Talk:List of the oldest buildings in Connecticut

This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lists This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Connecticut Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Connecticut, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Connecticut on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConnecticutWikipedia:WikiProject ConnecticutTemplate:WikiProject ConnecticutConnecticut articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. National Register of Historic Places Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Register of Historic Places, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of U.S. historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Register of Historic PlacesWikipedia:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesTemplate:WikiProject National Register of Historic PlacesNational Register of Historic Places articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of the oldest buildings in Connecticut. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208083738/http://www.ctlandmarks.org/index.php?page=hempsted-houses to http://www.ctlandmarks.org/index.php?page=hempsted-houses
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090207060205/http://thebritishshoppe.com/tea_room.htm to http://www.thebritishshoppe.com/tea_room.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091009135750/http://milfordhistoricalsociety.angelfire.com/eels.html to http://milfordhistoricalsociety.angelfire.com/eels.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The ca. 1670 date of construction for the Dr. Turner House in Norwich needs citation. National Registry form does not include any evidence for that early date. Photographs of the interior, available on real estate sites, show what appears to be a late 18th century structure.Old houses (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

need to add some oldest residences which are located in southport, ct e.g. in very center of sopt, is the robinson home ab 1650 and also in sopt, going up harbor road hill from corner of main st andharbor about the 5th house on the west side is again a res ab 1650, though it was moved there from another location, it is still the original res from that earlier time 69.121.189.159 (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC) nautonier and harbormaster no. 1 f.n. both these homes have on their sides markers for the info given here and im approx. correct but don't recall exact dates of res[reply]

Weren't all the buildings in Southport, CT burned down by the British during the Revolutionary War? Tomticker5 (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feake Ferris House date of construction lacks proper citation; a claim made by the owner is not a reliable source. I have removed the entry from this list.

There's a lot of editing to the

until a wikipedia moderator can determine whether the cited sources are reliable or verifiable, I am putting the date of this building at 1689. When either the lab or client makes the results available, then a definitive date of construction will be noted.Old houses (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Until you have a source that contradicts or brings into question the results of the Columbia University dendrochronology study cited in the Greenwich Free Press you will be advised to stand down your reckless edits.Tomticker5 (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your threats are explicitly against Wikipedia policy. My edit was properly cited. Further, Columbia University has not released the results of the study, and neither has the client, Greenwich Point Conservancy. Why not ask both to release the results so we can move on from this, rather than threatening me?Old houses (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that you are vandalizing the page. The Columbia University dendrochronology report information (date of construction) were released to the press in 2018 and articles were published about the

I agree I think the sources should remain with the circa 1645-1689 date based on the dendro report unless there are further secondary sources disputing it. I don't think it's appropriate to dispute them on our own without other publications to cite. If oldhouses thinks the date is inaccurate, he should publish something in a newspaper or journal, and we can cite it. If these dates are indeed accurate, the core of this house would be a the earliest dendro dated timber frame house in the U.S. after the Fairbanks House in Massachusetts. Swampyank (talk) 14:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from the Greenwich Free Press September 2, 2016, citation 4 in the article: "Excellent wood-bore samples were obtained from multiple posts and beams on each floor of the Ferris House, and amazingly the entire structure has been determined to be an intact post and beam structure that is dated by Lamont-Doherty to 1688/ 1689. This makes the Ferris House the oldest building in Greenwich by several decades." You say the "report" was released to the press, but there is no evidence of that. The report has not been published, and despite multiple requests to the Greenwich Point Conservancy, they will not release the report. I suspect the report says one beam dated to 1645 and they went with that. I would be thrilled if the house dated to 1645; only one house in the US has dated before 1661. But with no known early features, and equivocal dates appearing in the various local press, that date is extremely unlikely. There's a reason the Conservancy isn't making the report public. At any rate, 1689 would be the most reliable date, until the report is released.Old houses (talk) 15:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And a dendrochronology report would not yield a date of construction of "1645-1689." If the lab found one beam of 1645 and the rest were 1689, the date of construction is 1689. That re-used beam could be from another location entirely, but even if it had been part of the original 1645 house, that house is long gone.Old houses (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The

