What if my suspected 1894 plan was correct? And what if the vanity and toilet did sit on marble slabs (a detail I have long adored)?
If so, then the current floor (part tile, part cement) would make sense. For, in squeezing in a tub in 1929, the toilet and sink also had to move. Their floor slabs of marble would have been discarded, meaning that there would not have been enough porcelain tiles for the whole room. So, a built-in tub was installed, and concrete laid under. Problem solved!
For a brief while this made perfect sense to me. All the oddities of the bathroom were explained, and, thus, order restored to the Universe. I love it when that happens.
Then I thought: The second-floor bathroom retains its original 1894 floor. And there are no marble slabs inset into it.
But…if the second-floor bath was as such, it is highly likely that the first-floor bathroom would have also been as such.
So, damn, there went my great theory.
But…the second-floor bath had wood wainscoting. Not white quartz like the first-floor bath. Which means that the latter, used by guests, was meant to impress. So, maybe, maybe my theory IS correct?
Oh, I just don’t know what to think at this point, and need to lie upon the divan.
The first-floor bath was changed at some point, and its 1894 flooring was altered.
I think that point was1929.
The fixtures in the bath when I purchased the house could not be original.