William Pitcher Farmstead HSR

WILLIAM PITCHER FARMSTEAD
Historic Structure Report
Emily M. Majer
University of Massachusetts
2015

CONTENTS
____________________________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
HISTORY
The Schuyler Patent and the Palatines 3
The Pitchers, Generations I-III 9
The Pitchers, Generations IV-VII 13
The Last 73 Years 19
DESCRIPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Site 20
The House
Exterior 22
Recommendations 31
Interior 32
Recommendations 97
Green Renovation Recommendations 98
APPENDICES
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Deed Chronology and Maps
Pitcher Genealogy
Pitcher Population Schedule
Drawings
Existing 2004
Structural Evolution
Masonry Analysis
Wood Analysis
Finishes Analysis
Wallpaper Samples

INTRODUCTION
____________________________________________________________________________
The William Pitcher farmhouse is located near the hamlet of Upper Red Hook, New York
and was likely built between 1725 and 1746, but certainly prior to 1768. On May 25
of that year, the property was deeded to William Pitcher by his father and referred to
as “the farm now in the possession of the said William Bitcher(sic).” 1 It is an important
domestic building for the fact that is one of the oldest surviving examples of timberframed
Dutch/German vernacular architecture in the area. The house is set back 250
yards from the north side of Pitcher Lane, a quiet east-west road, a mile and a half long
connecting Route 9, known prior to 1776 as the King’s Highway, to County Route 79,
formerly referred to as the road to Red Hook Landing.
Members of the Pitcher family lived in the house continuously until the later years of
the 19th century. After that it became an incidental structure. The farmhouse
remained in the family, likely a lodging for seasonal workers on the large fruit farm,
until 1942. The larger farm property was sold seven times in the second half of the
20th century, becoming a dairy enterprise by the 1970s. The William Pitcher house
was intermittently occupied, most recently by the herdsman of Linden Farms and his
family. Since 2000, the farmhouse has been vacant, home to raccoons and occasional
vandals. The roof, which is at least 100 years old, has kept the weather out, but there
are some failures in the building envelope.
1
Dutchess County Clerk’s Office, Poughkeepsie, New York

This historic structure report is intended to document the farmhouse, should it prove
to be beyond repair; or to serve as an owner’s manual to assist in restoration, should
the current owner choose such an undertaking.
The information in this report was collected and assembled between February 2014
and April 2015 in fulfillment of the capstone project requirement for the University of
Massachusetts Master of Science in Historic Preservation program. The process has
involved investigation of deeds, wills, and church records; census and agricultural
schedules; newspapers, maps, and tax rolls; structural assessment and analysis of
bricks, mortar, wood, plaster, finishes, and coverings. It has also involved vagrant and
large animal exclusion. Additional information about this building will certainly be
uncovered through future physical exploration and further sleuthing through human and
institutional repositories.
The William Pitcher Farmstead is historically significant for its association with early
settlement, architectural patterns, and economic development of this area of the
Hudson Valley. The amount of local interest that this project has generated to date
bespeaks an enthusiasm that has been encouraging.
2

HISTORY
THE SCHUYLER PATENT AND THE PALATINES 1688-1725
The primary interest of the Dutch in New Netherland was the collection of beaver pelts.
As such they had established nearly evenly spaced trading posts along Hudson’s River
at New Amsterdam (Manhattan), Wiltwyck (Kingston), and Beverwyck (Albany), but
the rest of the colony was essentially a howling wilderness. The Treaty of Breda, which
ended the Anglo-Dutch War, confirmed the blood-less conquest of New Netherland by
the English on July 21, 1667. Colonial Governor Thomas Dongan was tasked with
settling the land between Manhattan and Albany in order to generate revenue, as well
2
as to secure the Crown’s claim to it. To that end, he granted patents of large tracts of
land to entrepreneurial and well-connected men of means, and turned over to them the
responsibility for populating and clearing the land, hoping that self-interest and the
promise of profit would provide adequate motivation.
Pieter Schuyler, the first mayor of Albany, having first purchased land from the natives,
was granted a patent to it by Governor Dongan on June 2, 1688. This patent was
confirmed and recorded in 1704. The 22,400 acres was thus described,
“Situate, lying and being on the east side of Hudson’s River in Dutchess County, over
against Magdalene Island, beginning at a certain creek called Metambesem, thence running
easterly to the southmost part of a certain meadow called Tanquashqueick, and from that
meadow easterly to a certain small lake or pond called Waraughkameek; from thence northerly
so far till upon a due east and west line it reaches over against the Sawyer’s creek, from thence
2 “Colonial Land Grants in Dutchess County, N.Y. A Case Study in Settlement,” William P.
McDermott, The Hudson Valley Regional Review, September 1986, Volume 3, Number 2
3

due west to the Hudson’s river aforesaid, and from thence southerly along the said river to the
said creek called Metambesem” 3
The Schuyler patent was bounded to the north by the Livingston Manor, 160,000 acres
awarded to Robert Livingston in 1686; by the Little Nine Partners patent to the east;
Dutchman Henry Beekman’s Rhinebeck patent on the south; and the Hudson River
along the western edge (MAP 1).
Although a patent for Kipsburgh Manor, the present hamlet of Rhinecliff in the town of
Rhinebeck, had been granted to Kingston Dutchmen Adrian Roosa, Jan Elting, and
Hendrick and Jacobus Kip by Governor Dongan June 2, 1688, on account of Henry
Beekman’s considerable influence and enthusiasm for development, the Kipsburgh
patent was subsumed by Beekman’s Rhinebeck patent, which was confirmed by
Governor Cornbury in 1703.
In 1689 Peter Schuyler sold approximately one half of the north quarter of his patent
bordering Livingston Manor to Harme Van Gansevoort, an Albany brewer, who
transferred the land in 1704 to Harme Janse Knickerbacker. In 1722 Peter Schuyler
had the north quarter of his patent surveyed and divided into 13 lots; seven were
granted to the Knickerbacker heirs, the other six were sold to Captain Nicholas
Hoffman of Kingston. The remaining three-quarters of Schuyler’s patent had already
been divided into six lots of approximately 3,000 acres each and sold in pairs as
4
described in a deed dated February 11, 1717/18. The southern pair, bordering Henry
Beekman’s patent, were sold to Tierck DeWitt of Ulster County; Joachem Staats of
Rensselaerwyck and Barent Van Benthuysen of Dutchess County bought two lots each
3 Documentary History of Rhinebeck, Edward M. Smith, Rhinebeck, Dutchess County, NY, 1881
p.22
4
History of Dutchess County, James H. Smith, D. Mason & Co., Syracuse, NY, 1882, p.173
4

5
(MAP 3). By 1725, Tierk DeWitt had sold his lots to Henry Beekman, and the heirs of
Staats sold their land to Barent Van Benthuysen and his sons: Pieter, Jacob, Abraham,
6
and Gerrit; and his nephew Andries Heremanse(sic)(MAP 5).
The Van Benthuysen and Heermanse families, who moved across the Hudson from
Kingston, were related by marriage. Three Van Wagenen sisters: Jannetje, Annatjen
and Neeltje, daughters of Gerrit Aartsen, one of the original patentees of Rhinebeck,
married Barent Van Benthuysen, and brothers Hendricus and Andries Heermanse
respectively. Jannetje and Barent Van Benthuysen married in Kingston in 1701 and
had Gerrit, Jan, Catryntje, Anna, Peter, Jacob, and Abraham between 1702 and 1718.
Annatjen and Hendricus Heermanse settled in Rhinebeck to raise their six children on
land that would become “Ellerslie,” the estate of Levi P. Morton. Neeltje and Andries
Heermanse had fourteen children between 1711 and 1737: Jan, Engeltie, Jacob,
Annatje, Janneka, Clara, Gerrit, Petrus, Hendricus, Catrina, Wilhelmus, Nicholas, Phillipus,
7
and Abraham. The Van Benthuysens and Heermanses, along with the Hoffmans and
Vosburgs, who also moved from Kingston around the same time, intermarried and
populated their purchase.
In the census of 1714, there were 67 heads of households, 445 residents total,
including 29 slaves, recorded in what was then Dutchess County; from the north line of
Westchester County to the Roelof-Jansen Kill (creek) in what is now Columbia County.
By the first tax assessment in 1723, there were 97 households in the North Ward alone
8
(MAP 2).
5 referenced in a deed dated April 3, 1720 between heirs of Barent Staats and Pieter, Jacob,
and Abraham Van Benthuysen, recorded November 27, 1744
6 Dutchess County Clerk’s Office, Liber 10: 137, April 1, 1747 between Pieter, Jacob, Abraham,
and Barent Van Benthuysen along with Andries Heremanse; and Gerrit Van Benthuysen
7
8
Documentary History of Rhinebeck, E.M. Smith, Rhinebeck, New York, 1881, p.35
Historic Old Rhinebeck, Howard H. Morse, Pontico Printery, Tarrytown, New York, 1908, p.421
5

This population increase was due in large part to the arrival in 1710 of an indentured
workforce from the Palatinate region of southwestern Germany, sent to New York by
Queen Anne at the invitation of Robert Livingston. This group, referred to as “the
Palatines” or “the Poor Palatines,” had left their homes in the Rhine Valley en masse as
conditions deteriorated. French troops, engaged in the War of Spanish Succession,
went wilding through the southwest in 1706. The brutal winter of 1708 and the
instability of living in an area of tiny, ill-managed principalities made for a restive
population. In 1706 a Lutheran minister from Wurttemberg named Joshua Kocherthal
wrote a promotional pamphlet called A Complete and Detailed Report of the Renowned
District of Carolina Located in English America. In 1708 Kocherthal and fifty followers
went to London where they secured passage to the colonies by claiming to be victims
of attacks by the French. This successful gambit, although they had been taken to New
York rather than Carolina, encouraged Kocherthal to return to the Palatinate and try
again. Kocherthal enhanced his pamphlet with even more glowing descriptions of the
colonies, so much so that it was referred to as “The Golden Book,” exciting such
9
interest that three new editions were printed in 1709. Kocherthal’s pamphlet implied
that Queen Anne was eager to have her colonies settled and would be happy to provide
passage to anyone willing to go. This unsupported claim caused a stampede of 13,000
souls to London, where encampments were hastily set up at Camberwell and
Blackheath. Public sentiment turned against the immigrants as their numbers
increased. In December 1709 Robert Hunter, the recently appointed Governor of New
York, proposed a plan that would both benefit the Crown and remove the Palatines
from London.
The British Navy relied on trade with Sweden for “naval stores”(tar and pitch) that
were necessary for waterproofing the ropes and sealing the hulls of ships. For financial
and security reasons, this was not an ideal situation. Hunter suggested that the
9 Becoming German: The 1709 Palatine Migration to New York, Philip Otterness, Cornell
University Press, Ithaca and London, 2006, p.27
6

Palatines could be settled in New York along the Hudson River and would serve the dual
purpose of producing naval stores from the forests there AND their presence would
serve as a deterrent against the French. Hunter’s plan was that the Palatines would
repay the Queen for the cost of their transport and early settlement from the profit
from this enterprise, and, once their debts were repaid, each person would be granted
40 acres of land.
Three thousand Palatines set sail for New York in April 1710, 4,000 were given
passage back to Rotterdam, a few hundred remained in London, and the rest dispersed
to Ireland and Jamaica. Due to casualties in transit, 2,200 Palatines arrived in New
10
York City, which at the time had only 6,000 inhabitants.
During their long journey from their homes, the Palatines had become a tight group.
Adversity had broken down regional, religious, and material differences. Losing such a
large portion of their number on the voyage had left many adults single and many
children orphans. Since Hunter’s plan had a narrow profit margin to begin with, he was
not inclined to provide for those who would not be contributing to the naval stores
project. He arranged for orphans and children of widows to be apprenticed out as
11
young as three or four. The remarriage rate among the Palatines was high due to the
importance of each member of the nuclear family for the survival of the group. This
intermarriage further cemented the bonds among the group, who were also bound by
their dissatisfaction with the naval stores enterprise. The average age of the Palatines
was 35. They had left their homeland on the promise of freedom from serfdom in the
bloated duchies of petty princes. They wanted to be farmers, not to live as servants,
dependent upon the whims and wishes of others.
10
11
Otterness, p.81
Otterness, p.81
7

In September 1710, Governor Hunter purchased 6,000 acres of land on the Hudson
River, 100 miles north of New York City, within the manor of Robert Livingston. The
trees from which the Palatines would be deriving the naval stores were a few miles
inland, also on Livingston’s land. This arrangement had many benefits for Livingston:
the Palatines would be clearing and improving his land, which had been previously
unsettled; Livingston would have right to all trees cut down; and he was given the
contract to provide the Palatines with bread and beer. Three camps were established
on the west side of the Hudson and four situated on the east side, south of the Roelof-
Jansen Kill: Haysbury, named for Hunter’s wife, Lady Hay; Queensbury and Annsbury,
both named for Queen Ann; and Hunterstown.
While the Palatines’ resentment was growing, Governor Hunter was running into trouble
from England. The naval stores project was far from reducing the British navy’s
dependence on Sweden, having not produced even one barrel of tar. Parliament
refused to reimburse Hunter for the money he had put out for the support of the
Palatines. In early September of 1712, the naval stores endeavor was shut down and
the Palatine project was abandoned.
Aside from his early arrangement with Harme Van Gansevoort, Pieter Schuyler appears
to have been content to let the rest of his patent languish. In contrast, Henry
Beekman was eager to get his land settled and actively encouraged the families of
12
disenfranchised German immigrants to rent or purchase farms from him. Culturally,
the Dutch and the Palatines were quite similar, having come from an area sharing a
border. Thirty-five Palatine families took Beekman up on his offer and moved to
Monterey, renaming the larger area Rhine (for their homeland) beck (as a nod to
Beekman). A union church, which served both Lutheran and Dutch Reformed
congregations, was established in 1716. Lutheran minister and author of “The Golden
12 Frank Hasbrouck ed., The History of Dutchess County New York, Chap. XXIX, S.A. Matthiew,
Poughkeepsie, NY, 1909
8

Book,” Joshua Kocherthal, who had sailed from London with the Palatines and
ministered to them at the camps, shared the pulpit with pastor Johann Fredrick Haeger,
who had served the Reformed congregation. The Lutherans and the Dutch Reformed
congregations shared the church until 1723, when the Lutherans built a stone church,
St. Peter’s, approximately half a mile north on the Post Road.
As of 1718, there were still 91 Palatine families, 359 people living on the east camp
land in what had become known as Germantown. Apparently they were holding out for
title to the land that had been promised them by Queen Anne. In 1724 Palatine
settlers Jacob Sharpe and Christopher Hagadorn petitioned the Provincial Council on
behalf of the 63 families that had been willing to remain, to be granted title to the
land. Cadwallader Colden, the Surveyor-General at the time, supported this petition and
the patent was granted on August 26, 1724. 13
THE PITCHERS, GENERATIONS I-III
Johannes Hermann Betzer (alternately written as Bitzer, Pitsier, Pitzer, and finally
Pitcher) and his wife, Elsen Maria Franz, were born in Hachenburg, in the Rhineland-
Palatinate region. They were 40 and 43 respectively when they arrived in New York in
July 1710 with their seven children. Arriving on the eighth of Governor Hunter’s ten
ships, the Betzers were settled at Annsbury, the most northern of the east camps,
located on the Hudson River at what is now considered North Germantown. Johannes
Betzer was among those who volunteered to join the Walker Expedition to Quebec in
14
1711 to fight in “Queen Anne’s War.” As of 1717, Johannes Hermann and Elsen
13 History of Columbia County, New York, Captain Franklin Ellis, Everts and Ensign,
Philadelphia, 1878
14 Documentary History of New York,Vol.III, E.B. O’Callahan, Weed, Parsons & Co. Public
Printers, Albany, New York, 1850, p. 571-572
9

15
Maria were still living in Annsbury with two of their children. In 1724 he was among
the signers of the petition submitted to the Provincial Council as being willing to stay if
land were finally granted.
Johannes and Elsen Maria had three sons: Peter, born 1697; Adam, born 1702; and
Johan Theiss, born 1708. Apparently Johann Theiss was the first of them to move
16
south. Early tax records for Rhinebeck place him there in 1732. In 1740, Cadwallader
Colden surveyed the land that had been granted to the Palatines as a result of their
petition in 1724; the resulting map shows Adam and Peter Pitcher each owning two
17
parcels of land (MAP 4). Perhaps they had inherited this land from their father. Adam
Pitcher held onto his Germantown land and purchased 123 acres from Nicholas
Hoffman in the north portion of the Schuyler patent in 1746 where he established his
homestead farm. He also acquired land in the Little Nine Partners patent; in 1747 he
bought 2/3 of small Lot 8 from the Van Benthuysens and Andries Heermanse, just east
of small Lot 7, which Peter Pitcher had purchased the year before.
On March 17, 1746 Peter Pitcher, age 49, purchased Lot 7 from the Van
Benthuysens and Andries Heermanse for the sum of 550 pounds current money of the
province of New York “together with all and singular the houses barnes buildings lands
meadows pastures commons feedings trees woods underwoods profits advantages and
with all the appurtenances to the said lott number seven.” 18
Peter Pitcher’s neighbor to the west, on Lot 6, was Andries Heermanse himself. It is
possible that, since reference is made to existing structures “houses” and “barnes” in
15 “Ulrich Simmendinger Register, 1717”, http://immigrantships.net/v4/1700v4/
simmendinger17100100A_L.html, also at New York Public Library Rare Books Room
16 Dutchess County New York Tax Lists 1718-1787, Clifford M. Buck, Kinship (Press),
Rhinebeck, New York, 1991
17
18
see Colden map
Dutchess County Clerk’s Office, Deeds; Liber 2 Page 349, 17 March 1746
10

the deed, Peter and his family had already been living on the property as tenants
before the purchase, and that more than one house was on the property prior to 1746.
The Heermanse homestead farm, located in the northeast quadrant of that parcel is
listed on the National Register of Historic Places. It is noted for being a rare example of
an 18th-century (circa 1733 or 1745) stone farmhouse. The Heermanse farm is on a
road that connected the King’s Highway (now Route 9) to the Hudson River at
Hoffman’s Landing, which was subsequently known as Cantine’s Landing, Upper Red
Hook Landing, and now is called Tivoli. In 1749, Pieter Pitser (sic) is listed as having
been the overseer of the road to “Hoffman’s Landing,” which is now County Route 78
(Kerley’s Corners Road). 19 This information places the original Pitcher farm to the east
of the Heermance Farm, near the intersection with the King’s Highway (MAP 6). In
1719, Peter Pitcher married Anna Catherine Phillips and they had Maria Catherine,
Wilhelm, Magdalena, Gertraudt, Christina, Elizabeth, and Adam between 1720 and
1738. Wilhelm was baptised at the union church in Rhinebeck in 1725. 20
At the age of 71 on 13 May 1768, Peter Pitser (sic) divided his property in half, north
and south (MAP 7). He deeded his own dwelling house and 275 acres to his younger son
Adam. Two weeks later Adam, only 30 years old but “weak in body but of sound and
perfect mind,” willed all his property to his wife, Anna Maria Richter, but gave his father
continued use of half of the farm that had been deeded over to him, and refers to the
arrangement that they have made regarding said farm. He also instructed that his
three daughters (Elizabeth, Gertien, and Catherine) be sent to school to learn “reading,
writing and sewing.” In this instrument, Adam Pitcher also makes reference to his
21
“negro girl named Flora” and to his indentured boy, Fred.
19 H.H. Morse, Historic Old Rhinebeck, Pocantico Printery, Flocker & Hicks, Tarrytown-on-
Hudson, NY, 1908
20
21
“Dutch Selected Reformed Church VItal Records, 1660-1926,” Holland Society of New York
Dutchess County Surrogate Court, will of Adam Pitcher, probated 12 September 1768
11

The southern half of the property Peter deeded to his older son William “in
consideration of the natural love and affection which he hath and beareth to his
22
son...also for the sum of five shillings.” The deed specifies “the parcel of land...or
farm now in the possession of William Pitcher.” In 1768 William Pitcher was 43 years
old. According to the Rhinebeck tax records, he had been paying property taxes there
23
since 1753.
William Pitcher married Magdalena Donsbach on 5 November 1748 at the Germantown
Reformed Church, when he was 23 and she was 21. The first of their children, Peter,
was born in 1750 and baptized at St. Peter’s Lutheran Church in Rhinebeck.
Subsequent children of William Pitcher were baptized at St. Paul’s Lutheran Church in
what is now Red Hook. They did not precisely follow the tradition of the Dutch and
Germans of naming the first son after the paternal grandfather, the first daughter after
the maternal grandmother, second son after the maternal grandfather, and second
daughter after the maternal grandmother. After Peter (named for Peter Pitcher) came
Margaretha in 1752 (for Margaretha Scheffer), Magdalena in 1754, then Wilhelm in
1756, Heinrich in 1762 (for Heinrich Donsbach), and Catherina in 1764 (for Catherina
Phillips). It is not clear what happened to Magdalena Donsbach.
After Adam Pitcher’s death in 1768, his widow, Anna Maria Richter married his brother,
William Pitcher. Together they had Elizabeth in 1771 (named for Elizabeth Stahl), Philip
in 1774 (sponsored by Philip Staats and Anna Maria Benner), John W. in 1776 (named
for Johannes RIchter), Anna in 1779 (sponsored by Hendrick Bender and Annatjen
24
Richter), and Jacob in 1781 (sponsored by Jacob Richter and Magdalena Phillips).
The first US Census data, from 1790 has nine people in the household of William
22
23
Dutchess County Clerk’s Office, Deeds, “Peter Bitcher” to “William Bitcher,” 25 May 1768
Dutchess County New York Tax Lists 1718-1787, Clifford M. Buck, Kinship (Press),
Rhinebeck, New York, 1991
24
“Dutch Selected Reformed Church Vital Records, 1660-1926,” Holland Society of New York
12

