The Honeywood Files by H.B. Creswell Page B
Authors: H.B. Creswell
Tags: Fiction/Architecture
Ads: Link
approved sample as ordered.
Yours faithfully,
SPINLOVE TO GRIGBLAY
Dear Sir,24.11.24.
I am obliged for your letter but the bricks were ordered to approved sample. If I accept your proposal it appears there will be an extra of about £120. I enclose copy of my letter to Hoochkoft of to-day. Please refuse to allow any further consignments including defective facings to come on to site.
Yours faithfully,
Spinlove has not realized the consequences of this prohibition.
GRIGBLAY TO SPINLOVE
Dear Sir,25.11.24.
May we remind you that we have some face work now built on part of the south front and that we shall have to close down the work if we send back facings. We have been urging delivery. It will also be impossible to match the bricks from another yard, and it seems necessary to come to some arrangement with Hoochkoft at once.
Yours faithfully,
HOOCHKOFT TO SPINLOVE
Dear Sir,26.11.24.
We can only repeat that we did not quote for picked and that the bricks we have sent you are as per your order.
We gather from your letter informing us that no more unpicked will be accepted that you wish us to send picked facings in future.
Yours faithfully,
SPINLOVE TO HOOCHKOFT
Dear Sirs,28.11.24.
It is no concern of mine what steps you take to supply facings similar to samples approved by me, but further consignments containing the soft bright-reds will not be received on the site. If, therefore, you cannot supply to sample without picking, the bricks must be picked.
Yours faithfully,
Spinlove has now dropped into the trap in which Hoochkoft, with skill acquired by long practice, has maneuvered to catch him. Spinlove’s contention is that it was part of the bargain that the soft reds should not be included. Hoochkoft has identified this with “picking,” for which he has quoted a higher price; Spinlove, by here adopting the term “picking,” gives Hoochkoft an opportunity for charging for “picked facings.”
It should be added that the tone of Spinlove’s letter is too aggressive—a common fault with him. Such a letter will not, in fact, disturb the equanimity of Hoochkoft, who, in common with his kind, has the hide of a rhinoceros; but it is undignified, and not the sort of letter a professional man should write. It may also be remarked that power largely subsists in self-control; any exhibition of feeling is a mark of weakness.
GRIGBLAY TO SPINLOVE
Dear Sir,2.12.24.
Bloggs informs us that yesterday another lorry load of facings arrived. They are much as previous lots, but as Messrs. Hoochkoft would not have received your letter before loading up, we did not send them back. We shall have to stop work if the facings don’t come regular.
We notice that your brick detail of front entrance, drawing No. 10, omits mat-sinking and shows the front step 1 ¼ in. above finished level of ground floor as fixed by bench mark to your approval. As the 1/8 in. scale plan shows a mat-sinking we set out the brick joint on the floor level, so that the top steps should line up with brick joint. If we raise step 1 ¼ in. it will mean cutting the bricks to build in step, which we think you will not care for. Have we your authority to drop the bench mark and the ground floor level 1 ¼ in.?
Yours faithfully,
We may gather from the above that the horizontal brick joints have been set out to a bench mark approved on the site by Spinlove as the level of the ground floor. The 1/8 in. scale drawings show a sinking for the mat at the front entrance, but Spinlove in his ½ in. detail of the entrance has eliminated the mat-sinking, which harbours dirt, and has, as an alternative, raised the top front step 1 ¼ in. above the level of the floor. Grigblay points out that to build in the step in this position will involve unsightly cutting of the bricks and proposes to make the top of the step agree with the bench mark and brick joint, and to lower the floor 1 ¼ in. below bench mark. That Grigblay should write on such a matter
Yours faithfully,
SPINLOVE TO GRIGBLAY
Dear Sir,24.11.24.
I am obliged for your letter but the bricks were ordered to approved sample. If I accept your proposal it appears there will be an extra of about £120. I enclose copy of my letter to Hoochkoft of to-day. Please refuse to allow any further consignments including defective facings to come on to site.
Yours faithfully,
Spinlove has not realized the consequences of this prohibition.
GRIGBLAY TO SPINLOVE
Dear Sir,25.11.24.
May we remind you that we have some face work now built on part of the south front and that we shall have to close down the work if we send back facings. We have been urging delivery. It will also be impossible to match the bricks from another yard, and it seems necessary to come to some arrangement with Hoochkoft at once.
Yours faithfully,
HOOCHKOFT TO SPINLOVE
Dear Sir,26.11.24.
We can only repeat that we did not quote for picked and that the bricks we have sent you are as per your order.
We gather from your letter informing us that no more unpicked will be accepted that you wish us to send picked facings in future.
Yours faithfully,
SPINLOVE TO HOOCHKOFT
Dear Sirs,28.11.24.
It is no concern of mine what steps you take to supply facings similar to samples approved by me, but further consignments containing the soft bright-reds will not be received on the site. If, therefore, you cannot supply to sample without picking, the bricks must be picked.
Yours faithfully,
Spinlove has now dropped into the trap in which Hoochkoft, with skill acquired by long practice, has maneuvered to catch him. Spinlove’s contention is that it was part of the bargain that the soft reds should not be included. Hoochkoft has identified this with “picking,” for which he has quoted a higher price; Spinlove, by here adopting the term “picking,” gives Hoochkoft an opportunity for charging for “picked facings.”
It should be added that the tone of Spinlove’s letter is too aggressive—a common fault with him. Such a letter will not, in fact, disturb the equanimity of Hoochkoft, who, in common with his kind, has the hide of a rhinoceros; but it is undignified, and not the sort of letter a professional man should write. It may also be remarked that power largely subsists in self-control; any exhibition of feeling is a mark of weakness.
GRIGBLAY TO SPINLOVE
Dear Sir,2.12.24.
Bloggs informs us that yesterday another lorry load of facings arrived. They are much as previous lots, but as Messrs. Hoochkoft would not have received your letter before loading up, we did not send them back. We shall have to stop work if the facings don’t come regular.
We notice that your brick detail of front entrance, drawing No. 10, omits mat-sinking and shows the front step 1 ¼ in. above finished level of ground floor as fixed by bench mark to your approval. As the 1/8 in. scale plan shows a mat-sinking we set out the brick joint on the floor level, so that the top steps should line up with brick joint. If we raise step 1 ¼ in. it will mean cutting the bricks to build in step, which we think you will not care for. Have we your authority to drop the bench mark and the ground floor level 1 ¼ in.?
Yours faithfully,
We may gather from the above that the horizontal brick joints have been set out to a bench mark approved on the site by Spinlove as the level of the ground floor. The 1/8 in. scale drawings show a sinking for the mat at the front entrance, but Spinlove in his ½ in. detail of the entrance has eliminated the mat-sinking, which harbours dirt, and has, as an alternative, raised the top front step 1 ¼ in. above the level of the floor. Grigblay points out that to build in the step in this position will involve unsightly cutting of the bricks and proposes to make the top of the step agree with the bench mark and brick joint, and to lower the floor 1 ¼ in. below bench mark. That Grigblay should write on such a matter