McGee—COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL—U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2162

Printed on recycled paper
Availability of Publications of the U.S. Geological Survey

Order U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) publications by calling 

the toll-free telephone number 1–888–ASK–USGS or contacting the offices listed below. Detailed ordering instructions, 

along with prices of the last offerings, are given in the current-year issues of the catalog “New Publications of the U.S. 

Geological Survey.”

Books, Maps, and Other Publications

By Mail

Books, maps, and other publications are available by mail 

from—

USGS Information Services

Box 25286, Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

Publications include Professional Papers, Bulletins, WaterSupply Papers, Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, 

Circulars, Fact Sheets, publications of general interest, single 

copies of permanent USGS catalogs, and topographic and 

thematic maps.

Over the Counter

Books, maps, and other publications of the U.S. Geological 

Survey are available over the counter at the following USGS 

Earth Science Information Centers (ESIC’s), all of which are 

authorized agents of the Superintendent of Documents:

• Anchorage, Alaska—Rm. 101, 4230 University Dr.

• Denver, Colorado—Bldg. 810, Federal Center

• Menlo Park, California—Rm. 3128, Bldg. 3, 

345 Middlefield Rd.

• Reston, Virginia—Rm. 1C402, USGS National Center, 

12201 Sunrise Valley Dr.

• Salt Lake City, Utah—2222 West, 2300 South (books and 

maps available for inspection only)

• Spokane, Washington—Rm. 135, U.S. Post Office 

Building, 904 West Riverside Ave.

• Washington, D.C.—Rm. 2650, Main Interior Bldg., 

18th and C Sts., NW.

Maps only may be purchased over the counter at the following 

USGS office:

• Rolla, Missouri—1400 Independence Rd.

Electronically

Some USGS publications, including the catalog “New Publications of the U.S. Geological Survey” are also available electronically on the USGS’s World Wide Web home page at

http://www.usgs.gov

Preliminary Determination of Epicenters

Subscriptions to the periodical “Preliminary Determination of 

Epicenters” can be obtained only from the Superintendent of 

Documents. Check or money order must be payable to the 

Superintendent of Documents. Order by mail from—

Superintendent of Documents

Government Printing Office

Washington, DC 20402

Information Periodicals

Many Information Periodicals products are available through 

the systems or formats listed below:

Printed Products

Printed copies of the Minerals Yearbook and the Mineral Commodity Summaries can be ordered from the Superintendent of 

Documents, Government Printing Office (address above). 

Printed copies of Metal Industry Indicators and Mineral Industry Surveys can be ordered from the Center for Disease Control 

and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health, Pittsburgh Research Center, P.O. Box 18070, Pittsburgh, PA 15236–0070.

Mines FaxBack: Return fax service

1. Use the touch-tone handset attached to your fax machine’s 

telephone jack. (ISDN [digital] telephones cannot be used with 

fax machines.)

2. Dial (703) 648–4999.

3. Listen to the menu options and punch in the number of your 

selection, using the touch-tone telephone.

4. After completing your selection, press the start button on 

your fax machine.

CD-ROM

A disc containing chapters of the Minerals Yearbook (1993–

95), the Mineral Commodity Summaries (1995–97), a statistical compendium (1970–90), and other publications is updated 

three times a year and sold by the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office (address above).

World Wide Web

Minerals information is available electronically at

http://minerals.er.usgs.gov/minerals/

Subscription to the catalog “New Publications of the U.S. 

Geological Survey” 

Those wishing to be placed on a free subscription list for the 

catalog “New Publications of the U.S. Geological Survey” 

should write to—

U.S. Geological Survey

903 National Center

Reston, VA 20192
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Colorado Yule Marble—

Building Stone of the Lincoln Memorial

By Elaine S. McGee

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 2162

Prepared in cooperation with the 

National Park Service

An investigation of differences in 

durability of the Colorado Yule marble,

a widely used building stone
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

CHARLES G. GROAT, Director

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1999

Published in the Eastern Region, Reston, Va.

Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and

does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

For sale by 

U.S. Geological Survey

Information Services

Box 25286, Federal Center

Denver, CO 80225

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

Manuscript approved for publication August 13, 1998.

McGee, E. S.

Colorado Yule marble: building stone of the Lincoln Memorial/by Elaine S. McGee.

p. cm.—(U.S. Geological Survey bulletin ; 2162)

Includes bibliographical references 

1. Marble—Washington (D.C.)—Deterioration. 2. Lincoln Memorial (Washington, D.C.)—Inspection. 3. Lincoln, Abraham,

1809–1865—Monuments—Washington (D.C.) 4. Marble—Colorado. I. Title. II. Series.

