TREATMENT REPORT FOR MASON MONTEREY #328 (MUSEUM) … NPS ORCA/FULL... · 2018. 9. 14. · TREATMENT REPORT FOR MASON MONTEREY #328 (MUSEUM) AND #443 (CHATEAU) SMOKEY MAPLE LADDER-BACK

TREATMENT REPORT FOR MASON MONTEREY #328 (MUSEUM) AND #443 (CHATEAU)

SMOKEY MAPLE LADDER-BACK PEPLUM CHAIR, OREGON CAVES NATIONAL MONUMENT

#328 and #443 before (above) and after (below) treatment in the MPFC studio.

MPF Conservation www.mpfconservation.com 1 of 64

http://www.mpfconservation.com


BACKGROUND DATA

1. This treatment proposal is prepared by MPF Conservation, hereafter known as MPFC, by Mitchell R.

Powell and Kate Powell.

2. Our contacts for this job were Mary Merryman, Park Curator; Vicki Snitzler, Superintendent Oregon

Caves; and John Roth, Chief of Resource Management Oregon Caves.

JUSTIFICATION FOR COMBINING TREATMENTS

3. It is unusual to combine treatment reports, but the two chairs had different problems, and each in its

own way contributed to the best treatment for the goals for each chair.

3.1. One chair was to become part of the Museum Collection, and one chair went back on the floor of

the Chateau.

3.2. To that end, we borrowed from each to create our goals, i.e., the historical upholstery went from

#443 to #328, which had the best frame, and #328 ended up in the museum collection.

3.3. During the treatment, when the chairs were disassembled, it was hard to tell one from the other,

and then parts were traded, and so the reports are combined.

3.4. Assessments, and final images, are separate, understanding, of course, that each has parts of the

other to make the whole.

4. Further, combining the two allows the full information gleaned from both to be recorded in a cohesive

manner.

4.1. For instance, excavating the ruined peplum allowed us to record how the original was built, even

though the Museum Collection item #328 was not excavated.

5. Finally, it is important as an overview to understand that each piece was a different size; again, there

was inconsistency typical in Mason’s line.

5.1. When reassembling, the parts that fit the best went together to make the whole.




TABLE OF CONTENTSPage Section

5 HISTORY OF THE MONTEREY LINE AT THE CHATEAU

8 NPS CONDITION REPORT

9 ASSESSMENT FOR #328 (MUSEUM) AND #443 (CHATEAU) SMOKEY MAPLE

LADDER-BACK PEPLUM MASON MONTEREY CHAIR

MPFC may have modified the Assessment for brevity and to stop repetition within this report. The images may have been reduced as they are repeated in the Treatment Resume at the end of this report. However, the original

assessments, “2010 11 8 328 RUFFLE LDDRBCK CHAIR TRTMNT PROP” “2010 11 8 443 RUFFLE LDDRBCK CHAIR TRTMNT PROP” will be in “9 Documentation” folder in each chair’s folder on the hard drive. Revisions may be noted within the Assessment; these were made due to information discovered during treatment, and MPFC

thought it was easier to note the changes within the assessment if misinformation was recorded in that area. We will note when a major decision was reversed. This Treatment Report stands as our best accurate information or history.

10 GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

12 FINISH

14 LEGS

16 BACK/STILES

17 SEAT FRAME + UPHOLSTERY + SEAT BUILDING

19 REVISED NOTE: & SUMMARY FROM THE TREATMENT PROPOSAL

20 TREATMENT REPORT FOR #328 (MUSEUM) AND #443 (CHATEAU) SMOKEY MAPLE

LADDER-BACK PEPLUM MASON MONTEREY CHAIR

20 GENERAL ATTITUDE TOWARD TREATMENT

22 EXCAVATION

25 STRUCTURAL REPARATION

25 NEW RUNG AND LEG

27 TENONS AND MORTICE CLEAN

28 REASSEMBLY




Page Section

28 REASSEMBLY #328

36 REASSEMBLY #443

40 GLIDES

41 FINISH TREATMENT

41 GENERAL NOTES AND APPROACH

42 MYSTERY SOLVED

43 FINISH PRACTICE AND TESTIG FOR REPRODUCTION

43 FINISH: CLEANING

44 FINISH #328: MUSEUM COLLECTION, INFILL AND WAX

46 FINISH #443: SANDING

46 FINISH #443: SMOKEY MAPLE TOPCOAT

48 FINISH #443: FRAME WAXED

50 UPHOLSTERY TREATMENT

50 ADAPTATIONS OF PEPLUM SEAT

52 CONSERVATION OF UPHOLSTERY #328

56 UPHOLSTERY #443: NEW PILLOW TOP AND SHOW COVER

65 RESUME BEFORE + AFTER TREATMENT




HISTORY OF THE MONTEREY LINE IN THE CHATEAU

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

Manufacturing Company of Los Angeles in the late 1920’s, and his son George Mason.

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

8. The style is derived from Spanish and Dutch Colonial, Pennsylvania Dutch, California Mission

architecture and furnishings, cowboy accoutrements (such as might be found in a barn: lariats and

branding irons), and simple ranch furnishings.

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

Frank in Portland.

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

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

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

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

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

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

wood with peroxide and ammonia, then lacquered and rubbed out dry raw umber glazing with

a rag until the highlight effect was accomplished.”

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

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

11. MPFC was unable to find any comparable Mason chair in MPFC’s files or in research books.

12. The ladder-back peplum chair’s origins lay in many

ladder-backs, from primitive to finely hewn, as it is a

common common chair style; however, the proportions of

Mason’s are akin to the Mexican ladder-backs, shown

next page, and seats are typically rush or leather.

12.1. Regarding the style of the ladder-back chair, Sali




Katz discusses the earliest origins of the chair in

her book, “Hispanic Furniture1,” an image of

which is shown right, with a copy of the text in

the file for this chair.

12.2. Other images of ladder-backs from various

sources are shown below to give the reader an idea of the breadth of ladder-backs in history.

