Thanks to Ruth Pride for bringing the following Indianapolis Star wire news report to our attention. "Vandals damage 50 to 100 headstones at South Bend cemetery" http://www.indystar.com/data/wire/out/0122ap_m0l2b9s009.html This was at Mount Pleasant Cemetery in South Bend, which has 5,000 some gravestones and was mentioned in the earlier post about damage possibly being covered by plot-owners homeowners policies. The local story is on the South Bend Tribune's website at: http://www.southbendtribune.com/local/ under "Local News". The link is too long to post here, but I'll add one to the INPCRP Cemeteries in the News page in case you have trouble accessing the story from their main page. Lois

Hello, This will vary from company to company, and each person will need to check with their insurer to see if this applies to their policy. I checked with My Homeowners Insurance company, Farm Bureau Insurance (United Farm Family Mutual Insurance Company) and this is what they told me: Headstones for immediate family are covered as "personal property and outdoor equipment an insured owns or uses while it is anywhere in the world". More specifically, "individual or family cemetery plots or burial vaults that the insured owns". My agent defined "immediate family" as myself, my spouse, and children. If I owned the plot and marker for grandparents or other family members, they would be covered, too. The key is, the insured must own the plot and markers. In other cases, it can be covered by a rider to your policy, or having a separate policy to cover the property. Remember, this will vary from company to company and each person should check with their agent to see if their homeowners policy has this coverage. Ernie Lasley, Coordinator Gibson County PCRP PCRP Page: http://members.sigecom.net/elasley/inpcrp/index.html Cemeteries Page: http://www.usroots.com/~jmurphy/gibson/gibcem/gibcem.htm At 05:22 PM 01/22/2002 -0500, Dale J. & Cindy L. Frie wrote: >On this mornings news I heard about yet another cemetery vandalized in the >South Bend Area. I do not recall the town or name of the cemetery. In the >news report they did mention some of the stones would be repaired with >proceeds from home owners insurance. I got the impression this headstone is >not located on someone's personal property. Which brings up the question how >can they claim headstones on their homeowners insurance. > >Cindy L. Frie >(skifri) > > > >==== INPCRP Mailing List ==== >If we cannot respect the dead, how can we respect the living?

On this mornings news I heard about yet another cemetery vandalized in the South Bend Area. I do not recall the town or name of the cemetery. In the news report they did mention some of the stones would be repaired with proceeds from home owners insurance. I got the impression this headstone is not located on someone's personal property. Which brings up the question how can they claim headstones on their homeowners insurance. Cindy L. Frie (skifri)

Jack: I have not read the article. The boulder and arch memorial are at Camp Chase cemetery. There were, I think about 2,260 confederate burials there, although some were removed to the south. Johnson's Island has 206 stones and David Bush says there are 50-52 unknown graves. One guy has, or had, two stones. It also has a Confederate Memorial. All can be seen in pictures on the web. Another good site... http://home.thirdplanet.net/lsrssw/ Dave Bush can be contacted at dbush@mail.heidelberg.edu about Johnson's Island. One other interesting note is that the island was a resort area before the turn of the century with big pavillion, etc. There are also houses on the other end. The cemetery, on a small part of the island, is still totally in tact and the federal portion of Fort Johnson, although gone, is probably the best example of a true fort area in the US. Everything below ground is undisturbed and this what they have been working on with some great finds. You can not get onto the rest of the island without permission, although unless you're looking underground it all looks alike. Camp Chase on the other hand is just a cemetery downtown Columbus on the site of. That girl must really have her story screwed up because to my knowledge there is no boulder on the island. She has to be talking about Camp Chase. Let me know if you find one, but you won't. Jon Andrews >From: Jb502000@aol.com >Reply-To: INPCRP-L@rootsweb.com >To: INPCRP-L@rootsweb.com >Subject: [INPCRP] Re: article >Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 22:28:15 EST > >In a message dated 1/16/02 5:17:42 PM US Eastern Standard Time, >sianoil@hotmail.com writes: > > > > . I've been to > > both cemeteries several times and was there when they did a dig on > > Johnson's > > Island. > >Jon, > On the Issue of Johnsons Island in Ohio, did you read the article >in >the Akron Beacon Journal. The Lady Reporter, Fran, said she was amazed when >she saw carved on a large boulder on the Island that 2,300 confederate >soilders were buried there.. I believe you, but where did she come up with >such a number. And on what Boulder on the Island. I went to the Johnson >Island web site and never saw that mentioned. What's happened. I'll be in >Ohio in March, I think I'll go visit the cemetery. > >Jack Briles >jb502000@aol.com > > >==== INPCRP Mailing List ==== >THIS IS A CEMETERY ----- > "Lives are commemorated - deaths are recorded - families >are reunited - memories are made tangible - and love is >undisguised. This is a cemetery. > "Communities accord respect, families bestow reverence, >historians seek information and our heritage is thereby enriched. > "Testimonies of devotion, pride and remembrance are carved >in stone to pay warm tribute to accomplishments and to the life - >not the death - of a loved one. The cemetery is homeland for family >memorials that are a sustaining source of comfort to the living. > "A cemetery is a history of people - a perpetual record of >yesterday and sanctuary of peace and quiet today. A cemetery >exists because every life is worth loving and remembering - always." > --Author unknown -- Seen at a monument dealer in West Union, IA > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.

