5.1.7 paint analysis to black border examination...

Sally Strachey Historic Conservation

59

5.1.7 Paint Analysis to Black Border Two Samples, I and 3, were taken from the lower left and right-hand side of the black border to Sir Richard Newman. Examination The fragments were examined under low magnification and then the best pieces were mounted as cross-sections in cold-setting polyester resin. The sections were examined under high magnification and the layers compared. Material from the coloured layers was dispersed on glass slides, and the pigments were identified using a polarising light microscope. Results Samples 1 and 3 These were taken from plaster next to the eighteenth-century Robert Newman monument, and they showed three sets of paint layers. In Sample 1 there were some fragments which showed pure carbon black over a thin coat of limewash or plaster skim. Other fragments showed pure vermilion over white limewash. On the underside of the red fragment was a line of black particles, so there may have been black under the red. Both the red and the black must have been from some decorative border, as they are not house paints. In Sample 3, the fragments showed two or three layers of white limewash with a very thin coat of yellow ochre on the surface. On top of the yellow is a veil of black particles that could be dirt. SAMPLE 1

Richard Newman monument

– plaster border, lower right

Fragment (i)

Showing carbon black over

a white limewash ground


60

Fragment (ii)

Pure vermilion over a white

limewash ground

SAMPLE 3

Richard Monument

Plaster next to the monument – lower

left.

particles of

carbon black

layer of yellow

ochre particles dirt?

two or three

layers of

limewash


61

5.1.8 Site Drawings

Figure 126: Elements that remained in situ during the dismantle and rebuild


62

Figure 127: Areas of 5mm veneer historically glued to the backing stone with shellac


63

Figure 128: The areas of veneer reset with plaster of Paris


64

Figure 129: I The black border was revived with a black gouache II Crack repairs with plaster of Paris toned in with acrylic paints


65

Figure 130:

VII. The underside of the eye lid had black paint applied.

VIII. On the back of all three busts remains the original dirt build up.

As this dirt does not appear on any other surface this suggests that this monument was cleaned at some point.

A possible works program applied went the church was reordered at the turn of the century. Some of the pins

on the marble segments which have been stuck on also contain copper pins. The original pins/cramps are all

iron, again copper was not used when this monument was constructed.

IX. Black paint was found on the underside of the shelf. Possible black lines were applied.

X. Red paint found.

XI. The inscription was originally carved with the dates of the daughters’ deaths empty. These were then carved

in as each one passed away. In total there are four letter cutters hands at work here. With the letter cutting

being light, the monument was in place when this was done.

XII. Pink/white Limewash and black paint spats were found on the upper surface of the shelf, careless decorators

of the chapel.


66

5.2 Thomas and Richard Newman Monument

Location The east wall of the Newman Chapel

Date Thomas Newman 1649 Richard Newman 1664

Dimensions Height 1355mm x width 600mm Cartouche 66pprox.. 600mm

Materials Marble Limestone Grey stone Polychrome on cartouches Paint in lettering Painted black surround

Description Marble inscription panel with painted lettering. Limestone surround surmounted by three cartouches of arms to the Newman family Grey stone bottom section with missing attribute Painted black surround

Sculptor Not Known

Figure 131: Monument to Thomas and Richard Newton before conservation


67

5.2.1: Condition and Recommendations in 2016 Report

Condition

Losses ~ No losses were noted. However white marble element applied to base

had detached.

Ferrous fixings ~ Corroded fixing on detached element.

Stability ~ Relatively stable. Corrosion of the fixings will be on going, however

their condition does not warrant dismantling at this stage.

Soiling ~ all areas are soiled.

Polychromy ~ Inscription generally legible. Some friable polychromy to cartouches. A painted black border frames the monument on the plastered wall. Although this has been repainted it is likely to be over an original similar border. It would be interesting to establish if this exists and the extent of the border

• Recommendations

• Re-fix detached element using Stainless steel 316 or carbon fibre dowel.

• Clean all elements (methods to be based on results of trials)

• Consolidate friable polychromy and applied decoration

• Repoint open jjoints

• Inpaint losses to black surround 5.2.2 Conservation Programme The cleaning processes applied to this monument were as follows:

• The inscription panel, the polished limestone plinth and marble inscription panel were cleaned with: 50% Distilled water 50% White spirit 02% Non-ionic detergent. The mobilised soiling was lifted immediately off the surface with cotton wool swabs.