13. Ladder-back chairs are traditionally constructed with seat apron rungs set higher on the sides and

lower in the front and rear; the construction achieved two goals:

13.1. First, the mortice bores into the leg stile connection would be stair-stepped allowing for greater

structural stability.

Above: Hackensack Valley chair with reed seat, left;American child’s Ladder-back 18th Century, center.Below: French 19th Century Ladder-back chairs, left;American Ladder-back Highchair, right. Ladder-back Child’s chair from 1780, next page.


1 “Hispanic Furniture;” by Sali Barnett Katz, 1986, Architectural Book Publishing Co., Inc.,with permission from the author.



13.2. Second, the offsetting allowed for patterning in the woven

seat and the additional comfort for the back of the thighs

while sitting; the seat was made of woven seat of twisted

sea grass, rush, jute or hemp, leather strapping or a solid

seat.

13.3. Many adaptations have been made to this style of chair

seat over the years by novices and experts, in an

attempt to change their appearance, or provide additional comfort by padding the seat.

13.4. Many of these updates came in the form of a wood plank that set over the rungs, and was

upholstered; these adaptations rarely fit the configuration of the rungs properly.

13.5. Mason upholsterer’s created a unique modification in the form of a padded pillow, which we

will discuss more on page ??.




NPS SURVEY CONDITION REPORT

NPS CONDITION SURVEY FOR #443

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

“Rework inappropriate repairs; Tone in/apply finish to loss areas;

clean/wax.”

15. Levitan notes: “Numerous poor early repairs, seat back rails

repaired in past, excess glue at the joins; split PR leg repaired with

glue, large chip in pr leg; Insect droppings on cross bars at legs;

Numerous scratches, dents, abrasions on legs and seat”

16. Under condition problems he checked:

16.1. Structure: Splits, stable

16.2. Surface Elements: Scratches, Dents, Abrasions

16.3. Finish: Dust, Soiled, Accretions, Loss, Staining

17. Levitan notes previous repairs “To seat back rails and P. R. [proper right], some areas refinished with a

high gloss varnish.

18. Our overview below, to be detailed in this report: Split in each front leg, Loose stile joints, Loose splat

joints, Loose crest, Needs new seat/show cover, and Original Finish compromised.

NPS CONDITION SURVEY FOR #328

19. No NPS Condition Survey report was provided for this chair.

20. We based our original estimate on #443.


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



ASSESSMENT FOR #328 (MUSEUM) AND #443 (CHATEAU) SMOKEY MAPLE LADDER-BACK PEPLUM MASON MONTEREY CHAIR

(REVISION: CLARITY + COMBINING INFORMATION)

REVISED: Images are smaller as we will be using many of them again at the end of the Treatment Report.

#443 Rear-side view, top; Left-facing view, center;Rear view, bottom left, underside, bottom right.

#328 in pieces, next page.




GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

21. The chairs were assessed in our

studio in October 2010.

22. The Ladder-back Chairs were built

of alder wood, with a painted finish

that appears to have been Smokey

Maple.

23. It consists of a seat with two legs

and ten stretcher/rungs, and the

back is built of two square stile/legs,

a center slat with a matching slat crest; a slung ruffled upholstered seat spans the seat stretchers front

and back.

23.1. The seat appears to have been built identical to traditional chairs that held rush (or leather

slung seat which stretched from side to side); the seat would then sit higher on the side

stretchers, and the front stretchers would not rub the person using the chair.

23.2. However, this seat was originally upholstered in this manner, from front to rear, and it is an

anomaly, but we do believe it came this way from Mason.

24. REVISION: ADDITION While Mason used mortise and tenon joinery, kerfed tenons, lap joints, and

other compression joints, they frequently added brads or nails to these presumably stable joins.

24.1. This is not to be confused with the introduction of screws for securing structural members or

lag screws, which secured strapping brackets placed over joinery.

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

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

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

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

heritage pieces necessitating disassembly for restoration and preservation.

24.3. This singular practice caused many problems during reparation.




25. Overall dimensions:

25.1. Overall Height = 33 1/2-inches;

25.2. Seat Height = 18 1/2-inches;

25.3. Seat Depth 17 3/4-inches x Width (front) = 18-inches & Width (back) = 16 5/8-inches;

25.4. The crest is 16 1/2-inches at the widest point.

26. Regarding finishes and colors of paint, common thought is that colors will be uniform within mixed

paint batches, as can appear today within furniture lines; however, these are handmade items with

colors mixed in small batches with much room for change within the assembly lines.

26.1. Paint batches, woodgrain and color of wood, the environmental conditions and the person

painting all have an effect on a hand-made item made by artisans within a factory.

26.2. Therefore, not all colors of a given genre are exactly the same.

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

for color matches.

27.1. This is why we offer several images of a historical color for comparison.

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

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

applied: we sleuth for clues.

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




#328, left, held together for assessment, and #443, right.

FINISH29. The original painted finish color, details shown top and next page, appears to have been an oil based

(possibly japan) paint combination called Smokey Maple finish as is seen in the book “Monterey3,”

shown below, left and from Eric Berg, center.

29.1. While it is a very pale finish, but does not have the white/opaque quality of Desert Dust or

Straw Ivory, bottom right

29.2. Images of the color from our files, bottom right, from research over the years on the web, show

samples of Smokey Maple as well, and their diversity, even accounting for camera differences.

30. Overall the original paint finish is in medium to poor condition, with a great deal of original finish on

the chair below a degraded top coat.


3 Left and center: “Monterey,” by Roger Renick and Michael Trotter, Schiffer Publishing LTD., 2000. Right: These images from Eric Berg’s Early California Antiques, at www.earlycaliforniaantiques.com.



http://www.earlycaliforniaantiques.com

http://www.earlycaliforniaantiques.com

#328, above left, and #443, right.

31. The finish is dirty, shown below, with scratches, gouges, and abrasions to bare wood around the feet, legs,

back of slats, seat edges, and stiles, detail previous page top, next page, and below, with occasional white

paint drips.