"If so the water absorbed into the stone will go no further up then the break, so there would be no damage from that point up, such as water being trapped inside the stone freezing causing damage to the stone." Unfortunately, it is a horizontal stone with the family name identifying a family plot. The break in the stone was approximately in the middle so there is no area "above" the break. I guess this is an example of the need to educate folks. I'm thinking this might make a good topic for our annual Memorial Day gathering. Thanks for the input. Looks like I'll just have to let nature do its thing. MaryAlice ----- Original Message ----- From: <Jb502000@aol.com> To: <INPCRP-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2002 11:00 AM Subject: [INPCRP] Re: Cemetery Restoration, Waterproofing > In a message dated 1/19/02 7:44:51 AM US Eastern Standard Time, > maryalicepa@earthlink.net writes: > > > > I had a limestone marker repaired and cleaned a few years ago > > in Dubois County by a monument supplier. I asked them if there was any way > > to keep it in good shape longer, and they told me to put something like > > Thompsons on it, which I have been doing for the last 3 years. Being new to > > preservation, I'm beginning to pick up that you shouldn't put waterproofing > > on a limestone marker. If that, indeed, is the case, what should I do now > > that I have already been doing it? Appreciate any advice. Thanks. > > > > MaryAlice Parks > > (on the board of Shiloh Cem. Assoc. in Ireland) > > > > Mary Alice, I am sending your answer through the list for > possible general discussion. it appears to be a poin of dissagreement. Was > the repair a break such as a section broken completely off and then re > attached with some type of Epoxy? If so the water absorbed into the stone > will go no further up then the break, so there would be no damage from that > point up, such as water being trapped inside the stone freezing causing > damage to the stone. Technically all of the area below the break can absorb > the water up into the stone inside of the waterproof shell you have created, > and can, possibly sooner or later cause damage. Water is drawn toward the sun > and should therefore be very carefully restricted. > There is no known way to remove Thompsons, because it has penetrated the > stone and there is no way to draw it out. Luckily there is not as much water > absorbed up through the base into the stone as many people believe. Generally > the most damaging water would enter through the upper part of a stone with no > waterproofing on it. As far as what you have already applied in the areas > where it cant allow the water to escape, it's to late to worry now. I > certainly don't approve of waterproofing the entire undamaged stone. At least > leave the sides, top and back for water to dissipate. Water trapped and > Freezing and thawing on the inside can weaken the stone so that any weak > points would separate. As far as what you are doing I would not waterproof > below the repair no matter how high up on the stone it is except for the > face. As far as what is on the stone now, all petroleum distillates, which is > what Thompsons is, will eventually be drawn out by the sun over a period of 4 > to 7 years to the point water inside will begin to dissipate normally. > Hopefully not much has been absorbed up through the base, and no appreciable > damage will occur. Those that suggest materials such as Thompsons Waterseal > should be knowledgeable enough to warn you about the possibilities of damage > if not done with care. > I have a friend here in Floyd County in the monument business that > wont recommend hardly anything at all, because after he gives people any > information about how to work on stones, they go out and ignore his > instructions, and as he says that is not his type of work. He sells new > ones.. PLEASE USE COMMON SENSE and follow any instructions you are given to > the letter. Also a Monument maker is not helping you by telling you to cover > the entire stone with waterproofing if it is only cleaned, and not Broken and > repaired. There is a Possibility you could cover the front and leave the > sides and back and top for water dispersal. the front would remain clean, but > the rest may pick up discoloration due to the weather. This is not Technical > advice, it is what I have found works for me. Others may no agree. If not, > WHY. Let me hear of your experiences, and how they have turned out. > Exchange of, and disagreement on, information is good for us all, and I > welcome it. > Experience is the very best teacher there is. > Jack E. Briles Sr. > jb502000@aol.com > > > ==== INPCRP Mailing List ==== > This list is for discussion of topics related to the Indiana Pioneer > Cemeteries Restoration Project only. >