Quoting from the Greenwich Free Press September 2, 2016, citation 4 in the article: "Excellent wood-bore samples were obtained from multiple posts and beams on each floor of the Ferris House, and amazingly the entire structure has been determined to be an intact post and beam structure that is dated by Lamont-Doherty to 1688/1689." You are cherry-picking, elevating one source over another for no defensible reason.Old houses (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And when you have dendrochronology, probate, genealogy, tradition, etc. are irrelevant when determining the date of construction.Old houses (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dendrochronology is not the final arbiter, because 40% of tree rings cannot be dated. The Greenwich Sentinel article from 7/13/18 provides the answers to your questions about the

Dendrochronology is the gold standard and final arbiter when dating houses; deeds, genealogy, etc. play no role in the science of dendrochronology. The forty percent figure you use has nothing to do with what we're discussing, except that obviously most houses haven't been tested. After dendro, next best in dating is a survey by an architectural historian, who do use deeds, marriage records, etc. to help guess at a date. Dendrochronology informs Architectural History, not the other way around. A decorated frame is the key hallmark of a First Period (Post-Medieval) house. For that reason, there is no end date for the period; there are ca. 1750 houses that are First Period, especially in Connecticut and Western Massachusetts.Old houses (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The ell at the Pratt House dates to 1701 according to the published report on the museum's website; I've cited properly. The article cited above clearly states the Feake House dates to 1689; how do you respond to that?Old houses (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few of these houses have reliable dates; most have dates based on genealogy or title records, or dates given by the two main books on CT houses, by Kelly and Isham/Brown, both of which are around 100 years old, and not reliable; add twenty or thirty years to dates from these books to get a ballpark date. CT is due for a major survey of old houses.Old houses (talk) 18:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isham dated the