Pitcher: four free white males, one over 16 years old and three under 16; three free
white females; and two slaves. The free white males would have been William and his
sons, Philip, John W., and Jacob; the free white females, Anna Maria Richter, Elizabeth,
25
and Anna.
The Pitchers, Generations IV-VII
Before William Pitcher died in 1800, he willed that his property “all that farm which I
got from my father, Peter Pitcher, on which I now live and reside, together with the
houses, and buildings standing on the same” go to his three youngest sons: Philip (26),
John W. (24), and Jacob (19). William Pitcher instructed that the remainder of his
estate be divided between all of his children: Peter, Hendrick, Philip, John, Margaret,
Catherine, Elisabeth, and Annatie, and the children of his son Wilhelmus. Jacob
Pitcher’s health or habits were questionable based on the following line in his father’s
will: “…if in case my son Jacob should die before he can receive the estate hereby
divised to him… .”
At the time of his death, William Pitcher’s house and farm were valued at $4,370 and
his personal property at $824. In 1800, after their father’s death, Philip and John W.
were jointly assessed (no mention of Jacob) for the house and farm valued at $4,370
and personal property, presumably farm equipment and livestock, of $257. Their tax
bill was $8.09.
John W. and Philip Pitcher owned their father’s farm jointly, but apparently lived
separately on it. The 1800 US Census lists John W. and Philip Pitcher each as heads of
households. A map surveyed by Alexander Thompson in 1797 (MAP 9) shows five
houses on the north side of Pitcher Lane and a red building labeled “Martin’s Inn.” The
25 1790 United States Census, s.v. William Pitcher, Rhinebeck, Dutchess County, New York,
accessed through ancestry.com
13

uildings, matched with the names on the 1800 census are, from west to east,
Nicholas Hoffman, William Vredenbergh (sic), John W. Pitcher, Philip Pitcher, Ebenezer
Punderson, and Henry Martin. A map surveyed in 1799 by Philip Reichert confirms the
properties at the west end of Pitcher Lane (MAP 10). John W. Pitcher had married
Catherine Kip on 4 November 1797 at St. Paul’s Lutheran Church, and in 1800 they
shared their household with a free white female between 10-16, probably a servant; a
26
free white female under 10; their infant daughter Helen; and two slaves. Philip
Pitcher had married Catherine Wilson around 1796, and in 1800 they were living with a
free white male (servant) between 16 and 26; two young daughters, Elizabeth and
27
Anna Maria; and two slaves.
Rhinebeck tax records, available through 1803, assess John W. and Philip jointly for the
28
house and farm. In 1806, the brothers divided the farm north and south based on a
survey by their neighbor Nathan Beckwith (MAP 8), but the division was not recorded
until 1860, after both Philip and John W. were dead.
In 1810 the household of John W. Pitcher and Catherine Kipp Pitcher was comprised of
themselves, their sons John Henry (5), Abraham (3), and William (0), their daughter
Helen (9), two white male and one female laborers between 10 and 15 years old, and
29
two slaves, for a total of eleven people.
26 1800 United States Census, s.v. John W. Pitcher, Rhinebeck, Dutchess County, New York,
accessed through ancestry.com
27 1800 United States Census, s.v. Philip Pitcher, Rhinebeck, Dutchess County, New York,
accessed through ancestry.com
28 “Assessment of all the Real and Personal Estate in the Town of Rhinebeck” 1799-1803,
Series B0950, New York State Archives, Albany, New York
29 1810 United States Census, s.v. John W. Pitcher, Rhinebeck, Dutchess County, New York,
accessed through ancestry.com
14

John W. Pitcher is always referred to with his middle initial because a John Pitcher, born
in 1750 and distantly related, also lived in Dutchess County in the nearby town of
Northeast.
By the early 19th century, Pitcher Lane had become a major thoroughfare between
Upper Red Hook and beyond into Northeast and Connecticut and also the landings on
the Hudson River at Barrytown and Tivoli. The Hudson had always been a link to the
steady demand of New York City for produce, livestock, and grains. Robert Fulton
perfected the steamboat in 1807, which made trade on the river more reliable and
efficient. John W. Pitcher had inherited a large agricultural operation and increased its
acreage by purchasing land that had belonged to his grandfather Peter. According the
1816 Agricultural Schedule, the assessed value of John W. Pitcher’s farm was $6,700
and he had personal property of $400. Until the opening of the Erie Canal in 1825,
farmers in the Hudson Valley, along with taking care of their own and local needs, grew
wheat for production as well as potatoes, onions, and other sturdy crops that could be
easily shipped. Competition from the West, along with an insect blight in the
mid-1830s, pushed local farmers toward sheep, which supplied the woolen mills on the
nearby White Clay Kill and Sawkill creeks, and fruit, which the loamy soil of the area
proved well suited.
Along with being a successful farmer, John W. Pitcher was an active member of the
Upper Red Hook community. He served in the New York State Militia, attaining the rank
30
of First Lieutenant in 1807 and Captain in 1812. Along with his brother Philip,
Nicholas Hoffman, Nathan Beckwith and other neighbors, John W. contributed to the
founding of the Mountain View Academy in 1822, with the following statement:
Believing that well conducted schools affording the opportunity of moral and literary
improvement to our youth are in every respect highly beneficial, and desirous of establishing a
Classical School or Academy in the village of Red Hook, which is intended to place under the
30 Military Minutes of the Council of Appointment of the State of New York, 1783-1821 Vol.I, J.B.
Lyon, State Printer-New York, 1901, p.939 and Vol. II, p.1324
15

direction of twelve trustees to be annually elected by the subscribers to the Academy in which
school it is intended that reading, writing, arithmetic, English grammar, surveying, navigation,
geography, public speaking together with the Latin and Greek languages shall be taught and a
scrupulous attention to the moral and religious habits of the students shall be observed: Under
these impressions and desirous of public utility, we, the subscribers promise to pay to the
Trustees of Red Hook Academy the sums affixed to our respective names to be appropriated for
the object above mentioned. 31
The Pitchers—John W. and Catherine, Philip and Catherine, all of their children and their
extended families—were members of St. John’s Reformed Church, which was built in
1787 as an adjunct to the Red Church at the Lower Red Hook Landing (now Tivoli) in
response to the developing settlement at Upper Red Hook. The new church was
referred to as “the Church at the Road” because it was located at the Post Road. John
W. and Catherine became members of St. John’s Low Dutch Reformed Church in Upper
Red Hook in 1806, transferring their allegiance from St. Paul’s. John W. became a
deacon in 1807 and their youngest son, born in 1812, was named Andrew Kittle
Pitcher after the long serving minister, who was also instrumental in the founding of
the Academy, Andrew Kittle.
The Pitcher household reached a peak population of 14 in 1820 with John W.,
Catherine, John H., Abraham, William, Andrew, Helen, one white male over 45 (a laborer
or father-in-law), one free white female 26-44, in addition to Catherine (a servant or
other relative), one slave male under 14, one slave male over 45, and two
32
“foreigners.”
Prior to 1850, only the name of the head of household is listed on the US Census, and
each census records slightly different data. Between 1790 and 1820, individuals were
31 St. John’s Reformed Church archives, printed in Upper Red Hook: An American Crossroad,
Roger M. Leonard, published by the author, 2012, p.70
32 1820 United States Census, s.v. John W. Pitcher, Red Hook, Dutchess County, New York,
accessed through ancestry.com
16

noted based on gender, age, race, and free or slave status. Slavery was outlawed for
all in 1827, but in the 1830 census only gender and age were recorded. In the 1840
record, gender, age, and race were noted. After 1820, the Pitcher household gradually
declined in size: son John Henry became a minister after attending Union College in
Schenectady and New Brunswick Seminary; Abraham acquired land on the south side of
Pitcher Lane to farm and built or moved into an existing house there; William graduated
from Williams College and Princeton Seminary, becoming a minister as well
33
; Andrew
K., the youngest son, stayed on his father’s farm. In 1830 there were eight people
34
living in John W. Pitcher’s house. In 1840 there were only six: John W., his wife
Catherine, their son Andrew, a 15-20 year-old female (white), a ‘free colored male’
10-24, and a ‘free colored female 24-36.’ 35
Beginning in 1851 the Hudson River Railroad became the mode of transportation for
shipping farm goods to market in New York City and abroad. The river landings at
Tivoli and Barrytown became station stops. Red Hook became known for its apple
orchards. In 1855 the town production was 14,873 bushels; by 1865 it was up to
36
38,230 . On the 1850 Gillette map (MAP 11), the farms along Pitcher Lane from west
to east belonged to Cornelius Elmendorf, who had married John W. Pitcher’s niece Anna
Maria; John W. Pitcher; William W. Pitcher, son of J.W.P.’s brother Philip (who had died
in 1844); and on the south side of the road John W.’s son Abraham. In 1850,
according to the census, John W. Pitcher shared the house with his son Andrew (38),
Andrew’s wife Mary Ann Hoffman (36), their children Laura (5), and William (2), and
Susan Hoffman, Mary Ann Hoffman Pitcher’s mother (66). John W. had by then
33 Upper Red Hook: An American Crossroad, Roger M. Leonard, published by the author, 2012,
p.60
34 1830 United States Census, s.v. John W. Pitcher, Red Hook, Dutchess County, New York,
accessed through ancestry.com
35 1840 United States Census, s.v. John W. Pitcher, Red Hook, Dutchess County, New York,
accessed through ancestry.com
36
Benedict Seidman, “Agriculture in Red Hook,” Bard College Senior Project, 1940
17

transferred his farm to his son. Andrew Pitcher’s property was valued at $7,000 and
his farm implements at $200. In 1850 he had 78 acres of improved land and 10 acres
of wood lot; 2 horses, 6 milk cows, 1 other type of cattle, 22 sheep, 5 swine, all valued
at $422. He was producing rye, corn, and oats. After John W. Pitcher’s death in
1859, Andrew lived in the farmhouse with his wife, five children, one 28-year-old
37
female servant, and a laborer, John Millham (50). The Agricultural Production
Schedule of 1860 shows that Andrew Pitcher had increased his yield of rye from 260
bushels to 300, and doubled his oat crop since 1850; but his Indian corn production
decreased by 75% . He had also replaced all of his sheep with swine.
Andrew K. Pitcher’s cousin and neighbor to the east, William Wilson Pitcher, died in
1864 and his one-fifth portion of the original Peter Pitcher farm was sold to P.H. Coon.
Abraham Pitcher died in 1874 without a will. Six months later a fire destroyed his
house. Abraham’s wife, Eliza Sanderson Pitcher, and their children sold his piece of the
original Peter Pitcher land on the north side of Pitcher Lane in addition to the land he
had purchased on the south side to Francis and Margaret Elting.
On the north side of Pitcher Lane, to the west of Andrew Pitcher’s house, the Eltings
built a large, ornate Victorian house with a cupola. In 1881, Andrew Pitcher sold all of
his land to the Elting’s son, Henry Snyder Elting. One year later, Andrew Pitcher’s
daughter, Sarah Jansen Pitcher, married Henry Elting. Andrew Pitcher lived in the old
house until his death in 1885.
When Margaret Elting died in 1905, she willed all of the land that had belonged to her
and her late husband to her son. Henry Elting farmed this land, growing primarily fruit
and grains until his death in 1927. Henry Elting and Sarah J. Pitcher’s daughter
Florence and son-in-law Ezra Cookingham continued farming until 1942 when they sold
37 1860 United States Census, s.v. Andrew K. Pitcher, Red Hook, Dutchess County, New York,
accessed through ancestry.com
18

the enterprise to Victory Farms Inc. based in New York City. Intact through several
transfers, the property was sold in 1955 to Robert G. Greig, who in 1942 had
purchased and was farming the land next door that had belonged to Philip Pitcher. For
a short time, the south half of Peter Pitcher’s original farm was reassembled.
The Past 73 Years
The William Pitcher farm was sold again several times between 1955 and 2000.
Six generations of Pitchers and their descendants lived within the original 550 acres
purchased 200 years before. Andrew was the last Pitcher to live in the old farmhouse.
After his death it was insconsistently inhabited by seasonal or tenant farmers. In each
census after 1880, the names in the house are different and they are all listed as farm
laborers and renters.
The house has been empty since 2000, but the land is under cultivation, providing feed
crops and produce for local consumption and farmers’ markets as far south as
Manhattan and into southwestern Connecticut.
Other than the one-story circa 1900 addition, which may have been added as a second
kitchen to make the house more comfortable for two families at a time, and the later
insertion of a bathroom, no major alterations have been made to the house since
before 1800.
The Pitcher house is an excellent example of an early to mid-18th-century Dutch
building with a Palatine overlay, which was common in this area. For the sake of study,
neglect has been its salvation.
19

DESCRIPTIONS
THE SITE
The William Pitcher Farm is set back 250
yards from the north side of Pitcher
Lane, approximately three miles north
of the village of Red Hook. Pitcher Lane
is a quiet east-west road, a mile and a
half long connecting Route 9 (formerly
known as the Post Road or the King’s
Highway), to County Route 79, also
known as Budds Corners Road, formerly
referred to as the road to Red Hook
Landing. The house faces due south
with a line of large locust trees marking
the route that the driveway followed
years ago.
The current driveway continues past the
house on the east side to a barn
complex. The core of this structure is a
mid-19th century, square-rule Englishstyle
hay barn, built into a bank, with a
dry-laid bluestone foundation that has
remnants of limewash or parging on the
Aerial photo of the William Pitcher farm property,
house and barns in south-east corner, 2014.
(http://geoaccess.co.dutchess.ny.us)
inside. On the north side there is a late
19th-early-20th century addition that housed calves. Attached to this section is a
concrete silo. Beneath the hay barn, and extending out from the west
20

side is a mid-20th-century concrete-block
framed dairy barn. This section has a concrete
floor with gutters, remnants of stanchions, and
a dairy room. The last addition is a two-bay
structure coming off the south gable end of the
hay barn. One bay is for storage and the other
appears to have been a common room for
laborers with lockers and a table and chairs. To
the east of this complex are a free-standing
horse shed and a corn crib.
The house and barns are located at the southeast
corner of an 86-acre parcel of land, nearly half of which
is under cultivation. The property is bordered to the
north, east, and west primarily by open agricultural land.
The southern boundary of the property is Pitcher Lane.
Carved out of the southern edge of the property to the
west of the WIlliam Pitcher farmhouse is a three-acre
parcel of land with a large Italianate Victorian house on
it that dates to 1875. This lot was part of the Pitcher
family property until the mid-20th century.
21

DESCRIPTION +
CONDITION ASSESSMENT
EXTERIOR
The Pitcher house is a one-and-one-half story, five-fenestration bay, Dutch-framed
wooden structure with a moderate to steeply pitched gable roof that runs parallel to
the main facade, a small, one-story addition off the west gable end, and an ell that
extends from the north side of the east end. The main house and the ell sit on
foundations of dry-laid bluestone, and both are clad in cement-asbestos siding.
There is an inboard brick chimney at the peak on the east gable end and a patch on the
west gable end, where a chimney was removed following a chimney fire in the later
20th century. There is also one brick chimney at the north gable end of the ell.
The roof is covered with hand-worked, standing-seam metal.
The house appears to have been a nine-bent structure of two rooms with a Dutch-style
jambless fireplace located in the middle. The ell was a free-standing, five-bent
structure, perhaps a summer kitchen, which also had a jambless fireplace set off about
eight feet to the north of the house and staggered eight feet to the east. Visible
evidence inside the house supports the contention that the two structures were joined
near the end of the 18th century.
Recommendations for repair in this section are merely for stabilization and preservation
purposes as first steps toward a full renovation. A more comprehensive approach is
outlined in a later section.
22

SOUTH ELEVATION
South elevation 2004 (Darlene S. RIemer Architect P.C. ) The dotted line shows the east end of the original house.
The main section of the house is 46’ long by 25’ deep with a one-room addition at the
west end. The main entrance is located two feet off center to the east. The
architrave around the door and 6/6 sidelights date to their installation, but the door is
a “colonial-style,” six-panel metal door that is substantially both narrower and shorter
than the original, and the door frame is filled to make up the difference. This entrance
configuration was likely created during the major renovation around 1775, which saw
the east gable end extended by two anchor bents (eight feet) in order to line up with,
and join with, the auxiliary five-bent structure; abandonment of the center jambless
fireplace in favor of English-style fireplaces at the east and west gable ends; creation of
a center hall by removing an anchor beam and reframing the ceiling.
The asbestos siding was installed around a porch, nine feet wide, which had handrails
that returned to the building. This may have been a version of an early Dutch-style
stoop with facing benches.
There are two 1/1 replacement windows nearly symmetrically placed on either side of
the entrance. Early flat window casing is visible with aluminum triple-track storm
23

South elevation 2014
windows applied to it. A wall-dormer with 6/6 single-hung sash sits off-center two feet
to the west above the entrance, with its face on the same plane as the front of the
house.
CONDITION ASSESSMENT
• The standing-seam metal roof is in fair condition. It was last recoated with aluminum
paint around 2004.
• The asbestos siding is in poor condition, especially at the lower courses as a result of
the house being at grade, with no drainage.
• All six panes of glass are missing from the bottom sash of the west sidelight.
• All of the window sills are deteriorated.
• All door and window trim need consolidation and repair, replacement, or
reconstruction.
24

• A 6’x8’ concrete slab, poured directly against the sill outside the entrance door,
caused catastrophic rot and failure of the mortise pocket holding the joist spanning
the depth of the house. This joist has been jacked up and supported recently.
East elevation 2004 (Darlene S. RIemer Architect P.C. ) The dotted line shows the end of the five-bent structure.
EAST ELEVATION
The east elevation of the William Pitcher house faces an expanse of fields, which were
part of the original Peter Pitcher farm. At the far east end of these fields is a small
house that was built by William’s son Philip, around 1800.
The east elevation of the William Pitcher house, which is 25’ wide and 22’ tall at the
peak, has a bulkhead to the basement, which replaced an earlier entrance on the south
side. The brick of the back of the fireplace is exposed as is common in this area. On
either side of the brick, asymmetrically placed, are two 1/1 double-hung replacement
windows with triple-track storm windows. Above there are two windows, the southern
is a single nine-light sash, which appears to be quite old, and the north is a single-hung
6/6 unit that appears to be original to the circa 1775 renovation. The windows are
25

East elevation 2014
not evenly spaced in relation to the peak. The brick chimney extends up through
through the roof approximately three feet at the peak. The north ell 27’ deep and is
shorter than the main house by 18”. There are two 1/1 double-hung replacement
windows with aluminum storms on the east side of the ell.
CONDITION ASSESSMENT
• Biological growth is overtaking the chimney at the east gable end.
• Asbestos siding is compromised, broken, and in some places missing.
• The bulkhead door is missing, leaving the basement open to the weather and
intruders.
• The house is sitting right at or slightly below grade, which has likely caused sill
damage.
• Window sills are rotted due to moisture trapped by storm windows.
26

NORTH ELEVATION
North elevation 2004 (Darlene S. RIemer Architect P.C. )
The north gable end of the ell is 22’ wide and 20’ tall at the peak. The ground slopes
away to the north, exposing two feet of the dry-laid stone foundation at this end. One
foot in from the east corner is a single-light metal door with brick-mold casing. This
door opens onto a wooden landing with three steps down to grade. Placed
symmetrically above are two window openings, covered with sheets of plexiglass. The
trim around these windows is wood. The roof does not project out beyond the walls of
the house beyond an inch or two. There are no eaves or rakes. The brick chimney at
the north gable end of the ell extends up through the roof at the peak by one foot or
less.
The north elevation of the main house, which is nine feet high at the eave in addition to
two feet of exposed foundation, has no visible windows or doors. A 20th-century
block chimney for a wood stove runs up the outside, piercing the eave and extends up
another nine feet.
There is a bulkhead opening to the basement (B1) under the west addition.
27

The north elevation of the west addition has one 6/6 double-hung sash with an
aluminum storm.
North elevation 2014
CONDITION ASSESSMENT
• Biological growth is causing damage to the chimney and the siding.
• The chimney is in need of reconstruction above the roof.
• Asbestos siding is missing, exposing asphalt shingle siding and sheathing beneath.
• The metal door is badly rusted.
• Door and window trim are rotted as a result of years without maintenance.
• There is no bulkhead door covering the stairs to the basement.
• The stone foundation on the north side was at some point, perhaps when the west
addition was added, coated with concrete, which over time has trapped moisture and
in places damaged the foundation through freeze-thaw cycles.
28

WEST ELEVATION
West elevation 2004 (Darlene S. RIemer Architect P.C. )
The story-and-a-half ell extends out 25’ from the north side of the main house. There
is one 6/6 single-hung window with an aluminum storm, which lines up with the window
on the other side of the ell, nine feet in from the gable end. One foot in from the main
house, beginning four feet up, is a late 20th-century, single-pane, awning window.
The west gable end of the main house has one replacement 1/1 window on the first
story, tight against the west end addition. There are two replacement 1/1 windows
above and nearly centered on the peak.
The one-story addition on the west end, circa 1900, is stepped back five feet from the
front facade and sits on a poured concrete foundation. The extension, which contains
a kitchen, extends west 16’ and is 14’ wide across the gable end. On the front, the
south side, there is an entry door with a 6/6 double hung window to the right. The
west and north sides each have one 6/6 double-hung sash. The exterior cladding is
asbestos shingle, with asphalt shingle beneath and novelty siding as the original finish.
The north side of the main house is windowless. The ell off the north side on the east
end extends back 25’ and is 22’ wide at the gable. The west side of the ell has one
29

original 6/6 single-hung window on the first floor, a door in the north wall and a
replacement 1/1 double-hung window on the east side.
West elevation 2014
CONDITION ASSESSMENT
The west side of the ell has experienced significant failures and losses.
• The corner where the ell meets the main house has been significantly damaged by
water over time. Siding, sheathing, and the small awning window are gone.
• The 6/6 window in the ell took on and held water at some point, which caused the sill
to rot away completely, taking with it all the nogging, sheathing, and siding in and on
the wall beneath. Given the amount of water damage, and that the house is very
near grade along the west wall of the ell, the sill is likely compromised as well.
• Asbestos siding is missing, exposing asphalt shingle siding and sheathing beneath.
• Window sills are rotted from storm windows and years without maintenance.
• The stone foundation on the west side was at some point, perhaps when the west
addition was added, coated with concrete, which over time has trapped moisture and
in places damaged the foundation through freeze-thaw cycles.
30