32. Small holes of unknown origin, shown bottom left, exist in various areas.

33. Overall the biggest concern is that no further damage be done, and the finish be revitalized.

34. MPFC topically tested several of the current pieces in our studio for treatment, and understands the

layering of the painted finish used on the chair, from both this project and prior experience on similar

pieces.

#328, above, and #443, center.




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

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

37. We do not see evidence of decorative elements applied, and have no basis to suggest them.

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

necessary.

LEGS

39. The rear legs become back stiles.

40. Legs will be designated as follows: Left-facing front leg, Right-facing front leg, Left-facing rear stile/

leg, and Right-facing rear stile/leg.

41. The legs hold glued doweled joints for the rungs and seat stretchers.

41.1. The legs are quite rickety and loose.

41.2. Previous repairs were performed.

42. Bottom end grain on all legs is open and is an invitation to pest infestation.

43. Small drill holes are found on the chair legs in odd places, and we cannot account for their purpose, as

shown on the back right-facing leg, previous page top, and on the inside left-facing inside stile/leg, top

right.

44. Finish on all legs has areas of moderate flaking and abrasive losses;

wood is exposed from abrasion around top stumps, and in need of

infill and stabilization; the finish at the feet exhibits loss and

abrasion

#328

45. REVISION: CLARITY One rung is missing, shown right.

46. All legs are in visibly good structural condition.




#443

47. Bottom end grain on all legs is open and is an invitation

to pest infestation.

Left-facing Front Leg:

48. Leg has a split on the inside which was improperly

repaired, shown top and center right.

Right-facing Front Leg, Left-facing Rear Stile Leg, and Right-facing

Rear Stile Leg:

49. Legs are in visibly good structural condition.




BACK (STILES, CREST + SPLAT)

50. The back is made of four separate pieces, shown pages 1, 9 10 and 12: Left-facing stile, Right-facing stile,

Lower slat and Upper slat or Crest.

51. The connections are all doweled and glued.

52. The finish is abraded at the top of the stiles, shown page 9, and scratched and gouged, shown page 13.

#328

Left-facing and Right-facing stile:

53. The stiles are in good structural condition;

finish is scratched, abraded and chipped.

Bottom Slat, shown page 13:

54. The slat is in good structural condition; finish

is scratched, abraded and chipped.

Crest, shown page 13:

55. The crest slat is in good structural condition.

56. The back of the crest finish is scratched, gouged, extremely abraded and chipped.

#443

Left-facing and Right-facing stile:

57. The stile is in good structural condition; finish is scratched, abraded

and chipped.

Bottom Slat, shown page 13:

58. The slat is in good structural condition; finish is scratched, abraded

and chipped.

Crest, shown page 13:

59. The crest slat is in good structural condition.

60. The back of the crest finish is scratched, gouged, extremely abraded and chipped.




SEAT FRAME+UPHOLSTERY+SEAT BUILDING

61. The seat is made of two stretchers from which a slung

upholstered seat is attached over the front and rear

stretcher, shown this page and next.

61.1. The seat is designed for a rush seat, which is

why the stretchers are placed as they are;

however, MPFC believes this seat to be original

to the chair, because there is no indication of

rush wear, which is distinctive.

62. REVISION: DISCOVERY The upholstery and show

cover are original to the chairs.

62.1. The original upholstery is a factor in the

designation of one of the Peplum Ladder-backs

in the Museum Collection.

63. The seat stretchers are loose.

64. The side stretchers are extremely abraded and worn from people sitting low and abrading the sides.

#328

65. An attached ruffled knife edge pillow, next page top, was not attached to chair #328 (shown right in the

image top left) when MPFC acquired the piece.

65.1. The helical springs and stretcher pieces are missing (shown on #443 next page, bottom.)

65.2. Levitan recommended the cover cleaned if it was the original show cover; it is original.

65.3. The pillow cushion is unzippered.

65.4. The current show cover is a slubbed cotton tweed in red and vanilla, center right.

65.5. We believe the innards are original to the pillow.

65.6. (REVISION: DECISON The original pillow cushion was placed on chair #443 for the Museum

Collection.)

66. The seat was attached around the front and back seat stretchers, below, and as follows:




66.1. Pockets act as headers on each burlap end, top right;

66.2. These hold an edgewire, which helical springs connect to and tighten the tension to keep the seat

pillow in place and allows the pillow to flex with a person’s weight, bottom left and right.

67. It is possible to recreate the manner in which the seat and innards were built.

#443

68. The seat is made of two stretchers from which a slung

upholstered seat is attached over the front and rear

stretcher, shown below.

69. REVISION: OMISSION The seat has been chewed by

mice, shown right.

Underside of #443 upholstered chair.




REVISED NOTE & SUMMARY FROM THE TREATMENT PROPOSAL FOR #328 (MUSEUM) + #443 (CHATEAU) SMOKEY MAPLE

LADDER-BACK PEPLUM MASON MONTEREY CHAIR70. REVISION: DISCOVERY The two chairs #443 and #328 are intended to be identical models.

71. #328 has a seriously compromised frame with parts missing which will be recreated, but an intact

original upholstered seat pillow.

72. #443 has an intact frame (except for the front leg stile) but a seat pillow which will be discarded.

73. What MPFC proposed was unconventional.

74. Since the frames on both have loose joints and will be disassembled and reglued, MPFC proposes to take

the best of all parts and assemble them into one perfect frame with the original upholstered seat pillow,

and create a piece for the Museum Collection.

75. Since preliminary discussions with the NPS curator lean toward this on the basis that this is an original

Monterey style not seen elsewhere (we have never seen one) intact with the original show cover, we

propose the following:

75.1. We will treat #328 as a museum item, and #443 as the chair to be reused again in the Chateau.

75.2. We will use the seat and show cover from #328, and borrow frame parts as needed from #443

to make a whole chair with original finish.

75.3. All other parts will be designated as #443, and a new seat and show cover will be made.

76. REVISION: DISCOVERY The chairs are not quite identical; Mason’s skills in reproducing were not as

we thought, and the chairs were indeed artisan made, and so all parts are not quite identical.

76.1. Therefore, in the case of the rung, we could not borrow from #443, but have to make a new

rung for #328.

