Re: Thomas FERREE - Western Pa. and Ohio

not sure if the email reached you but will point here . . . it is now pretty sure that the house is the one built by John, with what I found out, what you shared, and finally this weekend a historical architect confirmed not only that it was of the period in question (early federal) but that it is one of only two brick houses in Pittsburgh remaining of brick of that era as only a family such as the Ferree's could have afforded such a house . . . . and that narrows the likely owner down further to basically them . . . here is his report which he is going to do formally soon with a few additions and recommendations . . .

3 February 2001
Jeff,

Yes, I've been getting your emails.Thank you.

From the photos, this is what I think you have:the house appears to be square in plan (as deep as it is wide), at least approximately.That is a common characteristic of a number of Federal Era (+/- 1783-1830) houses I've documented in Washington County.The square floor plan houses were often built by millers (owners of grist mills--Washington County had 117 grist mills by 1817--wheat and other forms of grain were the most important exports
from the area at that time) or others with successful farms or a trade and who had some wealth, or some other kind of high standing in the community (justices of the peace, etc.)Most of these houses of this type were built of stone, although I have seen some other brick ones.Cultural geographers
usually notice first that there is a hall to one side (that is true here, right?--staircase in the hall, and two rooms to one side of the hall) and they look at it as two thirds of a center-hall plan (or "center passage plan," to get the terminology right).However, I see the quare "footprint"
as being more important and probably more on the minds of the house's builders.
I'm glad you told me a bit more about the window openings.They look just a little too small to me.If this were a house from 1835 to 1865, the windows would be wider, proportionally closer to a square.However, with the earlier houses, especially pre-1790, the window openings were a little taller and narrower.In either case, they would have originally had pieces of glass about the size of an 8.5 X 11 piece of paper.The proportions we use today for paper sizes are important.They are based on a Medieval mystical analysis of certain geometric shapes (including the five-point pentagram star--which is why it is associated with witchcraft)--because it was decided that these proportions were pleasing and aesthetically superior.Prior to 1790, the proportions were merely based on the pane of glass size, with arrangements varying from 6 panes over 6 (top & bottom sashes) to 9/6, to 12/8 (very wealthy person's house), to 6/3 (less expensive house, like a small log house).It was because glass was always about the same size (it had to be blown to give it grain & make it stronger, and thus could only be made so big) that they decided to enumerate window panes in the 1798 U.S. Direct Tax.The more panes of glass you had in your house, the more expensive your house would have been.However, the overall design of the window opening was often set by a desire to get an elegant, tall shape. After 1790, the normal number of panes settled in at 6/6, and they began trying to make the sashes themselves (the upper and lower frames with 6 panes each, the window's moving parts) so that each sash was also proportionally "golden section" (i.e. the proportion of an 8.5 X 11 piece of paper, only in the case of the whole sash, proportioned like a piece of paper turned sideways, while each pane was proportioned like an upright piece of paper) and proportioning all of this so that overall opening was also the proportions
of a piece of paper turned vertically (only much bigger, of course).
Your house appears to have been remodelled about 1870 (that's when the brackets along the eaves were added, I think.Probably at that time the 6/6 windows were replaced with 2/2 windows.Around 1870, when brackets were commonly being added in an effort to update a house stylistically, the window fashion was two large panes of glass (side-by-side) in each sash, so that the dividing bars made a cross shape.Subsequently modern windows and doors were installed and some aluminum was added (am I right that the brackets are covered by aluminum?).The porch dates to about 1950 (at least that's my guess), and the windows could be newer.The decorative shutters were probably added after 1980.
You asked me to be candid.There are a number of things I would consider changing (restoring them to the original design) if it were my house and I had the means.
I would probably not try to remove the paint from the brick.Brick from that era is fragile and tends to sponge up water and disintegrate when paint is removed, especially after it has been painted for a long time.Instead, I would find a good shade of "brick red" paint and keep it painted.I would consider restoring the windows and doors to the original design.I might restore the porch to an earlier design, perhaps with wooden posts in a style
from the mid or late nineteenth century (although, preferably, you should restore it to a style that it actually was once, as documented in a photograph, if you can find one).If it is actually older than 1830, then in all likelihood, it had no porch at all.(Porches, as we know them today, are
an invention of the Greek Revival which began in the 1830s).I would remove the shutters, restore the windows to 6/6's, and I would consider restoring several other exterior and interior items.
The fireplace is a typical "segmentally-arched" fireplace opening with a brick surround that is intended to be exposed in the area within the framework of the mantelpiece.I'm saying typical, but I mean typical of pre 1830 houses.Later houses had them too, but with wider openings and usually rectangular openings (i.e. no arch).The chimney breast around to the sides of the mantelpiece and above the mantel was meant to be plastered.It is a
new "invention" of the last forty years to expose such brick areas.In the 1700s, many of the brick walls may have been exposed brick when the house was first occupied, but it would have signalled a lack of finish, a lack of funds, and a lack of refinement.I.e., they would have plastered it as soon
as they had the materials and means.I would also look into puttinghigher baseboard in--in those places where I can see the baseboard in the photos, it looks relatively modern.There also should be at least four fireplaces like the one you showed me, probably now hidden behind plaster in each of the other rooms.There may be a really big fireplace hidden in the room that originally served as a kitchen.The mantelpiece you acquired looks nice
around the opening where you have it, though it is much newer.It is circa 1910, Colonial Revival style.It is made of quarter-sawn oak (the "tiger strips" of wide, golden grain that run cross wise across the pieces are achieved by slicing oak logs a certain way when cutting them into lumber).
From the photos, it appears that you have the house beautifully furnished.Some of the past owners made inappropriate changes to many details.The house is fortunate now to have an owner who sees it as a historic property.If it is truly pre-1800, it is a very early house which has unfortunately been "hiding" behind some uncomplementary details like the front porch and the replacement windows.I drive by that way every now and then because we live very close to the corner of Forbes and Murray in Squirrel and Commercial Avenue is a logical way to go to Edgewood, which is
where I usually go for office supplies.I'm really surprised it hadn't caught my eye previously.
I hope all this is helpful.Please let me know either way if there is anything you might like me or my firm to do for you.
I saw the rifle you have hanging above the mantel.Wasn't one of the Ferree's one of the earliest important gunsmiths in the Pitsburgh area?

Terry A. Necciai, RA, principal
Terry A. Necciai, RA, Historic Preservation Consulting