IMMEDIATE EXTERIOR RECOMMENDATIONS
• Remove all biological growth from exterior.
• Reconstruct, repoint chimneys as needed.
• Remove flaking roof material and rust; repair as needed (where ell meets main house)
and coat with elastomeric acrylic.
• Regrade around the building and install curtain drains daylighting to low area to the
northwest of the house.
• Remove cement from foundation on north and west; repair as needed.
• Remove lower courses of siding and sheathing to inspect sills; scarf in repairs/replace
sills as needed.
• Remove aluminum storms and repair, restore, reglaze old sashes. Remove
replacement 1/1 units, repair and restore old jambs, sills, and trim.
• Repair bulkhead door areas and enclose.
31

DESCRIPTION +
CONDITION ASSESSMENT
INTERIOR
The Pitcher farmhouse consists of three levels: the cellar, the main floor, and the
garret. The house originally had two rooms on the main floor, separated by a central
jambless fireplace, a garret above, and a cellar below under the east half. The house as
originally built was a nine-bent structure, 38’ along the eave by 25’ deep. It was
framed in the Dutch style typical of the area.
“The hallmark of Dutch American framing logic is its simplicity.” 1
Dutch structures consist of a series of H-
shaped “bents that are lined up, one
behind the next (figure 1). Massive beams
connect each pair of posts with a pegged
mortise-and-tenon joint, to form a bent.
Bents are closely spaced, typically 3-1/2’
and 5-1/2’ apart. Each bent is mortised
into sill and top plates that run the length
of the eaves. Rafter pairs are generally set
above each bent. The typical joint
between the rafter and collar beam is a
half dovetail. The size of the house is
determined by the number of bents. For
example, a five bent house would be
between 14’ and 22’ long and as wide as
the anchor beam. The Dutch tended to
live compactly, often in a one-room
structure with a garret for storage and
figure 1- the eight-bent, center-chimney Winne
House 1751 (Timothy J. Gallagher 2005,
Metropolitan Museum of Art)
1 Clifford W. Zink, p. 273, “Dutch Framed Houses in New York and New Jersey,”
Winterthur Portfolio, Vol. 22, No. 4
32

some sleeping, accessible by a ladder or by an
enclosed set of stairs to keep the heat in the living
space. The defining feature of a Dutch house is the
jambless fireplace (figure 2). The large open hearth
supported by either an arch or a cradle braced
against a lintel or corbel stone projecting from the
foundation wall, and a chimney beginning on the
second floor, supported by short trimmer beams,
to extend through the roof. What is now the ell off
the north side was a separate five-bent structure,
with a jambless fireplace at the north gable end,
and a garret above. This structure, likely a summer
kitchen, was situated approximately eight feet to
the north of the main house and offset about eight
feet to the east.
The interior spaces reflect, with the exception of
the insertion of a bathroom into the front hall, a
reconfiguration and renovation that likely
occurred in the last quarter of the 18th century.
figure 2- jambless fireplace (Dutch Barn
Preservation Society, Newsletter Spring 1998,
Vol. 11, Issue 2)
There were three campaigns of alterations to this structure, each likely corresponding
to a population increase, to a death in the family, and a change of ownership.
This change of configuration from center chimney to center hall was a common update
to mid-18th-century houses in the area. The first and most structurally significant
renovation involved removal of the center chimney, shifting the third anchor bent,
removing the fourth anchor bent completely, creating a center hall, adding two bents
to the east gable end of the house, which increased the total length to 46’ and
brought the gable end in line with the east wall of the summer kitchen, constructing
English-style fireplaces at the east and west ends, applying Federal-style windows and
moldings, and attaching the free-standing five-bent summer kitchen building to the
north side. These alterations reflect stylistic changes that were appropriate between
2
1770 and the early 1800s. The renovation also reflected changes in the life of William
2
Nancy Kelly, Dutchess County Historical Society 2005-2006 Yearbook , Vol. 85, p.76
33

Pitcher. When he received title to the farm, house and 275 acres from his father Peter
in 1768, William was already living in this house with his wife Magdalena Donsbach, five
children, and probably two slaves. Six years later, William Pitcher had married a second
time and had produced five more children with his brother Adam’s widow, Anna Maria
Richter. The confluence of the death of his father, becoming the owner of a substantial
farm, and the increased population of his household, likely spurred the first campaign of
improvements to the homestead. Often, as in the case of the Christian Moore house
approximately one mile away to the northwest, and in the Heermance house one mile
to the northeast, the later 18th-century renovation involved adding four or five bents
and an end chimney to an existing five-bent structure that already had a chimney at
one gable end.
The door hardware upstairs—HL hinges and the ghosts of HL hinges, and Norfolk
latches—suggests that rooms were first partitioned in the late 18th or early 19th
century. William Pitcher died in 1800, leaving the house to his son John W. Pitcher.
The population of the household grew from nine people in 1790 to thirteen people in
1820. The combination of these factors, along with changing attitudes toward privacy
and access, would have contributed to this second campaign.
The last significant stylistic change to the house occurred around 1860, when Andrew
Pitcher inherited the property upon the death of his father, John W. Pitcher. Plain
beaded door trim and baseboard on the main floor in rooms 106 and 107 reflect the
taste of that time.
34

THE CELLAR: Description and Condition
N
B4
LINTEL
B3
B2
B1
patched opening
sill rotted
Cellar- plan view 2004 (Darlene S. Riemer Architect P.C. )
B1 B2 B3
Section view, from rear/north 2004 (Darlene S. RIemer Architect P.C. )
35

CELLAR SPACE B1
Beneath the eastern end of the main house, the east room (105) and the center hall
(103/104), Room B1 is 26’ east-west by 25’ north-south and 6’ 6” from the floor to
the bottom of the beams.
Floor: The cellar appears to have a dirt floor, but it is unclear if this is due to
infiltration.
Walls: The foundation is bluestone rubble, which appears to have been laid up with
mortar. It has been repointed and there is remnant lime parging indicating that the
space was functional. The foundation was expanded 8’ to the east to accommodate
the enlarged circa 1775 footprint of the house. It appears that the bulkhead entrance
was relocated at that time, allowing access from the east side rather than from the
south.
At the west end of B1, 3’ from the floor surface, the lintel stone for support of the
hearth projects out 5”. This stone is 8’ long and centered on the wall (photo B1-1). In
the northwest corner are stairs leading up to an exterior door (hidden behind asbestos
siding) on the north side, and to a door beneath the stairs, which would have opened
into the center hall (now Room 104).
Rubble walls support the English-style fireplace above at the east end. This enclosed
area has rough plank shelves.
Ceiling: The ceiling is made of the original floorboards from the rooms above. The
massive beams that span the cellar north-south are 10”x14” by 25’ long and appear to
be chestnut. Trimmer beams, 10”x14” by approximately 4’ long span the first two
beams at the east and west ends.
Systems: An oil-fired furnace was installed in B1. It appears to be at least 40 years
old and is vented through the chimney. There is also a retro-fitted 55-gallon drum for
burning wood attached to the duct system. Sheet metal ducts deliver hot air through
floor vents downstairs. Crude openings in the foundation on the west and north side
allow vents to pass heat to the rest of the main floor. There is a panel box to the left
of the lintel stone on the west wall. Also visible in the basement is the plumbing for
the only bathroom in the house (104), including the main waste line that exits the
building on the north side. None of these systems are functional at this time.
36

Condition: B1 has moisture issues. Water is able to infiltrate through several large
openings in the envelope. Most notably, there is a lack of appropriate covering over
the bulkhead opening, and the area under the front entrance where the sill rotted away
completely due to having had a concrete pad poured against it sometime in the 20th
century (photo B1-2). The loss of this section of sill caused one of the main support
beams spanning the cellar to drop about two feet, taking the trimmer beams with it.
This beam has since been jacked back up and stabilized.
Lack of gutters and the fact that the house sits at grade or slightly below on the south
side are contributing to this moisture problem.
The foundation is bowing in considerably where the original bulkhead entry was located.
The vertical lines of the patch are quite clear where the opening was.
37

photo B1-1- bulge in foundation at orignial
bulkhead
photo B1-2- top view of lintel stone projecting out from west wall of basement
38

photo B1-3- fallen beam due to water
and concrete slab
photo B1-4- furnace and ducts
39

CELLAR SPACE B2
Due to the position of ductwork, it is not possible to get more than a peek into the
crawlspace that is B2 and verify that it is, in fact, a crawlspace and support beams,
similar to those visible in B1.
CELLAR SPACE B3
At the west end of the main house, beneath the circa 1900 addition is cellar space B3.
The cellar is accessed through a bulkhead on the north side of the addition.
Foundation: The foundation is poured concrete, 16’ east-west, 14’ north- south and 7’
deep with a slab floor.
NOTE: At this time it is not possible to get into B3 for further inspection. This
situation will be resolved with a bit of effort and a machete.
CELLAR SPACE B4
Due to the position of ductwork, it is not possible to get even a peek into the
crawlspace that is B4.
B3-1 access to B3
40

IMMEDIATE CELLAR RECOMMENDATIONS
• Remove ALL systems and related ducting, wiring, pipes, etc…
• Support all framing for examination and stabilization.
• Rebuild and repoint foundation as needed.
41

THE FIRST FLOOR: DESCRIPTION
107
106
104
101 102
105
103
Main level plan view 2004 (Darlene S. Riemer Architect P.C. )
The main block of the William Pitcher house is a one-room deep rectangle, 46’ along
the eaves and 25’ deep, with a small one-room, one-story addition at the west end and
a story and a half ell off the north side. As it stands now there is a central entry
chamber 10’ wide and 14’ deep. A doorway through the left wall of the entry leads to
the west parlor (102), which is 17’ wide. At the far west end of the west parlor is the
circa 1900 addition that appears to have housed a modern kitchen. A doorway
through the right wall of the entry hall leads to the east parlor (105), which is also 17’
wide. At the back of the entry hall are two doors: the left hides a stair that rises and
turns to the left; the right leads to a pass-through full bathroom, beyond which is a
narrow hall that runs along the west side of the ell. The hall gives access to 106,
which is also accessed through the east parlor (105), and opens onto the dry kitchen
(107).
42

ROOM 101, WEST ADDITION
Description: Room 101 is a one-story addition 16’ wide by 14’ deep. Based on the
poured foundation, novelty-style siding and interior finishes of wainscot paneling, it was
built around 1900. Except for the insertion of the bathroom into the center hall, this
was the last major change to the Pitcher house.
A modern, metal-clad door gives entry to this room from the outside on the south side
of the house. In the northwest corner is a pantry closet, with a trapdoor cut into the
original sub-floor, which leads to the B3 Cellar Space. The flooring in the rest of the
room is linoleum tiles on top of at least one layer of plywood, on top of the original
pine flooring. Walls are a combination of wallboard and 1960s chipboard paneling over
plaster on lath on all but the north wall and on the outside of the pantry closet, which
are plaster on lath. There is a simple chair rail on the north wall and on the outside of
the pantry with vertically installed bead-board paneling beneath, which appears to be
original. Door trim is flat 1”x6” pine. The windows are 6/6 double-hung sashes which
appear to be from the date of construction. There is one window on each of the south,
west, and north walls. The windows have rounded sills that match the chair rail, and are
trimmed with flat 1”x4” pine. The east wall has a doorway into the west parlor (102)
and a half-wall with a pass-through “window” taking up most of the wall. This opening
was likely created in the 1980s after a fire in the chimney that stood against this wall.
Systems: Room 101 has an antique enamel covered gas stove on the north wall and
feed and drain lines for a sink, which have been cut off at the floor on the east wall.
Electric service in this room consists of one 110-volt outlet on the north wall where BX
wiring has been snaked through the wall; one 220-volt outlet on the west wall for a
stove or dryer; and a florescent light fixture recessed into the wainscot-paneled ceiling.
Finishes: The bead-board ceiling is coated with a thick calcimine-type product. The top
layer of finish on the walls is a latex paint. The surface layer of paint on the door and
window trim contains lead. (APPENDIX VII: Finish Analysis)
43

101-1 looking west from room 102 doorway
44

ROOM 102, WEST PARLOR
Description: Room 102 is 17’ wide and 24’ deep.
The flooring material is plywood, laid over 2”x3”
sleepers, on top of the original flooring. The
north and south walls are plaster on top of riven
lath, nailed to the posts of the anchor posts.
Wall infill is the local version of wattle and daub,
which consists of splits of wood, approximately
3” in diameter and 4’ long, which are tapered at
the ends and fitted horizontally into v-grooves
cut into the sides of the posts of each anchor
bent. (figure 3 and figure 4) The splits serve as a
matrix to hold an infill of mud and straw. At the
west end, next to the doorway and pass-through
window opening to 101, a patched area of the
floor approximately 8’ wide by 3’ deep is
evidence of there having been a hearth stone in
the floor, for a fireplace that was removed in the
1980s. The east wall divides room 102 from the
entry hall (103). The doorway between the two
is centered. To the left of the door, the wall is
covered with horizontally laid planks 12” wide.
To the right of the door, the wall is plaster over
wattle and daub. A portion of the south wall,
between and beneath the windows, is clad in
drywall, as is the west wall. This was likely done
when the replacement windows were installed,
after the west end fireplace and chimney were
removed. The anchor beams are partially clad in
painted “1-by” pine. Macro and microscopic
analysis has determined that they are poplar, as
can also be seen in the Palatine Farmstead of
Franz Nehr and the Mathias Progue house in
Rhinebeck, both of which date to the mid-18th
century. The anchor beams, which
figure 3- split lath infill matrix with
mud and straw removed
figure 4- detail of grooved post
45

were 10” wide by 14” deep, have had the bottom 6” cut off, sometime in the 19 th
century, as was the fashion, to give more headroom. Nail holes and lime burns show
that the ceiling was, at that point, plastered over (photo 102-2). The ceiling space
between the anchor beams is filled with patches of plywood, T-111 paneling, and
acoustical tiles. There are two windows on the south wall and one on the west wall. All
three are 1/1 replacement windows installed in existing openings. Older sills are visible,
but otherwise there is no casing. Casing on the doorway between 102 and 101 is flat
1”x4”. Casing on the doorway between 102 and 103 is a typically Federal-style
architrave, about 5” wide with a 3/4 round-bead and a back band (photo 102b). This
reflects the major renovation that took place in the second half of the 18th century.
Systems: There are outlets run through conduit along the baseboard and two registers
in the floor for hot air.
Finishes: The surface coating on the walls and flat pine trim is latex paint. The top
layer of finish on the door trim between 102 and 103 is a lead paint. (APPENDIX VII:
Finish Analysis)
46

102-1 view from southwest corner; stones
stacked against north wall behind
woodstove, small closet, doorway into
entry hall (103), half-clad anchor beams
102-2 south wall between windows, brick
infill of alterations, arrow to tenon of cut
portion of anchor beam
47

ROOM 103, ENTRY HALL/STAIR and ROOM 104, BATHROOM
Description: The configuration of the center hall is due to the installation of a
bathroom sometime in the second half of the 20th century. Originally, this space
would have been the west end of the east room. The jambless fireplace was positioned
on the west wall, where the doorway to 102 is now. A ghost of the crown of the
jambless fireplace smoke hood is visible on a post within the stair area (photo 203-1). In
the renovation circa 1775, the anchor beam (IV) to the east of the central chimney
was cut out, as were the trimmer beams on either side of the chimney. The ends of
these are visible where they were cut off in their mortises (photo 203-2) Lighter framing
members were installed in the ceiling between anchor beams III and V. Flooring above
was installed running north-south, in contrast to the rest of the house. At this time, a
staircase was added at the rear of the hall, on the west wall, where previously there
had likely been a ladder or very steep enclosed stair to the garret. This staircase would
have risen toward the north side to a landing and then turned to the east, based on the
what can be observed in the flooring above, and in other local examples such as the
Palatine Farmstead. To allow for the installation of the bathroom, the stairs above the
landing were turned to the west and three feet from the northern end of anchor bent V
was cut out to make room for the steps. In order to create the center hall, anchor
bent III was shifted approximately 2’ to the east. The center hall is 10’ wide and,
before the insertion of the bathroom, was 24’ deep. On the south wall is the main
entry, a door more than 3’ wide and approximately 86” tall, hung with strap hinges as
evidenced by the top pintel, which remains in place, and flanked by 6/6 single-hung
sidelights (photo 203-4) The bottom pintel, still visible, is below the level of the flooring.
The west and east walls each have a doorway into 102 and 105 respectively. As it is
now, the entry hall is 10’ wide and 14’ deep. The flooring is 1”x10” pine laid on top of
“2-by” sleepers, linoleum, at least one layer of plywood, and finally the original flooring.
The walls, south, east and west are plaster over riven lath.
Entering through the main door, which is metal-clad, colonial-style, straight ahead are
two flat-panel hollow-core doors that swing into the entry room. The door on the left
opens to the stairs (photo 203-6). The door on the right opens onto the bathroom. This
wall is vertically-installed, 20th-century, 1/4” thick bead-board strips, except for the
area over the door that opens to the stairs. This area is drywall suggesting that the
stairs were enclosed before the bathroom was created.
48

The ceiling of the front hall is the flooring of the floor above, planks approximately 12”
wide, laid down on top of the 6”x6” framing. Casing around the entrance door and
doorways into 102 and 105 are 5” wide Federal architrave with a back band. The stair
door has flat 1”x4” trim, and the bathroom door trim is missing. The baseboard is
mostly buried behind layers of flooring material and is covered by painted wallpaper.
The bathroom inserted into the hallway is a pass-through into the side hall of the ell
(photo 203-7). Immediately upon entering, there is a small vanity cabinet with sink on
the right and next to that, the toilet. On the left wall is a fiberglass tub surround with
2”x4” walls built around it, almost to the ceiling. The flooring is linoleum over plywood.
Because it is at the same level as the entry hall, there is likely a similar stratigraphy.
The walls and ceiling are drywall. There is no casing on the entry hall door or on the
hollow core door that leads to the side hall of the ell. The most interesting feature of
room 104 is the door to the basement, under the stair. It is a clinch-nailed, chamferedbatten
door, with a primitive wrought handle and a box lock made of wood, also held in
place with hand-wrought nails (photo 204-1). Based on the angle cut across the top
batten, which faces out into the room, and the modern brass-coated hinges, this door
was not originally hung this way. It appears to have been turned around and hung on
the face of the plank wall to accommodate the raised floor. On the other side of this
door, on the landing of the basement stairs, is a door to the outside, which has been
covered over with siding on the exterior.
Systems: Room 104 has water and drain lines, an overhead light fixture with a pull
chain, and a heat register in the floor.
Finishes: The ceiling, walls, hollow-core doors, and new pine trim are coated with latex
paint. The door to the basement has a lime-based finish. (APPENDIX VII: Finish Analysis)
49

103-1 empty mortise for trimmer beam
above post with jambless hood ghost
103-2 west wall; arrow to cut off end of south trimmer beam
50

14”
105-3 Federal architrave and full height of anchor beam
105-4 view from south looking north into 106
51

103-3 entry door and sidelights
103-4 sidelight detail
52

103-5 astrigal detail
103-6 north wall of entry; stair door door open
53

103-7 north wall of entry; bathroom doors
open to side hall of ell
104-1 bathroom door to basement (B1)
54

ROOM 105, EAST PARLOR
Description: The east parlor is 16’ wide by 24’ deep, with an English-style fireplace
(photo 105-1) at the east end. Before the circa 1775 renovation and the partitioning of
the center hall, the east room of the Pitcher house was approximately 19’ wide and 24’
deep. The addition of 8’ to the east end of the house at that time lined up the gable
end with the five-bent summer kitchen allowing for attachment. Evidence of this 8’
extension is visible on the south wall of 105. Where the rest of the main block of the
house has the split wood matrix with mud and straw infill between the anchor posts,
this two-bent add-on and the entire east gable wall has an infill of unfired brick nogging
with lime-less clay mortar. (APPENDIX V: Masonry Analysis) Also, the original southeast
corner post, anchor post I, has an empty mortise pocket that would have held the knee
brace and a vertical groove that would have held the split wood infill matrix of the
gable end wall. (photo 105-2)
Flooring material in 105 consists of 1”x10” pine atop “2-by” sleepers, linoleum,
plywood, and the original floorboards. Walls are plaster. The ceiling and anchor beams,
which were cut down like the beams in 102 to allow for more headroom, are clad in
beadboard. There are two 1/1 replacement windows on the south wall and one on
either side of the chimney breast on the east wall. Window casing is flat 1”x4”. The
doorway casing into the center hall has the 5” wide Federal architrave (photo 105-3),
while the doorway trim on the north wall into 106 is approximately 4” wide with a 3/8”
bead (photo 105-4). The baseboard in 105 is inconsistent. The west wall is mostly
buried in flooring material; the area in front of the fireplace has 1”x4”; the rest of the
east wall has 5/4”x 6”or 8” with a 3/8” bead on top. The chimney breast was opened
up to allow for the installation of a cinderblock flue to vent the furnace in the
basement. After this intervention, the whole fireplace structure was framed up with
2”x4”s and covered with particle board.
Systems: Heat is delivered through floor registers. There are two overhead light
fixtures with pull chains and outlets along the baseboard with exposed bare Romex.
Finishes: Walls are covered with wallpaper that has been painted over. The woodwork
has accumulated between four and ten layers of paints and varnishes. (APPENDIX VII:
Finish Analysis)
55

105-1 English-style fireplace at east gable end
105-2 anchor post I, south wall, arrow to
empty knee brace mortise; unfired brick
nogging and lime-less mortar
56