Much of the planned restoration depended on when the house was built. Relying on written records, the Dorothies had arrived at a date of 1660. From his examination of the structure, Isham dated it to about 1720 and based many of his design decisions on that conclusion. The matter wasn’t settled until 2015, when dendrochronology (analysis of tree rings) determined that the trees for the frame had been cut in 1712 and 1713. Since frames typically were constructed of green wood, 1713 is now the accepted date.” Another story about a dilapidated saltbox house saved from demolition and turned into a museum. Tomticker5 (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isham dated Whitman to 1660, actual date 1720; Hempstead 1647, actually 1678; Baldwin 1650, actually 1724. Not even close on what they considered the oldest houses in CT. For this wikipedia list, adding a minimum of twenty years to every house not yet dendro-dated would get us closer to the actual date of construction; in some case like the Feake and Turner, probably more like eighty years.Old houses (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LMAO! I was told by a dendrochronologist that Cummings dates in Massachusetts were off by 20-30 years! Focus on that for a minute and start there! Now, you say Connecticut houses should be lumped in with western Massachusetts. Why not they were both settled in the early 1630s by the Connecticut Colony. Stratford was settled in 1639 and was the largest town in Fairfield County at the time of the Revolution, had 1,000 houses probably standing at that time, because Bridgeport, Trumbull, and Shelton were still a part of it. Never burned by the British or over developed. Tomticker5 (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cummings totally accepted the dendrochronology results, though his dates were often 10 plus years off. Still an important book for its focus on the evolution of interior details. Most of the houses Isham features in his book have been demolished, but for those still standing, the dates are not even close, except for the one you cherry-pick. Cummings is not a reliable source for dates of construction, and all dates in Isham and Kelly should be taken with a grain of salt.Old houses (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly was as bad as Isham at dating; Lyon House Greenwich estimate of 1670, actually 1739. Hempstead 1643, actually 1679. Using deeds and genealogy has always been of little help in dating houses; at least Cummings was dating based on details.Old houses (talk) 01:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Found three more first period houses in Putney village of Stratford today. Tomticker5 (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Isham (1864-1943/died at 79) [1] obituary, was a pioneer in the field of architectural history and was often in disagreement with Kelly over dates. You give a tremendous amount of credit to Abbott Lowell Cummings (1923-2017/died at 94), who actually learned how to deconstruct a building, to look behind its repairs and later additions to find original details in order to date it, from Elmer D. Keith (1889-1965/76) [2] obituary. It was Keith who dated the Nehemiah Royce House to 1672. J. Frederick Kelly (1888-1947/59) [3] obituary, also taught Cummings (see Captain David Judson House at Stratford, CT). You criticize the work of these men but they were pioneers in the field and taught Cummings who was 35-60 years their junior.Tomticker5 (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no issue with these 'pioneers,' it's just that their dates are not reliable. Cummings was right about the evolution of style; for example, a beaded beam means a house isn't 17th century, but his 17th century dates are off by ten to twenty years, and there are even fewer mid-17th century houses than he thought. Not sure why you point out the Royce House date of 1672, which is no doubt wrong by at least 20 years, and probably more like 50 years.Old houses (talk) 14:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greenwich Preservation Trust owns this building, and two dates of construction are listed on their website, 1695 based on title/genealogy/architectural details, and 1739, based on dendrochronology. This article has 1670 as the date, based purely on title research. If the Preservation Trust feels the tree-ring study was flawed, then that should be cited. What's very clear is there is no possible justification for a 1670 date.Old houses (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I would say the Lyon is still probably the oldest house in town at 1739Old houses (talk) 03:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the Lyon House (1739) is very likely older than the Feake (age unknown, but likely mid-to-late 18th century.) A second round of dendrochronology, by a different lab altogether, maybe along with a friendly wager, would make for an interesting hour of TV; I'd be happy to produce. Any other houses in Greenwich that might be early 18th century or earlier?Old houses (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Historic Structure Report on the Lyon House site clearly states a date of construction of 1739. This date fits well with the architectural details- some exposed, undecorated framing is the only indication of a pre-Georgian structure.Old houses (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another house built at the same time, the Hancock-Clarke in Lexington, MA, is similar in that it was long thought to date to the late 17th century, and also in that it does contain some exposed beams in an otherwise Georgian house. Lexington Historical Society accepts the dendrochronology results of 1737.Old houses (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other than dendrochronology, which objectively removes guesswork, the only way to date an old house is to look at its details and compare those details to buildings of known date. Dating in this article too often relies on cherrypicking, finding the oldest possible date from any source, usually title and genealogy, and going with that. In the case of the Feake, a date based on a possible tree-ring date (dendro report has not been released) of re-used lumber is deliberate cherrypicking. A widespread survey of Connecticut First Period houses has never been done, and dating still relies primarily on National Register forms, and the very old books by Kelly and Isham, and unless those sources indicate known First Period details, they are not reliable.Old houses (talk) 18:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J. Frederick Kelly dated this house to late 17th century before 1700. Tomticker5 (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well he wasn't too far off; might actually be 1720 or so, but could be 1700, and at least this house has first period featuresOld houses (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The NRHP nomination form cites J. Frederick Kelly and uses the build date of "late 17th century before 1700." 1690-1699 is late 17th century "before 1700" not 1700 or 1720.Tomticker5 (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1730 is the new "before 1700"Old houses (talk) 00:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Entries without their own separate article are acceptable, as long as they are properly citedOld houses (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This continues to be a really flawed list. None of the ten oldest buildings on this list has had dendrochronology, and at least two of them, Feake-Ferris and Dr. Turner, have no first period features, and likely date to the late 18th century.Old houses (talk) 03:06, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only houses with first period features should be included in this list. Many of these house date to the late 18th century.Old houses (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Parker House- Gambrel roof is an 18th century feature; there is no proven gambrel-roofed house before 1720. Elmer Keith's dating of this house was done too long ago to be reliable. Elmer Keith himself would be embarrassed to have his name associated with a date of 1679. This house likely dates to ca. 1740+Old houses (talk) 22:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please help expand this list by adding buildings that have already gone through the vetting process to have their own articles. Please do not remove any listings here, your edits will be reverted. If you wish to add a building here that does not have its own article, please create one on the building first. If you dispute any of the construction dates used here, which come directly from the individual articles, please upload your published NPOV source that contradicts the dates here on the talk page.Tomticker5 (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For those who think this house has no architectural details to support a 17th century date, please view these images: Historic New England.Tomticker5 (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are great images, and show no First Period features. They clearly show a ceiling that was not originally exposed, and summer beams that were cased at the start. Looks like a 1730+ house.Old houses (talk) 19:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Connecticut houses is that there has not been a comprehensive study for a hundred years. For Massachusetts, Cummings studied the houses in the 60s and 70s, then there was a survey by Boston University in the 80s and 90s, then dendrochronology studies starting in the 00s. Using Cummings and the B.U. surveys as a guide, dates for Connecticut houses will be decades newer on average. The few houses that have been tested scientifically are proving that traditional dates are not even close to accurate- Stanley-Whitman and Harrison houses for example. If a house doesn't have exposed, decorated framing, then it's probably post 1730.Old houses (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You love Cummings who studied under Keith but you don't like keith. The images clearly show an exposed heavy frame. The consensus for the NRHP was that it's a 17th century building. I think that you're a fraud and a charlatan. I am moving to block you from editing the Connecticut pages.Tomticker5 (talk) 00:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again at the Royce pictures, they do clearly show a heavy frame, and it shows beading on first floor summers and joists. On the second floor, there is no beading and the ceiling was clearly plastered from the start. So, the beading is classic early 18th century, and yes, for sure First Period, but ca. 1710-1740.Old houses (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the problem is, a survey of CT houses hasn't been done in 100 years. Dating is different now. Keith, had they lived until dendrochronology, would have changed his tune on Royce and all of CT buildings. Royce has no decorated framing, so no chance it's 1672Old houses (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least half of these houses have no First Period features, so the parameters should be changed to just "pre-1725" maybe. First Period is by definition dependent on details, not date.03:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old houses (talk • contribs)