76.2. Mitchell used the original helical springs on #443, not on the chair designated for the Museum

Collection; we could not find the proper length and gauged helical springs to fit the historic

patterns used, and used contemporary springs on the museum item, which no one will sit on.

76.3. Mitchell will keep his eye out for identical helical springs, used, and switch them out if he ever

finds them.




TREATMENT REPORT FOR #328 (MUSEUM) AND #443 (CHATEAU) SMOKEY MAPLE LADDER-BACK PEPLUM MASON MONTEREY CHAIR

GENERAL ATTITUDE TOWARD TREATMENT

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

78. Treatment was performed in the following order:

78.1. Excavation,

78.2. Cleaning the frames,

78.3. Structural reparation,

78.4. Finish reparation,

78.5. Reusable innards and original show cover (#328), and

78.6. Reupholstery with new show cover (#443).

79. We based all protocol on the following parameters:

79.1. NPS guidelines for museum protocol;

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

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

materials and methods used;

79.4. the unusual intended use of these historic pieces;

79.5. precedence within these parameters.

80. Regarding chair #328, museum protocol was followed.

81. Regarding chair #443’s daily use as a working piece in the Chateau, this parameter took precedence

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

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

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




81.1. Reversible methods and barriers typically used in finish repairs were minimized, due to the

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

compromised; the curator was notified of deviations from reversibility.

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

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

deviate from museum protocol in order to protect the finish during life in the Chateau.

81.3. It became our intention to add a matching top coat of Smokey Maple to the original painted

finish, using similar paints and techniques, with the exception of non-toxic pigment

substitutions for highly toxic pigments within the spirit of historical accuracy.

81.4. This topcoat had a high amount of quality diluent that will protect the original finish

underneath, while selective use of pigmented diluent evens out the tonal quality of the original

finish, making the chair presentable for public use.

81.5. It is not reversible.

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

CAVES PAINTED FINISHES MASON MONTEREY.”

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

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

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

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

83.1. However, all historic materials were returned to the NPS with the exception of the cotton

stuffings infused with mouse urine and feces, thereby allowing for potential reuse or curation

of materials in future if the NPS so desired.




EXCAVATION + MOCKUP

84. #328 was already mostly disassembled, top right and

page 1; it was mocked up with clamps to assess the fit of

the parts, center right.

85. Careful excavation has a dual focus: preservation of

historical materials and techniques, and discovery of

original materials and techniques hidden in joints and

beneath the show cover, including possible original

upholstery materials.

86. Anomalies and failures, in design or engineering, are

documented so strategies can be developed to mitigate

or rectify these failures during treatment and/or the

next upholstery process if appropriate and/or

necessary.

87. The purpose of the small nails we discussed in the Assessment were evident to us as we excavated

#443 (and the A-frame Chairs as well): Mason drove small nails into his tenons to secure them.

87.1. It was not necessary to do so, as the tenons were originally glued into the mortice with hide

glue, and made reparation difficult.




87.2. Mitchell surmises they introduced brads and

nails during the glue-up phase, penetrating

mortice walls and tenons, and often burying

these nails into the wood substrate in an attempt

to circumvent the traditional activity of

clamping joinery during glue cures, thereby

saving dollars in labor time, never realizing

that their furniture would one day be collectible

western heritage pieces necessitating

disassembly for restoration and preservation.

87.3. This singular practice caused many problems

during reparation.

88. Mitchell injected hot undiluted vinegar around the nails

to dissolve the glue in the mortice and any glue which

may have seeped around the nails during construction

of the chair prior to attempting to remove the nails

89. Surface glue was removed with needles and chisels, right,

allowing access for needles into the joints..

90. Hot vinegar was injected into joints, bottom right.

91. Rungs and splats were gently pried and loosened, next

page top left, and then clamps were used to gently

spread the legs to open the joints, next page center left.

92. When necessary, a rubber mallet was used to tamp the

joints apart, next page center right.

93. Chair #443 was disassembled, next page below; the left-

facing previously and poorly repaired front leg split

into many pieces, next page bottom right.




#443: Hot vinegar was injected into joints, above left, and joints were gently pried apart, above center. The chair is in pieces, below; note the broken left-facing front leg, bottom right, which will be replicated.




STRUCTURAL REPARATION

94. Mitchell believes this chair model may have been designed for a

slung leather seat, and was modified for an upholstered piece: see

ADAPTATIONS TO PEPLUM SEAT, page 50.

NEW PARTS95. A new rung and a new leg were created to replace missing or

shattered parts.

96. Each elevation of rungs were different lengths which created the

back leg/stile angle,shown page 9; the rung from #328 was

unable to be swapped out as it did not quite fit.

96.1. A new rung was created from alder to

match the missing one; it was patterned to

match its mate on chair #328 with

modifications.

96.2. A tenon saw cut the length; top right.

96.3. Sandpaper tapered the tenons to fit the

mortice, center right.

96.4. The rung was distressed directionally with

coarse sandpaper to match the other

rungs, bottom right, and light cross-cuts

were made with rasps.

97. The left-facing front leg was made from alder,

next page, to match the one on #443.

97.1. The pattern was made and the basic form

was cut.

97.2. A drill press bored the tenons using a Forsner bit, next page top.

97.3. The legs had crisp edges and symmetrical shape.




97.4. The crisp edges of the rectangular leg were softened by hand-chamfering, center right.

97.5. The legs were run across a sand belt to

remove parts of the turns, and to put deep

1/4 to 1/2-inch ruts in the sides, bottom left.

97.6. Coarse sandpaper was glued to a board and

the new legs were dragged across the

sandpaper, causing scratches, right.

97.7. Various rasps added deeper marks, bottom.

97.8. The leg looked like it had been run over by a herd of horses; it was ready for reassembly,

next page top!




98. New muslin shims for the tenons were cut using an

upholstery button cutting press and cutter, shown

center.

99. All new parts were completed.

TENONS AND MORTICE CLEAN

100. We cleaned the tenon mortice of hide glue and old

muslin used as a shim by injecting hot undiluted

vinegar into the mortice, then chisels scraped the

mortice clean, right and bottom left.