• The Bath stone surround was cleaned with the Derota steam cleaner.

• The painted black border and two outer cartouches has surface dust and debris removed with soft brushes.

• The middle cartouche which is alabaster was cleaned with: 50% Acetone 50% White spirit 02% Non-ionic detergent. This was only used on those areas retaining polychrome. Th alabaster was cleaned with soft brushes. Where the marble element had detached due to a corroded fixing the substrate was cleaned to remove all traces of iron and previous fixing materials. It was reattached with a stainless steel fixing set in plaster of Paris. After cleaning the marble elements and polished grey limestone were given a protective coat of microcrystalline wax. It is interesting to note that when waxing the polished grey limestone ghost lettering was revealed in Latin.

The two outer shields had paint on their surfaces and where carved from a pale grey/cream limestone.


68

No wax was applied to the cartouches where polychrome is present. The polychrome was well attached to the substrate and did not need consolidation. The only retouching carried out was to add definition to the black border with black gouache.

Figure 132: The central alabaster cartouche of arms before cleaning

Figure 134: Central coat of arms after cleaning

Figure 135: Dexter cartouche of arms before cleaning Figure 136: Dexter cartouche of arms after cleaning


69

Figure 137: Sinister cartouche of arms before cleaning Figure 138: sinister cartouche of arms after cleaning

Figure 139: Substrate to detached marble plaque showing evidence of corroded fixings


70

Figure 140: The lower section of the monument with the marble plaque reinstated and the surfaces cleaned. Microcrystalline wax has been applied to the marble and grey limestone. The black border has been retouched to add definition

Figure 141: The Richard and Thomas Newman monument after completion n the setting of the Newman chapel


71

Figure 142: The Richard and Thomas Newman monument after conservation


72

5.2.3 Paint Analysis A paint sample was taken from the area of red polychrome on the central coat of arms, (Sample 2). The fragments all showed a layer of pure vermilion over a white undercoat based on lead white. Both the vermilion and the lead white appear to be in excellent condition and it seems unlikely that they are from the seventeenth-century decoration, and it may be that they are from a later re-paint. The quality of the vermilion including the particle size looks very similar to that of the red found on the plaster in Sample 1.

SAMPLE 2

Thomas Newman Monument

Red on blue on coat of arms

vermilion

lead white

Prussian blue

+ lead white


73

5.3 Richard Newman Monument

Location The west wall of the Newman Chapel

Date 1693 recording transfer of coffin

Dimensions

Materials Stone

Description Simple stone inscription panel with black frame Located below disused water tank with redundant surface mounted piping running down the sinister side.

Sculptor Not Known

5.3.1: Condition and Recommendations in 2016 Report Condition General ~ Heavily soiled with surface loss and structural cracking to the south. Water pipe runs down the north side. Losses ~ Surface loss in areas and adjacent to cracks on frame. Ferrous fixings ~ unknown. Stability ~ secure, however the crack requires attention and monitoring Soiling ~ all areas are soiled. Inscription unclear Surface friable particularly to upper areas Conservation Recommendation • Record all • Assess for ferrous fixings • Fill open joints and monitor for future movement • Clean all and record. Assess requirement to consolidate friable areas. • Consider legibility of inscription. If evidence of original paint, consider repainting 5.3.2 Conservation Programme The Richard Newman monument was cleaned after trails with the Derota steamer system. The black border was cleaned with soft brushes as the black paint was mobile. Following cleaning historic black paint fragments were found in the deeper scribed letters of the inscription. With this precedent, this enabled the reinstatement of the painted letters to proceed. All the scribed letters were legible for re-painting, apart from what was scribed after the word Somerset. This was carried out with a Mars Black acrylic paint. The markings which remain on the tablet do not fit with shire as in Somersetshire or Died to fit with the rest of the text. The marks go above and below the set text height, so it was either a very embellished word, an abbreviated word, or two words crammed above one another. Several techniques were used to try to identify the missing text including taking rubbings but unfortunately all proved fruitless. The cracking to the stone frame was filled with a fine adhesive lime mortar to match and the black paint touched in to increase definition with black gouache.