ROOM 106, SOUTH ROOM OF ELL
Room 106 is 16’ wide and 12’ deep. There is a 1/1 replacement window on the east
side with 1”x4” casing; a doorway on the north wall with 4” wide casing with a 3/8”
bead, leads to the north room of the ell; a doorway on the west wall also with 4” wide
casing with a 3/8” bead leads to the west side hallway of the ell. Room 106, which is a
5” step down from 105 clearly shows the means of connection between the original
main house and the separate five-bent structure. The flooring is random-width, wide
pine running east-west for the first 8’ from 105 with a discernible hump in the floor.
This signifies the location of the sill of the summer kitchen structure. Beyond that
point, the floorboards are laid north-south. The walls are a combination of plaster and
plywood. The ceiling is 4” wide, 3/8” thick, fir tongue-and-groove with a single bead.
Where ceiling boards have been removed, the framing above is visible. The joists
running north-south connecting the south gable end of the summer kitchen structure
to the north wall of the main house are rough-hewn red oak on the north half, and
finished poplar on the south side. The poplar joists have a delicate ogee detail on the
bottom edges. This profile also appears five miles north as a facia detail at the Ten
Broeck family home, The Bouwerie, in a section that was constructed in 1762.
A sideboard type of cabinet, approximately 6’ long and 40” tall and 20” deep, is built in
against the north wall of 106, to the right of the doorway into 107 (photo 106-1).
There is a doorway in the north wall of 106, offset slightly to the west, which leads
into 107. The casing on this doorway is 1”x4” flat stock with a 3/8” bead. There is
also a doorway in the west wall, similarly clad, which leads into the side hall (photo
106-2).
Systems: There are two ungrounded outlets and a thermostat mounted approximately
48” off the floor on the east and south walls; an overhead light with a pull chain; and
two floor registers.
Finishes: The walls and hollow-core doors are covered with latex paint. The ceiling,
door trim, and sideboard top finishes contain lead. (APPENDIX VII: Finish Analysis)
Interpretation: Due to the presence of the sideboard in 106 and proximity to 107 that
was, for most of the life of the structure a dry kitchen, it seems that 106 may have
served as a dining room. Without any furnishings, and given the condition of the
house, it is hard to know how the spaces were used. Knowing that the Pitchers always
57

had at least one domestic servant until the census of 1870, the side hall between the
kitchen and the front hall makes sense. In 1880 Andrew Pitcher was living in the house
with his son William (27) and daughter Sarah (32), both of whom married within the
next two years. WIlliam married Laura Lasher and moved to Tivoli to live with her
parents. Sarah married Henry Elting whose parents lived next door in a house built on
the site of Andrew’s brother Abraham’s house, which had burned down in 1875.
Perhaps the west addition (101) was constructed to be a second kitchen in order that
the large house could be divided into a two-family dwelling.
58

106-1 floor board direction change; sideboard; doorway into 107
106-2 ceiling covering; doorway into side hall
59

ROOM 107, NORTH ROOM OF ELL
Description: Room 107 is 12’ deep and spans the interior width of the ell at 20’. This
room was originally a separate building, likely a summer kitchen or perhaps an entire
small house, possibly moved from somewhere else. The latter option seems less likely
since the Pitchers went to a great deal of trouble to align the two buildings before
joining them together. If 107 could have been moved easily, arguably it would have
been.
Based on visible framing, 107 is 4/5ths of a
five-bent building that originally had a jambless
fireplace at the north end. At approximately
20’ wide by 16’, this building would have looked
like the summer kitchen at the Mabee Farm in
Rotterdam, New York. (figure 107a)
The posts of the bents are infilled with the
same matrix of split lath with mud and straw, as
in the original block of the main house. The
exception to this is to the left of the window on
the east wall, which is a 1/1 replacement with
no trim, where a post was added about 4”
inches from the anchor post, and the space
between was filled with stacked bricks (photo
107-1).
figure 107a- Mabee Farm summer
kitchen
On the north wall there is a one-light, metal-clad door with flat 1”x4” casing. The west
wall has an old 6/6 single-hung window, which, based on the muntin profile, dates to
the circa 1775 renovation (photo 107-2). The casing around this window is 4” wide with
a bead stop and a back band. The infill beneath this window is the split wood matrix,
but instead of a groove in the posts, the splits are held in place between vertical strips
of wood, affixed to the posts with small wrought nails. Perhaps this was an early
doorway, or a new opening was created for this 6/6. Paint sampling shows 18 layers
of finish on this window trim (see Paint Analysis).
Flooring in 107 is 1/4” masonite over random-width wide pine. The baseboards in 107,
as in 106, are 1”x6” with a 3/8” bead. The walls are plaster directly over mud and
straw, no lath. The ceiling is the same fir material as in 106. In the northwest corner
60

of 107 there is a closet 90” wide by 37” deep. This closet, a mid-19th-century
addition based on visible cut lath and 1”x4” trim with a radius bead on each doorway
inside and out, has two doorways and is plastered outside and clad with plywood inside
(photo 107-3). The left door was access to a very steep staircase as evidenced by the
angle at which the right door trim is cut inside the closet (photo 107-4). A charred
trimmer for the jambless fireplace is visible. The door on the right probably served as
access to a pantry cupboard. In the middle of the north wall, a brick chimney with a
stove pipe thimble is cantilevered approximately 3’ down from the ceiling. Visible lath
in the support for this chimney appears to be the same era cut lath as that which is in
the stair closet. Both 106 and 107 appear to have had their last major alterations in
the middle of the 19th century. The trim details are appropriate for that time period
and, if that is the case, it is also possible that the doorway between 105 and 106 was
cut through at that time.
Systems: Floor registers. Ungrounded outlets on the south wall and an overhead
fixture with a pull chain.
Finishes: The bead-board ceiling of 107 is coated with an oil-based paint that contains
lead. The walls are covered with multiple layers of wallpaper. The wood work—
baseboards, window and door trim, and stair closet—has a top coat of paint that
contains lead. (APPENDIX VII: Finish Analysis)
61

107-1 east half of 107; north door; visible anchor posts; arrow to brick nogging
62

107-2 view south from 107, through
side hall and bathroom to front entry;
6/6 single-hung window
107-3 northwest closet/stair; chimney with stove thimble
63

THE SECOND FLOOR: DESCRIPTION
Upper level plan view 2004 (Darlene S. Riemer Architect P.C. )
64

ROOM 201, WEST BEDROOM
Description: Room 201 is at the west end of the upper level. It measures 24’ along
the gable end by 12’ along the eave. Entry is from the hallway. There are two 1/1
replacement windows in the gable end, which flanked the chimney that has been
removed. Knee-walls are approximately 3’ high.
The flooring is random-width wide pine, lightly nailed, mostly at the ends, with handwrought
nails. There are visible marks from a water-driven, sash-style reciprocating
saw. The floor boards appear to date to the original construction, due to their width,
irregularity, saw marks, and type and pattern of nailing (photo 201-1).
The north and south knee-walls are drywall over a thick lime coating applied directly to
mud and straw infill between the anchor posts. The plaster and the posts have a thick
coating of a limewash or casein-based paint (APPENDIX V: Masonry Analysis). The east
wall covering, north of the hall doorway, is horizontal planks that appear to be 1”x8”
tongue-and-groove. The east wall covering, south of the hall doorway is T-111
paneling, installed vertically. There is a decorative, scalloped valance nailed to the
collar tie that is the top of this wall.
The hand-hewn collar ties are exposed and wallboard is applied between them. The
sloping sides are wallboard over tongue-and-groove 1”x8” (photo 201-2).
The door into the hall is a 6’ tall clinch-nailed, chamfered-batten door. The beveled
battens are on the hall side of the door.
There is no baseboard. There is no casing on the windows. The door is trimmed in flat
stock which sits flush with the horizontal planks.
Hardware: The hinges are modern, but there are ghosts of earlier HL hinges. The
thumb latch is a decorative Norfolk latch that appears to be original to the door, as
there is no evidence of an earlier latch (photo 201-3a, 201-3b).
Systems: There is a ceiling fixture with a pull chain. The wire runs out of the south wall
and is draped to the fixture. There are no outlets. Heat arrives through a hole cut in
the floor with a decorative register grate over it.
Finishes: The drywall and other woodwork are top coated with latex paint. There is no
suggestion that there was ever a finish on the flooring. (APPENDIX VII: Finish Analysis)
65

201-1 saw marks in flooring
201-2 collar beams, anchor posts…
66

Evolution: Room 201 shows evidence of having been divided into two rooms of equal
size. A paint ghost on the floor shows the absence of a wall that ran from the middle
of the gable end wall to the middle of the hallway wall. There appears to have been no
door between these two rooms. The room on the north was accessed through the
existing doorway. The room on the south was accessed through what is now 202.
This south doorway is hidden behind the T-111 paneling (photo 201-4).
201-3a, 201-3b door with HL ghosts, Norfolk-style latch detail
67

201-4 view from northwest corner; dotted line marks former doorway to 202 (dormer room)
68

ROOM 202, DORMER ROOM
Description: Room 202 is situated over the entry hall. The room is 10’ deep and 13’
6” along the eave. A dormer is centered on the south side.
The floor of the eastern two-thirds of 202 is planks of approximately 12” wide, laid
north-south. The western 4’ of 202 has plywood as flooring. This 1/2” plywood, along
with a platform framed with 2”x6” stock, compensates for the drop of 6”.
The walls are covered with particle board or masonite. The east and west walls have
machine-cut lath beneath the masonite, affixed to dimensioned studs. The north wall
has no lath, but the studding, which is more primitive, shows lime burns implying that
there was lath at an earlier point, or that the material was reused from elsewhere
(photo 202-1).
The western 4’ of the south wall has mud and straw with stick matrix as infill covered
with thick coats of limewash or casein-based paint, as in Room 201. The rest of the
south wall is open and the changes that were necessary to create the center hall are
visible (photo 202-2).
All of the ceiling surfaces and the cheeks of the dormer are clad in 1”x10” planks with
a small bead. Beneath the planking on the flat section there is plaster and lath. The
dormer has a band molding at the roof line on a 1”x12” with a 3/8”- 7/16” bead at
the bottom (photo 202-3).
The dormer has a pair of 6/6 sashes, the profile of which matches that of the
sidelights in the entry hall and the window in 107.
The door to the hall is not extant. The door casing is a variation on the delicate Federal
trim of the main floor, but it is a bit coarser. The band molding is not quite as refined
and the bead at the inside edge is a 3/8”- 7/16” simple bead rather than the 5/16”
bead rounded over. There are two doorways that were covered over with wallboard.
One is in the north end of the west wall and leads to the south room that was half of
102, and the other is in the north end of the east wall, and leads into the east room,
1-4. Both of these doorways are cased with flat 1”x4”.
69

Hardware: The only hardware in 202 is the top pintel that was driven into the trim on
the left-hand side of the doorway to 203 (photo 202-4). There is a slightly rectangular
hole where the bottom pintel had been.
Systems: There is a electric box hung on the hall doorway. A piece of Romex runs from
the south wall and spans the room droopily. A second length of Romex runs up from
the south wall and pokes out the dormer window, through the gap above the sash, for
an outside light.
Finishes: The surface coat of paint on the ceiling paneling and woodwork in 202 is an
oil-based paint that contains lead. The drywall is coated with a latex-based paint. On
the south wall, where the framing is exposed, the top plate, anchor posts, and
plastered infill are covered with a whitewash containing lime. (APPENDIX VII: Finish
Analysis)
Evolution: Reconfiguration of the building to create the front hall required the removal
of anchor bent IV, numbered from east to west. The split lath infill was removed in this
area and the siding was turned over and repurposed as flat sheathing. Paint lines are
visible to support this assertion (photo 202-2). A lighter piece of hewn framing, which
appears to be tapered like an English-style gunstock post, was inserted in place of
anchor post IV as a siding nailer. There are three pieces of true 2”x4” beneath the top
plate, which have lime burns showing that they once supported lath and plaster.
Perhaps the south wall had lath, but it seems equally plausible that the knee wall was
planked. This wall was opened up again and dimensioned 2”x4”s were inserted
vertically among the true 2”x4”s, fiberglass batts were stapled up, and drywall was
nailed on.
70

202-1 view of northwest corner, dotted lines mark former doorway to 201
202-2 south wall; infill partially removed for center hall project
71

202-3 dormer cheek; beaded plank paneling, back band on beaded board
202-4 pintel in door trim between 202/203
72

ROOM 203, UPSTAIRS HALL
Description: Room 203 is situated above the bathroom and incorporates the stairs.
This area is 13’6” deep and 13’ 6” along the eave. The stairs rise to a 30”x30”
landing at the north wall of the house. At that point they turn to the west and rise one
step to another landing approximately 30”x30”. Turning to the right, one rises one
more step to face south and proceed into the hall area. A person of average height
cannot navigate this course without hitting their head. A 3’ section at the north end of
anchor beam V on the west side of the stairs was cut out to allow for the landings.
The stairs and landings are partially carpeted. The floor is random-width wide pine.
The western 4’ of the hall area and Room 202 are 6” lower than the rest of the upper
level of the house. Floor boards run east-west in the previously described area,
perpendicular to the anchor bents. The flooring in the rest of 203 is not uniform. It is
all installed perpendicular to the framing that was put in to create the center hall, but
there is a large, patched area to the east of the existing stair throat. Two pallets stand
in place of a railing (photo 103-1).
The walls are random-width horizontal planks with a 3/16”-1/4” quirked bead. They
are butted together at intervals; the joints are not staggered. The planks are hand
planed (photo 203-2). The western 4’ of the south wall was built later based on the use
of round-headed, wire nails as fasteners. The door casing on the hall side of 201 is flat
1”x4”, flush with the wall planking. The door casing on the hall side of 202 is 1”x4”
with a 3/8” bead, flush with the wall planking. On the east wall, the door casings to
204 and into the garret of the ell are 1”x4” with a bead as well.
The flat and sloped areas of the ceiling are clad in the same beaded planking as the
walls. Beneath the planking on the flat section, there is plaster and lath.
There are no windows.
Systems: There is a box hanging from the ceiling for a fixture with exposed BX wire to
it.
Finishes: A portion of the ceiling of 203 is top coated with latex paint. The remainder
of the surfaces are covered with oil-based paint. (APPENDIX VII: Finish Analysis)
Evolution: This area didn’t exist as proper living space before the circa 1775
reconfiguration. Prior to that time, the upstairs was likely just a garret for storage and
73

perhaps sleeping. It was accessed by a ladder or steep staircase on one side of the
central jambless fireplace, which was a common placement. The current awkward
placement of the stairs and the crude way that the anchor beam was cut to allow for
them, along with the patched flooring, imply that the staircase was previously laid out
with a turn to the east rather than west. There are square holes in the outboard side
of each step tread for spindles, verifying that the stairs are on the proper side of the
hallway. This alteration was made in the later mid-1900s to allow for the installation
of the bathroom in the main level hall. At the same time, the wall with hollow-core
doors was put up to separate the bathroom and the stairs from the entry hall, and the
stair wall was clad in 5/16” tongue-and-groove wainscot strips. There is a similarly
clad wall dividing the stairs from the east half of the stair area on the upper level.
74

203-1 upstairs hall, looking east; pallet railing; middle left door to passage into garret
(Room 206); view into Room 204
203-2 west wall; plank wall and ceiling
75

ROOM 204, EAST BEDROOM
Description: Room 204 is at the east end of the house. Access is from the hallway.
The room is 18’ wide at the gable and 17’ along the eave. The knee-wall on the south
side is approximately 3’ high. The north wall is a full height partition wall. There are
two windows in the gable end. One window is on either side of the fireplace. The
chimney is 5’ wide and protrudes 2’ into the room. On the left side is a small fireplace,
2’ high, 30” wide, and 1’ deep. The sides and back are sharply angled, rising to a small
flue. The brick to the right of the fireplace was opened to allow for the installation of a
cinderblock flue for the furnace. The chimney was, at one time, covered with plaster,
then later framed out with modern, kiln-dried 2”x4”s and clad in drywall (photo 204-1).
The flooring is random-width pine, ranging from 6”-13”. This is the only floor in the
house that is painted.
The walls are covered with drywall. On the west wall, to the north of the doorway to
the hall (203), the drywall is hung over plaster; south of the doorway drywall is hung
on sleepers that horizontally span the wall, hiding a doorway to the dormer room (202)
and the rest of the wall, which is framed with true 2”x4”s and cut lath (photo 204-2).
The drywall on the south and east wall is undamaged. The north wall is drywall over
modern, kiln-dried 2”x4”s (photo 204-3).
The ceiling is a particle board material with 1/4”x 2” strips covering the joints, beneath
which plaster and lath are visible.
The north window at the east gable end is a single-hung 6/6. The muntin profile
matches that of the 6/6 in the dormer, the north window in 107, and the entry side
lights (photo 204-4). The south window sashes at the east gable end are missing. The
jamb, which matches the one to the north, is still in place. There is a nine-light sash
hung from the exterior trim, serving as a storm window.
The door to the hall is a clinch-nailed batten door, constructed of four beaded planks.
The door has been modified. The paint evidence suggests that at least 2” was cut off
the latch side (photo 204-5).
Hardware: The door swings south into the hallway on an HL and H hinge that are not
original. The ghosts of pancake hinges are visible on the batten side of the door, which
leads to the inside room of 204 (photo 204-6). There is not an operable thumb latch on
76

the door to 204. There is a broken Norfolk latch; only a portion of the back plate and
the handle remain. The size of this door, along with the paint ghosts of strap hinges,
suggests that it may have been the original door to 202 at the time of the circa 1775
campaign of renovation.
Systems: There is a ceramic light fixture with a pull chain on the ceiling. There is a hole
in the floor to the south of the chimney with a grate to allow heat to rise from below.
Finishes: The ceiling and walls of 204 are coated with latex paint. The flat stock trim is
coated with latex as well. The jamb of the south window on the east gable end which,
based on it being single hung and having the muntin profile, dates to the later 18th
century (along with the 103 sidelights and the 107 west window). It has traces of a
grainy bright green pigment. (APPENDIX VII: Finish Analysis)
Evolution: Room 204 is the most finished of the upper level rooms. The relatively
recent partitioning of the storage area 205, painted floor, drywall cladding, baseboard
molding, closed ceiling, and the fact that it is the only room upstairs with a fireplace,
make it by far the most comfortable seeming room in the house. (Note: 201 may have
also had a fireplace before the chimney was removed in the 1980s.) Given that at
some point in the 19th century, there were two doors into 204, one from the hallway
and one from the dormer room, it is likely that 204, like 201, was divided into two
rooms.
77

204-1 looking east
204-2 looking west into hallway (203) through right doorway; into dormer
room (202) through drywall covering doorway on the left
78

204-3 looking east; north wall partitions off a storage area (205) accessed
through the garret.
204-4 window to the north of the chimney
breast
79

204-5 door to 204; ghosts of pancake hinges; battens cut back and latch
edge ripped
80

ROOM 205, STORAGE AREA
Description: Room 205 is tucked into the eave at the north side of 204, and accessed
through a door just inside the “foyer” to the garret (206).
The floor in 205 is random-width pine.
The gable end wall is clad in 1”x8” planking. The inside of the partition wall is unclad.
The knee-wall is plaster over the matrix of horizontal riven sticks, mud, and straw,
except for the eastern two bays, which are infilled with unfired brick nogging.
The ceiling is clad in 1”x8” planking as well.
Windows: None
The door to 205 is a two-plank, clinch-nailed batten door, which is original to this
location. The top of the door is cut to match the roof-line. (photo 205-1)
Hardware: The door is hung with HL hinges.
Systems: None
Finishes: All of the layers of finish on the door to 105 are chalky and react with
vinegar. (APPENDIX VII: Finish Analysis)
Evolution: Room 205 is separated from 204 by a wall of modern kiln-dried 2”x4”s,
which are not covered on the 205 side. The west end of this dividing wall, however, is
framed with light riven and hewn posts, suggesting that the bulk of this wall is a 20thcentury
addition, dating to the improvements to 204, which included closing off the
door to the dormer room, covering the plaster ceiling with particle board, hanging
drywall and installing baseboard trim. The western 3’ of this wall, however, was put up
earlier in order to create a passage from the garret above the ell, into the upper level
hall of the main house. (photo 205-2 & photo 205-3)
81

photo 205-1 view of outside of 205 door, seen from upper hall area (202)
photo 205-2 view into passage way from
upper hall area (203) into the garret (206)
82

photo 205-3- view from north end of garret; red arrow points to passage to upper level hall
(203); knee brace at original northeast corner of main house
83

ROOM 206, GARRET
Description: Room 206, the garret of the north ell, is 21’ wide across the gable end
and 26’ deep. Room 206 is an unfinished space, except for Room 207 which is
partitioned off in the northeast corner (photo 206-1). Current access is through the
passageway described previously.
The flooring in 206 (and 207) is random-width pine. The widest board is 25” across.
The flooring is fastened lightly with hand-wrought nails.
The south end of 207 is the exterior of the main house: beneath the top plate are
various infill materials, covered with thick layers of whitewash or limewash (photo 206-2).
The other walls have no cladding or infill.
There is no ceiling, as such. The roof structure is exposed. The rafters of 206 are
slightly tapered to a pegged lap or bridle joint at the peak. The rafters are either
pegged or nailed to the top plate (photo 206-3), there is no bird’s mouth. The collar ties
are lapped and pegged (photo 206-4). Live edge slabs serve as purlins, to which wood
shingles are nailed.
Window: At the north gable end, there is a window opening on either side of the
chimney. The sashes have been replaced with a single piece of plexiglass.
The door from 203 into the passageway to 206 is like the other doors in the upper
level of the house. It is a clinch-nailed, beaded plank, chamfered-batten door (photo
206-5, 206-6).
Hardware: The door to 206 has HL hinges, clinch-nailed in place, which appear to be
the only hinges that have ever been on this door. There is an intact Norfolk thumb
latch that matches the broken one on 204 (photo 206-7, 206-8).
Systems: None
Finishes: (APPENDIX VII: Finish Analysis)
Evolution: The northern five bents of 206 comprised a separate structure as evidenced
by the change in rafter material after Bent V; nail holes corresponding to siding at what
was the south gable end; knee braces at the four corners of the original building (photo
206-9); and the change in flooring direction from north-south to east-west at the point
84

where the ell is attached to the main house with short lengths of assorted light framing
material (photo 206-10). When this small structure stood alone, the garret was accessed
via a steep staircase, or a ladder, on the west side of the jambless fireplace. The
throat of this opening is now covered over with plywood (photo 206-11).
Room 206 provides a clear view of the evolution of the house in total. The two bents
that were added to the east end of the house are visible, as is the fact that bent III was
shifted east from its original position to allow for the width of the center hallway (photo
206-2).
85

