Gal-10 Owens Cobblestone Discussion

Editor's Note: The 1174 Gansz Rd. structure Gal-10 Owens has highlighted a controversy among our community of people with a serious involvement with cobblestone structures. Specifically, the controversy is about how is a stone structure qualified to be an authentic cobblestone structure circa 1825 to ~1868.

A cobblestone structure typically has a thick inner wall of rubble stone and mortar. Cobble stones set in mortar are an exterior veneer to the rubble wall. Total wall thickness used depended on the height of the structure. A multistory building could be as much as 2 feet thick at the base with lesser thicknesses for each additional floor. A detailed discussion of the history of this construction technique is found in Carl F. Schmidt's book "Cobblestone Masonry" 1966, pages 4-9.

Virtually all authentic cobblestone buildings were custom built using either the construction materials found on the property, sourced locally, and/or collected at some distance and brought to the building site. No original architectural or builder's drawings have been made available to-date to the Cobblestone Info Base project. Architect and author Carl F. Schmidt created a significant number of drawings found in his books "Cobblestone Architecture" 1944, pages 74-102, "Cobblestone Masonry" 1966, pages 229-311 and a few floor plans of structures scattered throughout the Cobblestone Info Base. A few later drawings from other sources have been found and included. Builders were often experienced masons and carpenters, the names most often lost to time. In a few instances, structures were built in part or whole by the owner.

Determining if a structure is an authentic cobblestone building depends almost entirely on the construction of the stone and mortar veneer facade of the exterior walls. Following is a list (not all inclusive) of the unique attributes of the wall construction to be considered.

  1. Stones could be either whole, rounded and smooth water washed, whole, irregular shaped, field stone with varying degrees of roughness, and/or cleaved stone of either type (oriented with non-cleaved side out)
  2. Stones used for the exterior veneer of the wall were usually sorted for shape, size and often color.
  3. The the quality of the stone veneer of the public facing wall was most often constructed with the most similar and finer stones. Typically the side walls were lesser quality and the back walls the least quality.
  4. The measured angular position and depth of the stone set into the mortar by the mason creates a perception of depth and design, further augmented in some structures by selecting stone color.
  5. Quoins, lintels, sills and water tables were typically cut shaped stones, usually limestone or sandstone, with a consistent type of finish. Quoins, could be irregular rough stone, pilasters (made of stone, concrete, wood or concrete over brick, or quoins could be absent with rounded corners of stone. Lintels and sills could be a single piece of cut stone or wood, row of stones (cut or selected), or bricks.
  6. Stones were set in horizontal rows with similar size stones. The number of rows per quoin were equally spaced and usually consistent in number.
  7. Vertical alignment of stones, if present, depended on the selection of stone sizes, shape and/or orientation.
  8. Selection of stone color could be used to create visual design patterns such as either a single row or a number of rows of stones to create bands of color; otherwise, there could be random dispersion of stone colors in a wall.
  9. Mortar could be troweled flat, or more common in repetitive ways to form shaped horizontal continuous "V" shapes Stones could be flush with the mortar, but in most cases were consistently projected a specific amount above the mortar. Along with the horizontal shaping, mortar could also be shaped vertically or angular to form a geometric pattern from squares to multi-faced around top frame each stone.

Mirriam-Webster definitions of:

cobblestone (noun): A naturally rounded stone larger than a pebble and smaller than a boulder. Especially: such a stone used in paving a street or in construction.
pebble (noun): a small usually rounded stone especially when worn by the action of water.
boulder (noun): a detached and rounded or much-worn mass of rock.

There is one remaining definition that is exceeding important in determining whether a structure is an authentic cobblestone or not.

aesthetic (noun): a particular theory or conception of beauty or art: a particular taste for or approach to what is pleasing to the senses and especially sight. Appreciative of, responsive to, or zealous about the beautiful.

To put all of the above into perspective, consider the following:

Now to the crux of the controversy of what is an authentic cobblestone. There are just a few important questions about construction issues to consider from those stated above.

    Are the stones only in horizontal rows?
    Are the stones in the rows about the same size and the rows evenly spaced? Note that two smaller stones may occasionally be stacked vertically to equal the height of one stone.
    Is the mortar consistently applied in the same manner regardless of trowel technique?
    Is the height of the stones in relation to the surface of the mortar is consistent with the embedded stones. Stones may be flush, but most often are raised by a fairly consistent height.
    What are the size and shape of the stones and are they consistent?
    Has a clearly defined and accepted architectural statement of features been defined for the materials and construction of an authentic cobblestone facade?

How does all of this apply to the structure at 1174 Gansz Rd.?

First it is important to understand the question "can we categorize the characteristics of the stone facade exterior walls of large number of custom built structures over a span of 40 year of continuous development?" As documented above, there are a number of variables with different levels of importance. If there were a way to numerically classify each structure, then when all structures are ranked, a graph with a plotted curve line could be made. Where does any specific structure exist on that curve, from definitely "isn't" a cobblestone structure on the far left, to what is an elegant example of a cobblestone structure on the right? Definitely trying to stay out the weeds on this issue.

Consider that the key to this discusion is that there is a prejudice to overcome. The basic element in the definition of a stone called cobblestone is that it is smooth and round. There many cobblestone structures that have in varying amounts field stones that technically are not round and/or nor smooth. So just the use of cobblestone to define all accepted structures is suspect. It seems petty, but the reality is that those individuals who consider the controversy of whether a structure "isn't or is" a cobblestone structure likely are prejudiced because they have in their mind's eye an aesthetic of a traditional cobblestone structure that meets or exceeds most or all of the material and construction characteristics discussed above.

