a higher lime content, and no hair.

107<br />

106<br />

104<br />

101 102<br />

105<br />


East Exterior: exposed<br />

chimney back;<br />

brick and mortar analysis,<br />

RILEM test on brick (not done)<br />

Basement: top view of jambless<br />

fireplace support stone;<br />

mortar analysis, RILEM test on<br />

stone? (not done)<br />

Photo 102: south wall, plaster on<br />

riven lathe;<br />

plaster analysis

Photo 105(a): south wall,<br />

brick nogging; brick and<br />

mortar analysis<br />

Photo 105(b): east wall<br />

fireplace; brick and mortar<br />

analysis<br />

Photo 202: south wall; plaster<br />


Photo 203(a): top of stairs; plaster<br />

analysis<br />

Photo 205: east upstairs<br />

fireplace; mortar and brick<br />

analysis<br />

Photo 206: south end of ell;<br />

plaster analysis to see how it<br />

compares to other plaster in the<br />


Photo 207: garret room; mortar and<br />

brick analysis and RILEM test on<br />

brick of chimney

Experiment 10 Penetration of Water: Capillary Action<br />

Introduction<br />

On 14 November 2014, two sample bricks were collected from the <strong>William</strong><br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> farmhouse for the purpose of performing Experiment 10 Penetration of<br />

Water: Capillary Action from the Laboratory Manual for Architectural<br />

Conservators. The purpose of this experiment was to compare the wicking<br />

abilities of nogging brick, which is generally poorly-fired versus chimney brick,<br />

which would be of higher quality.<br />

Sample 1 is a piece of a nogging brick from inside the south wall of room 105.<br />

It is approximately 6”x4”x 1.5” and irregularly formed. It is pale pink and lumpy<br />

with small, smooth inclusions.

Experiment 10 Penetration of Water: Capillary Action<br />

Sample 2 is a piece of a brick from the chimney on the east wall of room 105.<br />

It is more smoothly formed. The piece is approximately 4.5”x2”x2”. It has a<br />

pitted finish on one face and a wiped finish on the other. There are many voids<br />

and folds visible on the broken edge. There are many inclusions of varying<br />

sizes. Tiny, gray, angular pieces of stone; tiny fragments of brick; large (1cm)<br />

rounded pebbles.<br />

Observations<br />

After two minutes in 1 cm of water, Sample 1 began to deteriorate, spalling and<br />

calving like a glacier. Both samples initially absorbed water at the same rate,<br />

but Sample 1 absorbed the water in an irregular pattern, some areas wicking<br />

higher than others.<br />

At three hours the bottom of Sample 1 had completely disintegrated. The<br />

sample when wet is burgundy and brown and gray. The inside reveals some<br />

small aggregate, but appears to be mostly clay.<br />

Sample 2, after a small amount of deterioration early on in the testing,<br />

remained stable. The sample is bright, classic brick red when wet. The outside<br />

3/16” can be scraped away in a paste, but the inside is still firm at the end of<br />

three hours.

Experiment 10 Penetration of Water: Capillary Action<br />

Time Sample 1-<br />

Wall Brick<br />

105<br />

Sample 2-<br />

Chimney Brick<br />

105<br />

1 1.5 1.5<br />

2 2 2<br />

3 2.25 2<br />

4 2.25 2.25<br />

5 2.5 2.25<br />

10 2.5 2.5<br />

15 2.5 2.5<br />

20 2.5 2.5<br />

25 3 2.5<br />

30 3 2.75<br />

60 4 3<br />

90 6 3<br />

120 6 3<br />

150 7 3.5<br />

180 7 3.5

Experiment 10 Penetration of Water: Capillary Action<br />

7.00<br />

Penetration of Water by Capillary Action<br />

Absorption (cm)<br />

5.25<br />

3.50<br />

1.75<br />

0.00<br />

1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 25 30 60 90 120 150 180<br />

Time (minutes)<br />

Sample 1-Wall Brick 105 Sample 2-Chimney Brick 105<br />

Notes<br />

Sample 1: 105 Wall Nogging Brick appears to have been poorly fired, if it was fired at<br />

all. However, after more than 200 years, the nogging in this wall is in fine condition,<br />

which means that there are no leaks or rising damp issues, in this area at least.<br />

The absorption behavior of both samples is consistent with that of the chimney and<br />

nogging brick used in the RILEM test, with the chimney bricks being better fired and<br />

thus less absorptive.



Introduction<br />

RILEM (Reunion Internationale des Laboratoires D'Essais et de Recherches sur les Materiaux<br />

et les Constructions), with headquarters in Paris, is the International Union of Testing and<br />

Research Laboratories for Materials and Structures. As with our American Society for Testing<br />

and Materials (ASTM), Technical Committees are formed within RILEM to develop standard<br />

methods for measuring properties and evaluating the performance and durability of many<br />

different building materials.<br />

One such technical committee, Commission 25-PEM, has developed tests to measure the<br />

deterioration of stone and to assess the effectiveness of treatment methods. The standard tests<br />

drafted by Commission 25-PEM fall within several categories, including methods for<br />

determining internal cohesion (111.), for measuring mechanical surface properties (IV.), and<br />

for detecting the presence and movement of water (11.). Within category II., is Test Method<br />

No. 11.4, designed to measure the quantity of water absorbed by the surface of a masonry<br />

material over a definite period of time.<br />

RILEM Test Method 11.4 provides a simple means for measuring the rate at which water<br />

moves through porous materials such as masonry. The test can be performed at the site or in<br />

the laboratory and can be used to measure vertical or horizontal water transport. Water<br />

permeability measurements obtained in the laboratory can be used to characterize<br />

unweathered, untreated masonry. Measurements made at the site (or on samples removed for<br />

laboratory testing) can be used to assess the degree of weathering that the material has<br />

undergone. Test Method 11.4 can also be used to determine the degree of protection afforded<br />

by a water repellent treatment. A description of the equipment and procedure for conducting<br />

this test is provided in paragraphs below. The theoretical basis on which the method is based<br />

and the several applications of test data are discussed.<br />

Theory<br />

Because masonry building materials are porous, they are all somewhat permeable to water.<br />

The interior structure of a masonry material is a system of fine interconnected pores. Wetting<br />

by liquid water involves capillary conduction (suction) through this pore system, proceeding<br />

along both vertical and horizontal pathways. Vertical transport occurs when water enters as<br />

ground water at the base of a structure or as rain water through leaking gutters. Penetration of<br />

driving rain into wall surfaces results in horizontal transport. (Under actual conditions, the<br />

amount of rain penetration depends on prevailing wind conditions as well as on the<br />

composition and condition of the exposed surface.)<br />

When liquid water comes into contact with a masonry surface, wetting proceeds through the<br />

material as a front. Accurate measurements of the advance of this wetting front made on a<br />

variety of masonry building materials have demonstrated that the characteristic wetting rate<br />

and pattern of each material are directly related to its capillary structure and port size<br />

distribution. In fact, rate constants have been measured for brick, limestones and other

masonry materials. RILEM Test Method 11.4 provides a simple method for measuring the<br />

volume of water absorbed by a material within a specified time period.<br />

Equipment<br />

The equipment necessary for measuring water<br />

absorption under low pressure is simple. The test<br />

can be performed at the site or in the laboratory<br />

with a test apparatus available in two forms. One<br />

is designed for application to vertical surfaces<br />

and measures horizontal transport of water, or,<br />

its resistance to wind-driven rain penetration.*<br />

A second form is designed for application to<br />

horizontal surfaces and measures vertical<br />

transport. Figure 1 illustrates the pipe-like<br />

apparatus designed for vertical surfaces. Its flat,<br />

circular brim (at the bottom end of the pipe) is<br />

affixed to the masonry surface by interposing a<br />

piece of putty. The open, upper end of the pipe<br />

has an area of 0.554 cm2. The vertical tube is<br />

graduated from 0 to 5 ml (cm3). The total height<br />

of the column of water applied to the surface,<br />

measured from the center point of the flat,<br />

circular brim to the topmost gradation, is 12. cm.<br />

The area of absorption on the substrate is 5.067<br />

cm2.The apparatus designed for application to<br />

horizontal surfaces, see Figure 2, is similar to the<br />

one for vertical surfaces as described above.<br />

*It should be noted that a standard method for<br />

measuring water penetration and leakage<br />

through masonry is described in ASTM E 514.<br />

The ASTM test method is intended to evaluate<br />

wall design and workmanship as well as the<br />

degree of weathering and the performance of<br />

water repellent treatment. It is therefore<br />

necessary to conduct the procedure on a test wall<br />

built with a minimum height or length of four<br />

feet. The wall is exposed to water (3.4 gallons<br />

per square feet per hour) in a test chamber for<br />

four hours.<br />

Procedure<br />

The testing apparatus is affixed by interposing a

tape of putty between the flat, circular brim of the pipe and the surface of the masonry<br />