206-1 view from southwest corner, room 207 and roof structure; dotted line at south
gable end rafter of original five-bent structure, note the different collar ties
I
I
II
II
III
III
206-2 looking south; marriage marks in red; arrow to main attic access
86

206-3 nails holding rafter of main house to top plate
206-4 collar tie joint
87

206-5 door to garret, standing open
206-6 batten detail
206-7 latch on door between 203 and 206 206-8 latch on 204 with broken plate
88

206-9 knee brace at southwest corner of
original five-bent building
206-10 looking south; change in flooring direction
89

206-11 covered stair throat, northwest corner
90

ROOM 207, SERVANTS’ ROOM
Description: Room 207 is the northeast corner of 206, divided from the rest of the
garret by walls that appear to be the first rips off of trees sent to a sawmill, arranged
vertically. The outside of the room, the live side of these off-cuts, is whitewashed
(photo 207-1). The room is 11’ 6” wide, slightly more than half the width of the garret,
and 13’ deep.
The flooring is a continuation of the flooring in 206.
The walls are clad with riven lath nailed to the vertical boards, plaster, and then a 1/4”
thick cardboard-type material that has a two-layer, dense cellulose core. The
outermost layer is a printed wallpaper (photo 207-2).
The ceiling is the same combination of treatments as the walls.
Window: A window at the gable end, to the east of the chimney, is the same as
described in 206 (photo 207-3).
There is not an extant door.
Hardware: The doorway, which is at the southwest corner of 207, shows paint ghosts
from either H or HL hinges on the exterior (photo 207-4).
Systems: None
Evolution: The census recorded no names beyond the head of household prior to 1850,
so it is hard to know exactly whose room was up in the garret above the summer
kitchen. Based on those records, William Pitcher owned two slaves in 1790. His son
John W. Pitcher owned two slaves in 1800 and 1810. The 1820 census lists two
slaves, a boy under 14 and a man of over 45. In 1820, there were also two
“foreigners” in the Pitcher household. After the abolition of slavery in 1827, the
Pitchers consistently had servants and other hired labor. In 1840, there was a “free
colored male 10-24” living in the house who could conceivably have been one of the
3
slaves in 1820; there was also a “free colored female 24-36” in residence. These two
may have been living in the house in 1830, but the census data for that year were not
specific as to race.
3
1840 United States Census
91

207-1 outside of 207 wall, vertical log splits with riven lath visible
207-2 view from inside 207, toward upstairs hall (203)
92

207-3 north wall; boxed chimney; wallpaper, pressed cellulose board, whitewashed planks
207-4 looking north at 207; arrows to H or HL
ghosts
93

ATTIC: MAIN HOUSE
The attic of the main house is accessed by climbing up the main house roof sheathing
in the garret of the ell (206) and climbing through a small opening (photo attic-1). The
sheathing boards visible from the garret are tightly spaced and do not have nail holes,
which would have been present if this area was ever covered with shingles. The roof
structure appears to be consistent throughout the main section of the house, implying
that it was put on AFTER the addition to the east end, and at the same time that the
ell was attached. The rafters, as in the garret, are slightly tapered to a bridle or lap
joint (photo attic-2). The collar ties are attached to the rafters with lapped half-dovetail
joints (photo attic-3). The ends of the rafters are nailed to the top plates. The western
end of the attic, above Room 201, has planks laid over the collar ties, perhaps to allow
for more storage early on. The rest of the attic, above the center hall area, the dormer
room, and Room 204 has lath attached to the bottom of the collar ties and plaster
keys visible beneath.
94

attic-1 access
attic-2 bridle or lap joint at peak
95

attic-3 lapped half-dovetail joint on collar tie
96

INTERIOR CONDITION ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The current condition of the Pitcher farmhouse is such that a conventional room-byroom
condition assessment is not possible at this time. In order to get to that point, it
is recommended that all 20th-century materials, systems, and adaptations be removed
from the house.
That the house remains standing is a testament to the original builders. The roof and
rafters are in good condition. There are no obvious leaks or water damage. The top
plates and posts where visible are also undamaged. The main section of the house is
relatively square and stable, the exception being the front hall area. The failure of the
central joist, due to the concrete slab outside, caused the floor to sag significantly and
cracks to open up in the plaster walls on either side of the entry hall. The post at the
northeast corner of the ell has been replaced with a temporary pressure-treated 6”x6”,
and there is reason to believe that the sill is no longer extant. Removal of all electric
wires, ceiling cladding, drywall, and layers of material atop the original flooring will allow
for proper inspection of the conditions of the building.
97

GREEN RENOVATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PITCHER FARMSTEAD
The Pitcher Farmstead presents a unique opportunity as a model for sustainable
preservation/rehabilitation to balance retaining historic fabric with “green” technology
and efficiency.
Due to the structure’s 20th-century identity as an auxiliary building, it has been passed
over for modern interventions. It is nearly all historic fabric. From this position it is
possible to look at how best to carefully insert some modern systems, strategies, and
materials while respectfully leaving those that have worked for more than 250 years.
The property, along with the Heermance Farmstead is one of the earliest established
farmsteads in northern Dutchess County. For more than 250 years, the agricultural
identity of this property has been maintained; the land is still providing food crops for
New York City as it did in the 18 th century. The house may be the oldest surviving
example of Dutch-style timber framing in the Town of Red Hook. Alterations to the
house in the second half of the 18 th century are consistent with local patterns
reflecting an influx of German immigrants after 1712 and the improvement of fortunes
that extremely good soil allowed them.
Property Description
Pitcher Lane is a quiet road that runs east-west through a valley that has supported
subsistence farms and woodlots, fruit farms, dairy farms, and now has fields of rye,
corn and alfalfa; orchards of apples; acres of blueberries; asparagus and other
vegetables for sale at farmers’ markets up and down the valley. There are only a
dozen houses on the road; most are clustered at the east end where Pitcher Lane
meets Route 9, a two-lane truck route. The southern 1/3 of the Pitcher Farmstead
property is open field; behind the barn complex and running the width of the property
is a marshy area with a seasonal stream; and the north half of the property is divided
between open field and woods.
Outbuildings
The remaining outbuildings of the farmstead include a horse shed, corncrib, and barn
complex, constructed on the foundation of a much earlier structure, the core of which
is a 19th-century English-style hay barn. Attached to the east side is a concrete silo;
to the north a 20th-century two-story structure with calf pens and a basketball hoop;
98

to the west, and one level down, a concrete-floored milking parlor; and on the south
side, an attached wing for storage and also lockers for farm workers.
Building Description
The building is a south facing, one-and-a-half story, five-fenestration bay, eleven-bent,
Dutch-style, framed wooden structure with a side gable roof. It is 45’ across the front
and 25’ deep. The house has a 16’x16’ one-story, side gable addition off the west
end, and a perpendicular ell, 22’ wide and 27’ deep that extends north at the east end.
The main house sits on a foundation of dry-laid bluestone. The siding is cementitious
asbestos shingle in fair to poor condition. Where it is compromised, there is asphalt
shingle siding visible beneath. The sheathing material is vertically sawn 1”x12” that
bears paint lines and nail holes suggesting it had an earlier use installed as clapboard.
The roof is standing seam metal.
Condition Assessment
The Pitcher house has been unoccupied since 2000 and received little attention in the
century prior to that due its use as a seasonal worker or tenant farmer dwelling after
about 1885. The condition of the building is fair. The roof does not leak though the
chimneys are in need significant repair, having been compromised by biological growth,
human intervention, and the sacrificial nature of lime-based mortars. The siding can be
patched and reattached as needed, but the sills, particularly in the northeast corner of
the ell and on the south side, are likely in need of total replacement. The foundation
appears to be in largely good condition under the main house, with the exception of a
bulging area in the south wall of the cellar that appears to be infill of an earlier
doorway. Due to the position of the house, directly at grade, it is not possible at this
time to assess the condition of the foundation sections B2 and B4.
The interior condition appears far worse than it is. The structure is solid, but the
finishes are damaged. The plaster walls downstairs, made of a fragile blend of clay,
slaked lime, and animal hair (likely ox), have suffered at the hands of vandals. The
walls are mostly filled with nogging, split lath that serves as a matrix for clay mixed
with chopped straw. In some places, notably the last 8’ of the east gable end of the
main house, and the first 8’ where the ell attaches on the north side, the infill is of
poorly fired brick and lime-less clay mortar. Walls upstairs in the main section of the
house are finished with a combination of wallboard, horizontally applied hand-planed
99

tongue-and-groove planks with a quirked bead, and a lime coating applied directly over
plaster. These walls are infilled as below, except for Room 103, directly over the front
hall. This room has no infill at all along 2/3 of the south wall due to the reconfiguration
of the house circa 1775, when the center hall was created where none had been
before.
Existing Systems
The existing systems are primitive. There is an oil-fired, hot-air furnace attached to
ductwork that serves the downstairs only. A modified 55-gallon oil drum is also
attached to the ductwork for burning wood as an auxiliary heat source. The furnace
and oil tank in the cellar appear to be at least 50 years old.
Most rooms have only an overhead light fixture with a pull chain switch. The wiring is
BX and some Romex; in the west addition and the ell, some wiring is in the walls. In the
rest of the house the wiring is exposed; either run through conduit, stapled to the face
of trim, or loose wires snaked across rooms. Plumbing is limited to two areas: the
16’x16’ west gable end addition and the full bathroom that was created in what had
been the north end of the center hall.
Previous Renovation/Preservation Strategies
The only changes to the building made in the last quarter of the 20th century,
nominally made in the interest of efficiency or at least efficacy, are that the exterior
doors were replaced with metal clad units, and the windows, except for the front
sidelights and five sets of single-hung 6/6 sashes, were replaced with 1/1 double-hung
units and triple-track aluminum storms.
Preservation efforts since 2004 include painting of the roof with fibered aluminum roof
coating; installation of padlocks and “No Trespassing” signs; and the jacking and
stabilization of a 25’ long 10”x14” floor joist in the cellar beneath the center hall,
which had dropped two feet after the sill rotted away due to a concrete stoop being
poured directly against it.
100

Original Green Design Strategies
In the mid-18th century, the builders of the William Pitcher farmhouse employed design
logic and strategies based on their experience with the climate and the availability of
resources in the area.
• Passive Solar
The house faces south, oriented to the property lines rather than square to the road,
with the bulk of the glazing on that facade, in order to maximize solar gain. There are
only three windows on the north side, two narrow casements to light the garret of the
ell, and a later small 6/6 in the addition on the west end. It would seem too that the
placement of the barns in relation to the house was likely intentional to provide a
buffer against the north wind.
• Use of Local Materials
The primary framing members are 25’ lengths of poplar approximately 10”x14”, which
was abundant in the area in the 18th century. The wall infill and de facto insulation of
the walls—clay, straw and riven sticks—would have been harvested nearby. The soil on
the banks above the Hudson River, especially at Tivoli, is rich in clay deposits, making it
likely that the bricks in the walls and chimneys were locally made. By about 1730
there were sawmills on both the Sawkill Creek, less than a mile to the south of the
Pitcher farm, and the White Clay Kill at Hoffman’s Mills, about 3.5 miles to the
northeast. Either mill could have been the source for the slab sheathing on the roof,
the siding planks, and the flooring, which ranges from 14” to 25” wide.
Iron nails and hardware might have been wrought by blacksmith Ryer Schermerhorn,
who had purchased land from Barent Van Benthuysen in 1741 and operated half a mile
to the east of the Pitcher farm.
• Low/No-VOC Materials and Finishes
The mortars and plasters in the house are clay and lime-based. Wall finishes upstairs
are lime-based with a protein binder, likely casein. Wall finishes downstairs are a
thinner whitewash with wallpaper on top. Doors, windows, and other woodwork are
predominantly linseed oil-based. The original floorboards are unfinished.
Recommendations
★Site Work: Excavation and Landscaping
101

The grade is currently too high around the house to allow for adequate drainage;
footing drains should be installed around the perimeter of the building along with a
catchment system for use in irrigation.
Deciduous trees should be planted on the south side for summer shading, and a screen
of evergreens on the north side of the house to provide wind buffering in the winter.
★Building Envelope
The Pitcher Farmhouse has performed well for a long time, with very little attention.
Modifications to the structure should be undertaken sensitively and with respect for
the craftsmanship of the original builder.
• The hand-crimped, standing seam roof is made of heavy gauge metal and is in
good condition. It should be coated with a light colored elastomeric epoxy, which will
add years to the viability of the roof itself and also reduce the cooling load.
• The cementitious asbestos siding should be carefully removed, along with the
asphalt shingles beneath and the sheathing as needed, in order to access the sills for
structural repairs. The sheathing will need to be inspected and patched.
• Felt paper should be stapled to the sheathing as a water-resistive barrier. Locally
sourced softwood like hemlock, treated with a borate solution and then coated on all
surfaces with an oil-based primer before installation would be an appropriate siding
material.
• The chimneys need to be repointed and/or reconstructed using a mortar that
approximates the historic recipe originally used, but with the addition of white
Portland cement for strength.
• Existing sashes should be rehabilitated and returned to service with appropriate
sealing and weather striping.
The insulation strategy for the building needs to be handled creatively in order
to get the maximum R-value while taking into consideration different issues,
structural and aesthetic, of each part of the house with regard to original material
and desired finishes. Since the attic above the main house will never be living space,
dry cellulose blown in (at R-3.2 per inch) as deep as possible would provide the
greatest benefit for the most reasonable cost. The garret of the north ell is open and
has a high ceiling in contrast to the rest of the upstairs. In order to retain this feeling
of spaciousness, polyisocyanurate sheets should be installed between the rafters
(minimum 4” at R-6.8 per inch), applying wire lath and plaster over the insulation and
leaving the face of the rafter proud of the surface. The garret knee walls are also
102

completely uninsulated, and due to the wide spacing between bents and irregular
framing where the two sections are joined, I think that polyisocyanurate covered with
lath and plaster is the best option for those areas as well. In places where the infill is
not compromised, it should be left as it is, spot insulating with Roxsul or another preor
post-consumer recycled insulation, and then patching the existing plaster. The
cellar ceiling ought to be fitted with polyisocyanurate as an insulator and a vapor
barrier between the dirt-floored cellar and the living space above.
★Systems
The Pitcher Farmstead could be renovated to operate without any fossil fuel
consumption.
•A solar array could be installed behind the barn complex; the land back there is
seasonally marsh and thus not desirable for crops or livestock. The electricity needs
of the property could be met entirely by solar.
•For heating and cooling, a high-velocity small duct system coupled with a ground
source heat pump with a vertical closed loop set-up would disturb the structure very
little. The air handler would be housed in either the cellar or the attic.
•The addition of a desuperheater, or secondary heat exchanger, to the ground source
heat pump system, to harness heat produced by the heat pump but not used to heat
the house, can provide hot water. This strategy requires some electricity, which
would be provided by the solar array, in the winter but is completely efficient in the
warmer months.
★Other Green Strategies
Simple strategies should be installed for continued efficiency: energy efficient
appliances, low-flow plumbing fixtures, CFC or LED lighting, programmable lighting and
temperature controls, the continued use of low or no-VOC finishes.
Use Scenarios
At 3600 sq. feet, the Pitcher farmhouse is 1000 sq. feet larger than the average
American home built in 2013. Evolving over two centuries, the building made sense in
relation to the needs of its inhabitants, both spacial and social. Census records show
that at any given time there were 3-14 people living in the house; it was always a
multi-generational, working household. Leaving the existing floor plan, the house could
103

e used as a single family dwelling. Without altering the floor plan significantly, it could
also be converted for use as a main house with an auxiliary duplex apartment.
Conclusion
The challenge in renovating the Pitcher Farmstead is to make it an efficient structure
without compromising its historic integrity. Due to the advantages of the site and the
raw state that the building is in, the Pitcher house can be improved upon exponentially
and renovated to sustain itself without any loss of character.
As expectations change about what we need to be comfortable, how we want to live
and work, and how desperately we need to protect the environment, the conversation
between preservation and sustainability needs to progress. Ultimately, vernacular
buildings will not be preserved unless they can be operated as efficiently (taking into
account embodied energy, reparability, quality of materials) as new construction.
Ideally, this house could be used in the future as a model for respectful and sustainable
preservation.
104

WILLIAM PITCHER FARMSTEAD
RED HOOK, NEW YORK
Deed Chronology and Maps
Emily M. Majer
University of Massachusetts
2015

DEED HISTORY AND MAPS
CHRONOLOGY
1688 Pieter Schuyler
1717 Barent Staats
Lot Six- 3,000 acres
1725 Barent, Pieter, Jacob & Abraham Van Benthuysen and Andries Heermanse
Lot Six- 3,000 acres
1746 Pieter Pitsier(sic)
Small Lot 7 of Lot Six- 550 acres
1768 William Bitcher(sic)
South half of his father’s farm- 275 acres
1800 William Pitcher dies at age 75
John W. and Philip Pitcher inherit all of their father’s farm
1806 John W. and Philip Pitcher divide the farm
John W. and Catherine Pitcher acquire more property; parts of original Peter
Pitcher farm and land south of Pitcher Lane
1859 John W. Pitcher dies at age 83
Andrew K. and Abraham Pitcher purchase their father’s property from their
siblings and divide it between them. Andrew K. has the east parcel, including
the house.
1874 Abraham Pitcher dies at age 67
1875 Abraham Pitcher’s farmhouse burns down.
Abraham’s heirs sell his farm (131 acres) to Francis and Margaret Elting of Cairo,
Greene County, New York
1881 Andrew K. Pitcher sells his farm (80 acres) to Henry S. Elting, son of Francis and
Margaret
1882 Andrew’s daughter, Sarah Jansen Pitcher, marries Henry S. Elting
1885 Death of Andrew K. Pitcher, the last Pitcher to live in the house

1905 Henry S. Elting inherits the farm of Abraham Pitcher upon the death of his
mother
1927 Florence Elting and her husband, Ezra Cookingham, inherit the farm upon the
death of her father, Henry (approximately 210 acres)
1942 Florence and Ezra Cookingham sell the entire property to Victory Farms, Inc.
date unknown- acquired by Hans Umland
1950 Hans Umland to Eleanor Bonn (possibly a relative)
1955 Eleanor Bonn to Robert G. Greig (210 acres)
1956 Robert G. Greig to Jesse and Helen Salisbury
1956 Jesse and Helen Salisbury to T. Roosevelt Allen, a Westchester real estate
broker and builder (Larchmont)
1959 T. Roosvelt Allen to Hunter Holding, a banker (Larchmont)
1972 Hunter Holding to Frank A. Migliorelli and Salvatore James Leone (Pelham)
2000 Frank A. Migliorelli and Salvatore James Leone to Doriedale Farm, LLC

MAP 1
Lower Hudson Valley Patents from Old Dutchess Forever! Dr. Henry Noble MacCracken,
Hastings House, New York, NY, 1956 (endpaper)

MAP 2
Dutchess County Wards Map from Old Dutchess Forever! Dr. Henry Noble MacCracken,
Hastings House, New York, NY, 1956 (endpaper)

MAP 3
Peter Schuyler’s Patent after 1718

MAP 4
1740 Cadwallader Colden Germantown Map showing parcels owned by Peter and Adam
Pitcher, sons of Johannes Hermann Betzer (courtesy of the Germantown History
Department)

MAP 5
Division of Lot 2 & Lot 6- April 1, 1747 attached to deed of Barent Van Benthuysen, his sons
and nephew, Andries Heermanse (Note: Piet. Pitsier (sic) had purchased small Lot 7 March
17, 1746/7, and his brother Adam purchased 2/3 of small Lot 8)

MAP 6
1746
Detail of 1746 division of Van Benthuysen/Heermance large Lot 6 Heermance and Peter
Pitcher house on the road to Hoffman’s Landing

MAP 7
1768 Second Generation division of Lot 7 Peter Pitcher to sons Adam, 30, and William, 43.