The reality of defining the cutoff point between "isn't or is" a cobblestone structure somewhere near the left side of the curve is quite subjective, a very gray area. A cobblestone superficial, aesthetic judgement/statement about a supposed "isn't" structure is "the building is plainly UGLY.

1174 Gansz Rd. structure assumptions:

This is a primitive structure regardless of when constructed. The 1853 and 1858 maps suggest that the structure was built between these two dates based on the location of the Ayrehart residence shown only in 1858. You could assume that primitive cobblestone structures would only be built in the first period 1825-1835 as defined by Carl F. Schmidt. However, consider that a property owner was not prosperous, had access to a sufficient quantity of random type and size stones in his and his neighbors' fields, had access to lime for mortar, and could only financially be able to construct a residential building through his lesser skilled efforts as well as others who agreed to help. Point is that a primitive structure could be built anytime after 1835, even today.

We only have most of one complete wall and a small partial segment of the adjoining wall to examine. The first five questions above, can be with some flexibility, be answered yes. The fifth question has to be put in context as a probable yes with the statement Carl F. Schmidt makes on page 4, "Early Period, 1825-1835", of his book "Cobblestone Masonry" 1966.

During the first half of the Early Period the masons used stones of various sizes and shapes as well as different colors, just as they were gathered from the fields. The exposed stones were from two and one-half to three and one-half inches high and from three to seven inches long; the masons did not hesitate to use a few larger stones from eight to ten inches long but scattered them in the walls. The horizontal mortar joints varied from one to one and one-half inches wide. These were wavy, irregular lines, usually flat, but in the places the mason formed a flat convex "V" by holding his trowel at an angle the striking the joints.

As editor of the Cobblestone Info Base I don't have the background to determine if a stone building "isn't or is" and authentic cobblestone structure; however, I have the right to include a structure in the Cobblestone Info Base as long as the documentation states that either it "isn't or is" based on majority opinion gathered from replies to an email sent to knowledgeable people.

This is a very interesting conversation. From what I can see of the house - per the photo... - the stones are of various sizes. They also appear to be laid in a mostly horizontal manner (rows) with stone corner quoins. As opposed to being laid in a completely random arrangement (neither vertical or horizontal alignments).

The stones also appear to be laid flush, with the wall surface (as opposed to the stones being somewhat projecting forward, from the wall surface). ¹

Having stated the above ---- I would list this as a cobblestone building, likely a very early and/or primitive example of that masonry tradition. As this is a very rural, rather isolated example of cobblestone masonry, it's likely the original craftsmen involved with the building of this house were not greatly experienced with the specifics of cobblestone construction - thus its rather "primitive" appearance.

Also, it's likely the owner of this rural site in Galen had limited funds to build this house, thus used whatever stones were located nearby, in the fields and acreage he (or his immediate neighbors) owned. And, those stones were of random size/scale ----- as compared to later cobblestone construction, when owners had more money and the ability to acquire/transport/sort stones into those of similar size/color/appearance, which we see on more sophisticated/later examples of cobblestone masonry.

I would definitely include this building in the on-line cobblestone information data base inventory.

      Cynthia Howk, architecture historian, retired from The Landmark Society of Western New York

I agree with Cynthia. I think it should be included in the database, identified as a primitive example. The main thing that makes me want to include it is the horizontal placement of the stones. Most fieldstone houses have a much more random placement due to the varying sizes of stone used. Here there was an obvious effort to maintain the horizontal orientation. I wish I knew the date of construction, as that might also influence my choice.

      Erin Anheier, Cobblestone Society and Museum President

I don't disagree with Cynthia's assessment that it this building is an attempt to arrange stones in rows and stabilize corners with quoins (which, given the building materials of that period, was the most stable and reliable way to anchor the corners). However, this does NOT make it an authentic cobblestone. Carl F. Schmidt--the cobblestone authority--never mentions this, nor does he include a single one in any of his writings or photographs that I've ever seen.

As I acknowledged in my earlier responses to this issue, the consensus among the 'voting' members is to consider it "cobblestone enough" to toss it into the Info Base; someone photographed it and saved it in the museum's archives.

      Karen Crandall, Contributor and co-editor Cobblestone Info Base

¹ A close examination of enlarged sections of the photographic image does show that the many of the stones are not flush, but do project enough as much as 2+ inches to create a valid perception of depth in the photograph.

As Editor of the Cobblestone Info Base, there is one guideline that I try to adhere: Do not fall into the trap that you maintain a purest attitude about the content of the Cobblestone Info Base. As long as a statement of status is provided, including examples of stone structures that are not authentic cobblestone structures, as well as those that are in gray limbo zone of "isn't or is", provides an educational opportunity for the Cobblestone Info User to experience. Adding that content will not "taint" the Cobblestone Info Base as purists fear.

The Cobblestone Info Base is a virtual library and repository of all known and found information on authentic cobblestone structures circa 1825 to 1868+ in all of North America. Contributed content from five major surveys and studies, a number of digitized publications, and a number of individuals providing smaller amounts of content have put the Cobblestone Info Base on secure footing assuring that it has become a reality. With contributed content that contains any "isn't or is" structure, an analysis of that structure is attempted and to the best of our ability, the structure is included with a statement of status and any provided explanatory statements.