Thanks for all of your replies. I'm interested in hearing more input.
In 1999, my Dad and I replaced pierposts under the house with treated pierposts. We discovered that the house used to sit on big round logs. There was one left in the middle and the house was sitting on both it and the newer one from 1922 next to it, plus 18 other pierposts on concrete under there. Anyway, when I pulled it out, the bottom of it that was in the soil had been burnt. We could pull it out then but I imagine they couldn't get it out very easily before which is why they left it. I guess they burned the end before sitting the logs in the soil to prevent bugs and decay?
I've had contractors put the level up to the house a number of times, as well as a building inspector who could not believe how straight and square the building is. My question is, is this a real poor type of construction or are these houses built to last?
The guy who either built it or had it built purchased both of these city lots in 1889 together for $400.00. By all accounts that would have been considered an exceptional price at the time for small lots. However he bought the lots in February 1889 and it was around that time that the settlers were aware of impending statehood and a building boom was occurring. Family legend is that he built this place first for his niece to come from Pennsylvania, but I found out they didn't move here until 1905, so I think he put it up fast as a rental at first. He rented it for 15 years. I believe it is possible that the renter who lived here in 1900, James M. Kingshorn, born in Scotland, was the one who added the kitchen and the quick chimney. He was at least renting the house that year, and on a window in the kitchen were his initials under 80 years worth of green paint that I had stripped, proving to me the kitchen was added before 1905.
The builder of this house, J.M. Grugan, moved another house to the corner lot that was an elaborate Italianate Victorian, and that is where he lived. This place only has understated decorative elements such as the front gable end scallop shaped shingles and some decoration under all of the windows.
Of course material was cheaper than labor and it probably got put up real fast. He at least didn't scrimp on the window glass though as it has 7 foot tall windows with the original Victorian hardware, which were pricier than the multiple-pane windows.
The entire house appears to be Western Red Cedar, including the woodwork. The floors even look like cedar, but I imagine they are fir. A lot of people, including experienced wood people, have trouble saying exactly what some of the wood is. It took me 400 hours to strip, sand and refinish the staircase. On the entire staircase there is not one knot of wood on the entire staircase except a tiny microscopic one on one of the risers. When I power paint removed the paint on the house last summer and repainted it, there were only a couple of tiny knots on the entire house. Everything is 100% knot-free number 1 clear cedar.
I don't know anything about construction. What is meant by ring of timbers? Upper sill?
When I walk around barefoot on the wood floor in the back bedroom upstairs, I can feel the floor joists underneath. It seems as if there are a number of joists going off in different directions in the subfloor like spokes in a wheel. I guess to know for sure I would have to take up a floor board to see. It doesn't seem logical that this would be.
Don't mean to be chatty, but I think I've come to the best forum right here, and figure this is the right place to ask.