1800 Third Generation division of south half of Lot 7 William Pitcher
to sons John W. , 24 and Phillip, 26
MAP 8

1798 Alexander Thompson map detail red arrow to William Pitcher’s house
(courtesy of Historic Hudson Valley)
MAP 9

1799 Philip Reichert Map showing Hoffman-Van Vredenburgh- Pitcher property
relationship
MAP 10

1815 Red Hook road map by John Cox, based on Thompson’s 1797 survey
MAP 11

MAP 12
1850 Town of Red Hook arrow to John W. Pitcher, son Abraham to the southwest, nephew
William W. Pitcher to the east having inherited Philip Pitcher’s house

1867 Town of Red Hook detail arrow to Andrew K. Pitcher, brother Abraham to the
southwest; fourth generation
MAP 13

MAP 14
1938 US Geological Survey arrow to Pitcher homestead, owned by Florence Elting, greatgreat-granddaughter
of William Pitcher and her husband, Ezra Cookingham

2014 Parcel Access Map with 1746 overlay
MAP 15

MAP 16
Map re-drawn by Frank J. Teal, Surveyor
(1867-1949) John W. Pitcher’s portion of
his father’s farm, divided between JWP
and brother, Philip in 1806: star and arrow
indicate Pitcher farmhouse
Parcel Access 2014
159 Pitcher Lane, Red Hook, New York

MAP 17
Survey of lands of John W. Pitcher- January 17, 1860 Division of “Homestead Farm
of John W. Pitcher”- east 52 acres to son, Abraham; west 48 acres to son, Andrew

1943 survey map for Robert G. Greig
red dot- John W. Pitcher Farm
yellow dot- Philip Pitcher Farm
green dot- approximate location of original Peter Pitcher house (1746)
MAP 18

GENERATION I GENERATION II GENERATION III GENERATION IV GENERATION V GENERATION VI GENERATION VII
Peter b.1750
Wilhelm b.1756
Margaretha b.1762
Heinrich b.1762 Helen C. b.1801
Catherina b.1764 Rev. John Henry b.1805 Laura b.1846
Elizabeth b. 1771 Abraham Pitcher (1807-1874)
m. Eliza Sanderson (1806-1899)
William Hoffman b.1847
Adelaide Harris Elting
(1882-1967) m. Harry Arnold
Anna Christina b.1693 Maria Catherina b.1720 Philip Pitcher (1774-1844) m.
Catherine Wilson
Rev. William (1810-1833) Anthony Hoffman b.1850 Lottie Hoffman b.1884
Johannes Herman Betzer
(1669- aft.1724) m.
Elsen Franz (1666-aft.
1714)
Peter Betzer (1697-1768)
m. Anna Catherina Philips
LOT #7
William Pitcher (1725-1800)
m.Magdalena Donsbach b.1728-
m.Anna Maria Richter b.1732
LOT #7 SOUTH HALF
John W. Pitcher (1776-1859) m.
Catherine Kipp (1775-1844)
Andrew Kittle Pitcher
(1812-1885) m.
MaryAnn Hoffman (1814-1876)
Sarah J. Pitcher
(1852-1922) m.
Henry Snyder Elting
(1855-1927)
Florence Margurite
Elting (1887-1955) m.
Ezra Burger
Cookingham
(1885-1966)
Anna Gertrude b.1700 Magdalena b.1727 Anna b. 1779 Hoffman b.1856
Adam Betzer (1702-1760)
m. Catryn Funck LOT #8
Gertraudt b.1729 Jacob b. 1781
Catherina b.1704 Christina b.1732
Elisabeth Catherina b.1706 Elizabeth b.1736
Johannes Theiss b.1708 Adam Pitcher (1738-1768)
m. Anna Maria Richter
LOT #7 NORTH HALF
PITCHER GENEALOGY

APPENDIX IV
Pitcher Farmstead
Red Hook, New York
Drawings
Emily M. Majer
University of Massachusetts
2015

N

south elevation original 9-bent
structure
east elevation
original 5-bent
structure
5-bent
gable end original 9-bent
structure
gable end original
5-bent structure

Pitcher Farmstead
Red Hook, New York
Masonry Analysis
Emily M. Majer
University of Massachusetts
2015

CONTENTS
Introduction
Methodology
Findings
Conclusions
Appendices
Sample Key
RILEM Test
Capillary Absorption Test
Mortar and Plaster Analysis
__________________________________________________________
INTRODUCTION
This report contains the results of brick, mortar, and plaster analysis conducted at the
Pitcher Farmstead, located in Red Hook, New York.
The purpose of this study is to: (1) compare the porosity and absorption rates of
bricks used in chimneys from those used as nogging, (2) determine the types of
mortar, the ratios of binder to aggregate, and the general characteristics—similarities
and differences—between mortars in the chimney and in the brick nogging of the wall
infill of Room 105, and (3) analyze plasters from different rooms of the house to try to
determine areas that were likely constructed or renovated contemporaneously.

METHODOLOGY
The testing project began with the removal of bricks, mortar and plaster samples on 14
November 2014. One brick sample was taken from each of the two chimneys (Room
105 and Room 207), one brick sample was taken from the each of the two areas that
had that material as wall nogging (Room 105 and Room 107); one chimney mortar
sample (Room 105) and one wall nogging mortar sample (Room 105); and twelve
plaster samples from various spots throughout the house.
RILEM Test 11. 4 One brick from near the top of the chimney at the north gable end
of Room 207 and one nogging brick from inside the east wall of Room 107 were
selected and removed. The RILEM tube was affixed to each brick in turn, sealed with
putty, and filled with water. At intervals up to one hour, data was collected reflecting
the absorption of water through capillary pathways in the brick.
Experiment 10: Penetration of Water One chimney brick from above the mantle in
Room 105 and one nogging brick from inside the wall in Room 105 were selected and
removed. Both bricks were placed on end in a pan of water and over the course of
three hours the rate of vertical absorption was recorded.
Mortar Analysis Samples of mortar were collected from the chimney of Room 105, and
from the between the wall nogging bricks of Room 105. The samples were tested
using the wet-chemical method: Each sample was crushed with a mortar and pestle and
digested in white vinegar and water. The samples were allowed to digest for 12 hours,
after which they were filtered using a funnel and paper filter. The fines and sand that
remained in the filter paper were dried on cookie sheets over the hot air vent in my
guest room for 24 hours. Samples were then sieved and weighed; proportions of
aggregate size were recorded and graphed.
Plaster Analysis Samples of plaster were collected from Rooms 102, 103, 105, 107,
201, 202, 203, 207. The samples were also tested using the wet-chemical method.

FINDINGS
The RILEM tests showed that poorly fired brick, of the kind commonly used in nonstructural
applications like nogging, absorbs more water. The nogging brick (107)
absorbed more than three times the water than the chimney brick (207) did.
Experiment 10: Penetration of Water confirmed the results of the RILEM tests, with the
quick deterioration of the nogging brick (105), as opposed to the relative stability of
the chimney brick (105). Given how poorly each of the nogging bricks performed when
exposed to water shows, however, that water has not been able to get into the walls
of Rooms 105 and 107. If the building envelope had been compromised, there would
have been significant damage and undeniable failure of the infill.
The Mortar Analysis showed that the chimney mortar (105) is a lime-based mortar with
a high percentage of very fine sand and silt, while the wall nogging mortar is clay-based
also, with a high-percentage of very fine sand and even more silt. This finding suggests
that lime would have been saved for use in structural applications.
The modified Mortar Analysis used for twelve plaster samples produced these findings:
1. The rooms downstairs (102, 103, 105 and to a lesser extent 107) all have a
brown coat of plaster that is similar in color, texture and hardness and contains
a large amount of red animal hair (ox?).
2. Rooms 105 and 107 have a gray coat of plaster on top of the brown, which is
radically different. The gray plasters have a much higher percentage of coarser
sand.
3. The rooms upstairs (201, 202, 203, 207) have plasters that are very similar in
color, texture, and hardness. All of the samples have a thick layer, or as many
as seven layers, of whitewash. The notable absence is the relatively bare
surface of 203 NE. The upstairs samples contain no animal hair, except for a
few stray fibers in the sample from 206.

CONCLUSION
Analysis of the collected samples show that plastering inside the Pitcher house
happened in three different events. The main floor brown coats are similar as regards
aggregate size distribution and hair content, suggesting that they were done
contemporaneously. The exception to this is Sample 107B from the east wall of room
107. This sample has the same aggregate distribution as the other main floor brown
coats, but has no hair. This supports the theory that the ell was a separate freestanding
structure. This similarity and dissimilarity in the recipe implies brown coats in
the ell and the main house were done at different times, likely before the two
structures were joined in about 1770.
Samples of gray coat from 105 and 107 have a much higher percentage of large
aggregate and very little silt, especially as compared to the main floor brown coat
samples.
The upstairs was a more utilitarian space and the plaster may have been applied later.
The coating upstairs contains about the same percentage of sand as downstairs, but
has a higher lime content, and no hair.

107
106
104
101 102
105
103

East Exterior: exposed
chimney back;
brick and mortar analysis,
RILEM test on brick (not done)
Basement: top view of jambless
fireplace support stone;
mortar analysis, RILEM test on
stone? (not done)
Photo 102: south wall, plaster on
riven lathe;
plaster analysis

Photo 105(a): south wall,
brick nogging; brick and
mortar analysis
Photo 105(b): east wall
fireplace; brick and mortar
analysis
Photo 202: south wall; plaster
analysis

Photo 203(a): top of stairs; plaster
analysis
Photo 205: east upstairs
fireplace; mortar and brick
analysis
Photo 206: south end of ell;
plaster analysis to see how it
compares to other plaster in the
building

Photo 207: garret room; mortar and
brick analysis and RILEM test on
brick of chimney

Experiment 10 Penetration of Water: Capillary Action
Introduction
On 14 November 2014, two sample bricks were collected from the William
Pitcher farmhouse for the purpose of performing Experiment 10 Penetration of
Water: Capillary Action from the Laboratory Manual for Architectural
Conservators. The purpose of this experiment was to compare the wicking
abilities of nogging brick, which is generally poorly-fired versus chimney brick,
which would be of higher quality.
Sample 1 is a piece of a nogging brick from inside the south wall of room 105.
It is approximately 6”x4”x 1.5” and irregularly formed. It is pale pink and lumpy
with small, smooth inclusions.

Experiment 10 Penetration of Water: Capillary Action
Sample 2 is a piece of a brick from the chimney on the east wall of room 105.
It is more smoothly formed. The piece is approximately 4.5”x2”x2”. It has a
pitted finish on one face and a wiped finish on the other. There are many voids
and folds visible on the broken edge. There are many inclusions of varying
sizes. Tiny, gray, angular pieces of stone; tiny fragments of brick; large (1cm)
rounded pebbles.
Observations
After two minutes in 1 cm of water, Sample 1 began to deteriorate, spalling and
calving like a glacier. Both samples initially absorbed water at the same rate,
but Sample 1 absorbed the water in an irregular pattern, some areas wicking
higher than others.
At three hours the bottom of Sample 1 had completely disintegrated. The
sample when wet is burgundy and brown and gray. The inside reveals some
small aggregate, but appears to be mostly clay.
Sample 2, after a small amount of deterioration early on in the testing,
remained stable. The sample is bright, classic brick red when wet. The outside
3/16” can be scraped away in a paste, but the inside is still firm at the end of
three hours.

Experiment 10 Penetration of Water: Capillary Action
Time Sample 1-
Wall Brick
105
Sample 2-
Chimney Brick
105
1 1.5 1.5
2 2 2
3 2.25 2
4 2.25 2.25
5 2.5 2.25
10 2.5 2.5
15 2.5 2.5
20 2.5 2.5
25 3 2.5
30 3 2.75
60 4 3
90 6 3
120 6 3
150 7 3.5
180 7 3.5

Experiment 10 Penetration of Water: Capillary Action
7.00
Penetration of Water by Capillary Action
Absorption (cm)
5.25
3.50
1.75
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 10 15 20 25 30 60 90 120 150 180
Time (minutes)
Sample 1-Wall Brick 105 Sample 2-Chimney Brick 105
Notes
Sample 1: 105 Wall Nogging Brick appears to have been poorly fired, if it was fired at
all. However, after more than 200 years, the nogging in this wall is in fine condition,
which means that there are no leaks or rising damp issues, in this area at least.
The absorption behavior of both samples is consistent with that of the chimney and
nogging brick used in the RILEM test, with the chimney bricks being better fired and
thus less absorptive.

MEASUREMENT OF WATER ABSORPTION UNDER LOW PRESSURE
RILEM TEST METHOD NO. 11.4
Introduction
RILEM (Reunion Internationale des Laboratoires D'Essais et de Recherches sur les Materiaux
et les Constructions), with headquarters in Paris, is the International Union of Testing and
Research Laboratories for Materials and Structures. As with our American Society for Testing
and Materials (ASTM), Technical Committees are formed within RILEM to develop standard
methods for measuring properties and evaluating the performance and durability of many
different building materials.
One such technical committee, Commission 25-PEM, has developed tests to measure the
deterioration of stone and to assess the effectiveness of treatment methods. The standard tests
drafted by Commission 25-PEM fall within several categories, including methods for
determining internal cohesion (111.), for measuring mechanical surface properties (IV.), and
for detecting the presence and movement of water (11.). Within category II., is Test Method
No. 11.4, designed to measure the quantity of water absorbed by the surface of a masonry
material over a definite period of time.
RILEM Test Method 11.4 provides a simple means for measuring the rate at which water
moves through porous materials such as masonry. The test can be performed at the site or in
the laboratory and can be used to measure vertical or horizontal water transport. Water
permeability measurements obtained in the laboratory can be used to characterize
unweathered, untreated masonry. Measurements made at the site (or on samples removed for
laboratory testing) can be used to assess the degree of weathering that the material has
undergone. Test Method 11.4 can also be used to determine the degree of protection afforded
by a water repellent treatment. A description of the equipment and procedure for conducting
this test is provided in paragraphs below. The theoretical basis on which the method is based
and the several applications of test data are discussed.
Theory
Because masonry building materials are porous, they are all somewhat permeable to water.
The interior structure of a masonry material is a system of fine interconnected pores. Wetting
by liquid water involves capillary conduction (suction) through this pore system, proceeding
along both vertical and horizontal pathways. Vertical transport occurs when water enters as
ground water at the base of a structure or as rain water through leaking gutters. Penetration of
driving rain into wall surfaces results in horizontal transport. (Under actual conditions, the
amount of rain penetration depends on prevailing wind conditions as well as on the
composition and condition of the exposed surface.)
When liquid water comes into contact with a masonry surface, wetting proceeds through the
material as a front. Accurate measurements of the advance of this wetting front made on a
variety of masonry building materials have demonstrated that the characteristic wetting rate
and pattern of each material are directly related to its capillary structure and port size
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
volume of water absorbed by a material within a specified time period.
Equipment
The equipment necessary for measuring water
absorption under low pressure is simple. The test
can be performed at the site or in the laboratory
with a test apparatus available in two forms. One
is designed for application to vertical surfaces
and measures horizontal transport of water, or,
its resistance to wind-driven rain penetration.*
A second form is designed for application to
horizontal surfaces and measures vertical
transport. Figure 1 illustrates the pipe-like
apparatus designed for vertical surfaces. Its flat,
circular brim (at the bottom end of the pipe) is
affixed to the masonry surface by interposing a
piece of putty. The open, upper end of the pipe
has an area of 0.554 cm2. The vertical tube is
graduated from 0 to 5 ml (cm3). The total height
of the column of water applied to the surface,
measured from the center point of the flat,
circular brim to the topmost gradation, is 12. cm.
The area of absorption on the substrate is 5.067
cm2.The apparatus designed for application to
horizontal surfaces, see Figure 2, is similar to the
one for vertical surfaces as described above.
*It should be noted that a standard method for
measuring water penetration and leakage
through masonry is described in ASTM E 514.
The ASTM test method is intended to evaluate
wall design and workmanship as well as the
degree of weathering and the performance of
water repellent treatment. It is therefore
necessary to conduct the procedure on a test wall
built with a minimum height or length of four
feet. The wall is exposed to water (3.4 gallons
per square feet per hour) in a test chamber for
four hours.
Procedure
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
material. To ensure adhesion, manual pressure is exerted on the cylinder. Water is then added
through the upper, open end of the pipe until the column reaches the 0 gradation mark. The
quantity of water absorbed by the material during a specified period of time is read directly
from the graduated tube. The periods of time appropriate for the test depend on the porosity of
the material on which the measurement is being made; generally 5, 10, 15, 20, 30 and 60
minute intervals provide the most useful data. In many cases, it may be important to measure
water absorption through the mortar joint as well as through the surface of the brick (or natural
stone) substrate.
Report
Results of the test measurements are presented in the form of a water absorption graph with
the volume of water absorbed in cubic centimeters reported as a function of time in minutes.
The masonry surface tested must be mentioned in the report.
Applications
Water has long been associated with deterioration processes affecting masonry materials. Its
presence within the interior pore structure of masonry can result in physical destruction if the
material undergoes wet/dry or freeze/thaw cycling. The latter is particularly damaging if the
masonry material has a high clay mineral content. Perhaps of greater importance is the fact
that the presence of moisture is a necessary precondition for most deterioration processes.
Pollutant gases are harmful when they are dissolved in water; fluorescence phenomena are
dependent on the migration of salts dissolved in water; moisture is a requirement for the
growth of biological organisms. Because of these factors, the water permeability of a masonry
material is related to its durability. Thus, results obtained using Test Method 11.4 can be used
to predict potential vulnerability of untreated, unweathered masonry materials to water-related
deterioration.
Test Method 11.4 also provides useful information when carried out on weathered masonry
surfaces. Water permeability of a material is affected when its surface is obscured by the
presence of atmospheric soiling or biological growth, or, when there are hygroscopic salts
within the interior. The formation of a weathering crust due to mineralogical changes
occurring on the exposed (weathered) surface may substantially affect water permeability
measurements. By comparing data obtained on masonry that has been exposed to the elements
with measurements made on unweathered samples, it is possible to measure the degree of
weathering that has occurred.
Finally, RILEM Test Method 11.4 can be used to evaluate the performance of a water
repellent treatment. An effective treatment should substantially reduce surficial permeability
of the masonry material to water. By so doing, the treatment will reduce the material's
vulnerability to water-related deterioration. A comparison of test results obtained on treated
masonry samples with those obtained on untreated samples provides information about the
degree of protection that can be provided by the water repellent treatment.
References

• Amoroso, G. and Fassina, V. Stone Decay and Conservation. Amsterdam: Elsevier
Science Publishers, 1983. (See especially Chapter 1, "Effects of Water and Soluble
Salts on Stone Decay".)
• Hochman, Harry. "Measuring Water Permeability of Masonry Walls" (Technical Note
N-1 179). National Civil Engineering Laboratory, August 1971.
• Sereda, P.J. and Feidman, R.H. "Wetting and Drying of Porous Materials" (Canadian
Building Digest 130). Ottawa: National Research Council of Canada, 1975.
• Sinner, Paulus; Winkler, Erhard; and Ibach, Matthias. "Permeability Measurements, an
Indication of the State of Weathering and Consolidation of Building Stone".
(Unpublished)
• Stambolov, T. and van Asperen de Boer, J.R.J. The Deterioration and Conservation of
Porous Building Materials and Monuments. Rome: ICCROM, 1976.
• Torraca, Giorgio. Porous Building Materials. Rome: ICCROM, 1981.
Compiled by Frances Gale, September, 1987.

RILEM TEST
INTRODUCTION
On 14 November 2014 two sample bricks were collected from the William Pitcher
farmhouse on Pitcher Lane in Red Hook, New York for the purpose of using the RILEM
Test Method 11.4 to determine the rate at which water moves through porous
materials.
fig. 1 sample 1 (Room 207 chimney brick)
fig. 2 sample 2 (Room 107 nogging brick)

Sample 1(fig.1) is a piece of chimney brick, collected from Room 207. It is
approximately 4”x4”x1.5”; medium to dark pink; with visible folds and large, white
inclusions. One face is pitted while the other has streaks as though it had been wiped
or screeded while wet.
Sample 2 (fig. 2) is a piece of nogging brick, collected from inside the east wall of Room
107. It is approximately 3”x3”x2”. It is medium to pale pink with some visible folds
and small voids. The sample appears to be relatively uniform in material and
consistency.
4
Time (min)
Water Absorption (cm3)
Chimney Brick
207
Nogging Brick
107
1 0.25 0.25
5 0.4 0.5
10 0.5 0.75
15 0.6 1.25
20 0.75 1.5
30 1 2
60 1.25 4
water absorption (cm3)
3
2
1
0
1 5 10 15 20 30 60
time (minutes)
Chimney Brick 207 Nogging Brick 107

NOTES
Both bricks may date to the original construction, circa 1750.
Both samples are irregular in shape, texture, appearance, and content.
Sample 1 appears to be more well-fired and to have inclusions of lime blebs.
OBSERVATIONS
Sample 2 absorbed more than three times as much water as Sample 1 over 60
minutes.
CONCLUSION
The dramatically higher rate of absorption in Sample 2 confirms anecdotal (and
documented) observations that poorly-fired, or “salmon” brick, is commonly used as
infill; where permeability is not a problem. The lower absorptive capacity of Sample 1
validates its use in the chimney, where both strength and resistance to moisture are
important.
Observable differences in the aggregate, lime content, and structure of the two
samples suggest that they were not made at the same time.

ARCHDES 597M Assignment #4 -Simple Mortar Analysis
Goals: To identify the proportions and characteristics of the three main components of historic
mortars; the binder, the fines and the aggregate. The binder, principally calcium carbonate
(CaCO₃), is dissolved in acid. The fines (clay and other fine particles) are separated while in
solution from the aggregate (typically sand). The procedure is designed mainly for historic lime
and sand mortars. To determine the proportions of cement in mortars, the calcimeter mortar
analysis should be followed; however this simple mortar analysis may provide some useful
information on the character of cement mortars.
Equipment and supplies: 400 ml beakers, 250 ml Erlenmeyer flasks, mortar and pestle,
funnels, filter paper (fast, med.), sieve set, 20% hydrochloric acid, 5% acetic acid, water,
analytical balance, sample dishes, stereomicroscope, wash bottle, safety eye wear.
Procedure:
1. Collect (3) samples (at least 10 grams.)
2. Examine the samples and record the characteristics: color, texture, hardness, inclusions,
etc.
3. Powder (2) samples for analysis w/ mortar & pestle. Save third for future reference.
4. Weigh each sample on a balance to .01g precision…..[our only go to .1 precision] Record
the weight on the data sheet.
5. Place each sample in a 250ml flask and dampen with water.
6. Add enough acid solution to cover sample. Avoid inhaling fumes. Observe and record
the reaction.
7. Add a drop of acid to determine if reaction is complete.
8. Label the filter papers to be used (one for aggregate…another for fines)with pencil with
your name and sample number
9. Weigh each filter paper and record on the data sheet.
10. Fold the papers into quarters in place in the funnels with a 400ml beaker below each.
11. Slowly add water to the sample flask.
12. Swirl to suspend fines
13. Slowly pour the liquid with the suspended fines into the filter paper, keeping the
aggregate in the flask.
14. Repeat 11 through 13 until the water runs clear.
15. After the water has completely drained, carefully remove the filter paper and dry it in the
oven.

16. Wash all the aggregate from the flask into the second set of filter papers.
17. After the water has completely drained, carefully remove the filter paper and dry it in the
oven.
18. Weigh the filter papers and with the dry fines. Record the weight.
19. Subtract the weight of the filter paper to determine the weight of the fines.
20. Weigh the filter papers and with the dry aggregate. Record the weight.
21. Subtract the weight of the filter paper to determine the weight of the aggregate.
22. Express the amount of fines and the amount of sand as percentages of the whole initial
sample weight. The amount of dissolved binder is determined by adding the weights of
the sand and the fines and subtracting from the total initial sample weight.
23. Examine the aggregate under stereomicroscope. Record the characteristics (color,
shape, size) of the particles and their relative distribution.
24. Sieve the aggregate in a standard sieve set. First weigh each sieve. Then add sample and
carefully shake. Reweigh each sieve. Then clean each sieve.
25. Express the weight of each particle size as a percentage of the whole.

