Monday, March 16, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Each day we bring you one stunning little glimpse of history in the form of a historical photograph. Enjoy!
About this site:
I have been an avid collector of old photographs and documents for over 30 years. The photographs on this site are derived from material I have collected over the years. Some came from old family albums, some from material I bought at flea markets over the years, and some from government archives of public domain images, including the US Library of Congress, and the National Archives. We appreciate you visiting this blog, and hope you find it interesting.
Comments on this site are moderated. We reserve the right to remove any comments at our discretion.
Good one !!!
ReplyDeleteThat house seems to be new and sparkling. Besides it is a wrecked structure though. It looks so out of placefrom the surrounding.
ReplyDeleteCharleston is one of my favorite places to visit. In fact, I am wearing a Citadel shirt right now!
ReplyDeleteThis house is still standing. I'll bet Nate will be able to find some inside pictures posted somewhere.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.preservationsociety.org/program_historicmarkers-Detail.asp?hmID=42
Sure. This home was turned into five condos in 2001. Here is real estate site that shows the interior of one of the condos today: http://www.trulia.com/property/645537-180-Broad-St-E-Charleston-SC-29401
ReplyDeleteJust click on the arrows under the first picture to see the interior.
ReplyDeleteThat first one was Apartment E, here is Apartment C: http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cache:lePUWdUC4hYJ:www.charlestonrealestate.com/find_home/2819821.html+180+Broad+Street+%23c+Charleston&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari
ReplyDeleteBeautiful interior, however it would have been nice if they could have retained some of the original look and feel.
ReplyDeleteWhat a great house. However, I do find it surprising that it was still standing despite all the devastation around it.
ReplyDeleteNate:
I was very interested in your comments yesterday about Custer.
He always impressed me as a little different - do you think he was gay?
Not that it matters, but it's interesting.
I've always thought so.
These pictures always remind me that photography was so staged early on. These men were clearly posed and then sat still while the image was made. Such a contrast to our speed shutters and digital images now.
ReplyDeleteEnd of an era.
ReplyDeletePJM here.
ReplyDeleteSo, I go on vaction to see King Tut, and Nate completely takes over my blog. I thought he would have the courtesy to keep quiet while I was trying to take a day vaction.
More tomorrow on the King Tut tour.
PJM (was not able to log on from my hotel room, hence anon posting)
Hold the phone! PJM, you're on vacation?!? I thought you weren't going to see Tut until Spring Break? Do they celebrate Easter on a different date in Texas or do they just choose not to celebrate the holiday back there?
ReplyDeleteAnd interesting enough for all those conspiracy theorists out there, it appears as though PJM is now posting as "Anonymous" and "PJM." Multiple aliases; mystery person posts on random days, a oddly timed Easter, seems like PJM is up to something....
...probably just trying to provoke jealousy in us history teachers with his trip to see Tut. Won't work. The exhibit is coming to San Francisco next which is a doable drive for me, so I'll just have to wait.
PJM Here.
ReplyDeleteNate, be sure to read tomorrow's post . . . my review of the King Tut display.
PJM