good idea for the video,John. Hopefully could get into the hands of 4H genealogy projects..I sent e-mail to address with Purdue Extension suggesting they change their manual to discourage the use of wire brushes, vinegar, etc..heard no reply......Ruth Pride Wheatland

In a message dated 1/19/02 4:45:44 AM US Eastern Standard Time, graveyardgroomer@skyenet.net writes: > I feel it should cover the wrongs and rights to restoration. So many people > with good intentions do more harm than good.The historic integrity of the > historic site must be dealt with as the historic site that it is. Keep in > touch if I can be of assistance. > > > John "Walt" Walters > 765-825-7313 > > I live in Fayette County > John, He's right, the knowledge you have in your head should be put on Video so all can benefit from your Experience. You have the practical experience that others can never obtain without a Guidance Video to follow. They would never ever have the time to learn what you have learned by actual hands on experience. You owe it to yourself to record your knowledge for others to follow in their pursuit of Historical Preservation of our History. It would sell.! Jack

In a message dated 1/19/02 7:44:51 AM US Eastern Standard Time, maryalicepa@earthlink.net writes: > I had a limestone marker repaired and cleaned a few years ago > in Dubois County by a monument supplier. I asked them if there was any way > to keep it in good shape longer, and they told me to put something like > Thompsons on it, which I have been doing for the last 3 years. Being new to > preservation, I'm beginning to pick up that you shouldn't put waterproofing > on a limestone marker. If that, indeed, is the case, what should I do now > that I have already been doing it? Appreciate any advice. Thanks. > > MaryAlice Parks > (on the board of Shiloh Cem. Assoc. in Ireland) > Mary Alice, I am sending your answer through the list for possible general discussion. it appears to be a poin of dissagreement. Was the repair a break such as a section broken completely off and then re attached with some type of Epoxy? If so the water absorbed into the stone will go no further up then the break, so there would be no damage from that point up, such as water being trapped inside the stone freezing causing damage to the stone. Technically all of the area below the break can absorb the water up into the stone inside of the waterproof shell you have created, and can, possibly sooner or later cause damage. Water is drawn toward the sun and should therefore be very carefully restricted. There is no known way to remove Thompsons, because it has penetrated the stone and there is no way to draw it out. Luckily there is not as much water absorbed up through the base into the stone as many people believe. Generally the most damaging water would enter through the upper part of a stone with no waterproofing on it. As far as what you have already applied in the areas where it cant allow the water to escape, it's to late to worry now. I certainly don't approve of waterproofing the entire undamaged stone. At least leave the sides, top and back for water to dissipate. Water trapped and Freezing and thawing on the inside can weaken the stone so that any weak points would separate. As far as what you are doing I would not waterproof below the repair no matter how high up on the stone it is except for the face. As far as what is on the stone now, all petroleum distillates, which is what Thompsons is, will eventually be drawn out by the sun over a period of 4 to 7 years to the point water inside will begin to dissipate normally. Hopefully not much has been absorbed up through the base, and no appreciable damage will occur. Those that suggest materials such as Thompsons Waterseal should be knowledgeable enough to warn you about the possibilities of damage if not done with care. I have a friend here in Floyd County in the monument business that wont recommend hardly anything at all, because after he gives people any information about how to work on stones, they go out and ignore his instructions, and as he says that is not his type of work. He sells new ones.. PLEASE USE COMMON SENSE and follow any instructions you are given to the letter. Also a Monument maker is not helping you by telling you to cover the entire stone with waterproofing if it is only cleaned, and not Broken and repaired. There is a Possibility you could cover the front and leave the sides and back and top for water dispersal. the front would remain clean, but the rest may pick up discoloration due to the weather. This is not Technical advice, it is what I have found works for me. Others may no agree. If not, WHY. Let me hear of your experiences, and how they have turned out. Exchange of, and disagreement on, information is good for us all, and I welcome it. Experience is the very best teacher there is. Jack E. Briles Sr. jb502000@aol.com