material. To ensure adhesion, manual pressure is exerted on the cylinder. Water is then added<br />

through the upper, open end of the pipe until the column reaches the 0 gradation mark. The<br />

quantity of water absorbed by the material during a specified period of time is read directly<br />

from the graduated tube. The periods of time appropriate for the test depend on the porosity of<br />

the material on which the measurement is being made; generally 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 and 60<br />

minute intervals provide the most useful data. In many cases, it may be important to measure<br />

water absorption through the mortar joint as well as through the surface of the brick (or natural<br />

stone) substrate.<br />

Report<br />

Results of the test measurements are presented in the form of a water absorption graph with<br />

the volume of water absorbed in cubic centimeters reported as a function of time in minutes.<br />

The masonry surface tested must be mentioned in the report.<br />

Applications<br />

Water has long been associated with deterioration processes affecting masonry materials. Its<br />

presence within the interior pore structure of masonry can result in physical destruction if the<br />

material undergoes wet/dry or freeze/thaw cycling. The latter is particularly damaging if the<br />

masonry material has a high clay mineral content. Perhaps of greater importance is the fact<br />

that the presence of moisture is a necessary precondition for most deterioration processes.<br />

Pollutant gases are harmful when they are dissolved in water; fluorescence phenomena are<br />

dependent on the migration of salts dissolved in water; moisture is a requirement for the<br />

growth of biological organisms. Because of these factors, the water permeability of a masonry<br />

material is related to its durability. Thus, results obtained using Test Method 11.4 can be used<br />

to predict potential vulnerability of untreated, unweathered masonry materials to water-related<br />

deterioration.<br />

Test Method 11.4 also provides useful information when carried out on weathered masonry<br />

surfaces. Water permeability of a material is affected when its surface is obscured by the<br />

presence of atmospheric soiling or biological growth, or, when there are hygroscopic salts<br />

within the interior. The formation of a weathering crust due to mineralogical changes<br />

occurring on the exposed (weathered) surface may substantially affect water permeability<br />

measurements. By comparing data obtained on masonry that has been exposed to the elements<br />

with measurements made on unweathered samples, it is possible to measure the degree of<br />

weathering that has occurred.<br />

Finally, RILEM Test Method 11.4 can be used to evaluate the performance of a water<br />

repellent treatment. An effective treatment should substantially reduce surficial permeability<br />

of the masonry material to water. By so doing, the treatment will reduce the material's<br />

vulnerability to water-related deterioration. A comparison of test results obtained on treated<br />

masonry samples with those obtained on untreated samples provides information about the<br />

degree of protection that can be provided by the water repellent treatment.<br />


• Amoroso, G. and Fassina, V. Stone Decay and Conservation. Amsterdam: Elsevier<br />

Science Publishers, 1983. (See especially Chapter 1, "Effects of Water and Soluble<br />

Salts on Stone Decay".)<br />

• Hochman, Harry. "Measuring Water Permeability of Masonry Walls" (Technical Note<br />

N-1 179). National Civil Engineering Laboratory, August 1971.<br />

• Sereda, P.J. and Feidman, R.H. "Wetting and Drying of Porous Materials" (Canadian<br />

Building Digest 130). Ottawa: National Research Council of Canada, 1975.<br />

• Sinner, Paulus; Winkler, Erhard; and Ibach, Matthias. "Permeability Measurements, an<br />

Indication of the State of Weathering and Consolidation of Building Stone".<br />

(Unpublished)<br />

• Stambolov, T. and van Asperen de Boer, J.R.J. The Deterioration and Conservation of<br />

Porous Building Materials and Monuments. Rome: ICCROM, 1976.<br />

• Torraca, Giorgio. Porous Building Materials. Rome: ICCROM, 1981.<br />

Compiled by Frances Gale, September, 1987.



On 14 November 2014 two sample bricks were collected from the <strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong><br />

farmhouse on <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane in Red Hook, New York for the purpose of using the RILEM<br />

Test Method 11.4 to determine the rate at which water moves through porous<br />

materials.<br />

fig. 1 sample 1 (Room 207 chimney brick)<br />

fig. 2 sample 2 (Room 107 nogging brick)

Sample 1(fig.1) is a piece of chimney brick, collected from Room 207. It is<br />

approximately 4”x4”x1.5”; medium to dark pink; with visible folds and large, white<br />

inclusions. One face is pitted while the other has streaks as though it had been wiped<br />

or screeded while wet.<br />

Sample 2 (fig. 2) is a piece of nogging brick, collected from inside the east wall of Room<br />

107. It is approximately 3”x3”x2”. It is medium to pale pink with some visible folds<br />

and small voids. The sample appears to be relatively uniform in material and<br />

consistency.<br />

4<br />

Time (min)<br />

Water Absorption (cm3)<br />

Chimney Brick<br />

207<br />

Nogging Brick<br />

107<br />

1 0.25 0.25<br />

5 0.4 0.5<br />

10 0.5 0.75<br />

15 0.6 1.25<br />

20 0.75 1.5<br />

30 1 2<br />

60 1.25 4<br />

water absorption (cm3)<br />

3<br />

2<br />

1<br />

0<br />

1 5 10 15 20 30 60<br />

time (minutes)<br />

Chimney Brick 207 Nogging Brick 107

NOTES<br />

Both bricks may date to the original construction, circa 1750.<br />

Both samples are irregular in shape, texture, appearance, and content.<br />

Sample 1 appears to be more well-fired and to have inclusions of lime blebs.<br />


Sample 2 absorbed more than three times as much water as Sample 1 over 60<br />

minutes.<br />


The dramatically higher rate of absorption in Sample 2 confirms anecdotal (and<br />

documented) observations that poorly-fired, or “salmon” brick, is commonly used as<br />

infill; where permeability is not a problem. The lower absorptive capacity of Sample 1<br />

validates its use in the chimney, where both strength and resistance to moisture are<br />

important.<br />

Observable differences in the aggregate, lime content, and structure of the two<br />

samples suggest that they were not made at the same time.

ARCHDES 597M Assignment #4 -Simple Mortar Analysis<br />

Goals: To identify the proportions and characteristics of the three main components of historic<br />

mortars; the binder, the fines and the aggregate. The binder, principally calcium carbonate<br />

(CaCO₃), is dissolved in acid. The fines (clay and other fine particles) are separated while in<br />

solution from the aggregate (typically sand). The procedure is designed mainly for historic lime<br />

and sand mortars. To determine the proportions of cement in mortars, the calcimeter mortar<br />

analysis should be followed; however this simple mortar analysis may provide some useful<br />

information on the character of cement mortars.<br />

Equipment and supplies: 400 ml beakers, 250 ml Erlenmeyer flasks, mortar and pestle,<br />

funnels, filter paper (fast, med.), sieve set, 20% hydrochloric acid, 5% acetic acid, water,<br />

analytical balance, sample dishes, stereomicroscope, wash bottle, safety eye wear.<br />

