Talk:Old House (Cutchogue)

Dating of The Old House
The recent edit regarding the 'questionable' reliability of the tree-ring study on this house does not cite a reliable source. The citation is for a letter written to a newspaper, not a journalistic source. In other words, that opinion piece includes no evidence that the results of this particular study are unreliable. If the lab (or another lab, or an architectural historian) has found that the results are not reliable, that source must be cited to justify reverting the date to 1649. I have no stake in this issue; this is one of the oldest houses in the country, and one of the best preserved. Great house. In my opinion, when the other houses on the 'oldest houses in New York' list are dated scientifically, most of the 'seventeenth century' buildings will date much later. This is what's happened in Masschusetts, there's no reason to believe New York is any different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Old houses (talk • contribs) 23:46, 1 April 2018 (UTC) <!--Autosigned by SineBot-


 * Once the results of the most recent dendrochronology study have been published, the date of construction can be changed, if needed. Until then, 1699 is the date of construction.  Dendrochronology is a more reliable source than deed research.  This house could be older than 1699, but until the lab updates its findings, that is the date.  Stylistically, I would have thought the date of construction would be between 1680 and 1690; it's very similar to the Whipple House in Ipswich MA, dated by dendrochronology to 1677 (oldest section) and 1690 (first addition to the house).  It is extremely unlikely that this house will date by dendrochronology to 1649, based on stylistic elements, but also considering that only one house in the East has dated to before 1660.~

'''

Date of 1649?
''' If you look at the photo of the house, the sign in front of it claims the circa date of 1649, by the sign posters, as its establishment. Why is there no mention of that date of circa 1649 in the article or how that was derived? Is there any validated evidence of that claim of 1649? ~:== Date of 1649? ==
 * If you look at the photo of the house, the sign in front of it claims the circa date of 1649, by the sign posters, as its establishment. Why is there no mention of that date of circa 1649 in the article or how that was derived? Is there any validated evidence of that claim of 1649? ~