late 18th century house

This house is clearly late 18th century, and the cited sources claiming otherwise are unreliable. A late 18th century house is worthy of preservation, of course, so it's unfortunate the scientific dating of the house has been withheld from the public. The date of construction of a house is superficial and when based on science, factual. Not releasing the scientific results should be an embarrassment for everyone involved in the saving of this houseOld houses (talk) 19:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This house has no 17th century features and the dendrochronology report has not been made public. This house is clearly a mid to late 18th century house. That 1645 date is a total fantasy; impossible.Old houses (talk) 20:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What source is your opinion about dating based upon? I can't just cite your opinion. Swampyank (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article presents no evidence that this house dates from 1645, 1689, or any other date. Only an architectural historian or dendrochronology study can date this house reliably, and neither is cited.Old houses (talk) 00:54, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of editing going on here and on the list of the oldest buildings in Connecticut. It appears that User:Swampyank has been adding content, while User:Old Houses has been reverting it. There's a lot of socking going on. A dendrochronology study was completed on this building according to a credible source which User talk: Old Houses removed. It's irrelevant, in my opinion, if the tree-ring analysis arrived at a date that would suddenly make this building the second, third or fourth oldest in Connecticut. As more buildings are dated using dendrochronology, there is the potential for an even earlier known dated building to lose its bragging rights as the oldest building somewhere. The introduction of the dendrochronology report to this page as a primary source is unnecessary, because we have a credible secondary source for it. Wikipedia discourages the use of original research or primary sources. Regarding dendrochronology, I was told by a dendrochronologist once, that the oldest buildings are still to be discovered. He thinks they're entombed as the core of Victorian looking houses situated somewhere between Maine and Virginia... The dating of buildings only using dendrochronology as the sole arbiter is totally flawed due to the fact that only about 40% of tree samples are successfully dated. You must rely on a combination of sources; public land tax and probate records, architectural studies, genealogy, radio carbon dating and dendrochronology if available. Tomticker5 (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The dendrochronology of this house has not been cited from a reliable source. If dendrochronology has been done on this house, the results of that study need to come from a reliable source; in this case the source is the owner of the house.

The source for the dendrochronology report is a newspaper article not the owner of the building [1].Tomticker5 (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The dendrochronology study was completed by dendrochronologists at Columbia University in New York, a reliable source.Tomticker5 (talk) 00:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The source in citation number 4 states the house was built in 1689, based on dendrochronology done by the lab at Columbia. Let's agree to leave the date of construction there please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old houses (talk • contribs) 02:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That refers to the tree rings for a single summer beam that dated to 1610 because it lacked sap wood. Please find a source that disputes the Columbia University dendrochronology finding for the 1645 date before you remove it and edit the page. The Greenwich Connecticut Historical Society stands by the 1645 date of construction and I will be adding content to the page to support this.Tomticker5 (talk) 12:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we should probably leave the date there, unless there's a source disputing that date. Swampyank (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one is disputing the work done at Columbia; the fact is the lab has not stated this house was built in 1645. The source in citation 4 states the entire house was built in 1689, and I'm willing to allow that until the report is published. That 1645 date is an interpretation by the client, and is most likely incorrect. A finding of 1645 would be extremely significant in the field of architectural history; that nothing has been written about it by an architectural historian, in any publication anywhere, is an indication that the date is inaccurate. Bottom line is Wikipedia has rules for citation, and in this case, citing a scientific result when those results have not been made public does not meet Wikipedia standards.Old houses (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 4 in the article states a date of 1689, so clearly that "disputes" the 1645 date.Old houses (talk) 17:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Feake-Ferris House article is written in a way that the reader can understand the house went through three phases of development between 1645 and 1689. The land and probate records, dendrochronology, and surviving original architectural evidence, support the finding the stone cellar was built in 1640, the one over one house was built on it in 1645, the lean-to was added to that in 1660, and the two over two expansion was made in 1689.Tomticker5 (talk) 21:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The land and probate records say nothing about a stone cellar built in 1640. The dendrochronology report does not show that the house was built in 1645; the Conservancy has not and will not release the report, precisely because it does not show a build date of 1645, or even 1689. There is no architectural evidence of an early date, either in this article, in any article, or in the publicly available images.Old houses (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CT Explored Magazine as a source for 1645 date and stone cellar