Procedure:<br />

1. Collect (3) samples (at least 10 grams.)<br />

2. Examine the samples and record the characteristics: color, texture, hardness, inclusions,<br />

etc.<br />

3. Powder (2) samples for analysis w/ mortar & pestle. Save third for future reference.<br />

4. Weigh each sample on a balance to .01g precision…..[our only go to .1 precision] Record<br />

the weight on the data sheet.<br />

5. Place each sample in a 250ml flask and dampen with water.<br />

6. Add enough acid solution to cover sample. Avoid inhaling fumes. Observe and record<br />

the reaction.<br />

7. Add a drop of acid to determine if reaction is complete.<br />

8. Label the filter papers to be used (one for aggregate…another for fines)with pencil with<br />

your name and sample number<br />

9. Weigh each filter paper and record on the data sheet.<br />

10. Fold the papers into quarters in place in the funnels with a 400ml beaker below each.<br />

11. Slowly add water to the sample flask.<br />

12. Swirl to suspend fines<br />

13. Slowly pour the liquid with the suspended fines into the filter paper, keeping the<br />

aggregate in the flask.<br />

14. Repeat 11 through 13 until the water runs clear.<br />

15. After the water has completely drained, carefully remove the filter paper and dry it in the<br />


16. Wash all the aggregate from the flask into the second set of filter papers.<br />

17. After the water has completely drained, carefully remove the filter paper and dry it in the<br />

oven.<br />

18. Weigh the filter papers and with the dry fines. Record the weight.<br />

19. Subtract the weight of the filter paper to determine the weight of the fines.<br />

20. Weigh the filter papers and with the dry aggregate. Record the weight.<br />

21. Subtract the weight of the filter paper to determine the weight of the aggregate.<br />

22. Express the amount of fines and the amount of sand as percentages of the whole initial<br />

sample weight. The amount of dissolved binder is determined by adding the weights of<br />

the sand and the fines and subtracting from the total initial sample weight.<br />

23. Examine the aggregate under stereomicroscope. Record the characteristics (color,<br />

shape, size) of the particles and their relative distribution.<br />

24. Sieve the aggregate in a standard sieve set. First weigh each sieve. Then add sample and<br />

carefully shake. Reweigh each sieve. Then clean each sieve.<br />

25. Express the weight of each particle size as a percentage of the whole.

Mortar Analysis<br />

Sample # Sample 105a Chimney mortar<br />

Sample Location<br />

Room 105 east wall chimney<br />

Name Emily Majer<br />

Date Nov 22, 2014<br />

Sieve With Sand Without Sand Sand Particle sizes % of total<br />

4 0 0 >4.75mm 0% gravel<br />

8 475.9 475.9 0

Mortar Analysis<br />

Sample # Sample 105b Wall nogging<br />

Sample Location<br />

Room 105 south wall<br />

Name Emily Majer<br />

Date Nov 22, 2014<br />

Sieve With Sand Without Sand Sand Particle sizes % of total<br />

4 0 0 >4.75mm 0% gravel<br />

8 0 0

Plaster Analysis<br />

Sample # 102 S.<br />

Sample Location<br />

Name Emily Majer<br />

Date Nov 22, 2014<br />

Room 102 (west parlor) south wall<br />

Sieve With Sand Without Sand Sand Particle sizes% of total<br />

4 0 0 >4.75mm 0% gravel<br />

8 0 0

Plaster Sample<br />

Sample # 103 S<br />

Sample Location<br />

Name Emily Majer<br />

Date Nov 22, 2014<br />

Room 103 (hall) South wall<br />

Sieve With Sand Without Sand Sand Particle sizes% of total<br />

4 0 0 >4.75mm 0% gravel<br />

8 0

Plaster Analysis<br />

Sample # 105 S. Brown<br />

Sample Location<br />

Name Emily Majer<br />

Date Nov 22, 2014<br />

Room 105 (east parlor) south wall<br />

Sieve With Sand Without Sand Sand Particle sizes% of total<br />

4 0 0 0 >4.75mm 0% gravel<br />

8 0 0 0

Plaster Analysis<br />

Sample # 105 E<br />

Sample Location<br />

Name Emily Majer<br />

Date Nov 22, 2014<br />

Room 105 (east parlor) east wall, left of fireplace<br />

Sieve With Sand Without Sand Sand Particle sizes% of total<br />

4 0 0 >4.75mm 0% gravel<br />

8 0 0

Plaster Analysis<br />

Sample # 105 S Gray<br />

Sample Location<br />

Name Emily Majer<br />

Date Nov 22, 2014<br />

Room 105 (east parlor) south wall<br />

Sieve With Sand Without Sand Sand Particle sizes% of total<br />

4 0 0 0 >4.75mm 0% gravel<br />

8 0 0 0

Plaster Analysis<br />

Sample # 107 Brown<br />

Sample Location<br />

Name Emily Majer<br />

Date Nov 22, 2014<br />

Room 107 (ell kitchen) east wall<br />

Sieve With Sand Without Sand Sand Particle sizes% of total<br />

4 0 0 0 >4.75mm 0% gravel<br />

8 0 0 0

Plaster Analysis<br />

Sample # 107 Gray<br />

Sample Location<br />

Name Emily Majer<br />

Date Nov 22, 2014<br />

Room 107 (ell kitchen) east wall<br />

Sieve With Sand Without Sand Sand Particle sizes% of total<br />

4 0 0 0 >4.75mm 0% gravel<br />

8 0 0 0

Plaster Analysis<br />

Sample # 201 N<br />

Sample Location<br />

Name Emily Majer<br />

Date Nov 22, 2014<br />

Room 201 - west bedroom, north wall<br />

Sieve With Sand Without Sand Sand Particle sizes% of total<br />

4 0 0 >4.75mm 0% gravel<br />

8 0 0

Plaster Analysis<br />

Sample # 202<br />

Sample Location<br />

Name Emily Majer<br />

Date Nov 22, 2014<br />

Room 202 (dormer room) under window<br />

Sieve With Sand Without Sand Sand Particle sizes% of total<br />

4 0 0 >4.75mm 0% gravel<br />

8 0 0

Plaster Analysis<br />

Sample # 203 NE<br />

Sample Location<br />

Name Emily Majer<br />

Date Nov 22, 2014<br />

Room 203 (stair hall) north wall, east side<br />

Sieve With Sand Without Sand Sand Particle sizes% of total<br />

4 0 0 >4.75mm 0% gravel<br />

8 0 0

Plaster Analysis<br />

Sample # 203 NW<br />

Sample Location<br />

Name Emily Majer<br />

Date Nov 22, 2014<br />

Room 203- stairs<br />

Sieve With Sand Without Sand Sand Particle sizes% of total<br />

4 0 0 >4.75mm 0% gravel<br />

8 0 0

Plaster Analysis<br />

Sample # 206 S.<br />

Sample Location<br />

Name Emily Majer<br />

Date Nov 22, 2014<br />

Room 206 South Wall<br />

Sieve With Sand Without Sand Sand Particle sizes % of total<br />

4 0 0 >4.75mm 0% gravel<br />

8 0 0

<strong>Pitcher</strong> <strong>Farmstead</strong>: Downstairs Plaster Aggregate Distribution<br />

40<br />

30<br />

20<br />

10<br />

0<br />

gravel very coarse coarse medium coarse medium fine fine very fine silt<br />

102 S 103 S 105 E 105 S G 105 S B 107 E B 107 E G

<strong>Pitcher</strong> <strong>Farmstead</strong>: Downstairs Plaster Aggregate Distribution<br />

gravel<br />

very coarse<br />

coarse<br />

medium coarse<br />

medium fine<br />

fine<br />

very fine<br />

silt<br />

102 S 103 S 105 E 105 S G 105 S B 107 E B 107 E G<br />

0 0 0 0 0 0 0<br />

0 0 0 0 0 0 0<br />

6 14 7 4 3 2 2<br />

18 20 18 30 16 15 31<br />

26 22 21 37 32 27 17<br />

26 29 20 22 40 27 18<br />

17 8 24 5 4 15 30<br />

7 8 10 2 5 14 2<br />

dissolved binder<br />

fines<br />

aggregate<br />

7 8 12 0 9 6 4<br />

2 0 2 0 5 1 1<br />

91 91 86 100 86 93 95<br />

color<br />

tan tan tan gray tan/pink tan gray<br />

notes<br />

hair hair hair no hair hair no hair, straw some hairs<br />

crumbly crumbly crumbly hard crumbly firm dry stiff

<strong>Pitcher</strong> <strong>Farmstead</strong><br />

Red Hook, New York<br />

Wood Analysis<br />

Emily M. Majer<br />

University of Massachusetts<br />



Substrate samples were collected along with paint samples from the <strong>Pitcher</strong> Farmhouse<br />

on 5 February 2015 and from the east sill of the ell on 23 April 2015.<br />

Thin samples of wood substrate were dry-mounted on slides for radial and tangential<br />

viewing. Samples were observed through a CE Premier Student Microscope and<br />

photographed with an iPhone 5S, using a Carson universal smartphone optics adapter.<br />

There are five types of wood in the <strong>Pitcher</strong> Farmhouse: poplar, white pine, red pine,<br />

white oak, and chestnut.