100.1. Cleaned mortice shown bottom right.

100.2. Note no holes from small nails is evident.




101. Tenon were cleaned of old hide glue and bits of muslin shim, using chisels, top, and sanding, center

left, until clean for reassembly, center right.

REASSEMBLY

102. The reassembly had to be completed in a short time: once started, as each chair had to be

reassembled and trued to a level surface before the hide glue had cured.

103. The steps were the same, but repeated for each portion of the chair: back, front, then sides, in

assembling the whole.

REASSEMBLY: #328

104. Mitchell began with #328 , shown pages 29-35.

105. Basic steps assembling tenon into mortice:

105.1. Warm hide glue was applied to the tenon mortice, next page top left and right.

105.2. Warm hide glue was applied to the tenons, center left.

105.3. A muslin strip was laid across the mortice and more warm hide glue was applied to the top

of the muslin, center right and bottom left.




105.4. The tenons were set into the mortice, using

the muslin as a shim, and tamped gently

but securely into place, center right.

105.5. Excess muslin was trimmed, bottom right.

106. Rung tenons and splat tenons were treated the

same: rung tenons shown above, splat double tenons

shown next page.




107. The difficulty was in setting all the tenons into

mortice at one time, considering the open time of the

warm hide glue and the number of clamps and

competing forces.

108. The left-facing side was assembled, shown right.

109. The next, more difficult stage, was putting the other

side’s mortice onto the not-yet-set tenons without collapsing the back, shown next.

110. The side which was together, shown right, was secured to the table.

111. Again, the basic strategy was followed:

111.1. Warm hide glue was applied to the tenons, upright in the air, next page top.

111.2. Warm hide glue was applied to the tenon mortice on the other back stile/leg, next page

center left.

111.3. A muslin strip was laid across the tenons, and more warm hide glue was applied to the top

of the muslin to act as a wrapping shim.




111.4. The left-facing stile/leg was secured on one side to a level surface with the back splat

mortice lip.

111.5. Back rungs, center and crest splats were tamped gently but securely into place, top.

111.6. The right-facing stile/leg mortice were coated with glue, and tamped securely onto the

preglued rung and splat tenons, bottom left.




111.7. The back assembly was squared and clamped to cure, previous page bottom right.

111.8. Excess muslim was trimmed.

112. The front legs and rungs were assembled, below.

113. The same strategy as the back assembly of gluing was followed until the front was assembled, glued

squared and clamped, shown below.

114. Front and back glue assembly was allowed to cure partially for a period of time, but not to

complete cure, so as to insure plasticity during the side rung assembly which would reunite the seat

front to the chair back.




115. Because of decades of disrepair and twists and bows caused by the loss of joinery tension,

asymmetrical sitting pressure, seasonal expansion and contractions, and finally the angled design

of the back, it was necessary to temporarily allow plasticity in the already conserved joinery so

that during the side glue up and reunion of the front and rear the frame could find a relatively

proper sitting position before final leveling and clamping to cure.




116. After front and back were assembled, and while the

glue was still soft, the connecting rungs were

assembled in the same manner, gluing and shimming,

this page.

117. An elaborate and thoughtful system of clamps were

applied, both to hold the stair-stepping chair joints

together, and to square the chair to a level surface,

shown next page.

118. Boards were used to create downward pressure

during clamping and to level and true the chair,

and the chair was allowed to cure while in stasis,

shown next page.




119. Squares were secured to the leveling platform next to the chair legs during the clamping so that

Mitchell ensured the frame was square and level, or “true.”

120. #328 was assembled.




REASSEMBLY: #443

121. The back was assembled as previously

described, and shown clamped and waiting

with the back from #328, top right.

122. The front was assembled with the new leg,

shown below, and clamped to set.




123. The side rungs were assembled, shown above.

124. When the chair was assembled, the elaborate and planned system of clamping to true the chair to a

level surface was implemented, using leverage when jigs were not possible, bottom right.

124.1. Squares were placed next to the chair during the clamping so that Mitchell ensured the

frame was square and level, or “true.”




125. Note: Because many of the historic rungs were warped into configurations, they were not

conducive to maintaining or recreating a plum, level and square frame even after the glue cured.

125.1. However, chairs remained in “traction” for several days until the glue joins were

completely cured, enabling the piece to begin to conform closely to its original shape.

125.2. Ultimately there was little anomaly, though asymmetry could be seen when a square was

placed next to the frame.

126. Incandescent lights were placed into the chair interior to ensure plasticity of the warped apron

rung tenons and mortice connection during hydration from regluing.

126.1. In this way the glue remained partially viscous during this time and allowed the warped

and twisted chair frame to conform to basic squaring and leveling standards.

126.2. Lights remained on joinery for 24 hours then were progressively turned of over another

24hour period.

127. The chair remained in clamped stasis for another 48 hours at low RH.

128. After curing, all clamps were progressively removed in reverse order from those responsible for

squaring to those responsible for leveling.

129. The nail holes from the small nails used by Mason to hold the tenons were conserved by the

insertion of dowels into the nail holes using warm hide glue, shown below.




130. Several nail holes in both chairs left deep gouges.

130.1. The areas was taped off, shown on #328 top left, and Araldyte® was applied with a knife

to fill the gap, center.

130.2. The tape was removed, top right, and allowed to cure.

130.3. The dried Araldyte® was shaped to conform to the round surface using chisels to scrap the

configuration then lightly sanding to surface level.

131. A deeper gouge was treated the same way, shown next page center and bottom.




GLIDES (After Finish and Upholstery)

132. Open end grain was rubbed with clear paraffin to seal.

133. New glides were placed on the bottom of the chair legs.

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

133.2. Glide was carefully tamped into position.

134. Structural Reparation was finished.




FINISH TREATMENT

GENERAL NOTES AND APPROACH

135. The finish information is as stands, with revisions, in the Assessment Report, pages 12 to 14.

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

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

137. On #328, museum protocol was followed: barrier as appropriate, infill as necessary, wax to protect.

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

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

OREGON CAVES MASON MONTEREY PAINTED FINISHES REPORT.”

