Price's Creek

I wasn't sure which forum to post this in, but here goes.

Some of you may know that as part of the OBLHS Second Anual Spring Retreat, we were granted permission to visit the mysterious Price's Creek front range light. I have a bunch of photos, a couple drawings, and an account of the trip on my site at http://www.beachbum.homestead.com/Lighthouses/NorthCarolina/PricesCreek.html

If you have tried to visit this light, you know how rare an opportunity this was for us.

I hope you enjoy!

Hi Stephen,
the sketches are great. Do you know if the rear range was done from a description or photo or perhaps blueprints?
For those who don't understand how range lights work, visit this site and see the sketches.
I also enjoyed the close up photo. Mine were from the ferry and my lens only goes to 120mm.

The link doesn't seem to be working for me.

Sean

Don't feel bad, Sean.

You are not alone. The site doesn't work for me either.

bobo

Guys, please try this: Price\'s Creek 2005 Visit

Be sure to click on the photo gallery at the bottom of that page as well. Stephen takes you inside the range light.

We're all still in a glow from having the opportunity to visit this light. We're the first group granted access since the land has been in private ownership.

Judy Castleberry
President Elect
Director of Fundraising
Outer Banks Lighthouse Society

Judy,

This site works. Thank you. It appears that the light needs a lot of work. I hope that it gets spruced up a bit. Love that new walk way.

bobo

Sure seems to me it wouldn't take too much to get this one restored.

Mike

That's what I was thinking, Mike. Some loving care and work and a little money sure would do wonders.

bobo

Sorry guys! I mistakenly added a period to the end of the link. It will work now or just click this one.
http://www.beachbum.homestead.com/Lighthouses/NorthCarolina/PricesCreek.html

by the way, the drawing was done from both a photo and written text describing the light.

That would be the photo of it in ruins, right?
I wish there was one of it while it was active.
Also, I'm not to sure the tower is it's original height...

Zackary, Cheryl Shelton-Roberts and Bruce Roberts used a B & W photo in their book published last year, North Carolina Lighthouses, A Tribute of History and Hope and state that this is how the light appeared in the early 20th century.



The truncated tower we see today is 20' tall, and when it was whole, the lantern room added five feet.

The tower is it's original height...it was not rebuilt or added on to (or any of the other range lights, for that matter) after the war. You can see discrepencies in the brick color even in this photo, perhaps contributed to weather & mold.

Hope this helps. We've had this discussion already on LH.net.

Judy

Yes, I know all of that, but, I'm still not convinced, there's still too many inconsistencies for me to be sure.

Well, that's fine.

However, I'm convinced. And then there are many people who are experts that are not questioning this, and do not see inconsistencies.

Judy

I understand your logic, but, here's mine. In Endangered Lighthouses, there is this photo, which it says is a photo of the Prices Creek light

Notice how it is much shorter in that picture, however, it might not be of Prices Creek and Endangered Lighthouses might have a picture of one of the other range lights. But, there is also a very noticible line in which the slope of the tower and brick changes

The other thing, if the top was replaced, why does the pole remain? and if it held the optic in the center of the lantern room, why is it located in the center-front of the tower instead of the direct center?

A couple comments:

I am seeing points that express both of your points of view thouroughly.

It seems that there is an obvious line in the tower. However, let's "zoom out" from that photograph and look at the overall condition of the tower. Seeing as it's basically falling down, who knows if the walls have receded or the mortar has broken away or something.

If you look at both photos carefully, though, you can see that both have a dark stain about halfway up the brick. This stain looks like it's in the same place, judging by the relative location of the door and the size of the windows relative to the average door. There is the same amount of brick above and beyond each of the stains.

Let's think of it this way, too. The B&W photo is quite old, and there are a lot of bright white areas, especially in the area we would be looking at. Who knows what it really looks like behind the Daguerreotype-like spots.

I'm going to side with Judy here on closer examination of the photos. However, I do have one thing I noticed.

Am I crazy, or is the platform the lantern is on round or octagonal on the old photo, square in the new one. Also, the pipe is not there in the old one. That, I think, might be something to look into, especially in an unused lighthouse.

I had another comment, too, but I forgot it while I was typing that last paragraph. I'll post it when I remember.

Anyway, something to consider???

Photos can be deceiving, even brand new ones. If you'll look at Stephen's series of photos taken on our recent tour of Price's Creek, you might notice that in some the tower appears to be shorter than in others.

Also a photo can make a conical tower appear shorter & squattier than it really is, or just the opposite.

Then there is the fact that back when this tower was in service, photographic equipment...and the film used, was not up to par with what we have today.

I also see something differnent in the b & white photo that Zackary just posted than you do, Greg. I don't see a circular platform. I see two distinct corners on the right side of the photograph.

Mainly where I'm coming from, is this. There are historians in the area where these range lights existed. They do not see these so called discrepancies, and they have studied these lights. There are other experts who do not see these discrepancies. I'm not questioning these experts, nor do I visually see anything to question.

However, there's good in everything. I'm very pleased to see the interest in this range light.

Judy

You have both made valid points, I definetly see a circular top and have personally never seen any light with a lantern on a square one. As for the stain, one thing you have to realize, seagirt, is that the old & new pics are from 2 different sides of the tower.
Notice in this photo by Stephen, shot basically in the same angle, that the door appears to be further from the top of the tower. As does the stain you are reffering to.

http://beachbum.homestead.com/files/Lighthousingnet/PricesCreek/Creektest.jpg

Edited to change image display to a link - please do not display someone else's photo without their permission. Link to it so the viewer is taken to the appropriate web site. Dave

I'm signing out on this one. Everyone has a right to their own opinions.

You have yours...I have mine.

Judy

P.S.
Can't help but notice, though, how much taller the tower is in this last photo than in others taken on the same day. :rolleyes:

You are right, maybe I'm seeing something you aren't or the other way. Just simply bringing up the possibility.

I'm getting in on this kinda late and I'm not too sure what being talked about, but if the question is wheather the tower has been added to I would say that would be a resounding yes, at one time or another. Not only by the color of the brick, but by the poor job of following the plane of the slope of the tower. Look about the color line and you'll see that the brick extension bulges out a bit. As fro the square top, I suspect it was a square slab of precast concrete that was placed over the top when the lantern room was removed.

Just my opinion.
Mike

You and I share the same opinion Mike, although the situation could go both ways. Judy brought up valid points for almost every thing I posted, but, I still believe that the tower was added on to (perhaps in WW2 when it was used as a lookout tower?)