POPLAR<br />

The anchor beams are hewn POPLAR (samples 103/2 and 105/2). Poplar is a soft<br />

hardwood, which varies in color from pale yellow to greenish brown. The color darkens<br />

over time when exposed to light. Poplar is distinguishable under magnification by its<br />

diffuse-porous distribution of small pores, clear growth rings, and opposite inter-vessel<br />

pitting.<br />

Poplar (tangential view 10x) intervessel pitting<br />

Poplar (cross section 10x) diffuse-porous<br />

distribution with line of marginal parenchyma


All of the sampled doors and trim, with the exception of sample 105/3, are made of<br />

WHITE PINE. White pine has a fine texture and resin canals that are fairly numerous.<br />

The transition between latewood and earlywood is gradual. Cross-field pitting is<br />

window-like and rays are uniserate.<br />

White Pine (tangential view 10x) elongated<br />

tracheids with bordered pits<br />

White PIne (radial view 10x) horizontal<br />

heterocellular rays and resin canals

RED PINE<br />

The anchor bent post sample (Stair 1) is RED PINE, as is the east wall baseboard in the<br />

east parlor (sample 105/3). Perhaps that baseboard is a re-sawn piece of bent IV,<br />

which was removed to create the center hall. Compared to White Pine, Red Pine has a<br />

moderately uneven grain, fewer and smaller resin canals, and a more marked transition<br />

between earlywood and latewood.<br />

Red PIne (radial view 4x) distinct transition<br />

Red Pine (cross section 4x) small resin canals


Of the beams that connect the main house to the ell, in the ceiling of 106, the eastern<br />

four are poplar 4”x8” finished on all sides, with a thumbnail profile on the bottom<br />

edges. The remainder of the connecting beams are hewn WHITE OAK. The sample is<br />

ring-porous and has large resin canals with bubble-like tyloses. Rays are conspicuous.<br />

White Oak in situ White Oak (cross section 4x)


The only sill sample collected was from the east sill of the ell. The sample is<br />

CHESTNUT. Chestnut, like oak, is ring-porous with visible tyloses, but the pores are<br />

more oval-shaped and arranged in a flame-like pattern. Chestnut also lacks the wide<br />

multiserate rays that are present in oak.<br />

Chestnut sample from east sill of ell Chestnut (cross-section 4x)

<strong>Pitcher</strong> <strong>Farmstead</strong><br />

Red Hook, New York<br />

Paint and Finish Analysis<br />

Emily M. Majer<br />

University of Massachusetts<br />



Introduction 1<br />

Methodology 2<br />

Floor Plans 3<br />

Sample Sites 5<br />

Findings and Analysis 9<br />

Observations 10<br />

Samples 15<br />

Chromochronology 61


The chromochronology and analysis of finishes on the interior of the <strong>Pitcher</strong> Farmhouse<br />

on <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane in Red Hook, New York was undertaken as part of a historic structure<br />

report in fulfillment of the capstone project requirement for the University of<br />

Massachusetts Master of Science in Historic Preservation program.<br />

The <strong>Pitcher</strong> <strong>Farmstead</strong> (circa 1750) in Red Hook, New York is a 1-1/2 story, fivefenestration<br />

bay, Dutch-framed wooden structure with a gable roof that runs parallel to<br />

the main facade, a small one-story addition off the west gable end, and a 1-1/2 story<br />

ell that extends from the north side at the east end. The house sits on a foundation of<br />

dry-laid bluestone. Asbestos siding is compromised in places, revealing asphalt shingle<br />

siding and, beneath that, flat, painted weather-board sheathing visible beneath. The<br />

roof is standing seam metal. There is one chimney at the peak on the east gable end.<br />

At the peak, on the west gable end, there is a patch where a chimney was removed.<br />

The house has much in common with the Dutch/German hybrid of mid to late 18th<br />

century vernacular architecture in this area of the Hudson Valley, but evidence of the<br />

remains of two jambless fireplaces, and a steeper roof pitch; along with the Dutch<br />

provenance of the property; points to the possibility that the <strong>Pitcher</strong> house may be<br />

one of the oldest-wood framed structures in the town of Red Hook.<br />

Due to the age of the structure and the fact that it was never anything more grand<br />

than a farmhouse, no documentation has been found referencing the original<br />

construction or finishes.<br />



Samples were collected from 23 locations inside the <strong>Pitcher</strong> Farmhouse on 5 February<br />

2015. These locations were selected in order to compare the chromochronology<br />

between rooms and to test theories of evolution within the structure. Samples were<br />

collected from the surface to the substrate using a utility knife and chisel. Substrate<br />

materials are lime plaster for most of the walls and wood for trim, anchor posts, and<br />

beams.<br />

Samples of finishes were mounted in wax and viewed through a CE Premier Student<br />

Microscope and photographed with an iPhone 5S, using a Carson universal smartphone<br />

optics adapter.<br />

Data was collected visually regarding number of layers, colors, and finishes; and then<br />

analyzed for identification of substrate material and documentation of layer<br />

stratigraphy. In a few cases, attempts were made at identifying binders and matching<br />

colors within the sample to commercial paint samples and/or Munsell chips. However,<br />

the goal of this study was comparative analysis among samples rather than in-depth<br />

chemical identification.<br />

For samples where chemical testing was performed, reactions were observed upon the<br />

application of swabs from a rhodizonate lead test kit, water, vinegar, ammonia,<br />

denatured alcohol, mineral spirits, laquer thinner, and xylene.<br />





<br />



<br />






Finishes on the woodwork on the main floor of the <strong>Pitcher</strong> Farmhouse range from 1-16<br />

layers thick. Room 107, the north room of the ell, has the most layers of finish. The<br />

door to the cellar (B2) from 104 has the least. The top layers are predominantly oilbased<br />

and contain lead. Earlier layers are that are translucent are glazes, oil-based<br />

paint with varnish added, or pigmented varnishes or shellacs. The walls on the main<br />

floor, with the exception of rooms 101 and 104, are plaster with several layers of<br />

wallpaper. In some cases, the wallpaper has been painted over and more paper applied<br />

on top.<br />

Upstairs, there are fewer layers of finish on the woodwork, which includes not only<br />

doors, baseboard, and trim, but also some plank walls and ceilings, between one and<br />

seven layers. The top coats are opaque, oil-based, and contain lead; earlier layers are<br />

glazes, varnishes, or shellacs. There is less color variation than on the main floor, with<br />

the exception of the upstairs hall area 203, which has both light blue and turquoise as<br />

top coats. Also, sample 205/1, collected from the window jamb in the east room<br />

(205), has a bright green grainy bottom layer. Room 201 is planked and paneled; the<br />

walls and ceiling are coated with a combination of oil and latex paints. Underneath the<br />

planking on the knee-walls, the anchor posts and infill are covered with thick layers of a<br />

lime-based coating. This treatment is also visible on portions of the south wall of 202<br />

and 206. Room 202 is planked on the ceiling and dormer cheeks; the walls, other than<br />

the knee-wall, are covered with a combination of drywall and particle board. The walls<br />

and ceiling of 204 are covered with drywall, which is coated with latex paint. Room<br />

105 has an unpainted plank ceiling. The exposed infill of the knee-wall is coated with a<br />

thick, lime-based coating. The door to room 105 and portions of the south wall of 206<br />

and the outside vertical slabs of 207 are all coated with thick, lime-based coating. The<br />

ceiling of 207 is planked and painted over, then covered with cardboard and wallpaper.<br />

The walls of 207 are wallpapered as well.<br />

The disparity of finishes in quality, variation, and quantity between the main floor and<br />

upstairs in the <strong>Pitcher</strong> house suggests that the upstairs was much plainer and more<br />

utilitarian for quite some time after the main floor was improved. The garret, room<br />

106, seems to have never been more than a work and storage area. Based on the<br />

evolution of Room 107 in the form of rough plank partition walls, and then lath and<br />


plaster, planking, paint and wallpaper, it was clearly living space, possibly for slaves or<br />

later for laborers and servants. The range of finishes on the main floor suggests that<br />

the <strong>Pitcher</strong>s of the 18th and 19th centuries were well-off enough to be followers of<br />

fashion.<br />


• Sample 105/1, collected from the doorway between the east parlor and the front<br />

entry hall, and sample 102/1, collected from the doorway between the west parlor<br />

and the entry hall, have the same distinctive blue base layer as Sample 203/3 from<br />

the doorway in the upstairs hall leading to the garret (figure 1). This supports the<br />

theory that reconfiguration of the house to create the center hall, and the<br />

attachment of the main house to the free-standing structure to the north, took place<br />

as part of the same campaign.<br />

figure 1<br />

203/3 garret doorway<br />

105/1 east parlor door trim<br />


• Sample 105/3, collected from the baseboard on the east gable end of the east<br />

parlor, has only the top layer of white paint in common with sample 105/1, which<br />

was taken from the doorway between the east parlor and the front entry hall.<br />