138.1. #443, which was to go back on the chateau floor, was treated differently that #328, which

went into the museum collection.

138.2. With curatorial approval, we deviated from museum protocol and placed a topcoat of

Smokey Maple glaze in order to seal the original finish, and add a protective coat suitable

for the high-traffic abuse of a hotel setting.

138.3. MPFC reproduced the original painted finish, using similar paints and techniques, with the

exception of non-toxic pigment substitutions for highly toxic pigments.

139. MPFC and Mary Merryman chose Gamblin Oil Paints, known

for their conservation work and for their commitment to non-

toxic paints to create a match for the original oil painted finish.

140. We created a very light Smokey Maple Glaze topcoat.

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

the “2010 NPS OREGON CAVES MASON MONTEREY

PAINTED FINISHES REPORT.”

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




modified it as necessary.

142.1. This base was modified by the addition of

either pigments and/or diluent depending

upon the existing level and color of finish

present on the chair.

MYSTERY SOLVED

143. A mystery until the writing of this report was

why Mason typically painted a gesso undercoat

on some of the pieces but not all of the pieces, of a

given chair.

143.1. The key is in the image, top right, of A-

Frame #357, which was the best example

of original smokey maple pigment left on

a leg top.

143.2. If this were stripped of all paint, the grain

on the leg and the kerf (notice the line

across the round leg top) were cut cross

grain, which is visually different from the

grain on the seat, and can be seen best in

the three different grain patterns shown in

an image center right from A-Frame

#436.

143.3. Mason gessoed the alder then painted

grain to appear as he wanted.

143.4. The bottom two images of legs illustrate

two things: the odd directional pattern

Mason created center bottom right, and




bottom right, you can see the thin layer of gesso under the leg paint.

143.5. We did not gesso the new pieces but created all our directional qualities through distressing.

143.6. Of course, in future, we now know this important piece of information, and would also

replicate Mason’s gesso/directional distressing technique.

FINISH: PRACTICE AND TESTING FOR REPRODUCTION

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

practice and tests for the Gamblin Paints.

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

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

strokes and layering used on the Mason pieces.

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

and techniques; all were evaluated and culled

into the method used for reproduction of

finishes: brushing, wiping, scrubbing paints!

145.2. Consistency and movement were noted, such

as the dripping paint shown in the center, right;

the failures were as informative as the

successes, and were noted.

145.3. Finally recipes were finalized and methods perfected.

FINISH: CLEANING

146. Each chair was thoroughly cleaned before finish work commenced.

147. Deionized water, diaper cloth, and occasionally cotton swabs were used to clean the surface.

148. #328 and #443 were not as greasy as the chairs which lived in the lobby.

149. We found dust and settled dirt, few paint splatters, no mold, no thick grease.

150. Cleaning failures were few.




FINISH #328: MUSEUM COLLECTION, INFILL AND WAX

151. The chair was clean and ready for infill, top right.

152. The new rung, center left, was painted with Smokey Maple Glaze, using diluent where necessary

to cut the pigment, center right.

153. The infill was allowed to cure three weeks before waxing.

154. The infill only was sanded using a fine abrasive pad.

155. The entire chair was waxed using Myland’s clear wax, and buffed to a medium sheen, shown next

page.

156. The chair was ready for upholstery.




#328 before finish work and after finish work, top left and right.




FINISH #443: LIGHT SANDING

157. The finish on all parts of the chair was lightly sanded with a fine grain sandpaper to knock off loose

finish, and to raise the grain to accept the Smokey Maple glaze top coat.

158. Smokey Maple is a transparent glaze; Kate selectively sanded with an eye to the manner in which

the chair’s finish would have worn as “antiques,” especially around areas which reparation left

bare wood, to integrate the damage, much as Mason might have when creating the chairs.

158.1. Kate used images of Monterey chairs with original finish intact, noting wear in certain

areas, more pigment intact in others, and reproduced the affects as Mason would have done

in each chair.

159. #443 was quite scratched before treatment, with large patches of completely bare wood.

160. A vacuum and damp diaper cloth removed the fine dust, and the piece was ready for the finish coat.

FINISH #443: SMOKEY MAPLE TOP COAT

161. Golden MSA Hard Varnish was applied to act as a barrier, on

the inside of the rear legs and along the left-facing portion of the

front apron, before the top coat of oil paint was applied.

162. Oil paint was applied over the barrier.

FINISH #443: BUILDUP / FIRST COAT SMOKEY MAPLE

163. The entire chair was to receive a top coat of Smokey Maple

glaze; the new leg needed to be brought up to the level of the

existing pigment in order to appear unified after

the finish treatment.

164. Testing for opacity was performed on the inside

the right-facing leg.

165. In additionally to the Smokey Maple container,

diluent and pigment were open during treatment,

right, as Kate needed to be able to use each as

needed to artfully apply the new top coat.




#328 next to #443 after the first coat is complete; the wax has not been applied to #328 so the finish appears lighter than when wax is complete. Kate took the application of wax in mind when adding pigment.

Note the scratches on #328, top right, before infill and wax were were performed.

166. A synthetic flat size #8 & #16 was used, then a bristle flat of #20.

167. Chair #328 as well as A-Frames in Smokey Maple were kept next to #443 for additional

information on the level of pigmentation added.

167.1. Kate wanted the pigment to be just dark enough so that it would cover the various repairs

and anomalies, but in keeping with the lighter Smokey Maple of the Museum piece.

167.2. Kate took the application of wax in mind when adding pigment.

168. Painting was done methodically.

168.1. The first phase was for the back of the chair.

168.2. The chair was laid on its back and the inside back was painted, then placed on its feet while

the outside back and inside stile was painted.

168.3. In all cases, paint was applied, then wear marks were lightened by rubbing vigorously, and

edges were also rubbed out as necessary.

