Correspondence, 1912-1913: Design and construction

Letter from George Grant Elmslie to William Gray Purcell (September 4, 1913)

Dear office,

I hope you aren't locating the steel beam at the front entrance overhang according to drawings.

You indicate 2'0" one place on sheet 11 and 2'0" plus a wood margin on some sheet further up. As a matter of value in referring to the front elevation you'll notice that 20" covers the item and it looks enough. Will you please note this.

The wood cap to the plastered post is of course square. It isn't so noted. The neck molding follows the round. Your moulding is pretty crude and develops no "light" interest. It shouldn't be used. The whole beam needs a little entertaining. Well try it out.

More anon, Geo.

[Note: The following text and related sketch are appended to the above letter. However, the contents of the sketch may refer to a previous letter regarding an alternate placement of light fixtures along the tented ceiling of the living room/dining room (see correspondence from George Grant Elmslie to William Gray Purcell dated July 31, 1913); thus, this portion of the letter may be chronologically misplaced in the correspondence file.]

Text:

I am not a bit keen over the one sided front door. It isn't appealing to me. It is more curiously odd and uncertain than real. I don't like the swing of a door that you have to walk around to get in. So am full of complaints. You wanted light at the steps going down to L.(living) R.(oom). Why in the devil didn't you take it. Am sending you a detail of the beam end. It is rich and not meant to "carry"-- It is unfinished in the sense that there is a blank not treated but left for you to saw in a name or a word or a symbol or nothing as you please. It is deliberately unfinished anyway. I cut off the ears and terminal [sketch: see Plate 58] and made it more plastic like the rest of the stuff--more anon.

Off, Geo.

We decided to use sash in the L.(iving R.(oom) windows didn't we. Well we ought to.

 

research courtesy mark hammons