[2] Tomticker5 (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

unreliable source- the item was written by the head of the Conservancy, who raised money to save this house. It is completely disingenuous to claim this house dates to 1645, that the cellar dates to 1640, that the window dates to 1689, etc. None of this info comes from any reliable source. House is probably 1740 or later; no first period features.Old houses (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's really unfortunate that myth trumps fact. The Lyon House, an interesting, well-documented house, with late First Period/transitional features, and long thought to date to the 17th century, was scientifically dated to 1739. Thankfully the non-profit accepts the new, much later date of construction, even though it makes it harder to raise money, and there has been talk of demolition. The Feake House, without any known 17th century features, and a dendrochronology report that is withheld from the public, is saved because of the myth of great antiquity.Old houses (talk) 23:40, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. The people at the Lyon House dispute the dendrochronology findings. If you read their report, the findings cannot be supported by other facts. I don't doubt your enthusiasm to capture all of the tourism dollars you can get from New York and Connecticut but Massachusetts, already has like 166 historic house museums, and Salem and the witch trials has been played out. How many exposed decorated frames does one tourist need to see in Massachusetts before they reckon onto the Jeremiah Lee Mansion in Marblehead built in 1768 or the MacPheadris–Warner House built in Portsmouth in 1716? Good luck attracting people to your house museum, which is just like 160 other places.Tomticker5 (talk)

Staff running the Lyon House fully accept the findings, since they published the historic structure report. How do you think the Whipple House, Ipswich felt when their house was changed from 1655 to 1677? Or the Coffin House, Newbury, from 1654 to 1678, or The Old House, Cutchogue, 1649 to 1699? Upset, of course- they'd been these amazingly rare structures and house museums for decades, but they soon realized that it's irrefutable, and that their houses are, in fact, still what they've always said, incredibly rare, important historical objects. You are doing a disservice to wikipedia by cherry-picking whatever outdated, unreliable source you can find, just to promote myths. Connecticut has incredible houses, the fact that they are younger than previously thought is of no consequence to their true value, which doesn't change with a newer date of construction. The Hempsted is a shining example of a great house with a responsible board of directors; if only the rest of the old house community followed suit.Old houses (talk) 02:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lyon should get a second survey done; surely a citizen would put up the cash for testing- couple thousand dollars. If I were to have guessed at the date before the dendro was done, I would have said 1725-1730; very little in the way of exposed, finished framing, but pre-Georgian.Old houses (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The dating of the Feake House is interesting as a subject. The various stories about the house include one which specifically mentions building a new house using some of the old timbers, which would explain the (apparently) unusual findings in the dendrochronology (the report has not been made public). The story was written by a librarian at the town library, based on a news item from 1937, and states, "Jeffrey’s great-grandson, James, built the house that stands now. James Ferris fought in the White Plains Skirmish (1776), and it’s believed he rebuilt the current building before 1800."https://www.greenwichlibrary.org/red-salt-box-house-shore-road/

If Old houses feels that the sources are based on primary sources which are lies, misleading, or non-existent, maybe it would be appropriate to just state that a particular secondary source "alleges a date of X" and leave it worded in such a way until a further academic source such as a published architectural survey disagrees or proves it wrong. We wouldn't state that it is definitely date X, it simply is "alleged" or reported by the published source that a date of X is the build date or expansion date. I haven't heard that Columbia University has requested a retraction of the articles which discuss their purported dating of the building. If Old houses is an historian or wants to publish an article in the newspaper disagreeing, I'd be willing to cite that if there's evidence, not simply anonymous disagreement. Swampyank (talk) 00:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reporting on this house, as well as the client paying for the tree-ring survey, never says "Columbia University has determined the house was built in 1645." They just say the lab at Columbia did the testing. It's pretty clear that the dendrochronology results do not say the house was built in 1645. The client has not released the report, and will not release the report, for obvious reasons. Finding a house of 1645 would have generated a lot of press, something in the NYTimes and Hartford Courant at least, but those papers would have asked to see some proof. This is an ongoing issue; dendrochronology is universally accepted by architectural historians, but the general public remains skeptical.Old houses (talk) 23:51, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, the cited article from Greenwich Free Press states, "the entire structure has been determined to be an intact post and beam structure that is dated by Lamont-Doherty to 1688/ 1689."

Unfortunately, User talk:Old houses continues to revert my edits and removes reliable sources for several articles about historic homes in CT.Tomticker5 (talk) 11:58, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are claiming a very old plaque is a more reliable source than the organization that owns and offers tours of the house in question.Old houses (talk) 23:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to state the obvious- there is absolutely no way this house was built in 1645. Complete fiction.Old houses (talk) 02:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dendrochronology

This is an excellent article about Columbia University dendrochronology: [3]Tomticker5 (talk) 12:35, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Flynt is independent; not part of the Columbia lab. Good article, though.Old houses (talk) 16:37, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both Flynt and the Columbia lab are reliable; if Columbia says this house was built in 1645, then it's 1645. They have not said that.Old houses (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]