QE75.B9 no. 2162

[TA428.M3]

557.3 s—dc21

[691’.2] 98–43141

CIP
III

CONTENTS

Abstract ................................................................................................................................ 1

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 1

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................... 3

Geologic Background .......................................................................................................... 3

Quality of the Marble ...................................................................................................... 4

Grades of the Marble ...................................................................................................... 5

Mineralogic and Physical Characteristics ............................................................................ 6

Grain Size and Texture .................................................................................................... 7

Mineral Phases and Compositions .................................................................................. 8

Physical Characteristics .................................................................................................. 17

Selection of the Yule Marble for the Lincoln Memorial ...................................................... 20

Colorado Yule Marble in the Lincoln Memorial ................................................................. 22

Durability of the Marble ...................................................................................................... 23

Condition of the Marble in the Lincoln Memorial ......................................................... 23

Variations in the Yule Marble ......................................................................................... 25

Condition of Yule Marble in Other Buildings ................................................................ 29

Summary .............................................................................................................................. 31

References Cited................................................................................................................... 36

Appendix A. Microanalytical Techniques ............................................................................ 40

Appendix B. Information about the Quarrying and Inspection of Stone for 

the Lincoln Memorial.................................................................................................. 41

Appendix C. Brief History of the Yule Quarry..................................................................... 43

FIGURES

1–3. Photographs of—

1. The Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C. ........................................................................................................ 2

2. The penthouse wall, Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C................................................................................ 2

3. Slabs of three grades of the Colorado Yule marble marketed in 1992 ............................................................... 5

4. Backscattered electron image of a polished thin section showing calcite texture in the Snowmass 

Statuary Select sample of the Colorado Yule marble................................................................................................ 8

5. Graph of average calcite grain sizes in longest dimension measured for each type of 

Colorado Yule marble sample ................................................................................................................................... 8

6–8. Graphs showing calcite grain size distribution in the Colorado Yule marble: 

6. Graded samples and marble from the Lincoln Memorial and from the Colorado Yule quarry dump ............... 9

7. Colorado Golden Vein Select grade sample and the Lincoln Memorial pieces ................................................ 9

8. Colorado Golden Vein grade, Lincoln Memorial antefix, and the quarry dump samples ................................. 9

9, 10. Backscattered electron images of polished thin sections of the Colorado Yule marble showing—

9. Inclusion cluster in Colorado Golden Vein sample ........................................................................................... 11

10. Clusters of quartz inclusions in Colorado Golden Vein sample......................................................................... 12

11–18. Photographs of—

11. Weathered quartz inclusions in the Colorado Yule marble in the Colorado National Bank, Denver, Colo., 

and in the Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C. ............................................................................................... 15

12. Large feldspar inclusions at the Lincoln Memorial in a column shaft and on the roof parapet......................... 16

13. Sphalerite inclusion at the Lincoln Memorial occurring as an isolated grain with a rusty-brown surface ........ 18

14. Differential wear on a cheneau piece along the roof at the Lincoln Memorial.................................................. 24
IV CONTENTS

15. Chalky white inclusion on a column shaft at the Lincoln Memorial ................................................................. 25

16. Blackened surficial alteration crusts on the underside of the roof entablature at the 

Lincoln Memorial............................................................................................................................................... 26

17. Orange surficial discoloration on the penthouse at the Lincoln Memorial ........................................................ 27

18. A column shaft at the Lincoln Memorial showing a stone with a rough, sugared 

surface adjacent to a stone that has retained a smooth, nearly new appearing surface finish ............................ 27

19. Sketch of calcite grain boundaries in marble showing the progressive change that occurs along grain 

boundaries when water penetrates into the marble.................................................................................................... 28

20. Map showing locations in the United States where the Colorado Yule marble has been used for 

notable buildings and major structures...................................................................................................................... 30

21–26. Photographs of—

21. Structures with exterior Colorado Yule marble that appear to be in very good condition ................................. 32

22. Cleaning at Denver Post Office in 1993 ............................................................................................................. 33

23. Reddish-orange stain at Denver Post Office after several cleaning attempts in 1993 ........................................ 33

24. Variations in surficial integrity in some blocks of marble at the State Capitol Annex 

Building in Denver, Colo.................................................................................................................................... 34

25. The Cheesman Memorial, Denver, Colo., showing three column drums that retain original tooling marks 

and a fourth stone that has a rough sugared surface with no trace of the original finish ................................... 35

