EFFECTIVE 14 Nov. 2012 PRIVATE MESSAGING HAS BEEN RE-ENABLED. IF YOU RECEIVE A SUSPICIOUS DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS AND PLEASE REPORT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.
This is the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy's Message Board. Wright enthusiasts can post questions and comments, and other people visiting the site can respond.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, *-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time they see fit.
I think it was part of the overall "modernization" mission of the '46 reno for the Olive Hill Foundation. Lots of glass and woodwork was pulled out during that effort, and this isn't the only glass to end up in the hands of collectors (*cough* Tom Monaghan *cough*). He filled in all the open spaces of the laylight with translucent panels, so I guess he thought by reducing the art glass panes he could add more of the translucent ones.Roderick Grant wrote:Good news. Why Lloyd removed them in the first place is a puzzlement.
Humble student of the Master
"Youth is a circumstance you can't do anything about. The trick is to grow up without getting old." - Frank Lloyd Wright
Thus, maybe, the originals were water-damaged. We can test this when we see them.
Ginny worked with Murray Grigor when he was there to film that part of the documentary, but she didn't read the script. She would have corrected Grigor on that point if she had. From then on, she insisted on seeing the script of any documentary on the house. That brief comment was, however, the only slip in what is still the best documentary on FLW's career.