169. The paint was allowed to cure four days.

FINISH #443: BUILDUP / SECOND COAT SMOKEY MAPLE

170. The second coat was added, painting was done methodically.

170.1. The chair was tipped on its head and the inside rungs, and inside legs were painted.

170.2. On its feet, the side rungs were painted.




170.3. The front was painted last, and the front leg was

blended to match the right-facing leg.

170.4. In all cases, paint was applied, then wear marks were

lightened by rubbing vigorously, and edges were also

rubbed out as necessary.

171. The paint was allowed to cure four days, top right.

FINISH #443: BUILDUP / FINAL COAT SMOKEY MAPLE

172. Two things were still not quite right:

172.1. The overall appearance was too uniform: The

original finish appeared a bit spotty, and Kate assumed this was by design.

172.2. The front leg needed a bit more pigment in various areas.

173. Touchup was performed as needed, using a diluent that held

brush marks, center.

174. The paint was complete, and allowed to cure three weeks before

waxing, bottom.

FINISH #443: WAX

175. The finish on the entire chair was scuffed using abrasive pads

in fine and medium grit.

176. Pigmented wax with a high amount of carnauba was applied

and worked into all the crevices, then artfully removed to




allow accretions.

177. After allowing the wax to set, the chair was polished with a soft diaper cloth to a medium sheen.

178. Chair #443 was ready for its new seat and show cover.




UPHOLSTERY TREATMENTADAPTATIONS OF PEPLUM SEAT179. Mason used a unique modification in the form of a padded pillow, which includes fabric flanges that

protrude from the front and rear of the pillow, wrap around the offset front and rear seat rungs,

then terminate at center bottom butting together in a pocketed flange.

180. The pocket is filled with a straight, heavy spring-up edgewire which is bent on the ends to prevent

the wire from slipping laterally from the pocket from expansion and contraction during sitting.

181. Short but low gauge helical springs are attached through the fabric pocket hooking around the

edgewire in four positions along the width of the flanged pocket.

182. Both sides of the pocket flange are then joined together creating a unique pillow top that remains in

position, produces no more stress on the frame rungs than does a woven seat.

182.1. However, all stress is omitted from the side rungs therefore al stresses of sitting are on the

front and rear rungs; perhaps the only downside of this construction.

183. The pillow top keeps its loft and full at the top creating an aesthetically pleasing presentation and

a comfortable though demure, sitting footprint.

183.1. At the same time the seat allows for a springing action thereby taking advantage of a

flexible center of gravity, heretofore unavailable on this style of chair.

184. MPFC does not know if this design was a creation of Mason’s upholsterer or if it existed in

advance of this model.

185. Based upon other models of upholstered pieces by Monterey, there is little evidence of creative

engineering, including shoddy upholstery engineering flaws that have actually harmed the

longevity of the upholstery, Mitchell questions whether Mason’s upholsterer created the design.

185.1. However, sometimes creative design appears through common craft ingenuity; it is true

that we have never seen this type of engineering before; we are happy that the NPS will

preserve the original peplum

186. The original upholstery from #443 was good condition, and was cleaned and repaired, to be placed

on #328, part of the Museum Collection, described below.




187. The second seat was to be used as a template,

excavated and studied.

188. The two chairs now are again split into two

for the final part of the treatment report.

The seat and show cover were in excellent condition, shown this page during close inspection

prior to reparation and cleaning.




CONSERVATION OF UPHOLSTERY #328

CLEAN + REPAIR

189. The original show cover was woven mostly of

cotton yarn, with a bit of linen or rayon, loosely

woven with a latex backing to maintain the

integrity of warp and weft.

190. The original upholstery was cleaned.

191. Before Kate could proceed with cleaning, a test of the

show cover was necessary: a piece of the peplum on

the chewed show cover #443 was cut for testing, shown top right.

192. The test strip piece was soaked in deionized water for 24 hours, top right.

193. The test strip then was placed on a clean paper towel and left to dry, top right.

194. After drying, Kate lifted the strip, top right, for inspection.

194.1. Quite a bit of red dye migration was left behind, top right.

194.2. Our conclusion was that soaking in water was not advisable.

195. Kate deeply vacuumed the entire seat and show cover through a HEPA filter, shown next page

after cleaning, during close inspection.

195.1. After vacuuming, she determined that the seat and show cover were in excellent condition,

and could be surface cleaned.

195.2. She did not try other chemicals nor dry cleaning.

196. Kate detected five rips or cuts in the show cover.

196.1. These were repaired using cotton thread, shown page 51.

197. The seat was ready for surface cleaning.




Two examples of rips repaired:

Above, a rip with losses is rewoven with cotton thread, which also is whip-stitched into seeming like part of the slubbed material, to be concealed.

Bottom, a rip with no losses was simply closed and secured.




198. Kate used a new clean sponge and deionized water to clean

the show cover, right and below.

198.1. The sponge was damp, and the edges allowed Kate to

get into the seam areas where dirt collected, top right

and center left.

198.2. The sponge edges quickly collected dirt, top right.

198.3. The sponge was rinsed in the water, then dipped into

clean deionized water before each area was cleaned.

198.4. Several passes on the surface over two days allowed

surface dirt to be lifted, center right.

198.5. Both top and undercover were cleaned in this manner.

198.6. The ruffle skirt (peplum) was badly crinkled; Kate hoped that the moisture and laying the

ruffle open to dry would assist in removing some of the unwanted crinkling in the peplum.

198.7. Unfortunately, the back, a liquid latex adhesive, would not relax with the moisture, but

retained all of the unwanted crinkling.

198.8. Kate ironed the peplum after cleaning, using steam (deionized water) and a medium hot

iron; this too, had little effect on the latex backing.

199. NOTE: In future, it is important to store the pieces with original show covers properly so that

long-term indentations and unwanted crinkles are not allowed to develop.




REASSEMBLY

200. After the show cover was sufficiently dry, the seat

cushion upholstery replacement for #328 was

performed, shown right.

201. Mitchell originally intended to use the original

helical springs and spring edgewire on the museum

items, however, however, the original size and

gage of spring matching the historic spring was no

longer available.

