Pair of Wooden Howling Coyotes

Their Magnificent Old Home

Among the family photographs recently shared with me by Roger Waller is the one below, which is the home built about 1874 by Jonathan S. Dunfee. The house (located in section 17 of Jefferson Township, Whitley County, Indiana) is still standing. When I asked for permission to use the photo of Jonathan in the post A Dunfee Duo, Roger not only answered in the affirmative but went on to say "Please put the photo from 1874 with the house and family on your site as well, I would really like people to be able to see it." So this post is dedicated to Roger, and to all other family researchers who willingly and happily share the past with us all. Thank You.







I drove out there last Sunday afternoon and when I saw the house, I realized that the above photo was reversed left-to-right. As always, you can double-click on the images to view a larger version. It's worth the extra clicks as the detail is quite good in the areas that are sharp.








So I "flipped" the image for comparison to the present-day views.






This shot was taken from across a field. The two pine trees in front of the house prevented the taking of a straight-on view. (I didn't want to go into the yard and the camera doesn't have an extremely wide angle lens anyway.)








A view of the house from the side.


On my visit to see Cal and Ardilla on Monday (mentioned in this post), Cal told me that one of Jonathan's granddaughters "from California" had come to the area back in the 1960s and had stopped at this house. She was able to go inside and visit with the owners. She apparently promised to send them a copy of the old photo above and wrote a letter to them in October of 1967. I'm not clear on how Cal got a copy of the letter - he stated that the granddaughter who visited did not contact any members of the Dunfee family that were living in the area at the time.



The author of the letter, Agnes Dunfee Deebel, was the third of four children born to Louis Weldon and Mary Lucretia (Cass) Dunfee who were married November 6, 1890 in Noble County, Indiana. About 1909 Louis and Mary moved with their four children to Calgary, Alberta, Canada where they lived for a few years. By 1920 the family was living in Long Beach, California. Agnes is the grandmother of my correspondent, Roger Waller, who provided me with the old photo.



Below is a transcription of the photocopy of the letter (paragraph breaks and text within square brackets has been added by me):

"Dear Mrs. Murbach - At last, I obtained the 92 yr old tintype, naturally somewhat worn, and here is the print I promised you, of the original house you now own. (The tintype was reversed, left to right, so you will make that correction, please.) The house was built in 1874, by my grandfather, Johnathan Dunfee, standing by front gate. He was helped by my father, Louis Dunfee, 10 yrs old, the boy standing by the front gate.



"The lady on the porch, standing, was my grand mother, Mary Dunfee. The man sitting on the porch, my uncle David Dunfee. The girls sitting [on the porch], my aunts Wilhemina, Martha, Emily & Althea & the man standing to the left, my uncle Clinton, who used to own the property to your north.



"My father bought the 80 acres where you live when he was 26, & brought my mother Mary Lucretia Cass, 22, there as a bride. Their 4 children, Florence, Helen, myself and Ruskin, were all born in this house - right in the north west corner of your present kitchen. The smaller building directly behind your house was built 70 yrs ago, as a "summer kitchen" - (no air conditioning then).



"The roof [three words, illegible] slate, alternating bands of light grey & rose, & was considered very handsome. The shutters were dark green - and the house always white. The Catalpa trees by your front gate were planted by my father in 1900 - and the maples along your lane by my mother in 1898. Thank you for the picture you gave me, and for letting me 'tour' your home. Agnes Dunfee Deebel Oct 24 - 67"

Do you think the man older man standing by the gate is 48 years old or 20?


I do take issue with Mrs. Deebel's statement that it is her grandfather, Jonathan Dunfee, standing by the gate with the boy. My guess would be that it is her brother David who is standing by the gate with Louis and that her grandfather Jonathan is the man in the chair on the porch (in the upper left corner of the cropped portion of the photo above). If the house was built in 1874, Jonathan would have been 48 years old at the time (he was born in 1826). The fellow standing by the gate with the boy appears younger to me. Her brother David would have been 20 years of age in 1874, which I think "fits" a little better.