----- Original Message ----- From: Mark Mattheis MARKE MEDIA To: John Walters Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 3:49 PM Subject: Re: video John I'm in Hagerstown (Wayne Co.) and have been producing instructional videos for 15 years so I understand when you say most people do more harm than good. Do you have anything in print on your procedures or is the knowledge in your head and hands? We should talk about the possibilities. I may be in Connersville tomorrow. Mark Mattheis Marke Media 115 East Main Hagerstown Indiana Phone: 765-489-4098 Hello , I am John Walters and I don't know for sure about the expert title,but it seems most people refer to me as that. We have talked about a training video through the INPCRP group and all seems to be in favor of.I have six years experience in cemetery restoration and a great passion for the work I do.I would certainly be interested in further discussion on the matter. I feel itshould cover the wrongs and rights to restoration,so many people with good intentions do more harm than good.The historic integrity of the historic site must be dealt with as the historic site that it is.Keep in touch if I can be of assistance. John "Walt" Walters 765-825-7313 I live in Fayette County

In a message dated 1/19/02 12:23:05 AM US Eastern Standard Time, loismauk@home.com writes: > I'm not saying this is > the right way to repair these stones; just offering the above photo as an > illustration. > > Lois > > > > > Lois, > The stainless steel these stones are held together with apparently was > the only method available to them at the time. I saw some of the stones and > as you say, without the steel the stones probably would be gone. They maybe > aren't pretty, but they are still there. I think we said at the time we > visited there in 2000, it was better than nothing. But where the cemeteries > are located on the huge government reservation there was not much of an > opportunity to do much else. Like it or not, this is a case where it was a > necessity. I won't say I agree with the solution either, but as I said > earlier if it has to be to save the stone, then so be it. The "sleeves were > undoubtedly made on the reservation. And also at a time when there was > nothing else that could be done to save them. We saw some in the smaller > cemetery by the buildings that were in worse condition, but still there. Jack E. Briles Sr. jb502000@aol,com

As some of you know, my husband Mike has been in and out of the hospital several times since 12/21/2001. Trying to catch up on some of my e-mail this weekend. Looks like we're expecting 3 to 6" of snow this weekend, so there's a fair chance I'll be able to respond to a couple of dozen e-mails this weekend. Jack mentioned stones in some of the 10 cemeteries inside the Indiana Army Ammunition Plant being repaired with steel sleeves. Found a fairly good picture of one at: http://www.rootsweb.com/~incccpc/friendcem.html (see the second photo.) These repairs were done by the contractor responsible for mowing the cemeteries inside the 10,000-acre Ammunition Plant. I'm not saying this is the right way to repair these stones; just offering the above photo as an illustration. Lois

In a message dated 1/16/02 5:17:42 PM US Eastern Standard Time, sianoil@hotmail.com writes: > . I've been to > both cemeteries several times and was there when they did a dig on > Johnson's > Island. Jon, On the Issue of Johnsons Island in Ohio, did you read the article in the Akron Beacon Journal. The Lady Reporter, Fran, said she was amazed when she saw carved on a large boulder on the Island that 2,300 confederate soilders were buried there.. I believe you, but where did she come up with such a number. And on what Boulder on the Island. I went to the Johnson Island web site and never saw that mentioned. What's happened. I'll be in Ohio in March, I think I'll go visit the cemetery. Jack Briles jb502000@aol.com