74

Figure 143: The monument before conservation Figure 144: Detail of the inscription panel before

conservation showing the reduced legibility

Figure 145: The inscription panel after cleaning


75

Figure 146: Detail of the lettering after cleaning showing traces of black paint

Figure 147: The panel after cleaning and re-lettering to improve the legibility of this record of the Newman family


76

Figure 148: The Richard Newman monument after conservation with the black paint to the frame enhanced

Figure 149: The Richard Newman monument after conservation


77

5.4 Davidge Family Monument

Location North Elevation Nave

Date George Davidge 1772 Joan Davidge – wife- 1759 John Davidge – son- 1744 Hester – daughter-1758 George – son- 1772

Dimensions 1255mm width x 200mm depth x 2500mm high

Materials Limestone surround Lias inscription panel Gilded flames to the urn Traces of gold in lettering

Description Tablet in stone surround with enriched architrave and entablature and broken segmental pediment with urn finial.

Sculptor Not Known

5.4.1: Condition and Recommendations in 2016 Report Condition General ~ evidence of corroding fixings and heave/movement away from wall. Losses ~ extensive on–going surface loss of inscription tablet Ferrous fixings ~ corroded Stability ~ the corrosion of the fixings is on- going and movement is noted particularly at high level Soiling ~ all areas are soiled. Staining from bat droppings is evident across all surfaces. Conservation Recommendations • Record all. • Assess necessity to dismantle upper sections and record location of all elements to ensure re-

assembly in the original position. • Collect, label and bag any detached fragments for reinstatement during conservation works. Record

the location where all fragments are found. • Carry out emergency consolidation of the inscription panel to ensure no further losses. • Carefully dismantle upper sections. Allow for any holding conservation and protections required

during the lifting and moving. Set to one side and protect. It is hoped and anticipated that the lower sections may remain in situ. Assess lower sections

• Remove remains of pointing and bedding mortars. • Clean all using selected methods based on the results of the trials. • Remove corroding ferrous cramps/fixings. • Re-fix dismantled elements incorporating a DPM between wall and marble. Use stainless steel 316

armatures. • Clean all elements in-situ and ex-situ. • Bed on Plaster of Paris and incorporating stainless steel pins / cramps where necessary. • Re-point and fill all joints with Plaster of Paris. • Consolidate friable inscription panel and apply mortar fillets to laminating areas. Grout any voids

using pigmented dispersed hydrated lime.


78

Figure 150: The Davidge monument before conservation Figure 151: Detail of the stone frame with heavy staining from bat urine

Figure 152: Corroded iron cramp being measured against the depth of the monument and plaster infill

Figure 153: Further detail of the stone frame illustrating the heavy staining from bat urine


79

Figure 154: Detail of the inscription panel showing the lamination to the across the surface of the lias

Figure 155: Lamination of the surface of the inscription panel seen from below

5.4.2. Conservation Programme 5.4.2.1 Dismantle The 2016 report noted the structural movement through the top section of the monument. On closer inspection in 2018 the movement through the monument was evidence through the inscription panel and frame with the monument clearly out of alignment. The decision was made to remove the inscription panel, frame and moulded shelf but leave the corbel in situ. A shelf was constructed over the adjacent pews to receive the upper sections and shelf with the substantial inscription panel and side sections stored on the scaffolding. Before the dismantling could commence holding repairs were carried out to the inscription panel with 1 dispersed lime to 3 slate dust to stabilise the most vulnerable edges. Detailed measurements were taken before and during dismantling to ensure the monument was rebuilt to the correct profile. The upper section was dismantled first with some ease due to the lack of structural integrity of the corroded iron fixings. After the removal of the iron fixings and plaster infill to the sides of the monument, the side sections of the frame were taken off the monument before the substantial inscription panel was lifted onto the scaffolding. As the upper section of the monument was removed a section of historic plaster was revealed with red, yellow and black decoration clearly visible.


