International Women’s Day: Dr. Susan Buck

By Dr. Brenna Spray, Outreach Coordinator

Dr. Susan Buck taking samples from the cornice at Brice House (Photo: David Hildebrand)

Today is International Women’s Day and we are shining a spotlight on world-renowned conservator and paint analyst, Dr. Susan Buck! Susan has worked in the field of paint and finishes analysis since 1991 and completed her PhD in Art Conservation Research at the University of Delaware in 2003 where she won an outstanding dissertation award from the College of Arts and Sciences. Her private conservation work includes analysis and treatment on objects and architecture for many institutions including the World Monuments Fund Qianlong Garden Conservation Project in The Forbidden City in Beijing. Susan has conducted paint analysis on numerous buildings throughout Maryland and MHT is lucky to have worked closely with her on major restoration projects such as the Maryland State House, the old Treasury Building, and the James Brice House.

Susan Buck examining a sample at 10X prior to taking it to her lab for analysis (Photo: David Hildebrand)

Paint is one of the most prominent features of any given space, whether it is on the exterior covering of the dome of the State House or the interior finishes of the main rooms of the Brice House. Proper analysis of paint layers is essential, therefore, to understanding the original colors as well as the pigments and various ingredients used in each layer. During the State House dome restoration, Susan constructed a full chronology of paint layers from the most recent all the way to its original construction. Her analysis concluded that the dome was painted approximately 20 to 30 times in 235 years—and identified the soft, creamier color now visible on the dome. Her analysis also helped to determine proper preparation of surfaces and makeup of the paint ensuring a successful restoration. Her work at the Old Treasury has helped to determine the earliest window configurations as well as identifying a redwash that covered the brickwork.

L-1. NW side, inner surface, top of post, just below railing. Image expanded for details.
Visible Light Lower layers 100X. This sample fractured apart, so the cross-section included here has the paints beginning with Generation 4; the other portion of this sample includes the original cream color and slightly later pinkish-peachy color, as well as later resinous and cream-colored paints. (Cross-section photos: Susan Buck)

Susan worked both inside and out at the James Brice House collecting samples from the interior plaster finishes and walls, the woodwork, the exterior cornice, and even a yellow wash on the brick masonry. Based on her analysis, paint and plaster conservators are able to recreate painted finishes throughout. For example, she discovered 16 layers of paint in the entry, beginning with a deep yellow distemper on top of a sanded plaster which gave the appearance of stone. There are three different generations of modern plaster skimcoats sandwiched between the 16 generations of surviving wall paints in this cross-section, some of which can be related to later paints on the cornice. Conversely, the door leading to the study only had six generations. It is likely that all the woodwork in this room was originally painted blue, and in the cross-section below it is possible to see that the distinctive blue paint became discolored and degraded before it was painted over with the tannish grain-painting sequence in the second generation. Generation 3 is a tan paint, which is followed by later paints that can be aligned with woodwork paints in the entrance hall. The photomicrograph of the paint stratigraphy shows that the earliest three paint generations became quite dirty before being painted over, so considerable time elapsed between those repainting campaigns.

• 

  This sample was taken from the front hall and photographed at 40X. The tiny flake of paint and plaster in the cross-section confirms that the walls were originally painted with a deep yellow distemper paint

• 

  This cross-section sample is from the protected interior of the cupboard door in the office and was photographed at 200X. The paint sequence begins with a coarsely ground, oil-based blue paint made of a traditional combination of Prussian blue, lead white and calcium carbonate.

Dr. Susan Buck has been leading the way in paint analysis and conservation for over 30 years, and MHT cannot wait to continue working on projects across the state with her and other visionary women in preservation. Keep an eye on our Facebook and Instagram pages throughout the rest of the month as we highlight projects from the National Park Service Underrepresented Community Grant project that is just wrapping up. This project is documenting sites related to the women’s suffrage movement, and the first post was about 817 North Charles Street in Baltimore.

Annapolis State House: Past and Present

By Dr. Brenna Spray, MHT Outreach Coordinator

Today is Inauguration Day for Maryland’s new Governor, Wes Moore, who will be sworn into office outside the Maryland State House, once used by the Continental Congress and the oldest state capitol in continuous legislative use in the country. This makes it the perfect place for such a historic moment in Maryland history, and a perfect opportunity to showcase the newly restored State House dome.

Maryland State House, 1786.
“The State House here is certainly an elegant Building. The Room we are to sit in is perhaps the prettyest in America.” From Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1783 November 28

The History of the State House and Dome

There have been no fewer than three capitol buildings on State Circle in Annapolis, with architect Joseph Horatio Anderson and builder Charles Wallace beginning work on the third State House in early 1772. The State House would have been an impressive building in Annapolis, towering above the buildings around it. In 1781, Jean-Francois-Louis de Clermont-Crèvecoeur, a lieutenant in Rochambeau’s army that fought in the American Revolution, wrote about the State House during his time in North America. He called it the “most beautiful of any in America…a beautiful colonnaded peristyle elevated above the ground.” Similarly, during his time on the eastern seaboard, French army chaplain Abbé Claude Robin wrote in 1781 that the “state-house is a very beautiful building, I think the most so of any I have seen in America. The peristyle is set off with pillars, and the edifice is topped with a dome.”