Jonathan Smith Dunfee was the son of James and Sophia (Hazlett) Dunfee and was born June 9, 1826 probably in Adams County, Pennsylvania. At age 5, he moved to Wayne County, Ohio with his parents and siblings. At the age of 20 "he went to carpentering for two years, and the following three acted as overseer for his widowed sister's farm in Holmes County, Ohio." He married Mary Ann Quick on October 19, 1848 in Holmes County, Ohio. He was 22 years old and she was 20.



On May 26, 1850 he purchased 80 acres of land for $720 from Silvester Alexander. It was located in the northwest half of the northwest quarter of section 17 (NW 1/2 NW 1/4 S17) in Jefferson Township, Whitley County, Indiana. This is the same parcel of land upon which he would later build the home shown in the photos above.



Two of his brothers, William Hamilton Dunfee (my 3rd great grandfather) and James Henry Dunfee, had come to Whitley County several years earlier. Other family members (his brother George, sister Catherine Tryon, and sister Sophia McNabb) had located in neighboring Noble and DeKalb counties prior to 1850. Another sister, Mary Bonnett Lovett would remain in Ohio (Holmes County) while his parents James and Sophia and two other sisters, Lucy and Sarah, would arrive in Whitley County within a few years.



Jonathan would purchase other lands, at one time owning over 400 acres in Whitley County. About 1891-1892 he and his wife moved to a home on North Chauncey Street in Columbia City where he passed away on April 22, 1900. (Mary's obituary published November 15, 1907 states that they moved to Columbia City "about 16 years ago" which, according to Agnes, is about the time that their son Louis bought the farm house.) Census records show Jonathan's occupation was that of a farmer. Apparently he was rather successful at it too. His biography published in the 1882 history of Whitley County, stated that "his farm is in a high state of cultivation and supplied with excellent buildings, and the signs of prosperity and happiness are all about him."



Jonathan's wife, Mary Ann Quick, was the daughter of David and Margaret (Oliver) Quick. She was born December 4, 1827 in Holmes County, Ohio and died at her home on North Chauncey Street in Columbia City on November 8, 1907.



Jonathan and Mary Ann (Quick) Dunfee were the parents of 7 children, all of whom remained in northeast Indiana except Louis:

1. Justice Clinton (August 22, 1849 - February 26, 1927)


2. Margaret Willimina (November 26, 1852 - March 22, 1941)


3. David J. (October 19, 1854 - August 12, 1892)


4. Martha Etta (May 21, 1857 - May 17, 1945)


5. Emily Almeda (February 28, 1859 - June 6, 1933)


6. Althea Mary (March 26, 1861 - November 22, 1903)


7. Louis Weldon (September 12, 1864 - December 14, 1947)

For more information on the Dunfee family, see the Index to Posts, which is a compilation of all the posts that have been published here at kinexxions on the family.

Beechdrops

On our walk the other day, hubby and I were looking for something specific (Puttyroot leaves - more on that later). We didn't find any. But this was just as exciting.



I'm fairly certain that these were Beechdrops (Epifagus virginiana), a plant that's parasitic on the roots of Beech trees.

I've never seen them before, even though many references call them "common". They probably bloomed in October, but from the photos I've seen, they look about the same whether they're blooming or not. (No chlorophyll.)



OK, I guess you have to be a total wildflower geek to think that this is exciting. But I am, so I do!

Interesting write-up with historical references here.

*Alpine Mentors* and Steve House?

The American alpinist Steve House - © archive Steve House



"Alpine Mentors promotes alpinism by encouraging, coaching and climbing with technically proficient young alpinists who aspire to climb the worldʼs greatest mountains in a lightweight, low-impact style."



http://www.alpinementors.org/



I think this is a GREAT idea!



But it aint a give away either.



This is one of the questions on the application.



"You are climbing the 1938 route on the north face of the Eiger. The first day you manage to get to Death bivouac, half way up the route. That night a storm comes in and you are pinned down for 3 days. You started with three days of food and fuel, but by being careful, you have saved a small amount of both. You have a partner of equal experience, 6 cams, 4 pitons, 6 nuts, 4 ice screws, and 2 60 meter ropes. You have no radio or cell phone and no chance for outside help. It is 10 degrees F and has snowed 12" in the past 24 hours. What is going through your mind and what would you do?"