80

Figure 156: The monument being measured before dismantling and evidence of a corroded iron side fixing tying the side into the wall

Figure 157: Measurements being taken across the top section. The general soiling to the surface and the gold to the flames surmounting the urn diminished

Figure 158: The broken pediment and urn removed Figure 159: View from above showing the construction of

the monument


81

Figure 160: Image of embedded iron fixing below upper section showing evidence of corrosion

Figure 161: The corroded iron fixing in figure 160 removed

Figure 162: Corroded iron fixing tying the section above the inscription panel to the wall. Level applied to assess where the monument is not plumb

Figure 163: The cornice below the broken pediment removed to reveal first sight of the historic plaster


82

Figure 164: Measurements continuing to be taken including the air gap between the monument and plaster

Figure 165: Section of historic plaster revealed

Figure 166: Image of top section of the inscription panel and air gap behind

Figure 167: Corroded iron fixing tying the sinister side of the inscription frame into the wall


83

Figure 168: The inscription panel removed onto the scaffolding. The holding repairs can be seen on the panel

Figure 169: Corbel section retained in situ


84

5.4.2.2 Historic Wall Plaster The wall decoration was found behind the Davidge ledger when the monument was dismantled.

Under the white washes glimpses of red and yellow ochre/oxides, along with black borders were clearly visible.

Due to the layers of limewash being it was not possible to see if it was a text, wall decoration or a painted scene.

The area was photographed and then on the return of the monument covered up. The plaster work where it was

loose was filleted with a lime putty mortar. These are emergency repairs. No cleaning was carried out.

The edge of the historic plaster can still be seen on the Dexter side of the rebuilt monument. As this side has been

left open for ventilation.

Figure 170: Overall view of the historic wall plaster with traces of colour beneath the layers of limewash

Figure 171: Detail of the red and ochre Figure 172: Detail of the red with the black also

visible


85

Paint Analysis Two samples were taken from the historic wall plaster- samples 4 and 5. Both samples showed the same set of layers Initially the wall was painted with plain white limewash. In the cross-section one can count three of these white schemes. There followed a coloured scheme which involved a fresh ground of white limewash, followed by a thin layer of pure yellow ochre and on top of that a thicker layer of black. The carbon black particles are tiny and must have been very finely ground. In the cross-section they appear suspended in the layer which suggests the medium was a quick-drying one. Eventually the painted decoration was covered over with white limewash, and since then the wall was painted white at least twice. SAMPLE 4

Plaster behind Davidge Tablet

three lots of white

limewash

black & yellow scheme on white limewash

ground

two or three lots of

white limewash

plaster

Detail of the yellow & black scheme


86

5.4.2.3. Cleaning Programme The Gilded Flames and Urn The urn being unpainted Bath stone was cleaned with first with a vacuum and dry brush then with the Derota steam cleaner. The flames were dry brushed and then cleaned with white spirit applied with cotton wool swabs. The Inscription Panel The inscription panel was in a very poor condition and required holding repairs before dismantling and treatment. As the consolidation process proceeded the surface of the inscription panel and the exposed lias substrate were dry brushed to remove both the surface dust and debris too enable a good bond for the consolidation mortar. Once the emergency repairs were carried out the rest of the inscription tablet was cleaned with a dry brush. The surface of the tablet had a historic paint layer painted on which was mobile. The stone was Lias, but a black coat had been applied. The letters had been gilded and these too were cleaned with dry brushes during consolidation. Bath Stone Elements of Monument These stone elements had suffered more from bat urine splashes than the inscription tablet. The surface was cleaned with a vacuum and dry brush followed by the Derota which was used gently over the recesses so as not to disturb the paint layer. Mopping up with cotton wool the bat urine splats were reduced to a point where they are now barely visible. The surfaces in the recesses were found to have some historic limewash, light buff colour, yellow ochre and white.

Figure 173: Cleaning trials being carried out on the Bath stone


87

Figure 174: The gilded flames being cleaned with white spirit

Figure 175: Trials underway to reduce the staining caused by bat urine

Figure 176: Bath stone section towards the end of the cleaning programme


88

Figure 177: Inage of decorative detail above inscription panel after cleaning

Figure 178: Moulded cornice after cleaning with stains from bat urine removed


89

Figure 179: Dismantled upper elements after cleaning

Figure 180: Sinister side of frame before cleaning Figure 181: Detail of sinister side of the frame showing the

removal of the staining from bat urine


90

Figure 182: Section of the inscription panel after the removal of surface dust and debris with soft brushes

Figure 183: Detail of the upper sinister corner of the inscription panel after the surface dust and debris has been removed