Mortar Analysis
Sample # Sample 105a Chimney mortar
Sample Location
Room 105 east wall chimney
Name Emily Majer
Date Nov 22, 2014
Sieve With Sand Without Sand Sand Particle sizes % of total
4 0 0 >4.75mm 0% gravel
8 475.9 475.9 0

Mortar Analysis
Sample # Sample 105b Wall nogging
Sample Location
Room 105 south wall
Name Emily Majer
Date Nov 22, 2014
Sieve With Sand Without Sand Sand Particle sizes % of total
4 0 0 >4.75mm 0% gravel
8 0 0

Plaster Analysis
Sample # 102 S.
Sample Location
Name Emily Majer
Date Nov 22, 2014
Room 102 (west parlor) south wall
Sieve With Sand Without Sand Sand Particle sizes% of total
4 0 0 >4.75mm 0% gravel
8 0 0

Plaster Sample
Sample # 103 S
Sample Location
Name Emily Majer
Date Nov 22, 2014
Room 103 (hall) South wall
Sieve With Sand Without Sand Sand Particle sizes% of total
4 0 0 >4.75mm 0% gravel
8 0

Plaster Analysis
Sample # 105 S. Brown
Sample Location
Name Emily Majer
Date Nov 22, 2014
Room 105 (east parlor) south wall
Sieve With Sand Without Sand Sand Particle sizes% of total
4 0 0 0 >4.75mm 0% gravel
8 0 0 0

Plaster Analysis
Sample # 105 E
Sample Location
Name Emily Majer
Date Nov 22, 2014
Room 105 (east parlor) east wall, left of fireplace
Sieve With Sand Without Sand Sand Particle sizes% of total
4 0 0 >4.75mm 0% gravel
8 0 0

Plaster Analysis
Sample # 105 S Gray
Sample Location
Name Emily Majer
Date Nov 22, 2014
Room 105 (east parlor) south wall
Sieve With Sand Without Sand Sand Particle sizes% of total
4 0 0 0 >4.75mm 0% gravel
8 0 0 0

Plaster Analysis
Sample # 107 Brown
Sample Location
Name Emily Majer
Date Nov 22, 2014
Room 107 (ell kitchen) east wall
Sieve With Sand Without Sand Sand Particle sizes% of total
4 0 0 0 >4.75mm 0% gravel
8 0 0 0

Plaster Analysis
Sample # 107 Gray
Sample Location
Name Emily Majer
Date Nov 22, 2014
Room 107 (ell kitchen) east wall
Sieve With Sand Without Sand Sand Particle sizes% of total
4 0 0 0 >4.75mm 0% gravel
8 0 0 0

Plaster Analysis
Sample # 201 N
Sample Location
Name Emily Majer
Date Nov 22, 2014
Room 201 - west bedroom, north wall
Sieve With Sand Without Sand Sand Particle sizes% of total
4 0 0 >4.75mm 0% gravel
8 0 0

Plaster Analysis
Sample # 202
Sample Location
Name Emily Majer
Date Nov 22, 2014
Room 202 (dormer room) under window
Sieve With Sand Without Sand Sand Particle sizes% of total
4 0 0 >4.75mm 0% gravel
8 0 0

Plaster Analysis
Sample # 203 NE
Sample Location
Name Emily Majer
Date Nov 22, 2014
Room 203 (stair hall) north wall, east side
Sieve With Sand Without Sand Sand Particle sizes% of total
4 0 0 >4.75mm 0% gravel
8 0 0

Plaster Analysis
Sample # 203 NW
Sample Location
Name Emily Majer
Date Nov 22, 2014
Room 203- stairs
Sieve With Sand Without Sand Sand Particle sizes% of total
4 0 0 >4.75mm 0% gravel
8 0 0

Plaster Analysis
Sample # 206 S.
Sample Location
Name Emily Majer
Date Nov 22, 2014
Room 206 South Wall
Sieve With Sand Without Sand Sand Particle sizes % of total
4 0 0 >4.75mm 0% gravel
8 0 0

Pitcher Farmstead: Downstairs Plaster Aggregate Distribution
40
30
20
10
0
gravel very coarse coarse medium coarse medium fine fine very fine silt
102 S 103 S 105 E 105 S G 105 S B 107 E B 107 E G

Pitcher Farmstead: Downstairs Plaster Aggregate Distribution
gravel
very coarse
coarse
medium coarse
medium fine
fine
very fine
silt
102 S 103 S 105 E 105 S G 105 S B 107 E B 107 E G
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 14 7 4 3 2 2
18 20 18 30 16 15 31
26 22 21 37 32 27 17
26 29 20 22 40 27 18
17 8 24 5 4 15 30
7 8 10 2 5 14 2
dissolved binder
fines
aggregate
7 8 12 0 9 6 4
2 0 2 0 5 1 1
91 91 86 100 86 93 95
color
tan tan tan gray tan/pink tan gray
notes
hair hair hair no hair hair no hair, straw some hairs
crumbly crumbly crumbly hard crumbly firm dry stiff

Pitcher Farmstead
Red Hook, New York
Wood Analysis
Emily M. Majer
University of Massachusetts
2015

INTRODUCTION
Substrate samples were collected along with paint samples from the Pitcher Farmhouse
on 5 February 2015 and from the east sill of the ell on 23 April 2015.
Thin samples of wood substrate were dry-mounted on slides for radial and tangential
viewing. Samples were observed through a CE Premier Student Microscope and
photographed with an iPhone 5S, using a Carson universal smartphone optics adapter.
There are five types of wood in the Pitcher Farmhouse: poplar, white pine, red pine,
white oak, and chestnut.

POPLAR
The anchor beams are hewn POPLAR (samples 103/2 and 105/2). Poplar is a soft
hardwood, which varies in color from pale yellow to greenish brown. The color darkens
over time when exposed to light. Poplar is distinguishable under magnification by its
diffuse-porous distribution of small pores, clear growth rings, and opposite inter-vessel
pitting.
Poplar (tangential view 10x) intervessel pitting
Poplar (cross section 10x) diffuse-porous
distribution with line of marginal parenchyma

WHITE PINE
All of the sampled doors and trim, with the exception of sample 105/3, are made of
WHITE PINE. White pine has a fine texture and resin canals that are fairly numerous.
The transition between latewood and earlywood is gradual. Cross-field pitting is
window-like and rays are uniserate.
White Pine (tangential view 10x) elongated
tracheids with bordered pits
White PIne (radial view 10x) horizontal
heterocellular rays and resin canals

RED PINE
The anchor bent post sample (Stair 1) is RED PINE, as is the east wall baseboard in the
east parlor (sample 105/3). Perhaps that baseboard is a re-sawn piece of bent IV,
which was removed to create the center hall. Compared to White Pine, Red Pine has a
moderately uneven grain, fewer and smaller resin canals, and a more marked transition
between earlywood and latewood.
Red PIne (radial view 4x) distinct transition
Red Pine (cross section 4x) small resin canals

WHITE OAK
Of the beams that connect the main house to the ell, in the ceiling of 106, the eastern
four are poplar 4”x8” finished on all sides, with a thumbnail profile on the bottom
edges. The remainder of the connecting beams are hewn WHITE OAK. The sample is
ring-porous and has large resin canals with bubble-like tyloses. Rays are conspicuous.
White Oak in situ White Oak (cross section 4x)

CHESTNUT
The only sill sample collected was from the east sill of the ell. The sample is
CHESTNUT. Chestnut, like oak, is ring-porous with visible tyloses, but the pores are
more oval-shaped and arranged in a flame-like pattern. Chestnut also lacks the wide
multiserate rays that are present in oak.
Chestnut sample from east sill of ell Chestnut (cross-section 4x)

Pitcher Farmstead
Red Hook, New York
Paint and Finish Analysis
Emily M. Majer
University of Massachusetts
2015

PAINT FINISHES AND ANALYSIS
Introduction 1
Methodology 2
Floor Plans 3
Sample Sites 5
Findings and Analysis 9
Observations 10
Samples 15
Chromochronology 61

INTRODUCTION
The chromochronology and analysis of finishes on the interior of the Pitcher Farmhouse
on Pitcher Lane in Red Hook, New York was undertaken as part of a historic structure
report in fulfillment of the capstone project requirement for the University of
Massachusetts Master of Science in Historic Preservation program.
The Pitcher Farmstead (circa 1750) in Red Hook, New York is a 1-1/2 story, fivefenestration
bay, Dutch-framed wooden structure with a gable roof that runs parallel to
the main facade, a small one-story addition off the west gable end, and a 1-1/2 story
ell that extends from the north side at the east end. The house sits on a foundation of
dry-laid bluestone. Asbestos siding is compromised in places, revealing asphalt shingle
siding and, beneath that, flat, painted weather-board sheathing visible beneath. The
roof is standing seam metal. There is one chimney at the peak on the east gable end.
At the peak, on the west gable end, there is a patch where a chimney was removed.
The house has much in common with the Dutch/German hybrid of mid to late 18th
century vernacular architecture in this area of the Hudson Valley, but evidence of the
remains of two jambless fireplaces, and a steeper roof pitch; along with the Dutch
provenance of the property; points to the possibility that the Pitcher house may be
one of the oldest-wood framed structures in the town of Red Hook.
Due to the age of the structure and the fact that it was never anything more grand
than a farmhouse, no documentation has been found referencing the original
construction or finishes.
1

METHODOLOGY
Samples were collected from 23 locations inside the Pitcher Farmhouse on 5 February
2015. These locations were selected in order to compare the chromochronology
between rooms and to test theories of evolution within the structure. Samples were
collected from the surface to the substrate using a utility knife and chisel. Substrate
materials are lime plaster for most of the walls and wood for trim, anchor posts, and
beams.
Samples of finishes were mounted in wax and viewed through a CE Premier Student
Microscope and photographed with an iPhone 5S, using a Carson universal smartphone
optics adapter.
Data was collected visually regarding number of layers, colors, and finishes; and then
analyzed for identification of substrate material and documentation of layer
stratigraphy. In a few cases, attempts were made at identifying binders and matching
colors within the sample to commercial paint samples and/or Munsell chips. However,
the goal of this study was comparative analysis among samples rather than in-depth
chemical identification.
For samples where chemical testing was performed, reactions were observed upon the
application of swabs from a rhodizonate lead test kit, water, vinegar, ammonia,
denatured alcohol, mineral spirits, laquer thinner, and xylene.
2

MAIN FLOOR SAMPLE SITES
3

UPPER LEVEL SAMPLE SITES
4

WILLIAM PITCHER HOUSE: PAINT SAMPLE SITES
5

6

7

8

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS
Finishes on the woodwork on the main floor of the Pitcher Farmhouse range from 1-16
layers thick. Room 107, the north room of the ell, has the most layers of finish. The
door to the cellar (B2) from 104 has the least. The top layers are predominantly oilbased
and contain lead. Earlier layers are that are translucent are glazes, oil-based
paint with varnish added, or pigmented varnishes or shellacs. The walls on the main
floor, with the exception of rooms 101 and 104, are plaster with several layers of
wallpaper. In some cases, the wallpaper has been painted over and more paper applied
on top.
Upstairs, there are fewer layers of finish on the woodwork, which includes not only
doors, baseboard, and trim, but also some plank walls and ceilings, between one and
seven layers. The top coats are opaque, oil-based, and contain lead; earlier layers are
glazes, varnishes, or shellacs. There is less color variation than on the main floor, with
the exception of the upstairs hall area 203, which has both light blue and turquoise as
top coats. Also, sample 205/1, collected from the window jamb in the east room
(205), has a bright green grainy bottom layer. Room 201 is planked and paneled; the
walls and ceiling are coated with a combination of oil and latex paints. Underneath the
planking on the knee-walls, the anchor posts and infill are covered with thick layers of a
lime-based coating. This treatment is also visible on portions of the south wall of 202
and 206. Room 202 is planked on the ceiling and dormer cheeks; the walls, other than
the knee-wall, are covered with a combination of drywall and particle board. The walls
and ceiling of 204 are covered with drywall, which is coated with latex paint. Room
105 has an unpainted plank ceiling. The exposed infill of the knee-wall is coated with a
thick, lime-based coating. The door to room 105 and portions of the south wall of 206
and the outside vertical slabs of 207 are all coated with thick, lime-based coating. The
ceiling of 207 is planked and painted over, then covered with cardboard and wallpaper.
The walls of 207 are wallpapered as well.
The disparity of finishes in quality, variation, and quantity between the main floor and
upstairs in the Pitcher house suggests that the upstairs was much plainer and more
utilitarian for quite some time after the main floor was improved. The garret, room
106, seems to have never been more than a work and storage area. Based on the
evolution of Room 107 in the form of rough plank partition walls, and then lath and
9

plaster, planking, paint and wallpaper, it was clearly living space, possibly for slaves or
later for laborers and servants. The range of finishes on the main floor suggests that
the Pitchers of the 18th and 19th centuries were well-off enough to be followers of
fashion.
OBSERVATIONS
• Sample 105/1, collected from the doorway between the east parlor and the front
entry hall, and sample 102/1, collected from the doorway between the west parlor
and the entry hall, have the same distinctive blue base layer as Sample 203/3 from
the doorway in the upstairs hall leading to the garret (figure 1). This supports the
theory that reconfiguration of the house to create the center hall, and the
attachment of the main house to the free-standing structure to the north, took place
as part of the same campaign.
figure 1
203/3 garret doorway
105/1 east parlor door trim
10

• Sample 105/3, collected from the baseboard on the east gable end of the east
parlor, has only the top layer of white paint in common with sample 105/1, which
was taken from the doorway between the east parlor and the front entry hall.
Sample 105/1, with a substrate of white pine, has a base layer of blue, which
appears to be rough and grainy under magnification; a layer of milky, grainy white;
and a top coat of lead-based white paint. The substrate of sample 105/3 is red
pine, with a grainy, dark brown base layer that is soluble with denatured alcohol.
(figure 2) Other than the top layer of white, these samples of woodwork from the
east parlor have nothing in common. (figure 3) Sample 105/3 has ten layers of
finish, while 105/1 has only four. This suggests that 105/3 was wood reused from
another location. At this point, red pine has only been found in the post at the
bottom of the current stairs, the post that has the paint ghost from the jambless
fireplace hood. Further exploration will be needed to determine where else in the
Pitcher house this material and stratigraphy of finishes exists.
figure 2
105/1 blue base layer 105/3 dark brown base layer
11

figure 3
105/1 stratigraphy
105/3 stratigraphy
• Samples 107/1, 107/2, and 107/3, collected from window trim, the stair door, and
the baseboard, in the north room of the ell, share a top layer of lead-based mint
green paint. The window trim, sample 107/1, has 17 layers of finish. The earliest
appears to be a vivid red. The door to the enclosed stair (no longer extant) has 15
layers of finish. The chromochronology of these two samples is nearly the same
except for a layer of pink just below the top coat of 107/2 and two translucent gray/
brown layers atop the red base layer in sample 107/1. Sample 107/3, from the
baseboard on the north wall, has only 13 layers of finish. The stratigraphy is the
same for two or three layers in succession, and then one or two are missing. The
base layer of this sample is the fourth layer of 107/1 and the second layer of 107/2.
The enclosed stair and the jambless fireplace could not have existed at the same
time. That would suggest that the window was the first addition to room 107,
before the enclosed stair was constructed. The baseboard on the north wall was
installed after the enclosed stair. The presence of the supported stove chimney on
the north wall makes it reasonable to speculate that a counter or other work surface
next to the stove prevented the baseboard from routinely getting painted (figure 4).
12

figure 4
107/1 window 107/2 door 107/3 baseboard
• The sample taken from Stair 1(figure 5), from the post that was the north end of the
central jambless fireplace has only one layer of finish. The black coating is crusty,
grainy, and appears fragile under magnification. It is quite durable, however. Lath
marks and plaster burns hint at how it has been protected since the later 18th -
century renovation.
figure 5
13

• Sample 101/1, collected from the window apron on the south side of the one-story
west addition, has as its second layer of finish a bright blue, followed by a mint green.
Samples 103/1 and 103/2 show the same color combination as their TOP layers
(figure 6). This suggests that the west addition was constructed at the same time
that the second to last layers of finish were being applied to the entry hall.
figure 6
101/1 window apron (above)
103/2 anchor beam (right)
14

• Sample 202/2, collected from the west cheek of the dormer in 202 has a top layer of
white, oil-based paint atop a layer of the bright blue that appears as the penultimate
layer of sample 103/2, collected from anchor beam V at the west wall of the entry
hall, and as the second layer of sample 101/1(figure 7). This location is the only place
where this blue is evident upstairs.
figure 7
202/2 dormer cheek 103/2 anchor beam
15

FINISHES ANALYSIS
Sample 101/1
Building
Address
Sample
Location
Date Sampled 2/5/15
Pitcher Farmhouse
159 Pitcher Lane
1st floor, west end room,
window apron

CHROMOCHRONOLOGY 101/1
Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S
Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish
LAYER COLOR MUNSELL # COMM.COLOR REACTIONS NOTES
TOP white (warm) rhodizonate and
LT/Alc.
opaque
1 white opaque
2 yellow (light) opaque
3 lime green opaque
4 white opaque
5 off-white (double
thick)
opaque
6 red/maroon opaque
7 white opaque
8 white opaque
9 teal (hospital
scrub)
10 blue (bright
blue)
opaque
opaque
11 tan grainy
substrate
white pine
101/1 substrate 10x 101/1 finish 4x 101/1 4x+camera zoom

FINISHES ANALYSIS
Sample 102/1
Building
Address
Sample
Location
Pitcher Farmhouse
159 Pitcher Lane
1st floor, west
parlor, hall door leg
(left)
Date Sampled 2/5/15

CHROMOCHRONOLOGY
Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S
Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish
LAYER COLOR MUNSELL # COMM.COLOR REACTIONS NOTES
TOP white rhodizonate and
LT/Alc.
opaque
2 pink (pepto) opaque
3 white (2x thick) opaque
4 red (maroon) opaque
5 white (2x thick) opaque
6 cream (4x thick) opaque
7 beige (sandy) opaque
8 gray (light) opaque
9 white opaque
10 white (cream) translucent
11 gray (light) translucent
12 robins’ egg grainy
substrate
white pine
4x substrate + bottom strata 4x top strata
10x substrate

FINISHES ANALYSIS
Sample 103/1
Building
Address
Sample
Location
Pitcher Farmhouse
159 Pitcher Lane,
Red Hook, NY
1st floor hall, west
wall, L of doorway
Date Sampled 2/5/15

CHROMOCHRONOLOGY
Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S
Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish
LAYER COLOR MUNSELL # COMM.COLOR REACTIONS NOTES
TOP
mint green
(light)
2 blue (bright/
dark)
opaque
opaque
3 white grainy
4 brown (med) paper?
5 size?
substrate
plaster w/ red
hair
10x substrate
4x plus camera zoom

FINISHES ANALYSIS
Sample 103/2
Building
Address
Sample
Location
Pitcher Farmhouse
159 Pitcher Lane,
Red Hook, New York
1st floor hallway,
west wall,
anchorbeam
Date Sampled 2/5/15
Date
Researched
2/25/15

CHROMOCHRONOLOGY
Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S
Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish
LAYER COLOR MUNSELL # COMM.COLOR REACTIONS NOTES
TOP mint green opaque
2 blue (bright/
dark)
opaque
3 tan fibers paper?
4 gray/white grainy
5 off-white grainy
6 blue (light) grainy
7 black dirt
8 gray primer? size?
substrate
poplar
4x plus camera zoom
4x plus camera zoom

FINISHES ANALYSIS
Sample 104/1
Building
Address
Sample
Location
Pitcher Farmhouse
159 Pitcher Lane,
Red Hook, New
York
basement door
Date Sampled 2/5/15

CHROMOCHRONOLOGY
Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S
Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish
LAYER COLOR MUNSELL # COMM.COLOR REACTIONS NOTES
TOP white opaque
substrate
white pine
10x substrate
4x plus camera magnification

FINISHES ANALYSIS
Sample 105/1
Building
Address
Sample
Location
Pitcher Farmhouse
159 Pitcher Lane,
Red Hook, New
York
1st floor, east
room, west door
architrave, right leg
Date Sampled 2/5/15

CHROMOCHRONOLOGY
Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S
Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish
LAYER COLOR MUNSELL # COMM.COLOR REACTIONS NOTES
TOP white rhodizonate and
LT/Alc.
opaque
2 off-white milky
3 dirt
4 blue (light) grainy
substrate
white pine
4x plus camera magnification
4x plus camera magnification, surface

FINISHES ANALYSIS
Sample 105/2
Building
Address
Sample
Location
Pitcher Farmhouse
159 Pitcher Lane, Red
Hook, New York
1st floor, east room,
anchor beam, right of
hall door
Date Sampled 2/5/15

CHROMOCHRONOLOGY
Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S
Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish
LAYER COLOR MUNSELL # COMM.COLOR REACTIONS NOTES
TOP
paper white/mint
green
2 gray/white
(grainy)
substrate
poplar
sparse grainy
adhesive, with
fibers
10x size
4x

FINISHES
ANALYSIS
Sample 105/3
Building
Address
Sample
Location
Pitcher Farmhouse
159 Pitcher Lane,
Red Hook, New York
1st floor, east room,
east wall baseboard,
left of fireplace
Date Sampled 2/5/15

CHROMOCHRONOLOGY
Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S
Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish
LAYER COLOR MUNSELL # COMM.COLOR REACTIONS NOTES
TOP white rhodizonate
and LT/Alc.
opaque
2 gray (medium) opaque
3 gray (light) translucent
4 gray (medium) translucent
5 white (bright) opaque
6 maroon? dirt? opaque
7 off-white milky
8 off-white milky
9 off-white
(darker)
translucent
10 brown (dark) grainy
substrate
red pine
10x
4x surface

FINISHES ANALYSIS
Sample 106/1
Building
Address
Sample
Location
Pitcher Farmhouse
159 Pitcher Lane, Red
Hook, New York
1st floor, north ell ,
south room, built in
cabinet
Date Sampled 2/5/15

CHROMOCHRONOLOGY
Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na
Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish
LAYER COLOR MUNSELL # COMM.COLOR REACTIONS NOTES
TOP white rhodizonate and LT/
Alc.
2 white (cream) no match 2025-70 gets flaky/powdery
with ALC
3 white (butter) gets flaky/powdery
with ALC
4 white gets flaky/powdery
with ALC
5 white gets flaky/powdery
with ALC
6 white (pink) gets flaky/powdery
with ALC
7 white gets flaky/powdery
with ALC
8 white (butter) gets flaky/powdery
with ALC
9 blue/green 5BG 6/2 2050-40/HC-136 no reaction with any
of the above
substrate
white pine
opaque
opaque
translucent
translucent
opaque
translucent
translucent
translucent
blue black flecks
and crystals
4x plus camera
10x first
4x with commercial
Observations: While the top two layers are clearly modern (20th century) paints containing lead,
the rest of the finishes except the first (blue) layer had little to no reaction with ammonia, mineral
spirits, or denatured alcohol. I think that this, along with the translucent appearance of the middle
layers, means that those finishes are likely linseed oil based. The bottom layer, which is a matte,
grainy, robin’s egg blue, has blue-black flecks. It also appears to have clear or white crystals in it. It
does not react with any of the above listed solvents, or with water or vinegar.