Sketch of the Maryland State House, Charles Willson Peale, July 1789.
“The most beautiful edifice…a magnificent peristyle, adorned with columns, gives an air majestueux this building surmounted by a dome done the proportions are very well-formed for optics.” Joseph Mandrillon, 1785.

The focus for many contemporary writers appears to be on the positioning of the building, its columns, and the dome that sat on the top. However, Clermont-Crèvecoeur does mention that the dome was too small “since its contour is pierced by only six windows that are too small for the space they must light.” By 1785, reports indicated that the roof of the dome had begun to leak. At this time, more people beyond Clermont-Crèvecoeur had also noticed the dome’s diminutive size, so local architect and builder Joseph Clark was hired to design and build the expanded dome we see today. He completed the exterior of the dome in 1792, which is when the carpenter’s and plasterer’s contracts were awarded for the interior of the dome. Local cabinetmaker John Shaw took over the completion of the interior of the dome in 1794, when Clark left Annapolis for a career in the newly established Washington, DC. Shaw finished the remainder of the State House dome by 1797.

Who Built the State House and Dome?

During the Revolutionary War, many skilled workers left Annapolis. This caused difficulties for builders in the city, who could not find craftsmen for their projects (and eventually contributed to Annapolis losing the prominence it once had to Baltimore). Securing workers to build both the original State House and its redesigned dome was a continuous issue. As an example, Clark was unable to find locally the 30 journeyman carpenters he initially advertised for in April 1785. Due to these shortages in Annapolis, we do know that carpenters were brought down from Baltimore, and that the state paid passage for “sundry” carpenters from Ireland and England. For instance, there is correspondence to Charles Wallace in 1771 discussing the possibility of bringing two house carpenters and joiners over from London to the United States. We also have records of free and enslaved Black carpenters, joiners, sawyers, blacksmiths, and laborers who were hired out or sold throughout Annapolis during this period. While Clark did not maintain an enslaved workforce for his building projects, he was a slaveholder and not averse to using forced labor.

Together, this suggests that a combination of skilled and unskilled free Black, enslaved Black, free white, and indentured white workers likely built the State House and new dome. Ongoing research is focusing on uncovering the identities of these artisans who helped build the State House, both enslaved and free. Through primary documents, researchers have identified some white craftsmen, such as carpenters Joshua Botts and William Gilmour and plasterer Thomas Dance. Dance took on the dome’s interior plaster contract and fell to his death while working on the project. To date, no Black craftsmen have been definitively identified. A new avenue of research will be to examine the contemporary names inscribed on the timber beams of the interior dome.

• 

  Maryland State House, 1876-1882. “…one of the most superb buildings in the United States.” John Melish in Travels through the United States of America. London, 1818.

• 

  Heavy-timber framing with inscription on center beam.

• 

  Michael Day and Marcia Miller (MHT Chief of the Office of Research, Survey, and Registration) discussing the restoration work done on the weathervane.

• 

  Heavy-timber framing showing the inner and outer domes with marriage marks identifying paired joints of the interior structure.

• 

  Collin Ingraham (MHT Chief of the Office of Preservation Services) approving the method of paint removal.

• 

  Heavy-timber framing with builders’ marriage marks at joints.

• 

  The sash of one of the dome’s windows during restoration work.

• 

  Heavy-timber framing, with contemporary marriage marks and modern inscriptions.

• 

  The acorn, which sits on top of the dome.

The Dome Restoration

Drone image of State House dome, 2018 (MCWB Architects)

The dome is a massive heavy-timber-framed roof system, constructed with traditional pinned joints and original wrought iron straps. The exterior is covered with slate and cypress shingles. The dome is topped with an acorn, originally crafted from cypress wood and covered with copper panels. These panels were gilded on the top and painted on the bottom. The acorn, which provides stability to the wrought iron lightning rod, utilized a common motif at the time to represent perfection (perhaps a trait that Clark hoped the State House would go on to emulate).

Remarkably intact, with mostly original materials, the dome and the State House it sits on can certainly still be considered the “most beautiful of any in America”—particularly after the year-long collaborative effort between the Maryland Department of General Services and the Maryland Historical Trust towards its restoration, the beginning of a comprehensive exterior and grounds project. The scaffolding that went up in April has now been removed, unveiling the freshly painted dome and ending this first phase of the project.

This part of the project focused on all areas of the dome: restoration of the lower lantern balcony and balustrade, restoration of window sashes and trim, replacement of slate, and repair and replacement of wood shingles. The original weathervane and lightning rod were restored, and the acorn was regilded and painted. The dome was painted with a traditional linseed oil paint, with the historic colors selected through paint analysis.

The firm of Mesick, Cohen, Wilson, Baker Architects from Albany, New York, served as project architect for this restoration and the Christman Company of Sterling, Virginia, served as the general contractor. Numerous subcontractors and consultants, highly skilled in the analysis, conservation, and buildings technologies of the 18th century, have ensured the preservation of this iconic dome for generations to come.