J. Cult. Heritage 1 (2000) S145–S149

© 2000 Editions scientifiques et medicales Elsevier SAS. All rights reserved

S1296-2074(00)00184-9/FLA

Conservation of the eighteenth century lead statue ofGeorge II and the role of laser cleaning

Andrew Naylor*

JANET NAYLOR–ANDREW NAYLOR Conservation and Sculpture Consultancy, 33 Westerkirk Drive, Madeley,Telford, Shropshire TF7 5RJ, UK

Abstract – The conservation of an eighteenth century lead statue of King George II by Jan Van Nost of London wasundertaken. The statue had many layers of gilding, gold size and gesso over the fine detail of the figure’s richly decoratedarmour. The gold leaf, gold size and gesso were largely removed by solvents to expose the existence of very fine, almostpristine, sharp, chased and punched detail, but the remnants of the coatings were resistant to solvents. It was considereddesirable to remove the last vestiges of coating material to fully reveal the chasing. A Lynton Lasers ‘Phoenix’ Q-switchedNd:YAG laser operating at 1 064 nm was used and proved very effective and sensitive. No other cleaning method couldhave removed the material without damage to the lead. The level of fine detail represents a great deal of highly skilled,painstaking work, which suggests that lead sculpture of the eighteenth century was not regarded as second rate. Thiscontradicts currently held perceptions and a complete re-evaluation of the genre is now called for. © 2000 Editionsscientifiques et medicales Elsevier SAS

Keywords: lead sculpture / gilding detail

1. Introduction

The life-sized gilded lead statue of George II ofEngland by John Cheere, first erected in 1751, standson a tall Victorian granite plinth in Royal Square, St.Helier, Jersey, Channel Islands. Hogarth’s 1753 en-graving ‘The Analysis of Beauty’ generally acknowl-edged as depicting John Cheere’s yard at Hyde ParkCorner shows a statue similar to the George II beinghoisted onto a plinth (figure 1). Some 30 years afterthe initial siting of the statue the Battle of Jersey tookplace in and around the square and a contemporarypainting shows the gilded statue with troops mus-tered around it. It could be speculated that shotgunpellets recently found in the face of the statue datefrom this time. The statue is clearly important to thehistory of Jersey, but by 1998 it had become anembarrassing, shabby liability. After contemplating

its replacement with a fibreglass replica, the States ofJersey decided to preserve the statue in situ andcommissioned us to carry out conservation treatment.

2. Conservation and laser cleaning

The statue had reached a stage of imminentcollapse, it leaned alarmingly, indicating advanceddecay of the internal wrought iron supportingarmature and was held up by a framework ofscaffolding (figure 2). There were also various frac-tures and splits in the lower sections of the statue,some as wide as 50 mm. Superficially, however, themost obvious decay was shown by the gilding of thestatue. Over its lifetime the statue had been regildedmany times and had up to 37 layers of variously:gesso, undercoat, gold size, gold leaf, plus at least

* Correspondence and reprints: j-and-a-naylor@mac-1.net

A. Naylor / J. Cult. Heritage 1 (2000) S145–S149S146

Figure 1. Hogarth’s 1753 engraving ‘The Analysis of Beauty’ depicting John Cheere’s yard at Hyde Park Corner shows astatue similar to the George II being hoisted onto a plinth.

two dark, almost black layers and one containingfine copper cuttings. In most areas, particularly thehigher, more exposed areas, these layers wereweathered to various extents, in some placesthrough to the lead itself. Unlike most eighteenthcentury lead sculpture in the UK, there was noevidence of major attempts at restoration. Somesurfaces, drapery, legs and feet, had at some timebeen stripped of previous coatings by chipping it offwith a crude edged tool which had marked the leadsurface. Fortunately the gilders had stopped soonafter they revealed fine detail on the head, armourand garter.

We quickly realised that there was potentiallymore fine detail than we had previously found onmany similar sculptures that we have worked on inthe past and we decided to extend our researchesinto the cleaning of metal sculpture with tests on thelayers of coatings on the statue of George II. Testswere carried out in collaboration with MartinCooper at the National Museums and Galleries onMerseyside (NMGM) to establish the feasibility ofcleaning the statue by laser. In particular, a LyntonLasers ‘Phoenix’ Q-switched Nd:YAG laser operat-ing at 1 064 nm was used. It was quickly establishedthat attempts to clean the bulk of the gilding layersby laser would be possible, but very slow and theenergy densities required to remove some of themcould cause damage to the lead.