Sample 105/1, with a substrate of white pine, has a base layer of blue, which<br />

appears to be rough and grainy under magnification; a layer of milky, grainy white;<br />

and a top coat of lead-based white paint. The substrate of sample 105/3 is red<br />

pine, with a grainy, dark brown base layer that is soluble with denatured alcohol.<br />

(figure 2) Other than the top layer of white, these samples of woodwork from the<br />

east parlor have nothing in common. (figure 3) Sample 105/3 has ten layers of<br />

finish, while 105/1 has only four. This suggests that 105/3 was wood reused from<br />

another location. At this point, red pine has only been found in the post at the<br />

bottom of the current stairs, the post that has the paint ghost from the jambless<br />

fireplace hood. Further exploration will be needed to determine where else in the<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> house this material and stratigraphy of finishes exists.<br />

figure 2<br />

105/1 blue base layer 105/3 dark brown base layer<br />


figure 3<br />

105/1 stratigraphy<br />

105/3 stratigraphy<br />

• Samples 107/1, 107/2, and 107/3, collected from window trim, the stair door, and<br />

the baseboard, in the north room of the ell, share a top layer of lead-based mint<br />

green paint. The window trim, sample 107/1, has 17 layers of finish. The earliest<br />

appears to be a vivid red. The door to the enclosed stair (no longer extant) has 15<br />

layers of finish. The chromochronology of these two samples is nearly the same<br />

except for a layer of pink just below the top coat of 107/2 and two translucent gray/<br />

brown layers atop the red base layer in sample 107/1. Sample 107/3, from the<br />

baseboard on the north wall, has only 13 layers of finish. The stratigraphy is the<br />

same for two or three layers in succession, and then one or two are missing. The<br />

base layer of this sample is the fourth layer of 107/1 and the second layer of 107/2.<br />

The enclosed stair and the jambless fireplace could not have existed at the same<br />

time. That would suggest that the window was the first addition to room 107,<br />

before the enclosed stair was constructed. The baseboard on the north wall was<br />

installed after the enclosed stair. The presence of the supported stove chimney on<br />

the north wall makes it reasonable to speculate that a counter or other work surface<br />

next to the stove prevented the baseboard from routinely getting painted (figure 4).<br />


figure 4<br />

107/1 window 107/2 door 107/3 baseboard<br />

• The sample taken from Stair 1(figure 5), from the post that was the north end of the<br />

central jambless fireplace has only one layer of finish. The black coating is crusty,<br />

grainy, and appears fragile under magnification. It is quite durable, however. Lath<br />

marks and plaster burns hint at how it has been protected since the later 18th -<br />

century renovation.<br />

figure 5<br />


• Sample 101/1, collected from the window apron on the south side of the one-story<br />

west addition, has as its second layer of finish a bright blue, followed by a mint green.<br />

Samples 103/1 and 103/2 show the same color combination as their TOP layers<br />

(figure 6). This suggests that the west addition was constructed at the same time<br />

that the second to last layers of finish were being applied to the entry hall.<br />

figure 6<br />

101/1 window apron (above)<br />

103/2 anchor beam (right)<br />


• Sample 202/2, collected from the west cheek of the dormer in 202 has a top layer of<br />

white, oil-based paint atop a layer of the bright blue that appears as the penultimate<br />

layer of sample 103/2, collected from anchor beam V at the west wall of the entry<br />

hall, and as the second layer of sample 101/1(figure 7). This location is the only place<br />

where this blue is evident upstairs.<br />

figure 7<br />

202/2 dormer cheek 103/2 anchor beam<br />



Sample 101/1<br />

Building<br />

Address<br />

Sample<br />

Location<br />

Date Sampled 2/5/15<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> Farmhouse<br />

