14 
PARK AND CEMETERY 
A Unicf\ie Monument to a Fruit Grower. 
The Vergon monument shown on 
this page is a unique example of sym- 
bolizing a man's occupation in stone. 
F. P. Vergon, for whom this memo- 
rial was erected by M. V. Mitchell & 
Son, of Columbus, O., is a fruit 
grower of Delaware, O., and the mon- 
ument stands in Oak Grove Ceme- 
tery in that town. The tree repre- 
sented is an American white elm, 
planted by Mr. Vergon 50 years ago. 
It is three feet in diameter, 57 feet 
high, and the branches spread to a 
width of 74 feet. The work is exe- 
cuted in Indiana limestone, and is a 
faithful reproduction from the photo- 
graph of the tree. The block of stone 
is 10 by 8 feet and 2 feet thick 
at the base. The carving of some 
parts of the branches is in relief 18 
inches, and a good idea of the fine 
detail of this work can be best obtained by examin- 
ing the illustration with a magnifying glass. The 
small trees on the grave markers are reproductions in 
miniature of the same tree. 
VERGON MONUMENT, DELAWARE, OHIO. 
Mr. Vergon, for whom the monument was erected, 
is still living in good health. He is a specialist in 
tree culture, and owns an apple orchard that yields as 
high as 10,000 bushels in a season. 
RocK-Faced Cemetery Monuments. 
The frequent use of rock-faced, or rough finished 
cemetery monuments, boulders, rustic memorials, and 
other imitations of nature, suggest the consideration of 
the artistic effect of such monuments in cemeteries. 
This class of work may be considered as an evolution 
of the rough boulder monument so freely used where 
rugged and simple effects are sought, but it has, un- 
fortunately, in many cases been made to serve as an 
excuse for paucity of design and material. And yet, 
it has its friends. Its purpose, when used to impart 
ruggedness and dignity, is a legitimate one, but in the 
smaller monuments it has, undoubtedly, been carried to 
excess. One point of objection is the inferior way in 
which the work is executed in so many instances. 
Rock-faced work should carry with it the idea of nat- 
uralness, yet certainly, in perhaps seven cases out of 
ten of existing memorials, the rock face has a disas- 
trously artificial appearance, not only in the design of 
the rock face irregularities of surface, but in the fre- 
quent reminders of the skill exercised and expedients 
adopted to remove the tool marks. 
Opinions of monument makers vary greatly. Some 
points noted by a number of well-known monument 
men in a recent issue of the Monumental Nezvs are the 
following : 
It is evident that contrast is desirable and rock face 
properly distributed may be considered as an ornament 
— the contrast with plain work being the principal 
function of ornament. Either rock-faced or hammered 
work should predominate, and the intention should be 
apparent in the design. This broken work is more ef- 
fective in designs above the average size, as it allows 
of a bolder and freer treatment than in smaller designs, 
in which it looks less natural on account of the number 
of small breaks required for a finish. Mausoleums, 
properly designed for rock-face finish, look dignified 
and substantial, but the greater number of owners of 
such memorials are not in favor of rock-faced work, 
the reason perhaps being that the air of elegance and 
beauty of lines cannot be obtained. 
It can be combined with ornamental carving to a 
limited extent, but great care should be exercised in 
combining the ornamental features with the rustic ef- 
fects. Oddity does not necessarily mean beauty. Its 
treatment, with ornamental carving, is very well and 
harmoniously blended in examples of Romanesque and 
Gothic architecture, as the boldness of the rock face 
necessitates a corresponding boldness in the lines of 
the carving, and pleasing results are obtained when 
the subject is handled by a practical designer. Other- 
wise, absurd effects and repelling lines make the treat- 
ment destructive of the whole conception. 