Arguing about what houses show and don't show according to both present and historical analysis is all good and well, but is really beside the point. The question with respect to Wikipedia is,

what do reliable sources say about it? The opinions of editors about whether or not something is a First Period feature, and how old said editor thinks it is, don´t really matter. What do published sources say about the specific properties in question? That said, if there are entries on the list that are not sourced, they are legitimate targets for challenge and/or outright removal. Magic♪piano 17:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Opinions are irrelevant, I would agree. Two examples of legitimate edits:

Buckingham House cited source says "likely dates to the 18th century." Royce House has been tested by dendrochronology and the owner has decided to not release the report, for obvious reasons. Other editors are cherrypicking very old sources to get the earliest possible date. When something is unlikley to be true, editing is warranted.Old houses (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If people are cherrypicking sources, then appropriate step is to counter them with other sources that more clearly reflect recent scholarship (which your assertion of cherrypicking implies exist). If you don't have access to such sources to report what they actually say, you shouldn't make edits based on what you *think* they say. Who is to judge "something is unlikely to be true"? (Hint: not you, or at least not *just* you.) Magic♪piano 18:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just look at the Buckingham House; cited source says "probably dates to the early 18th century" so it contradicts the 1640 date. That 1640 date, making it the oldest wooden house in the country, is unlikely to be true, especially given the existing cited source stating "likely 18th century."Old houses (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That 1640 date comes from HistoricBuildingsCT, which should be considered unreliable for dates; it's a self-published site according to wikipedia policy, apparently click-bait for ads. One step forward here is to agree that this site is an unreliable source. The "early 18th century" date comes from the National Registry form.Old houses (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that the Nehemiah Royce House has completed a dendrochronology study and that they are not releasing the report. My understanding of dendrochronology is that sometimes, where there are few samples from the vicinity to compare with, that it may take years to date the tree ring samples.Tomticker5 (talk) 23:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tomticker, would it really make a difference to you that the Royce House was tested and that they're sitting on the report? The house was tested by Daniel Miles, one of the best known dendrochronologists, having appeared on Time Team, etc.:

https://patch.com/connecticut/guilford/using-tree-rings-date-historic-guilford-buildings

Miles did the testing, got a result, and the Royce people don't accept it, for obvious reasons.Old houses (talk) 03:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Says Miles will be doing dendrochronology on the Royce house in the future. Again, how do you know if this was actually completed and they are not publishing the results? Tomticker5 (talk) 11:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miles and the American both have confirmed by email that the study was done, and that they got a date. The Wallingford Historic Preservation Trust owns the report and the house, and through multiple requests, they do not even respond. Maybe you have connections in Wallingford you can tap; I don'tOld houses (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents on the Buckingham House is that there are two sources listed that describe it in-depth. One is self-published by "Dan" and should be discarded. The other is the NRHP nomination, which throws in some doubt about the age. So for a case like this table, it's normal and fine to put a range or approximation for the year entry, and/or add an explanatory note in the listing or as a footnote, detailing the facts and specifics that the NRHP nomination mentions. Unless other reliable sources are available now, anything else at this stage is

Self-published source should be thrown out, totally agree. The NRHP source does not mention a 1640 date, and clearly states both "ca. 1725" and "early 18th century" so going with ca. 1725 makes sense.Old houses (talk) 21:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really accurate.