159 <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane<br />

1st floor, west end room,<br />

window apron


Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S<br />

Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish<br />


TOP white (warm) rhodizonate and<br />

LT/Alc.<br />

opaque<br />

1 white opaque<br />

2 yellow (light) opaque<br />

3 lime green opaque<br />

4 white opaque<br />

5 off-white (double<br />

thick)<br />

opaque<br />

6 red/maroon opaque<br />

7 white opaque<br />

8 white opaque<br />

9 teal (hospital<br />

scrub)<br />

10 blue (bright<br />

blue)<br />

opaque<br />

opaque<br />

11 tan grainy<br />

substrate<br />

white pine<br />

101/1 substrate 10x 101/1 finish 4x 101/1 4x+camera zoom


Sample 102/1<br />

Building<br />

Address<br />

Sample<br />

Location<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> Farmhouse<br />

159 <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane<br />

1st floor, west<br />

parlor, hall door leg<br />

(left)<br />

Date Sampled 2/5/15


Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S<br />

Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish<br />


TOP white rhodizonate and<br />

LT/Alc.<br />

opaque<br />

2 pink (pepto) opaque<br />

3 white (2x thick) opaque<br />

4 red (maroon) opaque<br />

5 white (2x thick) opaque<br />

6 cream (4x thick) opaque<br />

7 beige (sandy) opaque<br />

8 gray (light) opaque<br />

9 white opaque<br />

10 white (cream) translucent<br />

11 gray (light) translucent<br />

12 robins’ egg grainy<br />

substrate<br />

white pine<br />

4x substrate + bottom strata 4x top strata<br />

10x substrate


Sample 103/1<br />

Building<br />

Address<br />

Sample<br />

Location<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> Farmhouse<br />

159 <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane,<br />

Red Hook, NY<br />

1st floor hall, west<br />

wall, L of doorway<br />

Date Sampled 2/5/15


Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S<br />

Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish<br />


TOP<br />

mint green<br />

(light)<br />

2 blue (bright/<br />

dark)<br />

opaque<br />

opaque<br />

3 white grainy<br />

4 brown (med) paper?<br />

5 size?<br />

substrate<br />

plaster w/ red<br />

hair<br />

10x substrate<br />

4x plus camera zoom


Sample 103/2<br />

Building<br />

Address<br />

Sample<br />

Location<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> Farmhouse<br />

159 <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane,<br />

Red Hook, New York<br />

1st floor hallway,<br />

west wall,<br />

anchorbeam<br />

Date Sampled 2/5/15<br />

Date<br />

Researched<br />



Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S<br />

Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish<br />


TOP mint green opaque<br />

2 blue (bright/<br />

dark)<br />

opaque<br />

3 tan fibers paper?<br />

4 gray/white grainy<br />

5 off-white grainy<br />

6 blue (light) grainy<br />

7 black dirt<br />

8 gray primer? size?<br />

substrate<br />

poplar<br />

4x plus camera zoom<br />

4x plus camera zoom


Sample 104/1<br />

Building<br />

Address<br />

Sample<br />

Location<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> Farmhouse<br />

159 <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane,<br />

Red Hook, New<br />

York<br />

basement door<br />

Date Sampled 2/5/15


Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S<br />

Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish<br />


TOP white opaque<br />

substrate<br />

white pine<br />

10x substrate<br />

4x plus camera magnification


Sample 105/1<br />

Building<br />

Address<br />

Sample<br />

Location<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> Farmhouse<br />

159 <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane,<br />

Red Hook, New<br />

York<br />

1st floor, east<br />

room, west door<br />

architrave, right leg<br />

Date Sampled 2/5/15


Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S<br />

Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish<br />


TOP white rhodizonate and<br />

LT/Alc.<br />

opaque<br />

2 off-white milky<br />

3 dirt<br />

4 blue (light) grainy<br />

substrate<br />

white pine<br />

4x plus camera magnification<br />

4x plus camera magnification, surface


Sample 105/2<br />

Building<br />

Address<br />

Sample<br />

Location<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> Farmhouse<br />

159 <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane, Red<br />

Hook, New York<br />

1st floor, east room,<br />

anchor beam, right of<br />

hall door<br />

Date Sampled 2/5/15


Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S<br />

Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish<br />


TOP<br />

paper white/mint<br />

green<br />

2 gray/white<br />

(grainy)<br />

substrate<br />

poplar<br />

sparse grainy<br />

adhesive, with<br />

fibers<br />

10x size<br />




Sample 105/3<br />

Building<br />

Address<br />

Sample<br />

Location<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> Farmhouse<br />

159 <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane,<br />

Red Hook, New York<br />

1st floor, east room,<br />

east wall baseboard,<br />

left of fireplace<br />

Date Sampled 2/5/15


Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S<br />

Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish<br />


TOP white rhodizonate<br />

and LT/Alc.<br />

opaque<br />

2 gray (medium) opaque<br />

3 gray (light) translucent<br />

4 gray (medium) translucent<br />

5 white (bright) opaque<br />

6 maroon? dirt? opaque<br />

7 off-white milky<br />

8 off-white milky<br />

9 off-white<br />

(darker)<br />

translucent<br />

10 brown (dark) grainy<br />

substrate<br />

red pine<br />

10x<br />

4x surface


Sample 106/1<br />

Building<br />

Address<br />

Sample<br />

Location<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> Farmhouse<br />

159 <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane, Red<br />

Hook, New York<br />

1st floor, north ell ,<br />

south room, built in<br />

cabinet<br />

Date Sampled 2/5/15


Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na<br />

Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish<br />


TOP white rhodizonate and LT/<br />

Alc.<br />

2 white (cream) no match 2025-70 gets flaky/powdery<br />

with ALC<br />

3 white (butter) gets flaky/powdery<br />

with ALC<br />

4 white gets flaky/powdery<br />

with ALC<br />

5 white gets flaky/powdery<br />

with ALC<br />

6 white (pink) gets flaky/powdery<br />

with ALC<br />

7 white gets flaky/powdery<br />

with ALC<br />

8 white (butter) gets flaky/powdery<br />

with ALC<br />

9 blue/green 5BG 6/2 2050-40/HC-136 no reaction with any<br />

of the above<br />

substrate<br />

white pine<br />

opaque<br />

opaque<br />

translucent<br />

translucent<br />

opaque<br />

translucent<br />

translucent<br />

translucent<br />

blue black flecks<br />

and crystals<br />

4x plus camera<br />

10x first<br />

4x with commercial<br />

Observations: While the top two layers are clearly modern (20th century) paints containing lead,<br />

the rest of the finishes except the first (blue) layer had little to no reaction with ammonia, mineral<br />

spirits, or denatured alcohol. I think that this, along with the translucent appearance of the middle<br />

layers, means that those finishes are likely linseed oil based. The bottom layer, which is a matte,<br />

grainy, robin’s egg blue, has blue-black flecks. It also appears to have clear or white crystals in it. It<br />

does not react with any of the above listed solvents, or with water or vinegar.


Sample 106/2<br />

Building<br />

Address<br />

Sample<br />

Location<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> Farmhouse<br />

159 <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane,<br />

Red Hook, New York<br />

1st floor, north ell,<br />

south room, west<br />

door trim, L leg<br />

Date Sampled 2/5/15


Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S<br />

Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish<br />


TOP white opaque<br />

2 white (minty<br />

green)<br />

3 white (lighter<br />

minty)<br />

translucent<br />

translucent<br />

4 white (cream) translucent<br />

5 white (butter) translucent<br />

6 white (milky) translucent<br />

7 dirt<br />

8 white (milky) translucent<br />

substrate<br />

white pine<br />



Sample 107/1<br />

Building<br />

Address<br />

Sample<br />

Location<br />

Date<br />

Sampled<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> Farmhouse<br />

159 <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane,<br />

Red Hook, New<br />

York<br />

1st floor, north ell,<br />

north room, west<br />

window casing, R<br />

side<br />



Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S<br />

Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish<br />


TOP green (mint) opaque<br />

2 white opaque<br />

3 gray (dark) opaque<br />

4 blue opaque<br />

5 yellow (butter) opaque<br />

6 white opaque<br />

7 dirt<br />

8 mustard translucent<br />

9 white (milky) translucent<br />

11 gray (light) translucent<br />

12 gray (medium) translucent<br />

13 gray (dark) translucent<br />

14 white opaque<br />

15 white (pink) opaque<br />

16 gray/brown translucent<br />

17 gray (medium) translucent<br />

18 red grainy<br />

substrate<br />

white pine<br />

10x<br />

4x straight on<br />

commercial color


Sample 107/2<br />

Building<br />

Address<br />

Sample<br />

Location<br />

Date<br />

Sampled<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong><br />

Farmhouse<br />

159 <strong>Pitcher</strong><br />

Lane, Red<br />

Hook, New<br />

York<br />

1st floor, north<br />

ell, north wall,<br />

left door<br />



Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S, MS= mineral spirits<br />

Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish<br />


TOP green (mint) rhodizonate and<br />

LT/Alc.<br />

opaque<br />

2 pink opaque<br />

3 white Am. milky<br />

4 gray (dark) LT translucent<br />

5 blue opaque<br />

6 yellow (butter) translucent<br />

7 white translucent<br />

8 dirt<br />

9 mustard CRAZY THICK<br />

10 white (milky) translucent<br />

11 thin OPAQUE<br />

12 gray (light) THICK/<br />

translucent<br />

13 gray (medium) translucent<br />

14 gray (dark) translucent<br />

15 white milky<br />

16 red/brown Alc. grainy<br />

substrate<br />

white pine<br />

10x in situ base layer in situ


Sample 107/3<br />

Building<br />

Address<br />

Sample<br />

Location<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> Farmhouse<br />

159 <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane,<br />

Red Hook, New<br />

York<br />

1st floor, north ell,<br />

north wall,<br />

baseboard<br />

Date Sampled 2/5/15<br />



Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S<br />

Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish<br />


TOP green (mint) 2029-50/<br />

2029-40<br />

rhodizonate and<br />

LT/Alc.<br />

opaque<br />

2 gray (medium) opaque<br />

3 gray (little<br />

darker)<br />

opaque<br />

4 blue opaque<br />

5 dirt opaque<br />

6 yellow (light) opaque<br />

7 white opaque<br />

8 yellow (cheddar) translucent<br />

9 yellow (lighter<br />

cheddar)<br />

10 white milky<br />

translucent<br />

11 beige translucent<br />

12 gray (medium) translucent<br />

13 gray (dark) translucent<br />

14 gray (light) translucent<br />

15 white/gray translucent<br />

substrate<br />

white pine<br />

10x<br />

4x commercial color


Sample Stair 1<br />

Building<br />

Address<br />

Sample Location<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> Farmhouse<br />

159 <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane,<br />

Red Hook, New<br />

York<br />

1st floor, stairway,<br />

post with ghost<br />

Date Sampled 2/5/15


Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S<br />

Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish<br />


TOP black full coverage.<br />

looks burnt.<br />

substrate<br />

red pine<br />

10x surface<br />

4x surface


Sample 202/1<br />

Building<br />

Address<br />

Sample<br />

Location<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> Farmhouse<br />

159 <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane,<br />

Red Hook, New York<br />

2nd floor, south room,<br />

north doorway, R leg<br />

Date Sampled 2/5/15


Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S<br />

Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish<br />


TOP white opaque<br />

2 dirt opaque<br />

3 white opaque<br />

4 white opaque<br />

5 gray (light) translucent<br />

6 dirt translucent<br />

7 gray (medium) translucent<br />

8 white (off-white) translucent<br />

substrate<br />

white pine<br />

10x plus camera zoom<br />

4x base layer surface<br />

4x base layer to substrate


Sample 202/2<br />

Building<br />

Address<br />

Sample<br />

Location<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> Farmhouse<br />

159 <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane,<br />

Red Hook, New<br />

York<br />

2nd floor, south<br />

room, dormer cheek<br />

Date Sampled 2/5/15


Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S<br />

Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish<br />


TOP white rhodizonate and<br />

LT/Alc.<br />

opaque<br />

2 blue opaque<br />

3 white (off-white) opaque<br />

4 gray (light) opaque<br />

5 dirt<br />

6 gray (medium) translucent<br />

7 white chalky<br />

8 gray/milky translucent<br />

substrate white pine translucent<br />

10x plus camera zoom<br />

4x straight on


Sample 203/1<br />

Building<br />

Address<br />

Sample Location<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> Farmhouse<br />