In a message dated 1/18/02 5:34:27 PM US Eastern Standard Time, elasley@sigecom.net writes: > As for the epoxy stopping the water from wicking up from the ground, that > may be a good thing. At least not much moisture can wick up into the > stone, and what does can escape through the front, back & sides. The epoxy > in the break may even stop the wicking process. As the sun heats the top > part of the stone, the epoxy may prevent it from drawing moisture from the > ground. (the wicking process) And I tend to agree with you about > waterproofing the top of the stone, that it would do more good than harm. > > Ernie > > Ernie, Preserving the life of Tombstones is our main goal I see that you understand about waterproofing above the Epoxied Break. I think I should make my self perfectly clear that I DO NOT CONDONE IN ANY WAY, WATERPROOFING A STONE THAT HAS NOT BEEN EPOXIED. I have taken a piece of broken Marble Tombstone, and a piece of Limestone from scrap and Applied Epoxy to each and joined the Limestone together, and Marble pieces together and set the joined 4 inch pieces of each in 1 inch of water for 48 hours. This is what we do in water absorption tests on building materials and file reports to the Architect for approval about how many CC of water is absorbed in a given time. After 48 hours there was absolutely no water in the top pieces of the joined stones, proving the water will not "wick" above the Mastico Epoxy. Therefore the water will disperse through the sides, back and front at the "repair" as you said. Since there is no water "wicking" up, it will not hurt to cover all 4 sides of the stone from that point up, being very careful not to get waterproofing on the lower part. If the Restoreationists want's to add life to the upper part of the stone, clean it as best as possible and Waterproof the upper part as I have outlined. No short cuts, and DO NOT GO BELOW THE REPAIR. If the top area cannot absorb water, you do not have to be concerned with water dispersal. I deliberately poured water on the stone in the memorial at old St. Peters Cem., only the bottom 3 inches absorbed any water. it will soon have been there 1 1/2 years. Unfortunately after 2 days of rain I found the bottom dark with water discoloration, but the top was just as white as when I installed it. Let common sense rule. For those that choose to use Stainless steel, that is their choice. We all do the best we can. Sincerely Jack E. Briles sr. jb502000@aol.com

Jack, Some very good points. The epoxy seems to be the only way to repair/restore a stone to as near original as possible. I have seen some repaired with Mastico epoxy where it was hard to tell where the break was. More like original condition, I would think. I would worry about the sides of the stones with the sleeve holding water or not being able to dry out, and it looks like an old broken stone with a new sleeve on it to hold it together, not necessarily repaired or restored. As for the epoxy stopping the water from wicking up from the ground, that may be a good thing. At least not much moisture can wick up into the stone, and what does can escape through the front, back & sides. The epoxy in the break may even stop the wicking process. As the sun heats the top part of the stone, the epoxy may prevent it from drawing moisture from the ground. (the wicking process) And I tend to agree with you about waterproofing the top of the stone, that it would do more good than harm. Ernie At 02:16 PM 01/18/2002 -0500, you wrote: >In a message dated 1/18/02 12:33:58 PM US Eastern Standard Time, >wspurlock@savinggraves.com writes: > > > > Hi Jack, > > > > One of the questions that I have about the sleeve is that I also was > > concerned about water retention, > >Bill, > I have had a great concern for water retention since I saw my first >stone repaired with Epoxy. I repaired one in a memorial I built, and the >first Epoxy was about 3 inches above the base. I have considered >waterproofing the top sections of a broken stone to Preserve it, but the >"Experts" say water absorption from the ground cannot escape drawn by the >sun, if I waterproof the Top. In my 40 odd years experience with various >types of stone repairs, water wicking up from the Ground cannot pass the >first Epoxy repair. So therefore if the break is near the bottom of the stone >there is no need to worry about waterproofing above the break, because the >water coming up from the ground from the base is stopped by the Epoxy. And if >I waterproof from the Epoxy up, no water can penetrate the stone above the >Epoxy, therefore there is nothing to evaporate out of the top of the stone >because nothing can go above the Epoxied break, nor penetrate the >Waterproofed area above the break. I believe after cleaning the top area >well, and then applying waterproofing, The life of the stone will be >Prolonged. In my opinion, waterproofing the Top above the Epoxy should give >roughly 5-7 years of extended life with no weather damage. This is an >opinion I have not heard before, but my experience in the Masonry Business >for over 40 years tells me I am right. I know there will be disagreements, >if so I would like to hear them, and have them explained to me. But I would >like the basis for the disagreement. Discussion of preservation is healthy >for our group. I welcome it. Sincerely, > >Jack E. Briles sr. >jb502000@aol.com > > >==== INPCRP Mailing List ==== >This list is for discussion of topics related to the Indiana Pioneer >Cemeteries Restoration Project only.

