Talk:List of the oldest buildings in New York

Bowne House
BOWNE HOUSE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.172.10 (talk) 19:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Oldest in Greene county?
This page contradicts itself, by saying that Jan Van Loon House is possibly the oldest house in Greene County. The Bronck House which is on this page built in 1663, said to be the oldest in Upstate NY, is also in Greene county making it the oldest in Greene county. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.50.172 (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The Jan Van Loon House entry says "one of the the oldest houses in Greene County," which is a true statement. Nessie (talk) 00:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * what about? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jans_Martense_Schenck_house — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.100.148 (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Needs to be Revised
It seems that the majority of these buildings are from Southern New York. I know of at least three buildings near where I live that are older than a lot of the buildings listed in this article (Old Fort Johnson, Mabee Farm House, Danascara Place, etc.) and I know that there are many many others out there in other parts of New York. There may not be a lot of information on these places, but that shouldn't be a reason to leave them off this article. Is there an official New York State Historical Society with a complete list of the oldest buildings we can use? Because it seems like this list is a bit biased/not complete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.3.151.28 (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is tough to decide what buildings to include or exclude, so feel free to add more buildings that are older than the ones on the list.Swampyank (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Knox's headquarters in New Windsor, NY was built in 1754 and is nowhere to be found on here. Also, washington's headquarters in Newbugh, NY was built in 1750. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.94.153 (talk) 20:25, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Bevier House
Bevier House was built on a site that was inhabited since c. 1680s, but the existing house dates from c. 1850. Reference will be deleted due to error in listing per source unless earlier date can be verified. NotaBene 鹰百利 Talk 02:34, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Old House in Cutchogue
This talk section aims to resolve a dispute regarding the date of The Old House in Cutchogue. This house has been dated by dendrochronology, a science universally accepted by architectural historians as the most accurate way to date a building. There are instances when dendrochronology yields equivocal results, and also instances when a building cannot be dated, due to lack of datable timber, or lack of established chronology. There is no indication on the lab's web site that the dendrochronology results for this building are equivocal; a date of 1698/9 was determined. Therefore, a date of construction would be 1699. The summary of results does not indicate that the felling dates applied only to certain parts of the building, during alterations or repairs, as the editor has stated. If the editor is able to cite a reliable source to that effect, then the 1699 would be in question, but until that reliable source is cited, the 1699 date is reliable. --Old houses (talk) 21:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old houses (talk • contribs) 21:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I have updated the main Old House article with what are the facts as they are present. The short of it is that its up for debate. Part of the problem is you're taking the dendrochronology results as equivocal because they have no indication of whether they're for all the house or part of the house. dendrochronology is not infallible, "a science universally accepted by architectural historians as the most accurate way to date a building" makes no sense when your following sentence reads "There are instances when dendrochronology yields equivocal results". There is also the fact that there is well established history of deed passed for the house in multiple sources. The main reason I started editing the page in the first place is because you just changed some of the dates and left parts that didn't make any sense because their dates were before the build date. No point just moving and removing dates in articles if you're ignoring the context of the rest of the article. Sandprism (talk) 13:07, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I also contacted Cutchogue-New Suffolk Historical Council. They are still investigating because the dendrochronology reports did not use Long Island old growth trees as a comparison and many samples did not have a match, so a sure date is not yet available.Sandprism (talk) 16:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Dendrochronology is a science, not wishful thinking, and of course some samples of wood will not yield a usable felling date. In this case, the lab believes their sampling was adequate to produce a reliable date; there is no indication that the lab believes the result is equivocal. In order to justify your extremely early date of construction (I believe only one house in the northeast has dated earlier than 1660) you would need a reliable source stating the lab's results are in question. The date of construction should be 1699 until an editor cites a reliable source for some other date. If the lab's web site states the actual results incorrectly, please cite the source. The text of the entry, however, could cite a reliable source (a recent architectural survey or historic structures report, for example) to explain that the scientific dating is not reliable. In which case, two dates would be included in the entry. I have not seen a reliable source indicating that the lab results are not reliable, so that 1699 date should stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old houses (talk • contribs) 19:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I never claimed it wasn't a science so now you're just making things up. It is wishful thinking that you believe this dendrochronology result must reflect the original construction date because it's science. Do you have a source to the full report on what the actual results and methodology were for their results, how many parts of the house were tested, what regional chronology cross-reference was used? All important factors to consider when considering if it conflicts with other reliable sources. Using "there is no indication that the lab believes the result is equivocal" as an argument every time is just a straw man, do you work for the lab? I could just as easily say if the lab results provide conclusive reports on what was tested, please cite the source. The fact that not even the Historical Council who helped commission the reports or the National Park Service has officially published that 1699 is now the build date should tell you that your reliable source may have some issues, you have to use some common sense. I'm all for accurately verifying historical sources but those sources also need to be verifiable.Sandprism (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't follow your language or logic; the "Historical Council" or National Park Service have nothing to do with the lab's results. The bottom line is, the burden is on you to cite a source claiming the information on the lab's web site is either incorrect or unreliable. Citing an opinion letter is not a reliable source.Old houses (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You don't follow because you don't understand logic, you just ignore what you don't want to hear. Both the historical council and the national park service have not yet recognised the date provided by the lab, they recognise the date provided by reliable sources. The burden is not on me to cite anything because the lab doesn't provide any proof on your claim nor are the results published by a reliable third party so it can't be interpreted as a reliable source, see PUBLISHED.Sandprism (talk) 15:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not appreciate your personal attack, which, by the way, is against wikipedia policy. I have nothing but respect for you as a person and fellow editor; please follow wikipedia guidelines regarding personal attacks. The fact is the results of the lab stand on their own. The Park Service or the "Historical Council" do not need to validate the results of the lab for the results to be reliable. The results have been published by the lab, not a third party. The lab has provided the results of their study; what more can they add? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old houses (talk • contribs) 20:44, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Suffolk County tips
I mentioned this on the talkpage of the Henry Smith Farmstead, but that building is also known as the "John Gardiner Farm," and a historic marker in front of the house names it as "J. Gardiner Farm." I took pictures of them in April 2019, and haven't renamed them accordingly yet, so be prepared for some semi-confusing photographs of that site. Also Smithtown (hamlet), New York has a historic house built in 1752, and I took pictures of the place. -User:DanTD (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)



A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Jarvis Fleet House, Cove Road, Huntington N.Y. 7 2010 095.jpg