External stone walls

[CliffordPope]

I was struck by a comment by Gareth, I think, in the "Internal stone wall" thread that the presence of exposed wooden lintels might indicate that the walls had originally been rendered too.

Would conversely brick slightly arched lintels, and a 2 one-way 2 the other pattern of bricks round the sides of door and window openings, indicate that the walls were probably not rendered?
Presumably it would be different if the brickwork stood proud of the stone face, rather than flush?

 

[Gareth Hughes]

That depends on the date of the building and the quality of the brickwork - very often, brick arched lintels were used in stone walls because it's a detail that's less fiddly to do in brick than in stone, and were then rendered over. On the other hand, nineteenth century buildings (especially in the later part of the century) made a play of contrasting brick arches (and quoins) against stonework.
A photo would help, as always.

 

[CliffordPope]

Sorry, the uploader won't work.
I get the message "sending request to period property" but it never responds.
Do I need to use something like photobucket instead?

 

[CliffordPope]

This seems to have worked - I tried resaving the jpeg in another program.

The house was built in 1875, according to the earliest mention in the deeds.

This wall was covered in stucco, buckling and coming away from the wall, with enormous voids behind channelling in water. The intention had been to re-render, but when the nice red brickwork was revealed it seemed a shame to hide it again, so we went for lime-mortar repointing instead. The house is much drier.

The stucco was not original, as evidenced by the porch, added in the early 1900s - no stucco behind the porch.
Also there is evidence that this was once the back of the house, facing into the farmyard and outbuildings across the road. The main drive approaches from the rear. The backdoor is much wider than the front, and the staircase was turned round at some time, presumably at the time of the re-orientation of the house.
The back was un-rendered, just painted with many layers of sandtex or similar, peeling off.

is it possible to deduce anything about the original treatment? I'm quite happy with the present look - it makes the house look larger and more elegant than in dirty white, and seems to work well in keeping damp out.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

For 1875 (and in the west of England?), that looks pretty much right as it is, that is precisely the sort of thing I'd envisaged when I was wittering on earlier.

 

[Keithj]

That looks so "right" as it is, apart from those wires trailing over it. I'd have buried those (with or without a funeral service).

 

[CliffordPope]

Many thanks, that's encouraging to hear.

The wires aren't in fact trailing over the roof, that's a quirk of the camera perspective. Actually they cross overhead to behind the viewer, to a cottage/outbuilding on the other side of the road.

 

[JoceAndChris]

That is a really pretty house. Love it - lucky to have that Clifford, and it looks like you've done it proud.

 

[discobarry]

lol@wires trailing over the roof.