In a message dated 1/18/02 12:33:58 PM US Eastern Standard Time, wspurlock@savinggraves.com writes: > Hi Jack, > > One of the questions that I have about the sleeve is that I also was > concerned about water retention, Bill, I have had a great concern for water retention since I saw my first stone repaired with Epoxy. I repaired one in a memorial I built, and the first Epoxy was about 3 inches above the base. I have considered waterproofing the top sections of a broken stone to Preserve it, but the "Experts" say water absorption from the ground cannot escape drawn by the sun, if I waterproof the Top. In my 40 odd years experience with various types of stone repairs, water wicking up from the Ground cannot pass the first Epoxy repair. So therefore if the break is near the bottom of the stone there is no need to worry about waterproofing above the break, because the water coming up from the ground from the base is stopped by the Epoxy. And if I waterproof from the Epoxy up, no water can penetrate the stone above the Epoxy, therefore there is nothing to evaporate out of the top of the stone because nothing can go above the Epoxied break, nor penetrate the Waterproofed area above the break. I believe after cleaning the top area well, and then applying waterproofing, The life of the stone will be Prolonged. In my opinion, waterproofing the Top above the Epoxy should give roughly 5-7 years of extended life with no weather damage. This is an opinion I have not heard before, but my experience in the Masonry Business for over 40 years tells me I am right. I know there will be disagreements, if so I would like to hear them, and have them explained to me. But I would like the basis for the disagreement. Discussion of preservation is healthy for our group. I welcome it. Sincerely, Jack E. Briles sr. jb502000@aol.com

In a message dated 1/18/02 9:17:40 AM US Eastern Standard Time, wspurlock@savinggraves.com writes: > . The > process that was used in restoring these two stones is something that I've > never seen before and I was just wondering if anyone else had seen something > like this, and what kind of opinions you might have on something like this. > > I have to admit that from what I see, I'm not really sure what I think of it > yet. Bill, Lois has some cemeteries in the old US Army Amunition Property in Charlestown, Indiana. I looked at them and was not impressed. It seems to take away from the historical look of the cemetery. But If an individual can't Epoxy the stone back, then I guess it is acceptable. Most aren,t as well done as this one. And as you said, it would be very expensive unless the person making the repairs, or a friend made the "sleve". But it sort of takes away from the natural senerity of the site if you have several. Also it would seem to have water retention longer than normal with possible accleration of decomposition of the stone, due to, as I understand being set in concrete. But it certainly is better than the stone being run over by a mower. I also believe I saw 1 or 2 with the sides only, up in Fayette County that John walters took care of. Jack Briles