201.1. Specialty hardware houses as well as

sources for vintage hardware were

contacted; no sources were

able to obtain the original

item true to specs.

201.2. To this end, we decided to use

the originals on chair #443,

which was going ot be used

and was styled to the same

patterns, and will perform

properly, as the historic

springs have better tension

those of similar size made

today.

202. The chair was completed, shown

bottom right and page 64.




UPHOLSTERY #443: NEW PILLOW TOP AND SHOW COVER

#443: EXCAVATION OF #328

AND PATTERN MAKING

203. The second seat, shown right, was excavated in order

to create a pattern and to study the manner of

construction.

203.1. Each seam was carefully picked, disassembled,

and labeled, center, then ironed flat for

pattern-making, bottom.

203.2. All pieces except the cotton stuffing were vacuumed and returned to the NPS for storage;

the stuffing was laden with mouse feces and droppings, and so was discarded after

consultation with Mary Merryman.

203.3. Patterns were created from black




#443: NEW MATERIALS AND SHOW COVER

204. The show cover was chosen because of its ethnic

Mexican flavor, detail top right.

204.1. It was made of natural fibers: Cotton

canvas background with machine

embroidered wool and rayon yarn.

204.2. It was a contemporary weave milled by

Kravet Fabric Monkwell Mill in the UK for Oscar de la Renta; , it reflects the Los

Angeles Hollywood Western Mexican theme so popular in during the 1920’s.

205. 17 oz sanded cotton canvas upholstery weight

twill was chosen for its neutral tone, tensile

strength (it creates the sling portion of the cushion

which withstands the stresses of sitting), softness of

surface (high double rubs) and texture (the defined

twill ribbing would act as a deterrent to slippage

of the cushion around the frames rungs during

repeated sittings.

206. The neutral color was warmed by

staining in organic black tea, in order to

mirror the tone of the show cover

background.

206.1. Twill was cut in large blocks,

boiled in water with the tea

bags, then rinsed and soaked in cold water.

206.2. Twill was hand-rung, then dried by pressing with a hot iron to set the tea stain.

207. Twill was cut to the pattern made of black cotton twill, then surged to overcast the edges

preventing fraying, shown center right.




208. The show cover motif was identified and the fabric

was also surged to overcast to prevent fraying, top

right.

209. All pieces were laid out for final inspection, center

left.

210. The show cover pillow top was gathered and pinned

readying it for construction, center right.

211. The skirt was cut double wide vertically to act as skirt front as well as act as inner-face backing,

center left.

212. A muslin header was stitched to the skirt top to minimize bulk created from skirt pleating, and

inhibiting proper seating of welt, cushion seam and skirting header, shown bottom left.

213. Bottom left, a basting stitch was run through header top in order to use the bobbin stitch as a draw

line during pleating.




214. The skirts were inner-faced, header installed,

overcast, sewn into pockets and the front skirt

was pre-pinned into pleats, top and center right.

215. The skirts were stitched, center bottom left.

216. The cushion top was overcast and the corners

stitched pleated, center bottom right.

217. The cushion top had a

cotton core welt added,

bottom left.

217.1. The solid color welt

was taken from the

show cover selvage.




218. The pleated skirt was sewn to

the welted cushion top,

previous page bottom right.

219. The twill cushion bottom was

sewn in preparation to be

sewn onto pillow top, shown

top right.

220. The pillow top and bottom stretcher were sewn

together.

221. 7 gauge vintage wire edging was custom cut,

center right, to act as the structural pocket

member which the helical springs fasten around

beneath the cushion.

222. Wire ends were taped to prevent slippage or

fraying the material during use.

223. The wire was placed into the pocket, center bottom

right.

#443: TICK AND STUFFING

224. An interior cushion ticking, not original to

Mason’s seat, was chosen for the Chateau’s long-

term durable use.

224.1. 400 thread count 100% cotton percale

was cut and sewn into a ticking, bottom

right.

224.2. The ticking was designed for durability

and comfort; the pillow is stationary and

would not be turned over.




224.3. Mitchell created a flat bottom, knife edge, Turkish corner design for the ticking; the bottom

would remain stable while the top could expand and contract when sat on, without

knotting or over-compaction.

225. Several layers of 50/50 cotton batting were cut into stair stepping gradients of lofting in order to

create the soft top with increasing levels of compaction extending into its core, top left and right.

226. Sandwiched cotton pillow stuffing and ticking were ready to stuff, center.

227. The ticking was stuffed and loft and compaction were compared to the museum pillow top, bottom.




228. The ticking was stuffed into the completed show

cover, top right, then hand stitched.

229. Twill was punched with a leather punch prior to

installing the helical springs, just as it had been

done on the original, center right.

#443: FINAL ASSEMBLY AND ATTACHMENT

230. Helical springs were inserted on one side of the

structure under the pillow top.

231. The springs were stretched open with cording and

hooked to the edgewire in the opposite pocket,

bottom center.

232. All four helical springs were installed, bottom.

233.

234. Pillow cushion corners were regulated to pack

cotton into the extremities, next page top left.

235. Welt corners were penetrated with headless nail

into the original holes to secure corners to the

frame rungs, preventing slippage, exactly as

Mason did originally, next page top center and

right.




#443: SEAT SKIRT TRAINING

236. The skirt wanted to flounce out, which is normal, right;

Mitchell had to train the skirt.

237. Twine was attached to the bottom of the skirt pleats, slip

knotted, and a heavy stainless steel washer was attached.

238. Mitchell lightly dampened the pleating, and steamed it to lay

flat, bottom left and right, then left to “train” several days.

239. Washers were removed, and #443 was completed, shown next

page.




Ladder-back chair’s #443, left, and #328, right, are shown at the NPS/MPFC Opening!

(Below, #346 Wingback and #356 Ottoman are shown also.)




Documents

TREATMENT REPORT FOR MASON MONTEREY #328 (MUSEUM) … NPS ORCA/FULL... · 2018. 9. 14. · TREATMENT REPORT FOR MASON MONTEREY #328 (MUSEUM) AND #443 (CHATEAU) SMOKEY MAPLE LADDER-BACK