159 <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane,<br />

Red Hook, New<br />

York<br />

1st floor, anchor<br />

beam, above post<br />

with ghost<br />

Date Sampled 2/5/15<br />

Date Researched 3/1/15<br />

Researcher<br />

EMM<br />

Notes<br />


Observed through CE Premier Student Microscope, Photographed with an iPhone 5S, using a Carson universal smartphone optics adapter<br />

Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S<br />

Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish<br />


TOP<br />

2<br />

3 SEE WALL<br />

PAPER<br />


4<br />

5<br />

6<br />

7<br />

substrate<br />



Sample 203/2<br />

Building<br />

Address<br />

Sample<br />

Location<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> Farmhouse<br />

159 <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane,<br />

Red Hook, New York<br />

2nd floor hall, north<br />

side, cut off anchor<br />

beam end<br />

Date Sampled 2/5/15

101/1 102/1 103/1 103/2 104/1 105/1 105/2 105/3 106/1 106/2 107/1 107/2 107/3 Stair 1<br />

SURFACE white white white white white<br />

(panelling)<br />

white white white<br />

white white pine paper white RED PINE<br />

white 2x white paper poplar white white<br />

paper white white pine white<br />

white plaster white white white white white<br />

white 2x white white<br />

4x white white pine white<br />

white<br />

white poplar white<br />

white<br />

white pine<br />

RED PINE<br />

white<br />

paper<br />

white pine white white<br />

white pine<br />

white pine<br />

white pine<br />

white<br />

white pine<br />



202/1 202/2 203/2 203/3 204/1 205/1 206/1 206/2<br />

SURFACE white white white white white white white<br />

white white white white white pine<br />

white white pine white white pine<br />

poplar white white<br />

white pine<br />

white<br />

white pine white white pine<br />

white pine<br />




Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S<br />

Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish<br />


TOP<br />

blue<br />

(tourquoise)<br />

opaque<br />

2 white opaque<br />

3 white (off-white) grainy<br />

substrate<br />

poplar<br />

4x plus camera zoom<br />

surface view- camera zoom


Sample 203/3<br />

Building<br />

Address<br />

Sample<br />

Location<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> Farmhouse<br />

159 <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane,<br />

Red Hook, New York<br />

2nd floor hallway,<br />

garret door<br />

Date Sampled 2/5/15


Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S<br />

Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish<br />


TOP white opaque<br />

2 peach translucent<br />

3 dirt translucent<br />

4 grey (light) translucent<br />

5 white opaque<br />

6 yellow (light) opaque<br />

7 blue grainy<br />

substrate<br />

white pine<br />



Sample 204/1<br />

Building<br />

Address<br />

Sample<br />

Location<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> Farmhouse<br />

159 <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane,<br />

Red Hook, New York<br />

2nd floor, right gable<br />

end window trim<br />

Date Sampled 2/5/15


Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S<br />

Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish<br />


TOP white grainy<br />

2 dark green grainy<br />

substrate<br />

wood<br />

4x<br />

4x with camera zoom<br />

40x<br />

10x with camera zoom


Sample 205/1<br />

Building<br />

Address<br />

Sample<br />

Location<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong><br />

Farmhouse<br />

159 <strong>Pitcher</strong><br />

Lane, Red<br />

Hook, New York<br />

2nd floor, garret<br />

closet door<br />

Date Sampled 2/5/15


Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S<br />

Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish<br />


TOP white (milky) VINEGAR slight sheen,<br />

thinner<br />

2 white chalky<br />

3 white chalky<br />

4 white chalky<br />

substrate<br />

white pine<br />

4x plus camera zoom<br />

4x substrate


Sample 206/1<br />

Building<br />

Address<br />

Sample<br />

Location<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> Farmhouse<br />

159 <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane,<br />

Red Hook, New<br />

York<br />

2nd floor, garret,<br />

south end, right of<br />

break<br />

Date Sampled 2/5/15


Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S<br />

Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish<br />


TOP white VINEGAR matte, chalky<br />

2 white matte, chalky<br />

substrate<br />

pine (red?)<br />

4x plus camera zoom<br />

4x plus camera zoom straight on


Sample 206/2<br />

Building<br />

Address<br />

Sample<br />

Location<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> Farmhouse<br />

159 <strong>Pitcher</strong> Lane,<br />

Red Hook, New York<br />

2nd floor, garret,<br />

north end, outside of<br />

plank wall, by<br />

chimney<br />

Date Sampled 2/5/15


Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S<br />

Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish<br />


TOP white VINEGAR chalky<br />

substrate pine<br />

4x substrate<br />



<strong>Pitcher</strong> <strong>Farmstead</strong><br />

Red Hook, New York<br />

Wallpaper<br />

Emily M. Majer<br />

University of Massachusetts<br />



Samples of wall coverings were collected from rooms 102, 103, and 105 of the <strong>William</strong><br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong> house on 23 March 2015. On 26 April 2015, the samples were analyzed for<br />

clues that could assist in attaching dates to the stratigraphy.<br />


•ROOM 102, east wall<br />


surface off-white latex paint peels easily<br />

2 pulp wallpaper vinegar soluable<br />

3 mint green paint lacquer thinner soluable same as 103 surface<br />

4 wood pulp paper<br />

substrate plaster possibly a later patch<br />

figure 1- Room 102 sample site<br />

figure 2- Room 102 close up of top layers

•ROOM 103, west wall, anchor beam<br />


surface (fig.3) mint green oil paint (flat) lacquer thinner soluable same as 102<br />

1 pulp paper vinegar to remove dk brown fiber<br />

2 (fig. 4) dark blue oil-based paint lacquer thinner soluable (same as 105 walls)<br />

3 pulp paper vinegar to remove dk brown fiber<br />

4 pulp paper- blue on blue design vinegar to remove dk brown fiber<br />

5 (fig. 5) pulp paper- blurry gray design vinegar to remove dk brown fiber<br />

6 (fig. 6) finer paper-off white/lt.blue design vinegar to remove off-white fiber<br />

7(fig. 7) newspaper? printed paper off-white fiber<br />

8 (fig. 8) paper, light blue with blue bees rag paper<br />

9 (fig. 9) paper, with white and black rag paper<br />

substrate<br />


fig. 3- Room 103 surface mint green paint<br />

fig. 4- blue oil-based paint<br />

fig. 5- Room 103 blurry gray design on pulp<br />

fig. 6- Room 103 finer, lighter paper<br />

10x zoom

fig. 7- Room 103, zoom on layer 7<br />

fig. 8- layer 8 (blue with blue bees), layer 9 (triangles)<br />

fig. 9- Room 103 layer 9 zoom

• ROOM 105, west wall, anchor beam<br />


surface (fig. 10) wallpaper- pink floral vinegar to remove dk. brown fiber<br />

2 wallpaper- pink floral * vinegar to remove dk. brown fiber<br />

3 (fig. 11) wallpaper- green/brown vinegar to remove dk. brown fiber<br />

4 (fig. 12) wallpaper- white+pink design vinegar to remove dk. brown fiber<br />

5 wallpaper- indistinguishable dk. brown fiber<br />

wallpaper- indistinguishable<br />

dk. brown fiber<br />

7 paper- gray w/ white rag paper<br />

8 (fig. 13) paper-green w/ white rag paper<br />

substrate<br />


fig. 10- Room 105 surface layer<br />

fig. 11- Room 105 penultimate layer<br />

<br />

fig. 11 detail

fig. 12- Room 105 zoom on red area,<br />

fifth layer from substrate<br />

fig. 13- Room 105 zoom on first layer rag<br />



The first major campaign of renovation in the <strong>Pitcher</strong> house took place in the last<br />

quarter of the 18 th century, after <strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong> had received title to the property<br />

from his father in 1768. The reconfiguration from a traditional Dutch two-room,<br />

center-chimney dwelling to a more modern center-hall house reflected <strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong>’s<br />

status as a relatively well-to-do farmer. The center hall allowed the master of the<br />

house to decide how much access a visitor would have to the private spaces within.<br />

The center hall was also the first place that a visitor would be impressed by the<br />