"It was probably built in the early 18th century." ... "This site was occupied by the same family from 1639, when the land was set out to Thomas Buckingham, until the late 19th-century. Supposedly the frame and stack date from the 17th century, but this may not have been the first house on the site. The early clapboards, flared posts, and fenestration point to a date around 1725. In 1753 Jehiel Bryan married into the family* A carpenter, he is credited with making several alterations, including a lean-to', the addition of more windows downstairs, and the cupboards. Further interior woodwork was done in the Federalist period, and in 1888, the lean-to was replaced by the present ell."

We cannot and should not presume a creation date of c. 1725, 1640, or anything else. The list and the article should summarize the above text. ɱ (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "this is not really accurate;" Are you kidding? "Creation date"? What are you talking about!? Calling my summary of the NRHP "not really accurate" is totally ridiculous. That's a blatantly false statement- the NRHP source does not mention a 1640 date of construction, and states "early 18th" and "ca. 1725" What should be in 'date of construction' field? There is NO mention of a 1639 or 1640 construction date.Old houses (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not kidding. I put pretty much all of the available date info from the nomination above. Its author does not find a conclusion. We cannot either. Again, we cannot and should not presume a creation date of c. 1725, 1640, or anything else. The list and the article should summarize the above text. ɱ (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about date of construction; without dendrochronology there is no way to prove date of construction. So what do you put in the 'year built' section? Why would you opt for 1640 when there is no reliable source for that date? We're not talking about sites, we're talking about buildings. Old houses (talk) 01:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And what is a "creation date"? That's a meaningless term in this discussionOld houses (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And when you say the author doesn't find a conclusion, that is totally false; they say clearly, and, I repeat myself, "early 18th century" and "ca. 1725" Old houses (talk) 01:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck denrochronology. We're writing about historic sites with reliable sources. We give the information they present. I already gave my proposals for how to organize the table. And I'm not sure at all why you keep putting words in my mouth. Nowhere at all did I state let's use "1640". And no, I wasn't using "creation date" as a technical term. Year built, year of construction, year of completion, year of creation, these all adequately convey almost identical ideas. I'm getting a short fuse with you. Read the NRHP nomination slowly and carefully. You're taking those dates out of context. What does the word probably mean to you? ɱ (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you, what date would you put for this house? We're NOT talking about sites, we're talking about existing buildings. The author says "probably early 18th century" because that's what the architectural details indicate. What does "probably" mean to you? Sounds like you think probably actually means "probably not." Does the author indicate anywhere that any 17th century date is likely or probable?

I don't like your tone, who are you anyway? I'm not engaging with someone using aggressive language.Old houses (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article slowly and carefully? What is wrong with you?

Anyway, what date should go in the date field? Old houses (talk) 04:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The tax records of Milford, CT list a construction date for Thomas Buckingham House of 1640.[4] The earliest published source that I can find is J. Frederick Kelly, Early Domestic Architecture of Connecticut, (1924), pgs. 73, 83, 145. Kelly states the house is said to have been built in 1639. Kelly notes the size of the hall fireplace, among the largest in the state, oak clapboards, and the butternut (hardwood) wainscot on the 2nd floor. WPA Architectural Survey field card; [5]. The house is also mentioned in the Federal Writer's Project, Federal Writer's Project, (Conn), (1938), p. 215. Here, it is stated that it has a traditional date of 1640. As the building stands, however, it is almost a mid-18th century house with many restorations in harmony with an earlier date. Bruce Clouette, a Hartford based consultant, prepared the NRHP nomination form in 1976 and states that supposedly the frame and stack date from the 17th century but in his opinion the frame dates to 1725. IMHO, the house has all the architectural details of an early house in CT; partial dirt cellar, massive stone chimney (16' square at the base), 8' wide fireplaces, brick ovens in rear of firebox, heavy oak framing and oak clapboard. I would state the core dates to 1640 with later modifications in 18th century.Tomticker5 (talk) 10:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The River Park Historic District nomination supports c. 1650. Will continue to look for sources. ɱ (talk) 14:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That source says "1650 (?)" which in no way supports c. 1650 Old houses (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's cherry-picking from one area. Other areas distinctly say ca. 1650. ɱ (talk) 17:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1725 IS an "early house in CT," so there's really no need to cherrypick that 1640 date. Further, that NRHP form supports the ca. 1725 date, clearly stating that a ca. 1640 is strictly traditional.