91

5.4.2.4 Consolidation of Inscription Panel The consolidation was carried out in two stages to the inscription panel. Emergency repairs, and the repairs post cleaning after the inscription panel had been reinstated. Both used the same mix of 1 dispersed lime to 3 slate dust. In the trials the lime putty and slate dust mix lacked the high level of adhesion which was needed to carry out this task. The dispersed lime was on the other hand bedded itself into the surface and provided a very controlled set on such fragile materials. The dispersed lime mix did not crack nor powder and was easily shaped without impacting on the stability of the repair. Where possible a diluted version of the same mix was inserted behind the brittle lamination to provide as many points of attachment between the skin retaining the lettering and the lias substrate. The fillet repairs to the edges were toned in with the lias with dilute acrylics to sit back from the dedication

Figure 184: Image of early stages of consolidation including injecting behind the surface and applying repairs to fragile edges

Figure 185: Overall view of consolidation repairs to the upper section of the inscription panel


92

Figure 186: Detail of consolidation repairs during application

Figure 187: Upper section of the inscription panel after consolidation


93

Figure 188: Detail of the consolidation repairs to the lower section of the inscription panel

Figure 189: Overall view of the inscription panel after consolidation

Figure 190: Detail of the upper sinister corner of the inscription panel showing the consolidation repairs


94

5.4.3 Rebuild All the iron cramps were replaced, and any additional cramps installed with 316 marine grade stainless- steel. The structural cramps into the wall were secured with Resifix with the stone to stone cramps bedded into position with plaster of Paris. The rebuilding commenced with the moulded plinth ‘shelf’ stone being re-bedded on the corbels. The plinth stone was in three sections, the main middle section and two wings either side. Corroded iron cramps had been present attaching the wings to the main middle section. These were replaced with stainless steel set in plaster of Paris as original. The inscription frame was reinstated retaining the air gap behind and the stone frames installed. The decorative section below the pediment was in three sections which had contained corroded iron cramps. The iron was replaced with stainless steel as before and set in plaster of Paris. The mantle was recessed into the wall with the making good of the wall and the bedding of the mantle was carried out using the lime putty mortars. The dexter side of the monument was not plastered in to allow the edge of the historic plaster to be visible and to provide ventilation behind the monument

Figure 191: The top section of the monument during the rebuild with the wedges still in place to ensure the correct profile


95

Figure 193: Detail of the wedges holding the sections in position Figure 194: The Davidge monument after the rebuild

5.4.4 Painting and Finishing Most of the inscription panel is present with only a few sections missing. When the consolidation was complete some of the fractured letters and edges became more legible. The repairs particularly around the broken edges of the surface drew the eye away from the inscriptions. They were a good colour match to the Lias but being a clean edge needed toning in. This was done with some washes of acyclic paint. The gilded flames on the urn, need no attention at this present time. The lettering even after cleaning was still very muted in contrast with the surface. The gilding that remained is too fragile to clean any more that dry brushing. With this in mind the decision was made, that there was a precedent to reinstate the black paint to the inscription panel. This was done with black gouache applied in several applications by brush. This paint layer was purposely mottled to give an aged appearance to draw out the letters, but also to sit back within the historic monument.


96

Figure 195: The black gouache being applied to the background to the lettering

Figure 196: Detail of the upper sinister corner during mottling the black

Figure 197: First application of black gouache mottled back


97

Figure 198: The black gouache being applied over the lower section of the inscription panel

Figure 199: An overall image of the inscription panel towards the end of treatment


98

Figure 200: The Davidge monument after treatment


99

5.4.5 Site Drawings

Figure 201: Iron fixings III. Iron dog cramps parallel to wall IV. Iron dog cramps perpendicular to wall III Rosettes historically glued with shellac resin.

IV Iron pin. This was left in situ as to remove it would cause more damage the shaft of the urn. Advise to monitor.


100

Figure 202: Observations during dismantle IV. Corbels remained in situ while the rest of the monument was taken down and rebuilt V. Cement joints, the cement joints were the only ones found on the Davidage monument, along with some

cement behind the upper sinister pediment (Davidage Drawing No.3, item No. II). VI. The monument apart from the ledger is cut from limestone, (Bath stone)

IV The Ledger is made from mudstone, (Blue lias). The letters V Traces of buff coloured lime wash.


101

Figure 203: Observations after dismantling IV. Area of neat cement applied behind the sinister pediment. V. Pink over white limewash on the stone pediment. Either the nave or around the monument was painted pink

like the Newman chapel. VI. Area behind the monument where the historic paint and lime plaster remain on the wall. See paint analysis

by Catherine Hassel for results of paint samples taken. IV The carved flames at the top of the urn had been gilded, over red paint. The red paint was also used to give depth within the relief carving.