Balloon Flower Bud

This is the bud for the balloon flower. It starts out small, gets bigger and finally springs open like the flower in the following post.

La Sportiva Baruntse revisted

With the volcano in Iceland nixing my plans to climb in Chamonix earlier this spring I had some time and money on my hands and no place I really wanted to go. That is a dangerous combination!

Daniel Harro's email last month and pictures of the work done on his Spantiks got me thinking.

The Baruntse gives my foot a great fit and offers a full length, rigid, nylon midsole so it front points very well. I like the support, lacing and cuff better for my foot than the Spantik. The over all warmth of both boots I suspect is very comparable with similar upper design and materials.







The obvious advantages of the Spantik is it has a foam midsole for extra warmth on top of a carbon fiber midsole used to cut weight and add rigidity. The other thing Sportiva used in the Spantik design is a very thin Vibram sole to also lower the weight.

After seeing what cobbler Dave Page of Seattle did to Daniel's Spantiks by adding a Nepal midsole and big block Vibram sole it got me thinking. Wrong direction for Daniel's Spantik imo by adding the weight of a Nepal sole/mid sole and duplicating the Baruntse combination, but how about going the other way and dropping a few ounces?







I took my Baruntses down to Dave Page's one afternoon and described what I wanted. Dave pulled out a couple of different Vibram sole options. I had brought along a accurate electronic scale to see if the weights "added up". And sure enough, it looked like a resole with the "proper" La Sportiva Vibram would drop 4oz per boot and add more insulation under foot while doing it. ( I didn't think the added insulation was needed but..if it goes with a weight drop why not?)

I ended up with a Baruntse that weights in at 2# 15.5oz compared to the factory Spantik at 3#.05oz. A total of 1.5 oz difference. Spantik has a 26mm mid sole at the ball of the foot and my lwt Baruntse has a 25mm midsole thickness in the same place.

Original La Sportiva factory, size 45, weights:

Spantik 3# .o5oz
Baruntse 3# 2.50oz

semi custom boot weights:

Spantik with a Baruntse liner 2# 13.5oz
Baruntse w/inner and lwt sole 2# 15.5oz

I ended up dropping only 3oz per boot but I did gain some sole insulation as well. The new lug pattern has a sold toe areas and will be better for pure rock climbing. Certainly more cushion in the boot now, both in the sole sole and heel. Down side? The Vibram soles are thinner so they won't last as long on hard surfaces. Same durability issue on a Spantik as well. But the Baruntse has more surface area being used on the newer sole.














.

Factory Baruntse and a Trangpo Extreme GTX in size 45



I like climbing technical ground in the Baruntse better than in the Spantik so it is a win/win for me. And even with the resole I am still almost $200 under the Spantik retail. Would I do it again? Cost was $78.00 for the resole. No real reason to do it other than curiosity on my part to see what kind of weight loss I would come up with. But if I wanted to take the Baruntse on a cold, technical Denali route, I would do it again in a heart beat. No question it is less weight and a warmer boot now. Warm enough to leave the over boots at home above 17K.....may be :)

This is an modification that would cost La Sportiva nothing in production and it would offer us one more option for dbl boots.



Factory sole..
















Baruntse with a lwt, La Sportiva factory resole added.

Everyone draws a line some where....

If you haven' read this and the research behind it you should.



http://coldthistle.blogspot.com//05/why-weight-of-your-footwear-is.html



I draw a line at cold feet and heavy boots. Admittedly that is going to be a balancing act generally.



While I was in the Alps a friend who was on the way to Chamonix asked me, "should we bring doubles?"



At that point in my own trip I had beenhanded my ass time wise and by the cold on two separate climbs that by guide book and my "sitting at my desk standards" should have been easy...to the point of casual. They weren't and I was cold. Luckily for me I never had cold feet. But then I didn't have to spend the night out either as clearly I would have if I had been required todo so. One climb was in dbl boots, Spantiks in fact. The other was in Scarpa Ultras.