There is no such thing as a "core" of a structure separate from the house itself. If the "core" (by which you mean structure/frame, I assume) is 1640, then the house is 1640. The eighty year old sources should be considered unreliable vs. a fifty year old source- the "age matters" wikipedia guideline applies here.

In the absence of a more recent assessment, that NRHP date should be the date of construction on this list.Old houses (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The NRHP document does not make any conclusions. "Probably" dating to early 18th century does not mean it does date to the early 18th century. And it states that the frame and chimney may be from the 1600s, but does not make any real assessment. Other sources, including the NRHP nomination for the historic district, state different and more firm opinions. We need to include this house in the list, but as stated, we need to have explanatory notes, either in-line or in the footnotes. Perhaps less of a focus on the date would also be helpful, like how

this list moves dates into the fifth column. ɱ (talk) 16:42, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

There is no possible way to have a conclusive date on any old house, period, without dendrochronology. That NRHP summary concludes, however, that it probably dates to the early 18th century, AND later states that the house is ca. 1725. Nowhere does it imply that 1640 is equally likely or even remotely likely. I don't believe you're being honest with this thing; you can't say the NRHP doesn't make any conclusions.

"Age matters" when considering sources, and if something is unlikely to be true, then that source is unreliable, especially when there's a more recent, more definitive source. Is that ca. 1725 without question the true date of construction? Obviously not, it's an estimate, but it's much more reliable, by every wikipedia guideline.Old houses (talk) 17:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By that analogy, the recent source I linked below this comment would trump all. But we take all sources into account here. A great many times older sources are better. Recent sources about Columbus, Ohio history get all sorts of dates and facts wrong. I can provide endless examples. But sources from closer to when the events happened actually can be much more reliable. ɱ (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's safe to say that in the area of pre-1750 buildings, the older the source, the less reliable it is, all things being equal. Wikipedia's "age matters" tenet is a no-brainer, obviously important rule to followOld houses (talk) 00:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article, by a board member of the town's historical society, states: "The chimney has the numbers 1639 on it for when building the house began. Like many houses of the time, the chimney and fireplaces were built first and the rest of the house was constructed around it. It took a long time to gather the fieldstones, fell the trees, saw the planks and make all the pegs to hold it all together. Fortunately, Thomas Buckingham was a carpenter by trade. This house was made to last." ɱ (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The NRHP is a more reliable source, since it discusses building features and date of construction. We're not trying to find any source stating an extremely early date of construction, a date which would make it the oldest wooden building in the USA. Wikipedia asks us to find reliable sources. What difference does it make that the 'story' was written by a board member? When was that date put on the chimney? By whom?Old houses (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See above comment. ɱ (talk) 17:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear you're never going to be convinced unless you get your beloved tree-ring analysis, which is possibly never going to happen. You need to step a little away from this subject you're so adamant about. Let us all come to a consensus and create a more nuanced description of the uncertainty of the house's age, both in the house's article and in this list. ɱ (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was told by a consultant from Oxford Dendrochronology, that the oldest homes become the entombed core of a newer looking house over time as additions and modifications are completed.Tomticker5 (talk) 20:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean someone told you old houses were added onto? That they didn't stay as they were as first built? What they were really saying is that the frame of the house tells the story. The frame of Buckingham, Feake, Hawley, etc. are not early frames. Old houses (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't need dendrochronology to know Buckingham is not a 17th century house, that's the point. You can tell from the frame. Old houses (talk) 01:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP: Verifiability, not truth. You can be without a doubt about a fact but if it's not covered in reliable sources by professionals, you might as well take your ideas elsewhere. ɱ (talk) 03:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can also tell it's not a 17th century house when you read the NRHP form stating it's an early 18th century house. Pretty simple from a verifiability/credibility standpoint. Except for those like you who elevate myth to the level of verifiable, reliable source.Old houses (talk) 04:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that form says it's an early 18th century house.