102

Figure 204: Areas affected by bat urine


103

Figure 206: Repairs and painted finishes I Area conserved and the surface of the lias was blackened with gouache paint.


104

5.5 William Mansell Peacock Monument

Location North Elevation Nave

Date 1811

Materials Marble Grey stone

Description Wall mounted monument with grey backing plate displaying a white marble inscription panel with the lettering painted in black

Sculptor Not Known

5.5.1 Condition and Recommendations in 2016 Report Condition General ~ Monument detaching from wall Losses ~ None Ferrous fixings ~ corroded and expanding. Most notable at lower edge Stability ~ corrosion of the fixings is on going, stability compromised and detaching from wall Soiling ~ all areas are soiled. Polychromy ~ Inscription legible but faded Conservation Recommendation

• Record all • Monitor fixings • Dismantle all and refix using stainless steel armatures with a DPM against wall • Clean all • Consider repainting inscription to improve legibility • Apply microcrystalline wax to marble

Figure 207: The Peacock monument before treatment. Corroded iron fixings can be seen along the bottom of the monument


105

5.5.2 Dismantle The monument was dismantled because the two iron fixings top middle and bottom middle, had corroded badly. The top cramp was just about holding on. The lower fixings was also starting to push the backing plate and polished limestone veneer off the wall.

Figure 208: Corroded iron fixing bedded into the wall

Figure 209: The iron fixing above now removed from the wall so the high level of corrosion and expansion can be seen


106

5.5.3 Rebuild Once the monument was off the wall and placed in the work station, the iron and plaster fragments were cleaned from the fixing points, and the polished limestone veneer was secured with plaster of Paris. New stainless-steel fixing cramps were manufactured to the same dimensions to the originals and used in rebuilding the monument. The new fixings were set in resin and then pointed up in lime mortar. A historic plaster coat remained behind the monument, possibly 19th century. The plaster was a two-coat system, with no other layers beneath. The depth of the plaster was which about 20mm thick. The lime plaster was in very good condition and had no salts present. 5.5.4 Cleaning The cleaning of this monument was down as a light clean. Mix 1 was used and applied with cotton wool swabs. Mix 1 50% Distilled water 50% White spirit 02% Non-ionic detergent. 5.5.5 Painting The Lettering was reinstated on this monument as the original had degraded to a point where only the deep cutting of the letters made the words visible. This was carried out with Payne’s Grey acrylic. 5.5.6 Finishing After the paint was dry the monument was given a protective coat of microcrystalline wax.

Figure 210: The Peacock monument after treatment


107

5.6 The Rev Edward Peacock Monument

Location North Elevation Chancel behind the organ

Date 1848


Description Wall mounted monument with grey backing plate displaying a white marble inscription panel with the lettering painted in black

Sculptor Not Known

5.6.1 Condition and Recommendations in 2016 Report Condition

General ~ generally sound at present, however access was difficult and inspection not possible

Losses ~ possible historic surface loss at high level

Ferrous fixings ~ condition unknown.

Stability ~ secure.


Polychromy ~ Inscription legible.

Conservation Recommendation

• Record all

• Closer inspection required

• No conservation required at this stage 5.6.2 Conservation Programme Apart from some soiling from the roof leak this monument was in a good condition. The cleaning was carried out with Mix 1 marble cleaning mix, applied with cotton wool swabs. Mix 1 50% Distilled water 50% White spirit 02% Non-ionic detergent. The monument was given a protective coat of microcrystalline wax. No painting was required.


108

5.7 Anne Wife of the Rev Edward Peacock

Location North Elevation Chancel, east end

Date 1832


Description Wall mounted monument with a white marble inscription panel, supported on two grey marble slips

Sculptor Not Known

5.7.1 Condition and Recommendations in 2016 Report Condition

General ~ generally sound at present, however evidence of corroding fixings

Losses ~ none noted

Ferrous fixings ~ corroded. But no particular movement noted

Stability ~ secure, however the corrosion of the fixings is on going. Cement pointing to perimeter.


Polychromy ~ Inscription legible.

Conservation Recommendations

• Record all.

• Monitor fixings

• No conservation required at this stage but could be cleaned. 5.7.2 Conservation Programme This monument was also given a light clean with Mix1 using cotton wool swabs. Mix 1 50% Distilled water 50% White spirit 02% Non-ionic detergent. Microcrystalline wax was applied with no painting was required.