So of course I suggested they bring dbl. boots. And of coursethey didn't. It worked out fine as the weather warmed up in the couple of weeks it took for them to show up in the valley and get on something big.

When they did climb, they climbed fast which helps :)



Snell's had several dozen pairs of the Scarpa Guide in stock but only 3 pair of the Ultras available. No Ultrasin my size or I would have bought a second pair as they aren't available in NA and easily replaced.



I've already reviewed the Ultra. This is a revisit to that topic.



http://coldthistle.blogspot.com//09/scarpa-phantom-ultra.html



http://coldthistle.blogspot.com//12/phantom-ultra-vs-trango-extreme-gtx.html



http://coldthistle.blogspot.com//11/scarpa-phantom-ultra-and-scarpa-phantom.html



Weights are of a one boot in a size 45.





La Sportiva Spantik 3#.05oz / 48.05oz/ 1362g

La Sportiva Baruntse 3#2.5oz / 1503g

La Sportiva Batura 1st gen. 2#7oz / 1106g

La Sportiva Batura 2nd gen 2#11/ 43oz/ 1219gm

La Sportiva Nepal Evo 2#10.5oz / 1205g

La Sportiva Trango Evo Extreme GTX 2#3oz (35oz) / 992g

Scarpa Phantom Ultra new model 2#3.5oz (35.5oz) / 1006g

Scarpa Phantom Guide new model 2#7.5oz / 1120g

Scarpa Phantom 6000 new model 2#10oz/1190g









I've been trying tohigh light the gear I usedand really liked in Chamonix this winter on the blog and will continue to do so as time allows. I took 3 pairs of "big boots" on this trip. The Ultra the lightest of the three. It fits my feet very well and most importantly it dries easily. They dry faster than eithermy new Baturas or my Scarpa Guides.Part of that is the insulation and inner boot body and part of it is the OurDry liner I suspect. Now both the Guide and the Ultra are using OutDry. My early Guides are Goretex. Not sure what is in the Batura. But the Batura is warmer than either Scarpa single boot.









I had intended to climb in only the BD Sabertooth crampons with these boots as they offer the best fit with the addition of Petzl bales. But it bacame obvious pretty quickly that I had chosen the wrong crampon for the hard ice conditions we experienced early on. (more on that choice of horizontal or vertical front points in a later blog) Not a big deal normally but the Ultra (and its stable mate the 6000) are not the easiest boot to fit a crampon to. Here is why. The sole profile on the toe of the Ultra boot. By far the most narrow toes on a technical boot from the Industry to date.

Ultra and a new Batura side by side here.



I find the Petzl crampons or at least crampons with Petzl front bails seen to fit the Ultrathe best. So I started using a pair of Dartwins in the rock hard ice gullies. The fit isn't perfect but it works well enough and you aren't likely to loose a crampon as a buddy of mine did in Spantiks and Sabertooth crampons in the middle of a a tight mixed chimney. Annoying that,at best.



No real point to this blog other than to say how much I like and used the Ultra this winter. November through April it has been my go to boot. It fits me well and climbs good enough. Not the support of a Nepal Evo or Spantik but they are lighter than either by a fair bitand warm enough. More support and warmer than the Trango Extreme. And I consider all of the boots mentioned some of the verybest available for alpine ice climbing.











All the boots I mentioned are obviously excellent boots. No surprise of the boots I climb in andhave pictured above that I would like one pair better than therest. They all climb well so it eventually comes down to fit. The Ultras fit me the best..even better by a fair margin than the Scarpa Guides.

Down side of the Scarpas? They aren't very durable to date. Which is why I would have bought a second pair in Chamonix. I like them enough and know they aren't going to last long. The inners are coming apart on both pair of my boots, new Guides and Ultras.And I have had friends collapse the toe boxon the new Phantom Guides. Scarpa NA wanted nothing to do with the obvious warranty issue. Thankfully the UK importer took care of the problem with a complete refund.



Nov.



Dec.

For Jan.it was Spantiks in Canada and during Feb in Chamonix as well. March was a toss up between singles and dbls.If nothing else writing a bog post like this reminds me I have gotten some good climbing in this winter season. Nothing spetacular by any count but it was fun ;-)