You continue to cherrypick wikipedia guidelines while ignoring the plain fact of a statement saying it's an early 18th century houseOld houses (talk) 04:48, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The framing of the Buckingham House is not exposed. I guess someone could suggest to the owner to remove a piece of the summer beam casing to see if there is any decoration on the summer beam. When Capt. John Whipple’s granddaughter Mary Crocker inherited the Whipple House in the 1720s, visible ceiling joists had become lower class and old fashioned by then. So, she hid the joists behind a lath-and-plaster ceiling. The Hyland House Museum has summer beams concealed in a flat plaster ceiling, now considered to be original after dendrochronology arrived at a construction date of 1713. However, the Hyland House was never believed to date much earlier than that (see Isham). On the other hand, the Buckingham House has always been associated with a very early construction date of 1639-1640.Tomticker5 (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the owner probably knows their house is ca.1725, since the most recent, and possibly only, architectural historian to report on the house plainly states that date. If the chimney is older than the house, which is part of the legend, then the lintels might have some detail, but then again if the chimney is all that's left from1640 then we can't consider it a 1640 house.Old houses (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Couple things about sources: Kelly does not say Buckingham is 1639; he writes "for which the date of 1639 is claimed"- obviously he had his doubts. He also says Hyland-Wildman was ca. 1660, contradicting Isham, and that's what the museum people used for a long time. And Isham, who was right on Hyland, was off by 60 years on Whitman House Farmington.Old houses (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Convinced by what? All that matters here is that the most reliable source is used. That's the NRHP source, as the most recent, possible only, architectural historian's report, which states the house is likely ca. 1725, and does not anywhere say the ca. 1640 date is likely. I would be thrilled if a 1640 house were discovered, as would the New York Times. Old houses (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isham had the benefit of seeing the insides of the Hyland House when he restored it in 1900. Kelly never restored Hyland only commented on the exposed chamfered girt in the exterior as a 17th century detail. Tomticker5 (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly was off by fifty years on most of his dates; sixty with Whitman and Hyland. Not bad considering he was looking at houses a hundred years ago. Cummings was off by 10 to 20 years on most of his dates, not bad consdering he was writing fifty years ago. Old houses (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I'd say Kelly was off closer to 30 years typically; Harrison and Buttolph-Williams both off by 30. Old houses (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Buckingham House has always had the 1639 iron date stamped into its chimney. It wouldn’t be news if it was found to be built in 1639 because that’s always been the accepted date of construction locally for at least the last 100 years. Not to fault who did the NRHP nomination report but you can fill a newspaper with what he left out. For example, what are the dimensions of the house, rooms, fireplaces, ceiling heights, summer beam dimensions and spacing (double), etc? Tomticker5 (talk) 23:07, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few points- clearly Kelly didn't think Buckingham was 1639; he politely used the passive voice when relaying the traditional date.

Two, I haven't looked them up, but the NRHP form reads like it was written by an architectural historian. But, it's not a historic structures report; the NRHP form doesn't ask for all that tedious information you list.