109

5.8 Henry Forester Monument

Location South Elevation Chancel, over door

Date 1832


Description Wall mounted monument with a white marble inscription panel, supported on white marble lipped ledge. Black paint to the lettering

Sculptor Not Known

5.8.1 Condition and Recommendations in 2016 Report Condition General ~ generally sound at present, however bronze fixings corroding and cracked support ledge Losses ~ loss to front moulding of support ledge adjacent to crack Fixings ~ bronze fixings corroded. Possible ferrous fixing on ledge. Stability ~ relatively secure. Ledge cracked Soiling ~ all areas are soiled. Polychromy ~ Inscription legible. Conservation Recommendation

• Record all. • Monitor fixings • Assess condition of support ledge and fill.

5.8.2 Treatment Programme Inspection of Support Ledge The ledge was inspected and found to be stable and capable of supporting the tablet above. However,

this element of the monument should carry on being inspected with the quinquennial surveys to monitor

if the movement is linked with the church wall.

Cleaning The Cleaning was carried out once the cleaning trails were completed. Mix 1 was used for cleaning the marble using cotton wool swabs. The surface was only lightly soiled so responded well to the cleaning. Mix 1 50% Distilled water 50% White spirit 02% Non-ionic detergent Painting The Monument was lacking in legibility, so acrylic paints were used to enhance the historic lettering. Colour used Mars Black.


110

Figure 211: The monument to Henry Forester after treatment

5.9 Royal Coat of Arms

Location South Elevation Nave, over door

Date Late 18th century

Materials Gilded metal Wood

Description Wall mounted metal coat of arms displayed on a wood backing plate

Sculptor Not Known

5.9.1 Condition and Recommendations in 2016 Report Condition Viewed from ground level. Close inspection recommended. General ~ generally sound at present, however close inspection is required to confirm this Losses ~ none noted Ferrous fixings ~ unknown. Stability ~ secure Soiling ~ all areas are soiled and possibly poorly over painted in the past. Polychromy ~ gilding and applied decoration stable but tarnished and soiled Conservation Recommendation

• Record all • No urgent conservation required at this stage • Would benefit from cleaning and further inspection. Possibility to remove over

paint.


111

Figure 212: The Royal Coat of Arms before treatment

5.9.2 Conservation Programme The Coat of Arms was removed from the wall to check the fixings and condition of the wooden backing coat. Cleaning The Coat of Arms was cleaned with dry brushes and then with white spirit, applied with cotton wool swabs to remove the stubborn dirt.

Figures 213 and 214: On the left a detail of the Coat of Arms at the start of cleaning and on the right after cleaning


112

Re-gilding and Reinstatement A decision was made with the Contract Administrator and PCC to re-gild the Coat of Arms with 24 carat gold leaf. The wooden backing plate was repainted to match the existing. The Royal Coat of Arms was reinstated with stainless-steel fixings.

Figure 215: The re-gilding in action

Figure 216: The Coat of Arms re-gilded


113

Figure 217: The Royal Coat of Arms reinstated with stainless-steel fixings

6. Recipes

Cleaning Pointing and bedding mortar Consolidation mortar Lime Plaster

Mix 1 50% Distilled water 50% White spirit 02% Non-ionic detergent. Mix 2 50% Acetone 50% White spirit 02% Non-ionic detergent. Lime putty 1 Oolitic stone dust 10> 2.5 Soft building sand 0.5 Slate dust 1/16 Dispersed lime 1 Slate dust 3


114

7. Suppliers

Paints and artist materials Lime putty and aggregates Conservation sundries Dispersed lime Plaster of Paris Stainless steel Derota Cleaning System

Potmolen Paint Warminster. 01985 213960 Rose of Jericho Ltd. Dorchester. 01935 83676 Limebase Ltd. Taunton. 01460 281921 Conservation Resources UK Ltd. Abingdon. 01235 553166 Deffner and Johann G mbH +49 9723 93500 Industrial Plasters Ltd Chippenham. 01380 850616 Struka (Taunton) Ltd Taunton 01823 351800 Hiscock Engineers Ltd. Trowbridge. 01225 752106 Preservation Equipment Ltd Norfolk. 01379 647400

5.1.7 paint analysis to black border examination...

Documents