FINISHES ANALYSIS
Sample 106/2
Building
Address
Sample
Location
Pitcher Farmhouse
159 Pitcher Lane,
Red Hook, New York
1st floor, north ell,
south room, west
door trim, L leg
Date Sampled 2/5/15

CHROMOCHRONOLOGY
Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S
Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish
LAYER COLOR MUNSELL # COMM.COLOR REACTIONS NOTES
TOP white opaque
2 white (minty
green)
3 white (lighter
minty)
translucent
translucent
4 white (cream) translucent
5 white (butter) translucent
6 white (milky) translucent
7 dirt
8 white (milky) translucent
substrate
white pine
10x

FINISHES ANALYSIS
Sample 107/1
Building
Address
Sample
Location
Date
Sampled
Pitcher Farmhouse
159 Pitcher Lane,
Red Hook, New
York
1st floor, north ell,
north room, west
window casing, R
side
2/5/15

CHROMOCHRONOLOGY
Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S
Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish
LAYER COLOR MUNSELL # COMM.COLOR REACTIONS NOTES
TOP green (mint) opaque
2 white opaque
3 gray (dark) opaque
4 blue opaque
5 yellow (butter) opaque
6 white opaque
7 dirt
8 mustard translucent
9 white (milky) translucent
11 gray (light) translucent
12 gray (medium) translucent
13 gray (dark) translucent
14 white opaque
15 white (pink) opaque
16 gray/brown translucent
17 gray (medium) translucent
18 red grainy
substrate
white pine
10x
4x straight on
commercial color

FINISHES ANALYSIS
Sample 107/2
Building
Address
Sample
Location
Date
Sampled
Pitcher
Farmhouse
159 Pitcher
Lane, Red
Hook, New
York
1st floor, north
ell, north wall,
left door
2/5/15

CHROMOCHRONOLOGY
Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S, MS= mineral spirits
Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish
LAYER COLOR MUNSELL # COMM.COLOR REACTIONS NOTES
TOP green (mint) rhodizonate and
LT/Alc.
opaque
2 pink opaque
3 white Am. milky
4 gray (dark) LT translucent
5 blue opaque
6 yellow (butter) translucent
7 white translucent
8 dirt
9 mustard CRAZY THICK
10 white (milky) translucent
11 thin OPAQUE
12 gray (light) THICK/
translucent
13 gray (medium) translucent
14 gray (dark) translucent
15 white milky
16 red/brown Alc. grainy
substrate
white pine
10x in situ base layer in situ

FINISHES ANALYSIS
Sample 107/3
Building
Address
Sample
Location
Pitcher Farmhouse
159 Pitcher Lane,
Red Hook, New
York
1st floor, north ell,
north wall,
baseboard
Date Sampled 2/5/15
107/3

CHROMOCHRONOLOGY
Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S
Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish
LAYER COLOR MUNSELL # COMM.COLOR REACTIONS NOTES
TOP green (mint) 2029-50/
2029-40
rhodizonate and
LT/Alc.
opaque
2 gray (medium) opaque
3 gray (little
darker)
opaque
4 blue opaque
5 dirt opaque
6 yellow (light) opaque
7 white opaque
8 yellow (cheddar) translucent
9 yellow (lighter
cheddar)
10 white milky
translucent
11 beige translucent
12 gray (medium) translucent
13 gray (dark) translucent
14 gray (light) translucent
15 white/gray translucent
substrate
white pine
10x
4x commercial color

FINISHES ANALYSIS
Sample Stair 1
Building
Address
Sample Location
Pitcher Farmhouse
159 Pitcher Lane,
Red Hook, New
York
1st floor, stairway,
post with ghost
Date Sampled 2/5/15

CHROMOCHRONOLOGY
Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S
Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish
LAYER COLOR MUNSELL # COMM.COLOR REACTIONS NOTES
TOP black full coverage.
looks burnt.
substrate
red pine
10x surface
4x surface

FINISHES ANALYSIS
Sample 202/1
Building
Address
Sample
Location
Pitcher Farmhouse
159 Pitcher Lane,
Red Hook, New York
2nd floor, south room,
north doorway, R leg
Date Sampled 2/5/15

CHROMOCHRONOLOGY
Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S
Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish
LAYER COLOR MUNSELL # COMM.COLOR REACTIONS NOTES
TOP white opaque
2 dirt opaque
3 white opaque
4 white opaque
5 gray (light) translucent
6 dirt translucent
7 gray (medium) translucent
8 white (off-white) translucent
substrate
white pine
10x plus camera zoom
4x base layer surface
4x base layer to substrate

FINISHES ANALYSIS
Sample 202/2
Building
Address
Sample
Location
Pitcher Farmhouse
159 Pitcher Lane,
Red Hook, New
York
2nd floor, south
room, dormer cheek
Date Sampled 2/5/15

CHROMOCHRONOLOGY
Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S
Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish
LAYER COLOR MUNSELL # COMM.COLOR REACTIONS NOTES
TOP white rhodizonate and
LT/Alc.
opaque
2 blue opaque
3 white (off-white) opaque
4 gray (light) opaque
5 dirt
6 gray (medium) translucent
7 white chalky
8 gray/milky translucent
substrate white pine translucent
10x plus camera zoom
4x straight on

FINISHES ANALYSIS
Sample 203/1
Building
Address
Sample Location
Pitcher Farmhouse
159 Pitcher Lane,
Red Hook, New
York
1st floor, anchor
beam, above post
with ghost
Date Sampled 2/5/15
Date Researched 3/1/15
Researcher
EMM
Notes
CHROMOCHRONOLOGY
Observed through CE Premier Student Microscope, Photographed with an iPhone 5S, using a Carson universal smartphone optics adapter
Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S
Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish
LAYER COLOR MUNSELL # COMM.COLOR REACTIONS NOTES
TOP
2
3 SEE WALL
PAPER
ANALYSIS
4
5
6
7
substrate
poplar

FINISHES ANALYSIS
Sample 203/2
Building
Address
Sample
Location
Pitcher Farmhouse
159 Pitcher Lane,
Red Hook, New York
2nd floor hall, north
side, cut off anchor
beam end
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
SURFACE white white white white white
(panelling)
white white white
white white pine paper white RED PINE
white 2x white paper poplar white white
paper white white pine white
white plaster white white white white white
white 2x white white
4x white white pine white
white
white poplar white
white
white pine
RED PINE
white
paper
white pine white white
white pine
white pine
white pine
white
white pine
PITCHER FARMHOUSE
FINISH AND WOOD COMPARISON- MAIN FLOOR

202/1 202/2 203/2 203/3 204/1 205/1 206/1 206/2
SURFACE white white white white white white white
white white white white white pine
white white pine white white pine
poplar white white
white pine
white
white pine white white pine
white pine
PITCHER FARMHOUSE
FINISH AND WOOD COMPARISON- UPSTAIRS

CHROMOCHRONOLOGY
Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S
Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish
LAYER COLOR MUNSELL # COMM.COLOR REACTIONS NOTES
TOP
blue
(tourquoise)
opaque
2 white opaque
3 white (off-white) grainy
substrate
poplar
4x plus camera zoom
surface view- camera zoom

FINISHES ANALYSIS
Sample 203/3
Building
Address
Sample
Location
Pitcher Farmhouse
159 Pitcher Lane,
Red Hook, New York
2nd floor hallway,
garret door
Date Sampled 2/5/15

CHROMOCHRONOLOGY
Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S
Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish
LAYER COLOR MUNSELL # COMM.COLOR REACTIONS NOTES
TOP white opaque
2 peach translucent
3 dirt translucent
4 grey (light) translucent
5 white opaque
6 yellow (light) opaque
7 blue grainy
substrate
white pine
10x

FINISHES ANALYSIS
Sample 204/1
Building
Address
Sample
Location
Pitcher Farmhouse
159 Pitcher Lane,
Red Hook, New York
2nd floor, right gable
end window trim
Date Sampled 2/5/15

CHROMOCHRONOLOGY
Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S
Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish
LAYER COLOR MUNSELL # COMM.COLOR REACTIONS NOTES
TOP white grainy
2 dark green grainy
substrate
wood
4x
4x with camera zoom
40x
10x with camera zoom

FINISHES ANALYSIS
Sample 205/1
Building
Address
Sample
Location
Pitcher
Farmhouse
159 Pitcher
Lane, Red
Hook, New York
2nd floor, garret
closet door
Date Sampled 2/5/15

CHROMOCHRONOLOGY
Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S
Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish
LAYER COLOR MUNSELL # COMM.COLOR REACTIONS NOTES
TOP white (milky) VINEGAR slight sheen,
thinner
2 white chalky
3 white chalky
4 white chalky
substrate
white pine
4x plus camera zoom
4x substrate

FINISHES ANALYSIS
Sample 206/1
Building
Address
Sample
Location
Pitcher Farmhouse
159 Pitcher Lane,
Red Hook, New
York
2nd floor, garret,
south end, right of
break
Date Sampled 2/5/15

CHROMOCHRONOLOGY
Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S
Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish
LAYER COLOR MUNSELL # COMM.COLOR REACTIONS NOTES
TOP white VINEGAR matte, chalky
2 white matte, chalky
substrate
pine (red?)
4x plus camera zoom
4x plus camera zoom straight on

FINISHES ANALYSIS
Sample 206/2
Building
Address
Sample
Location
Pitcher Farmhouse
159 Pitcher Lane,
Red Hook, New York
2nd floor, garret,
north end, outside of
plank wall, by
chimney
Date Sampled 2/5/15

CHROMOCHRONOLOGY
Reactions: Vin= vinegar, Alc= denatured alcohol, Am= ammonia, H20= water, SPS= solvent paint striper, Pb= lead/Na2S
Layer Types: D= dirt, F= finish, G= glaze, L= latex, O= Oil-based, P= primer, S= shellac, V= varnish
LAYER COLOR MUNSELL # COMM.COLOR REACTIONS NOTES
TOP white VINEGAR chalky
substrate pine
4x substrate
10x

APPENDIX VIII
Pitcher Farmstead
Red Hook, New York
Wallpaper
Emily M. Majer
University of Massachusetts
2015

INTRODUCTION / METHODOLOGY
Samples of wall coverings were collected from rooms 102, 103, and 105 of the William
Pitcher house on 23 March 2015. On 26 April 2015, the samples were analyzed for
clues that could assist in attaching dates to the stratigraphy.
FINDINGS
•ROOM 102, east wall
LAYER MATERIAL REACTIONS NOTES
surface off-white latex paint peels easily
2 pulp wallpaper vinegar soluable
3 mint green paint lacquer thinner soluable same as 103 surface
4 wood pulp paper
substrate plaster possibly a later patch
figure 1- Room 102 sample site
figure 2- Room 102 close up of top layers

•ROOM 103, west wall, anchor beam
LAYER MATERIAL REACTIONS NOTES
surface (fig.3) mint green oil paint (flat) lacquer thinner soluable same as 102
1 pulp paper vinegar to remove dk brown fiber
2 (fig. 4) dark blue oil-based paint lacquer thinner soluable (same as 105 walls)
3 pulp paper vinegar to remove dk brown fiber
4 pulp paper- blue on blue design vinegar to remove dk brown fiber
5 (fig. 5) pulp paper- blurry gray design vinegar to remove dk brown fiber
6 (fig. 6) finer paper-off white/lt.blue design vinegar to remove off-white fiber
7(fig. 7) newspaper? printed paper off-white fiber
8 (fig. 8) paper, light blue with blue bees rag paper
9 (fig. 9) paper, with white and black rag paper
substrate
poplar

fig. 3- Room 103 surface mint green paint
fig. 4- blue oil-based paint
fig. 5- Room 103 blurry gray design on pulp
fig. 6- Room 103 finer, lighter paper
10x zoom

fig. 7- Room 103, zoom on layer 7
fig. 8- layer 8 (blue with blue bees), layer 9 (triangles)
fig. 9- Room 103 layer 9 zoom

• ROOM 105, west wall, anchor beam
LAYER MATERIAL REACTION NOTES
surface (fig. 10) wallpaper- pink floral vinegar to remove dk. brown fiber
2 wallpaper- pink floral * vinegar to remove dk. brown fiber
3 (fig. 11) wallpaper- green/brown vinegar to remove dk. brown fiber
4 (fig. 12) wallpaper- white+pink design vinegar to remove dk. brown fiber
5 wallpaper- indistinguishable dk. brown fiber
wallpaper- indistinguishable
dk. brown fiber
7 paper- gray w/ white rag paper
8 (fig. 13) paper-green w/ white rag paper
substrate
poplar

fig. 10- Room 105 surface layer
fig. 11- Room 105 penultimate layer
fig. 11 detail

fig. 12- Room 105 zoom on red area,
fifth layer from substrate
fig. 13- Room 105 zoom on first layer rag
paper

ANALYSIS
The first major campaign of renovation in the Pitcher house took place in the last
quarter of the 18 th century, after William Pitcher had received title to the property
from his father in 1768. The reconfiguration from a traditional Dutch two-room,
center-chimney dwelling to a more modern center-hall house reflected William Pitcher’s
status as a relatively well-to-do farmer. The center hall allowed the master of the
house to decide how much access a visitor would have to the private spaces within.
The center hall was also the first place that a visitor would be impressed by the
Pitchers’ keeping up with the latest fashions.
By the 1760s there were wallpaper manufacturers in New York and Philadelphia who
were able to compete with European imports and bring the cost within reach of the
middle class. Wallpapers were handmade from a slurry of reconstituted rags and other
fibers until at least 1835. Paper made by hand is identifiable by fibers arranged
randomly rather than in a linear fashion. Viewed microscopically, the first two strata of
coverings from the anchor beams of 103 and 105 are handmade.
In 1775 Swedish chemist Carl Wilhelm Scheele invented a green pigment made from
copper arsenate, which was used in wallpapers and paints. Scheele’s Green, a precursor
to Paris Green, is anecdotally blamed for the death of Napoleon. The first layer of
wallpaper from the Room 105, on anchor beam III, is likely colored with Scheele’s Green
(fig. 15).
The earliest layer of paper from anchor beam IV in the entry hall (103) is a simple
geometric pattern, printed in black and white on rag paper. The pattern, with very
sharp lines (fig. 9), is either block printed or stenciled. The second oldest layer from
the Room 103 wallpaper sample is a white rag paper with a light blue background and
pattern of slightly brighter shapes that evoke a bee (fig.8).
In the 1850s, wood pulp began to be added to paper making, which had already
become mechanized. These papers are identifiable by their slightly darker backing and
oriented fibers. The product devolved with the addition of other pulped fillers, such as
straw. Wallpapers produced after 1880 are identifiable by their dark brown backing
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.
This points to the sample not having been taken all the way to the plaster substrate. It
also shows that Room 102 had two later campaigns of surfacing than did Room 103.
fig. 14- Room 105, sample of poplar substrate with first and second layers of
covering

RESOURCES
Books, Articles, and Publications
• Blackburn, Roderic H. Dutch Colonial Homes in America. New York, NY: Rizzoli
International Publications, 2002.
• Buck, Clifford. Dutchess County, New York: Tax Lists 1718-1787. Rhinebeck, NY: Kinship,
1991.
• Carr, Claire O’Neill. A Brief History of Red Hook. New York, NY: Wise Family Trust in
Cooperation with the Egbert Benson Historical Society of Red Hook, 2001.
• Ellis, Capt. Franklin. History of Columbia County, New York. Philadelphia: Everts & Ensign,
1878.
• Hasbrouck, Frank. The History of Dutchess County, New York. Poughkeepsie, NY: S.A.
Matthiew, 1909.
• Jones, Henry Z. The Palatine Families of New York 1710. Marco Island, FL: Picton Press,
2001.
• Kelly, Nancy V. “Rhinebeck: Transition in 1799.” The Hudson Valley Regional Review, March
1989, Volume 6, Number 2.
• Leonard, Roger M. Upper Red Hook: An American Crossroad. Privately published, 2012.
• Leonard, Roger M. The Red Church. Privately published, 1990.
• Lyon, J.B. Military Minutes of the Council of Appointment of the State of New York 1783-1821,
Vol. I. New York: State Printer, 1901
• McDermott, William P. Dutchess County’s Plain Folks: Enduring Uncertainty, Inequality, and
Uneven Prosperity, 1725-1875. Clinton Corners, NY: Kerleen, 2004.
• McDermott, William P. “Colonial Land Grants in Dutchess County, New York: A Case Study
in Settlement,” The Hudson Valley Regional Review: September 1986, Volume 3, Number 2.
• MacCracken, Henry Noble. Old Dutchess Forever! New York: Hastings House, 1956.
• Meeske, Harrison. The Hudson Valley Dutch and Their Houses. Fleishchmanns, NY: Purple
Mountain Press, 1998.
• Morse, Howard H. Historic Old Rhinebeck. Tarrytown, NY: Pocantico Printery, 1908.
• O’Callahan, E.B. Documentary History of New York, Vol. III. Albany, NY: Weed, Parsons &
Co. Public Printers, 1850.
• Otterness, Philip. Becoming German: The 1709 Palatine Migration to New York. Ithaca, NY:
Cornell University Press, 2004.
• Reynolds, Helen Wilkinson. Dutch Houses in the Hudson Valley before 1776. New York:
Dover Publications, 1965.
• Seidman, Benedict. “Agriculture in Red Hook,” (Senior Thesis, Bard College: Annandale-on-
Hudson, NY: 1940)
• Smith, Edward M. Documentary History of Rhinebeck: A history of its churches and other
public institutions. Rhinebeck, NY: Privately published, 1881.
• Smith, James H. History of Dutchess County. Syracuse, NY: D. Mason & Co., 1882.

RESOURCES
• Stevens, John R. Dutch Vernacular Architecture in North America, 1640-1830. West Hurley,
NY: Society for the Preservation of Dutch Vernacular Architecture, 2005.
• Zantkuyl, Henk. “The Netherlands Town House: How and Why It Works,” in New World
Dutch Studies: Dutch Arts and Culture in Colonial America 1609-1776, edited by Roderic H.
Blackburn and Nancy A. Kelly, Albany. NY: Albany Institute of History and Art, 1987.
Web Content
• Dutchess County Parcess Access http://geoaccess.co.dutchess.ny.us/
• “Hudson Valley Vernacular Architecture Newsletter,” October 2005; http://www.hvva.org/
hvvanews9-7pt3.htm
• “Hudson Valley Vernacular Architecture Newsletter,” November 2005; http://hvva.net/
hvvanew7-10pt1.htm
• “New England Historical Genealogical Society,” americanancestors.org/early-palatinefamilies-of-new-york/
• “Ulrich Simmendinger Register, 1717,” http://immigrantships.net/
v4/1799v4.simmendinger1710100A_L.html, also at New York Public Library Rare Books
Room
• United States Census Data ancestry.com
Human Resources
• Amy K. Dubin: owner of the William Pitcher farmhouse
• Conrad Fingado: Fingado Restoration, Quitman Resource Center, HVVA
• Ken Migliorelli: current farmer, nephew of prior owner
• Joe Howard: farmer, son of last inhabitants
• Chuck Mead: farmer on what was the north portion of Pieter Pitcher’s original 550-acre farm
• Betsy Baxter Wacker: former resident at Elmendorph Corners
• James Hardin: Elmendorph/Pitcher descendant
• Ray Armater: Historic Hudson Valley
• Michael Devonshire: UMass and beyond
• Bonnie Parsons: UMass
• Steven Bedford: UMass
• Claudine and Chris Klose: Historic Red Hook
• Patsy Vogel: Historic Red Hook
• Paula Schoonmaker: Historic Red Hook
• Maynard Ham: Historic Red Hook
• Nancy V. Kelly: Rhinebeck Town Historian
• Marilyn Hatch: Palatine Farmstead
• Wint Aldrich: Red Hook Town Historian

RESOURCES
• Michael Frazier: Rhinebeck Historical Society
• Don McTernan: Rhinebeck Historical Society, NPS retired
• Alvin Sheffer: Germantown History Department
• Elijah Bender: owner of the Heermance Farm
• Joe Zen: Rural Archaeology
• Chris Templin: technical support
• Jon Nandor: security and research assistance
• Sheri Sceroler: support and patience
• Diane Lewis: Common Sense Consulting
Other
Dutchess County Clerk’s Office, Poughkeepsie, NY
Dutchess County Surrogate Court, Poughkeepsie, NY
Historic Red Hook Archives, Elmendorf Inn, Red Hook, NY
Holland Society of New York
New York State Archives, Albany, NY
Starr Library Archives Room, Rhinebeck, New York