I really doubt that the walls are 16" concrete. They may be stone with
stucco applied or brick with stucco but not concrete. The insides are
probably plaster. They may be 16" thick but certainly not concrete

For those interested, concrete, as we know it today, is a relatively modern
invention that followed the invention of Portland cement. Its history is
here.... http://matse1.mse.uiuc.edu/~tw/concrete/hist.html If this house IS
1898 and it really IS concrete it could be one of the first in the world.
Concrete was very new in 1898.


"phaeton" wrote in message
oups.com...
Here in the Wisconsin tundra the ground freezes solid for half the
year, so termites aren't often a problem. The basement looks solid so
far that I can tell, but it's painted over stone and concrete. The
paint isn't brand-spanking new- it doesn't look like anyone's trying to
hide anything to sell it, and there's been a little shoring up of the
first floor with some timbers but of all the wood i can see in the
house, most of it has been already replaced in the near past or the
really really old stuff still seems rather solid.

Gosh.. if the basement started to crumble, could that even be fixed?
Stickframe houses can be jacked up or even set aside while a new
foundation gets poured, but if this thing is 16" of concrete or stone
all the way up to the top of the second floor, would it be too heavy to
work with or too brittle to lift?

Now i'm all paranoid.. uh..heh...

So yeah.. .it's the nasty surprises that i'm trying to avoid, and i'm
not qualified to look for this stuff.