A lot of people over on the mosaic forum use Wellbond which is great for inside (dries very clear), but it doesn't last out doors, I believe. I bought some Mac Glue and my glass globs fell off a curved surface in winter, but I'm going to try again this summer so it will have a long cure time. Someone recently suggested using glass block glue/mortar/whatever it is called which is also clear and cures faster than GESIIw&d. That sounds promising to me cuz it must be made to withstand the elements. kathy

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.

My first house I owned with my ex-husband had a porch added onto the side of one of the bedrooms, and they left the window in, so it overlooked the new stairs down into the basement. Frankly, it just looked bizarre, and made setting up furniture on that wall very difficult. You don't say what the rooms are going to be where you are "losing" the windows, but if you are concerned about the loss of light, I would recommend "replacing" the window with a tubular skylight in the ceiling over where the windows are gong to be walled over--they add a shocking amount of light, and I love mine. In my kitchen, which had been very dark, now I keep thinking the lights are on when they are not, it's just the tube bringing in the sun. Carla in Sac

I can't see any pics but would love to !! Sounds like I have a similar home and I am wanting to know what to do with all the wood too !!