PARK AND 
CEMETERY. 
702 
Where the concavity of the die is extended to the base 
the result is not gratifying unless the continuity of the 
curve is unbroken. 
Upon Figure 18 a trade journal confers the rather opti- 
mistic title of ‘‘Old Reliable,” excusing the pseudonym with 
the statement that these creations are always salable. 
While hesitating to controvert history, the writer may 
mention an instance wherein one of these ancient speci- 
mens of hybridized Gothic did not “move lively," which 
may be interesting in that it provides another eminently 
fitting appellation for the species. 
The dealer who owned all of this particular O. R. and 
was sorry, became imbued, one day, with a hunch that 
he had landed a buyer for it. His prospective victim, a 
■dame from rural parts, shied at the antiquity at first sight, 
however, and backing to the friendly shelter of Opus No. 
76 with the urn, waved her umbrella indicatively at the 
Great Sacrifice, exclaiming, “That’s one of them Methu- 
selem.s; none of them for mine.” So “Methuselem,” the 
ing from a mass of rock, variants of Figure :.’0, expressing 
the sentiment that the hand of the sculptor had been ar- 
rested before the completion of the noble wprk, a novelty 
in its early youth, is now so frequent an occurrence as 
to cause the beholder to feel, after he has confronted the 
fifty-seventh variation of what is now a vice, quite recon- 
ciled to the conclusion that the original excavator should 
liave been arrested before beginning to sculp. Let us hope 
that this style is fast approaching the moribund stage. 
These specimens, selected at random from various 
sources, index the general complexion of American me- 
morial work. That there is great need of a very great re- 
form in our memorial design, an issue of greater import- 
ance than the fixing of prices, or adjustment of freight 
rates, must be clear to all, and all branches of the pro- 
fession should be willing to unite in a crusade for bet- 
ter work. 
Surely a majority of the associated dealers will concur 
in the opinion voiced at the monument dealers’ convention. 
Figs. 16 and 17: Unhappy Architectural Contours, with “High Waist-Line” Effects. 
Fig. 18; “Old Reliable,” a popular architectural horror, sometimes known as “Old Methusalem,” “Frosty Faithful” and other aliases 
Fig. 19: “A Flamboyant Medley of Popular Decorative Tunes; Good Workmanship Badly Expended.” 
Fig. 20; “One of the fifty-seven varieties” of a much abused type of fancy, mixed decoration. 
Fig. 12: A “Quiet Peace-Promoting Element” among a riot of impure, flamboyant, decorative forms. 
good lady's alias for mausoleum, abides with the dealer 
as a permanent code signal for his “Frosty Faithful.” 
Figure 19, the Pugh pagoda, presents a scene of un- 
bridled activity. Here, indeed, has the designer scorned 
the trammels of art precedent and handed us a flamboyant 
medlej" of popular tunes, from Richardson Romanesque 
to carpenter’s classic. The slim lady in front, specializ- 
ing in the Memory stunt, doesn’t seem quite attached to 
her job, and would doubtless be glad to quaff the Lethean 
draught and forget it for a spell. The Romanesque has 
“treed” scrambly acanthus leaves of the Renaissance on 
the roof corners, while pocket editions of the same face 
the semi-cardinals from the second base. The good work- 
manship in this monument justifies a regret that it was not 
expended toward a more seemly result. 
The sometimes clumsy, sometimes weak column emerg- 
that high-brow lectures on art and architecture with stere- 
opticon illumination should fill an important part in the 
programs of the meetings of the craft. Shout this from 
the housetops, but should it not also be argued and urged 
that a system of historical art study would be found a 
profitable preparatory step among the members to the end 
that these talks would be more clearly understood? This 
study should have its reward in the daily work. To be 
able to designate your design by some identification other 
than the generic term of “column job” should appeal to 
those least prejudiced. 
In the past there has been an incomprehensible incli- 
nation among monument makers to criticise the build- 
ing architect in monumental work. As a rule, however, 
the criticism is seemingly more the result of unwarranted 
jealousy by the former than from any fault in the archi- 