<strong>Pitcher</strong>s’ keeping up with the latest fashions.<br />

By the 1760s there were wallpaper manufacturers in New York and Philadelphia who<br />

were able to compete with European imports and bring the cost within reach of the<br />

middle class. Wallpapers were handmade from a slurry of reconstituted rags and other<br />

fibers until at least 1835. Paper made by hand is identifiable by fibers arranged<br />

randomly rather than in a linear fashion. Viewed microscopically, the first two strata of<br />

coverings from the anchor beams of 103 and 105 are handmade.<br />

In 1775 Swedish chemist Carl Wilhelm Scheele invented a green pigment made from<br />

copper arsenate, which was used in wallpapers and paints. Scheele’s Green, a precursor<br />

to Paris Green, is anecdotally blamed for the death of Napoleon. The first layer of<br />

wallpaper from the Room 105, on anchor beam III, is likely colored with Scheele’s Green<br />

(fig. 15).<br />

The earliest layer of paper from anchor beam IV in the entry hall (103) is a simple<br />

geometric pattern, printed in black and white on rag paper. The pattern, with very<br />

sharp lines (fig. 9), is either block printed or stenciled. The second oldest layer from<br />

the Room 103 wallpaper sample is a white rag paper with a light blue background and<br />

pattern of slightly brighter shapes that evoke a bee (fig.8).<br />

In the 1850s, wood pulp began to be added to paper making, which had already<br />

become mechanized. These papers are identifiable by their slightly darker backing and<br />

oriented fibers. The product devolved with the addition of other pulped fillers, such as<br />

straw. Wallpapers produced after 1880 are identifiable by their dark brown backing<br />

and brittleness caused by acids in the wood.

The surface layer of Room 103 tests to be the same as the first layer of Room 102.<br />

This points to the sample not having been taken all the way to the plaster substrate. It<br />

also shows that Room 102 had two later campaigns of surfacing than did Room 103.<br />

fig. 14- Room 105, sample of poplar substrate with first and second layers of<br />



Books, Articles, and Publications<br />

• Blackburn, Roderic H. Dutch Colonial Homes in America. New York, NY: Rizzoli<br />

International Publications, 2002.<br />

• Buck, Clifford. Dutchess County, New York: Tax Lists 1718-1787. Rhinebeck, NY: Kinship,<br />

1991.<br />

• Carr, Claire O’Neill. A Brief History of Red Hook. New York, NY: Wise Family Trust in<br />

Cooperation with the Egbert Benson Historical Society of Red Hook, 2001.<br />

• Ellis, Capt. Franklin. History of Columbia County, New York. Philadelphia: Everts & Ensign,<br />

1878.<br />

• Hasbrouck, Frank. The History of Dutchess County, New York. Poughkeepsie, NY: S.A.<br />

Matthiew, 1909.<br />

• Jones, Henry Z. The Palatine Families of New York 1710. Marco Island, FL: Picton Press,<br />

2001.<br />

• Kelly, Nancy V. “Rhinebeck: Transition in 1799.” The Hudson Valley Regional Review, March<br />

1989, Volume 6, Number 2.<br />

• Leonard, Roger M. Upper Red Hook: An American Crossroad. Privately published, 2012.<br />

• Leonard, Roger M. The Red Church. Privately published, 1990.<br />

• Lyon, J.B. Military Minutes of the Council of Appointment of the State of New York 1783-1821,<br />

Vol. I. New York: State Printer, 1901<br />

• McDermott, <strong>William</strong> P. Dutchess County’s Plain Folks: Enduring Uncertainty, Inequality, and<br />

Uneven Prosperity, 1725-1875. Clinton Corners, NY: Kerleen, 2004.<br />

• McDermott, <strong>William</strong> P. “Colonial Land Grants in Dutchess County, New York: A Case Study<br />

in Settlement,” The Hudson Valley Regional Review: September 1986, Volume 3, Number 2.<br />

• MacCracken, Henry Noble. Old Dutchess Forever! New York: Hastings House, 1956.<br />

• Meeske, Harrison. The Hudson Valley Dutch and Their Houses. Fleishchmanns, NY: Purple<br />

Mountain Press, 1998.<br />

• Morse, Howard H. Historic Old Rhinebeck. Tarrytown, NY: Pocantico Printery, 1908.<br />

• O’Callahan, E.B. Documentary History of New York, Vol. III. Albany, NY: Weed, Parsons &<br />

Co. Public Printers, 1850.<br />

• Otterness, Philip. Becoming German: The 1709 Palatine Migration to New York. Ithaca, NY:<br />

Cornell University Press, 2004.<br />

• Reynolds, Helen Wilkinson. Dutch Houses in the Hudson Valley before 1776. New York:<br />

Dover Publications, 1965.<br />

• Seidman, Benedict. “Agriculture in Red Hook,” (Senior Thesis, Bard College: Annandale-on-<br />

Hudson, NY: 1940)<br />

• Smith, Edward M. Documentary History of Rhinebeck: A history of its churches and other<br />

public institutions. Rhinebeck, NY: Privately published, 1881.<br />

• Smith, James H. History of Dutchess County. Syracuse, NY: D. Mason & Co., 1882.


• Stevens, John R. Dutch Vernacular Architecture in North America, 1640-1830. West Hurley,<br />

NY: Society for the Preservation of Dutch Vernacular Architecture, 2005.<br />

• Zantkuyl, Henk. “The Netherlands Town House: How and Why It Works,” in New World<br />

Dutch Studies: Dutch Arts and Culture in Colonial America 1609-1776, edited by Roderic H.<br />

Blackburn and Nancy A. Kelly, Albany. NY: Albany Institute of History and Art, 1987.<br />

Web Content<br />

• Dutchess County Parcess Access http://geoaccess.co.dutchess.ny.us/<br />

• “Hudson Valley Vernacular Architecture Newsletter,” October 2005; http://www.hvva.org/<br />

hvvanews9-7pt3.htm<br />

• “Hudson Valley Vernacular Architecture Newsletter,” November 2005; http://hvva.net/<br />

hvvanew7-10pt1.htm<br />

• “New England Historical Genealogical Society,” americanancestors.org/early-palatinefamilies-of-new-york/<br />

• “Ulrich Simmendinger Register, 1717,” http://immigrantships.net/<br />

v4/1799v4.simmendinger1710100A_L.html, also at New York Public Library Rare Books<br />

Room<br />

• United States Census Data ancestry.com<br />

Human Resources<br />

• Amy K. Dubin: owner of the <strong>William</strong> <strong>Pitcher</strong> farmhouse<br />

• Conrad Fingado: Fingado Restoration, Quitman Resource Center, HVVA<br />

• Ken Migliorelli: current farmer, nephew of prior owner<br />

• Joe Howard: farmer, son of last inhabitants<br />

• Chuck Mead: farmer on what was the north portion of Pieter <strong>Pitcher</strong>’s original 550-acre farm<br />

• Betsy Baxter Wacker: former resident at Elmendorph Corners<br />

• James Hardin: Elmendorph/<strong>Pitcher</strong> descendant<br />

• Ray Armater: Historic Hudson Valley<br />

• Michael Devonshire: UMass and beyond<br />

• Bonnie Parsons: UMass<br />

• Steven Bedford: UMass<br />

• Claudine and Chris Klose: Historic Red Hook<br />

• Patsy Vogel: Historic Red Hook<br />

• Paula Schoonmaker: Historic Red Hook<br />

• Maynard Ham: Historic Red Hook<br />

• Nancy V. Kelly: Rhinebeck Town Historian<br />

• Marilyn Hatch: Palatine <strong>Farmstead</strong><br />

• Wint Aldrich: Red Hook Town Historian


• Michael Frazier: Rhinebeck Historical Society<br />

• Don McTernan: Rhinebeck Historical Society, NPS retired<br />

• Alvin Sheffer: Germantown History Department<br />

• Elijah Bender: owner of the Heermance Farm<br />

• Joe Zen: Rural Archaeology<br />

• Chris Templin: technical support<br />

• Jon Nandor: security and research assistance<br />

• Sheri Sceroler: support and patience<br />

• Diane Lewis: Common Sense Consulting<br />

Other<br />

Dutchess County Clerk’s Office, Poughkeepsie, NY<br />

Dutchess County Surrogate Court, Poughkeepsie, NY<br />

Historic Red Hook Archives, Elmendorf Inn, Red Hook, NY<br />

Holland Society of New York<br />

New York State Archives, Albany, NY<br />

Starr Library Archives Room, Rhinebeck, New York

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!