Hi Larry, Yup, they did use stainless steel. William Spurlock Saving Graves http://www.savinggraves.com -----Original Message----- From: larry galloway [mailto:galloway@kconline.com] Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 10:55 AM To: INPCRP-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [INPCRP] FW: Harrison Cemetery I love the idea, and the way it looks, however I have to agree with you it puts it out of most people abilities and price range. It is very nice though. And I have never seen anything like it. I think its a great idea....They must have used stainless steel..er at least I hope they did. Tisha On Friday, January 18, 2002, at 09:17 AM, William Spurlock wrote: > Hi, > > A few days ago, I received a email from a lady who had restored two > gravestones in the Harrison Cemetery in Kalamazoo County, Michigan. The > process that was used in restoring these two stones is something that > I've > never seen before and I was just wondering if anyone else had seen > something > like this, and what kind of opinions you might have on something like > this. > > I have to admit that from what I see, I'm not really sure what I think > of it > yet. My first thought is that the cost and the labor involved would put > out > of reach of most people. I was also a little confused at first, thinking > that the "faceplate" was covering the carving on the stone until I > realized > that what they refer to as the front is really the back of the stone. > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~maizeblue6/index42.html > > And > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~maizeblue6/index56.html > > William Spurlock > Saving Graves > http://www.savinggraves.com > > > > > ==== INPCRP Mailing List ==== > Blessed are the Elderly, for they remember what we will never know. > > ==== INPCRP Mailing List ==== Quote from William Gladstone (1809-1897), three-time Prime Minister of England and Victorian contemporary of Benjamin Disraeli: "Show me the manner in which a nation or community cares for its dead and I will measure with mathematical exactness the tender mercies of its people, their respect for the laws of the land, and their loyalty to high ideals."

I love the idea, and the way it looks, however I have to agree with you it puts it out of most people abilities and price range. It is very nice though. And I have never seen anything like it. I think its a great idea....They must have used stainless steel..er at least I hope they did. Tisha On Friday, January 18, 2002, at 09:17 AM, William Spurlock wrote: > Hi, > > A few days ago, I received a email from a lady who had restored two > gravestones in the Harrison Cemetery in Kalamazoo County, Michigan. The > process that was used in restoring these two stones is something that > I've > never seen before and I was just wondering if anyone else had seen > something > like this, and what kind of opinions you might have on something like > this. > > I have to admit that from what I see, I'm not really sure what I think > of it > yet. My first thought is that the cost and the labor involved would put > out > of reach of most people. I was also a little confused at first, thinking > that the "faceplate" was covering the carving on the stone until I > realized > that what they refer to as the front is really the back of the stone. > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~maizeblue6/index42.html > > And > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~maizeblue6/index56.html > > William Spurlock > Saving Graves > http://www.savinggraves.com > > > > > ==== INPCRP Mailing List ==== > Blessed are the Elderly, for they remember what we will never know. > >

Bill, While this process will help identify who the stone represents, it certainly destroys the historic look and feel that comes with viewing the sculpture art now under the sleave. My gut feeling is this is not a good way to go. Sue Silver ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Spurlock" <wspurlock@savinggraves.com> To: <INPCRP-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 6:17 AM Subject: [INPCRP] FW: Harrison Cemetery > Hi, > > A few days ago, I received a email from a lady who had restored two > gravestones in the Harrison Cemetery in Kalamazoo County, Michigan. The > process that was used in restoring these two stones is something that I've > never seen before and I was just wondering if anyone else had seen something > like this, and what kind of opinions you might have on something like this. > > I have to admit that from what I see, I'm not really sure what I think of it > yet. My first thought is that the cost and the labor involved would put out > of reach of most people. I was also a little confused at first, thinking > that the "faceplate" was covering the carving on the stone until I realized > that what they refer to as the front is really the back of the stone. > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~maizeblue6/index42.html > > And > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~maizeblue6/index56.html > > William Spurlock > Saving Graves > http://www.savinggraves.com > > > > > ==== INPCRP Mailing List ==== > Blessed are the Elderly, for they remember what we will never know. > >

Hi, A few days ago, I received a email from a lady who had restored two gravestones in the Harrison Cemetery in Kalamazoo County, Michigan. The process that was used in restoring these two stones is something that I've never seen before and I was just wondering if anyone else had seen something like this, and what kind of opinions you might have on something like this. I have to admit that from what I see, I'm not really sure what I think of it yet. My first thought is that the cost and the labor involved would put out of reach of most people. I was also a little confused at first, thinking that the "faceplate" was covering the carving on the stone until I realized that what they refer to as the front is really the back of the stone. http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~maizeblue6/index42.html And http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~maizeblue6/index56.html William Spurlock Saving Graves http://www.savinggraves.com