Stucco on the front of the church of the Alamo

[jrboddie]

In researching the appearance of the church of the Alamo in 1836, I am puzzled about the amount on stucco (if any) on the front walls. A good set of historical sketches and photographs can be found on the tamu site.

+ Mary Maverick's watercolor (1838) suggests lots of stucco with some damage to it on the south wall. Perhaps this is a limitation of her medium (or skills).
+ Edward Everett's watercolor (1847) suggests no stucco.
+ Seth Eastman's sketch (1848) is hard to say. The image here is small. Slightly larger images seem to show worn stucco on the front wall.
+ Hermann Lungkwitz's lithograph (1850)shows substantial, but worn, stucco on the front.
+ Photo of the Alamo used as a supply depot (1850-1870 i.e. after the army's renovation) shows complete stucco.

I can understand that any stucco from the original construction would be significantly worn by 1836, but Everett who seems to have an eye for detail shows none on the front. Did Lungkwitz see the post renovated Alamo and project the Army's stucco (albeit worn) back on to his version of the 1836 church?

[Rich Curilla]

Bruce Winders pointed out to me that there was stucco on both the outside of the facade and the interior of the church -- with etched guidelines for mission-period floral patterns in the stucco. Mary Maverick's sketch (I am increasingly convinced) was done from Lysander Wells' more accurate and observant drawing. The avowed dates seem to refute this, but I see what I see. Unfortunately, this doesn't help with the stucco, but just sayin'.

[davidpenrod]

Rich, do you have a copy of the Lysander Wells sketch? Or do you know of an online link to one? The one you posted in October 2013 elsewhere on this forum is not clear. Thanks.

[Rich Curilla]

Aug 13, 2014 13:01:26 GMT -5 davidpenrod said:

Rich, do you have a copy of the Lysander Wells sketch? Or do you know of an online link to one? The one you posted in October 2013 elsewhere on this forum is not clear. Thanks.

Here's a new scan rather than a phone photo. I don't believe you are missing much in tho old copy. In any event, the Wells drawing has more features than Mary Maverick's, and frankly, I can't see her sitting up at the Alamo to draw a picture in 1837. I figure the one with more features is the original -- no matter what the date. Another possibility is that somebody else did a drawing prior to 1837 and Mary copied that and so did Lysander Well at a later point, but he paid more attention to details we would be interested in -- like the ruins of the back wall of the upper story of the Long Barrack seen through the window. Mary just has a blank window. He also clearly shows both transept side walls towering above the facade. Mary apparently thought the left one was actually the front corner of the church. This in particularly speaks a lot for Wells' as the original (or a better copy of someone's original) Mary was also a less precise artist. Notice that both angles are from precisely the same spot and yet Wells' drawing shows the low wall almost as we have come to understand it -- in line with the front of the Long Barrack. Mary's looks like it is halfway back in the camposanto.


(Well, I guess we're out of space again. Can't post the comparison pic.) If you PM me your e-mail, and remind me in a post (I never check them. ), I'll e-mail you higher rez copies of both the Wells and the Maverick.