I think what you're saying is Buckingham has ca. 1640 features (similar to the Fairbanks House) behind later finishes. It's possible, but irrelevant- the most recent survey says it's an early 18th century house, and according to wikipedia, that's the source to use.Old houses (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And of course that chimney has not always had 1639 on the chimney. Unless of course it's documented? Likely it dates to the late 19th century, probably put up around the centennialOld houses (talk) 23:49, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two current sources for that 1640 date on the Buckingham House are not reliable. The "Historic Houses CT" is a self-publish site, which is explicitly unreliable per wikipedia editing guidelines. And the source from the 1930s is too old; "age matters" according to wikipedia, and the NRHP form is forty years newer. So, the NRHP survey clearly says early 18th century, so that should be the source. Either that 1640 date needs a reliable source, or the entry needs to be updated with the NRHP source.Old houses (talk) 16:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Without a better source than the NRHP source clearly stating early 18th century/ca. 1725, the date of construction will be changed to ca. 1725Old houses (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again "old houses". Instead of responding to yourself and then deciding you're right and editing, it's clear that more of a consensus needs to be had. Would the editors here accept this as a move (things I stated earlier): "We take all sources into account here. The NRHP document does not make any conclusions. "Probably" dating to early 18th century does not mean it does date to the early 18th century. And it states that the frame and chimney may be from the 1600s, but does not make any real assessment. Other sources, including the NRHP nomination for the historic district, state different and more firm opinions. We need to include this house in the list, but as stated, we need to have explanatory notes, either in-line or in the footnotes." A date range would be appropriate, or an estimated date with a note to explain the disparities. ɱ (talk) 18:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues with your opinion. The cited source does not say the frame "may" date to 1640; that is just completely false- you made it up to coincide with your desire to elevate extremely old sources claiming an extremely early date of construction. The cited source clearly states probably built early 18th century, and states no other date of construction, period. Not my opinion.Old houses (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, I did "include this house on the list," I just moved it. Find a more reliable source with a date of construction of 1640 then change it. The cited source does not claim a 1640 date of construction, so how can you claim it does? If you want to say the date is "ca. 1725, with 1639 stamped on the chimney," that's fine with meOld houses (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You bizarrely write that "we take all sources here"- which is explicitly contrary to innumerable wikipedia editing guidelines. We're talking about a date of construction, not the history of the dating of the houseOld houses (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This "consensus" concept is irrelevant in this case, but maybe to avoid your vandalism, I should recruit more editors? Or create multiple logins? Is that cool? But really, your refusal to even read the cited source makes it clear you're an activist, not a serious userOld houses (talk) 19:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is the backbone of Wikipedia. If you refuse to understand that, then perhaps you do not belong here. I'm not digging into the rest of this. ɱ (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In this case what constitutes a reliable source and the parameters of the article (the age of houses) is all that matters, not consensus. Wikipedia does not care about sources, it's all about reliable sources, and more and most reliable sources. You are mistakenly citing various sources, and deliberately misreading a source that is clearly the morst reliable sourceOld houses (talk) 20:18, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you are cherrypicking even here; consensus is not "the backbone of wikipedia." The pillar says "seek consensus," which is not even remotely similar to consensus is the backbone of wikipedia.Old houses (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to this issue, this structure- we are not trying to just collect sources, we're trying to find the best source. The very old source saying 1640 is interesting, as is the 1639 date on the chimney, but that info should be included in the body of the article; doesn't really have a place here, since we're looking at likely dates of constructionOld houses (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly don't understand even the most basic principles of what Wikipedia is; you yourself admit the self-publish site is unreliable, yet you continue to refuse to read the source any normal, objective user would conclude is the most reliable sourceOld houses (talk) 02:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Milford tax records state the Eells-Stow House was built in 1669.[6]. Clouette states in the NRHP nomination form that the house was built 1679-1689. The Milford Historical Society states on their website that tradition had the date of the house late in the 17th century coinciding with the arrival of the Eells family in Milford. Investigation of the revealed framing put the date a little later, possibly as late as c. 1720. So, are we using NRHP dates here, or are we using the Historical Society website dates? For Buckingham House, we ignore the Historical Society date of 1650 and use the NRHP form date of 1725. However, for Eells-Stowe we use the Historical Society date of c. 1700? Makes no sense to me.Tomticker5 (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tough one, but considering dates in general are getting bumped forward by scholarship and dendrochronology, this non-profit probably has gotten some information indicating a slightly later date. In other words, the tendency is for owners to claim the oldest possible date (Feake, Royce, etc.) so when non-profit boards of directors actually make the date newer (Whitman, Hempsted, Buttolph-Williams, Parson Barnard in Mass.) there's probably a good reason, and we should consider it the most reliable source. Tax records don't help much in dating. Old houses (talk) 18:02, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, in Connecticut, we use the newest date of construction no matter where it comes from. Got it. Tomticker5 (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All things being equal the newer date should be used, yes. But this house does have two good sources, so a ca. 1690 date wouldn't be completely ridiculous, like this page is doing with Buckingham and Feake housesOld houses (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The North Branford Tax Records (grand list) has a 1680 date of construction.[7] The NRHP nomination form actually states it was built in 1705.Tomticker5 (talk) 09:56, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tax lists are not reliable for dating; there's no way of telling what exactly was being taxed and what, if anything, remains from that structureOld houses (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The NRHP form says first quarter 18th century, but does also say ca. 1705 so I'm okay with that. Most likely later, of course, but that's the best we have right nowOld houses (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing that tax records are not a reliable indicator of building age. At best, they tell that *a* structure stood somewhere. Demonstrating that the current structure is the one in the tax list (as opposed to a later replacement) is not straightforward. Magic♪piano 23:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]