Air and water blasting were not tried becauseexperience dictates that these methods damage softlead statues. Various solvents were tested including2-ethoxy ethanol, acetone, ‘Nitromors’ and waterwith neutral pH detergent. All except ‘Nitromors’

had to be applied with a poultice to have any effect,but even so, ‘Nitromors’ proved the most effectivemethod, and could remove all coating layers with

Figure 2. The statue held up by a framework of scaffold-ing.

A. Naylor / J. Cult. Heritage 1 (2000) S145–S149 S147

Figure 3. The statue, regilded in the conservation studiobefore reinstallation.

At this stage, the extent of detail was apparent,but not fully revealed because the light colouredresidues filled the fine, sharp chasing. The client, theStates of Jersey, decided that in the interests of bothresearch and so that this uniquely preserved exam-ple could be seen to best advantage, the residueshould be removed as far as possible. Further testswere carried out using the Lynton Lasers ‘Phoenix’Q-switched Nd:YAG laser and it did prove to beeffective in removing the residues in the detail. Thematerial vaporises, for the most part, at energydensities below those that would effect the leadsurface. The few resistant granules that remainedcould either be removed at high energy density witha beam of reduced cross-section, using the pointingbeam from the Phoenix Nd:YAG laser to ensurethat the granules were precisely targeted, or theywere small enough to accept and leave.

In addition to laser cleaning the surface, the de-graded, damp, friable core material made from plas-

Figure 4. The armour on the forearms appeared, beforeremoval of the overcoatings, to be refinishing over apoorly prepared surface.

the exception of the residue left in the detail. Noneof the solvents were effective here, although all ofthem softened the material to some degree beforeevaporating, the material remained firmly attachedto the lead and could only be picked out with adegree of pressure that caused damage to the lead,even when using bamboo picks.

A. Naylor / J. Cult. Heritage 1 (2000) S145–S149S148

Figure 5. The armour on the forearms after solvent re-moval proved to have delicately cut panels of flowers,foliage and shells.

produced in considerable quantities, has helped tobring about the common present day perceptionthat they are mediocre and of little significance inthe development of sculpture in eighteenth centuryBritain.

That the detail remains in an almost pristinecondition in this instance is due to an apparentreluctance on the part of successive former gilders toremove previous layers, preferring to fill the unevensurface to make regilding easier. Had they attemptedto strip back to the surface by conventional methodsavailable to them, then the detail would inevitablyhave been damaged, leaving it less sharp and pre-cise. Laser cleaning enabled us to fully reveal theincredible preserved detail on the surface of thearmour, head and garter, finer than has previouslybeen associated with eighteenth century lead sculp-ture. The various layers of gilding, gold size, underpainting and gesso had filled and obliterated muchof it, for example, four panels on the armour of

Figure 6. The background surface of the armour is cov-ered with tiny, individually punched dots approximately1 mm in diameter.

ter and sand was removed, as was the heavily cor-roded iron armature. Splits and fractures in the leadcasting were closed and welded. The armature wasreplaced with stainless steel, but more comprehen-sive and supportive than the original, the core mate-rial was replaced by expanded polyurethane foamand the statue was regilded in the conservationstudio before reinstallation (figure 3).

3. Conclusion

Most other eighteenth Century lead statues haveeither not been regularly repainted, and so detail hasbecome lost by weathering, or they have at somepoint been cleaned by an unsympathetic method andbadly repaired which has also resulted in the detailbeing lost. This, and the fact that lead statues were

A. Naylor / J. Cult. Heritage 1 (2000) S145–S149 S149

Figure 7. The harp emblem, actual size approximately45 mm by 45 mm.

each forearm appeared, before removal of the over-coatings, to be no more than refinishing over apoorly prepared surface (figure 4), but proved aftersolvent removal to be delicately cut panels of flow-ers, foliage and shells (figure 5). The whole of thebackground surface of the armour is covered withtiny, individually punched dots approximately 1 mmin diameter (figure 6). The harp emblem, approxi-mately 45 mm by 45 mm, on the lower edge of thebreast plate comprises an angel with outstretchedwings. The wings have individual feathers and theface of the angel has features (figure 7). Thesedetails were only revealed when the final traces ofpaint and gilding were removed using the laser.Seeing the full extent of the detail on George II, allof which was carved and chased into the surfaceafter the statue was cast, is very significant becauseit represents a great deal of highly skilled, painstak-ing work, which suggests that lead sculpture wasnot regarded as second rate and made from a cheapalternative to other sculptural materials. This con-tradicts currently held perceptions and a completere-evaluation of the genre is now called for. This isa direct result of the fortunate preservation of thedetail in the first place and level of cleaning we wereable to achieve by using specialist laser cleaningequipment.

.