This is a most riveting subject, and a most interesting thread. I think there is a little bit of truth in many of the posts so far and I've changed my mind on this one at least five times. The actual print inside the frame gave me the impression of a photograph because of the fine white line like old photos get when they are damaged. That being said, one can take a photo of a drawing and parts of this picture are without a doubt hand rendered including the background and that could very well be a studio backdrop. My impression at this point is that this is likely a studio portrait and that it is in essence a composite with the facial features being the true rendering off a negative and the rest a lot of touch up and very poorly executed outright embellishment. If you'd like to see an example of a turn of the century hand painted studio backdrop, I can show you a large portrait of my great-grandfather and his brother sitting in a real chair, but with a very fake staircase behind them. LOL It was not an unusual practise, clear on up to the forties and fifties for some photographers to take portraits in black and white and hand tint and retouch them in the dark room. It wasn't because of the cameras not being able to, but the studios having the equipment to develop them. So seeing 'sketch marks' doesn't prove anything but the skill of the craftsman who took and developed the portrait because you're just as likely to see the editing on a real photograph as not. I have a portrait of my g'grandmother I'm inserting here because judging by her age it would have been taken about 1918-20. It has been hand tinted, and if you look at her blouse, it has obviously been hand retouched for detail and the bottom darkened out to extend the photo as much as possible to the paper to fill it. I think this is what happened to the boy's dress......it was probably enhanced by hand and the chair by imagination and lack of artistic ability. Even poor people scrounged up the money for portraits in the old days, God knows my ancestors weren't rich people and we have them to pass along. But they certainly were special enough not to be done on a whim. One portrait my g'parents had taken in the twenties was of my little aunt who was expected to die at birth, but lived until two years. So, they coughed up the money, even with ten kids, to have a portrait taken of her. I'm no expert and I'm not pretending to be but before I'd blow this one off as a fake, I'd have it checked out. Regardless of how it pans out, and even if it turns out to be a Cracker Barrel nostalgia shot..........it's a Jim Dandy and worth hanging on a wall just to see the mug on that kid.

Late to this thread, but 6 years and counting on my PEX retrofit of my 1919 Craftsman (professionally installed). I love this stuff. It doesn't freeze, the water tastes great, and no more wasting water, waiting for the rusty stuff to clear. It was half the price of copper, and guaranteed for 20 years, whereas my plumber only guarantees copper for 5 years. I did have one problem and from what I was told, PEX likes to go back to it's original shape. The plumber put a loop under the water supply to my clawfoot tub, and I came home one day from work to find my oak floors in the dining room flooded. Luckily most of the water was flowing down to the unfinished basement below, and the hardwoods were fairly easy to clean up and dry. I discovered the PEX had tried to go back to it's shape, pulling the supply line just off enough to cause the leak. I fixed it by adding blocks near the PEX and securing with u-clamps to keep the shape the plumber intended, which in turn stopped the leak. I'm not sure if this is a common problem or not, but even with that problem, I love my pipes!

Above poster is right. You need to make sure it is WOOD and not painted particle board or the like. I stripped and re stained all of the cabinets in my entire house. I started with the smallest area and worked on the little issues, etc before I tackled the kitchen. If you have 2 adults who are capable of stripping/staining, then the kitchen could be done in a week IF you have ample space to lay all of the doors/drawers to dry/be stained. You'd also need to dedicate full days to it. It isn't HARD by any means. It is time consuming because of the number of steps involved and dry time. That said, I spent around $150 to restain my kitchen cabinets. Stripper, brush for stripper, mineral spirits, sand paper, application sponges, stain and polyurethane, and rated mask because the stuff is POTENT. For having them done professionally, a friend of mine who is a kitchen designer in the area said I'd saved about $7-8K by doing it myself. I'm in Orange County, CA. Here are before and afters: Before: After:

If you are paying $800 a month for utilities I think you need to better decipher where, what and how those costs are inflating your utility bill. A utility rate of 30 cents per KWH is only part of that monthly bill. The idea here is to suggest that a leaky house may only play a very minor role in that utility bill. Why? I live in a leaky house now, my electric bill was $51 at 11.6 cents per kwh. I recently installed an Inverter 18 SEER heat pump at my house. The attic of the house has also been re-insulated. But I didn't do anything crazy like sucking out old insulation etc. Nor did I spend any time trying to seal cracks and crevices. Primarily because I want the house to 'breathe' a little. I have started replacing windows but nothing high end. These are just low e, gas filled double pane windows -- BG from Home Depot, Nothing special. ------------ So why do this... why try to cut the utility bill? Mainly because there is 'head room' within that bill. Head Room = High bill. How high is high? $800 a month. In my case --- it was no where near $800 a month. But I live in a 11.6 cent use area. So as an example if I burned 500 KWH at .30 cent rate my bill would be $150 a month. --- I use that as an example. My last light bill was $51. So what do those figures tell you? --- there is a lot of head room between $800 a month and $150 a month. (You know as in a comparable home to mine, with similar things done to it. It's 1910 sq. ft. btw) Find what is 'contributing' the most to that $800 a month spend? The easiest are light bulbs. Are you still using incandescent light bulbs? Florescent? LED's have come a long way. Start there --- replace all those light bulbs to LED. In California you probably don't have very high use in HVAC. But you need to see or some how determine exactly or close to it as to what it is costing you to run it. Simple --- take your monthly bill from a month with little to no heating or AC usage. A month like March or April for example compared next to an August bill. That should tell you something. ( I doubt heating costs are that high in SF bay area --- so it's not likely to benefit you unless you are in all electric home, in that case you need to upgrade to a Inverter Heat pump) Other energy robbing offenders: pool. If you have a pool at your house that thing is a energy drain. Those pool pump(s) -- have to run to clean the water via filtration. A pool pump here costs at least $150 a month at around 11 cent a KWH. Times that by three for California. --- if that's the case, that is half your bill right there. It comes down to 'USE'. Remember that. Pool pumps tend to run 24/7. People give them little thought as a energy robbing offender. Sticking an old refrigerator or two in the garage and maybe a freezer. -- why is this a thing? The gaskets on the doors of these is probably worn. Not to mention an older appliance is very energy inefficient. _________ Notice what I say here has little to do with a 'leaky' home. After you investigate.... tell us what you find. It's worth it if you are paying $800 a month in utility bill.