26. Rifts or surficial cracks in the marble at the Cheesman Memorial, Denver, Colo. ............................................ 35

TABLES

1. Chemical analyses reported for the Colorado Yule marble .................................................................................... 4

2. Polished thin section samples of the Colorado Yule marble examined for mineralogic and 

petrologic characteristics........................................................................................................................................ 6

3. Inclusion samples collected at the Lincoln Memorial ............................................................................................ 7

4. Calcite grain sizes in Colorado Yule marble samples............................................................................................. 9

5. Representative microprobe analyses of calcite in Colorado Yule marble samples................................................. 11

6. Compositions of calcite in Colorado Yule marble samples.................................................................................... 12

7. Representative microprobe analyses of inclusion minerals in Colorado Yule marble samples.............................. 13

 8. Compositions of inclusion minerals in Colorado Yule marble samples................................................................. 14

9. General physical characteristics, strength characteristics, and durability characteristics of the

Colorado Yule marble............................................................................................................................................. 18

10. General physical characteristics, strength characteristics, and durability characteristics of 

commercial marbles tested by Kessler compared with average values for the Colorado 

Yule marble and with data for five marbles tested for the Lincoln Memorial Commission ................................. 20

11. Notable examples of structures that used the Colorado Yule marble ..................................................................... 30

12. Buildings in Denver, Colo., with exterior Colorado Yule marble........................................................................... 30
CONTENTS V

METRIC CONVERSION FACTORS

[Both metric and customary units are used in this report. For convenience, conversion 

factors are provided below] 

Temperature conversions for degrees Fahrenheit (°F) and degrees Celsius (°C) follow:

°C = (°F − 32)/1.8

°F = (1.8 × °C) + 32

Multiply By To obtain

Length

inch (in.) 25.4 millimeter

foot (ft) 0.3048 meter

mile (mi) 1.609 kilometer

micrometer (μm) 0.00003937 inch

millimeter (mm) 0.03937 inch

centimeter (cm) 0.3937 inch

Area

square inch (in2) 6.452 square centimeter

square centimeter (cm2) 0.1550 square inch

Volume

cubic foot (ft3) 0.02832 cubic meter

cubic meter (m3) 35.31 cubic foot

Mass

ton (2,000 lb) 0.9072 metric ton (1,000 kg)

milligram (mg) 0.00003527 ounce avoirdupois

Mass per unit volume (density)

pound per cubic foot (lb/ft3) 16.02 kilogram per cubic 

meter

Pressure

pound-force per square inch

(lb/in2)

6.895 kilopascal

kilogram-force per square

centimeter (kg/cm2)

98.066 kilopascal
VI CONTENTS

coping

cornice

frieze

antefix

cheneau

cornice

mutule w/ guttae

frieze

architrave

abacus

echinus

sinkage

drum

fluting

base

upper course

mid-course

foundation

course

upper stairs

penthouse

entablature

doric column

stylobate

Architectural terms for parts of the Lincoln Memorial. Modified from Einhorn Yaffee and Prescott (1994).
1

Colorado Yule Marble—

Building Stone of the Lincoln Memorial

By Elaine S. McGee1

ABSTRACT

The Colorado Yule marble, quarried in Marble, Colo.,

is a very pure white marble, and it has been widely

acclaimed for its quality and purity. This marble has been

used for many prominent buildings; one of the most notable

is the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., built nearly

80 years ago. Although most of the marble in the memorial

appears to be in very good condition, some of the stones

have developed pronounced surficial roughness and show a

significant loss of carved details and rounded edges

compared with adjacent stones. Because adjacent blocks of

marble receive nearly identical exposure to weathering

agents that cause deterioration of the marble, it seems very

likely that this pronounced difference in durability of

adjacent stones arises from some inherent characteristic of

the marble. 

The Colorado Yule marble is a nearly pure calcite marble with minor inclusions of mica, quartz, and feldspar.

Compositions of the calcite and the inclusion phases in the

marble are typical for those phases. The calcite grains that

compose the marble are irregularly shaped and range from

100 to 600 micrometers in diameter. The texture of the marble is even, with a slight preferred directional elongation

that is visible when the marble is cut in certain directions.

Physical tests of the marble show that its strength is comparable to that of other marbles typically used in buildings. 

Variations in the durability of the marble, like those

seen at the Lincoln Memorial, are not related to variations in

calcite composition or to the presence of inclusions in the

marble. Most likely, the variations arise from differences in

the calcite grain boundaries and the degree to which the

grains interlock with one another. Weak grain boundaries

that permit water or solutions to penetrate into the marble

and dissolve the calcite grains at their edges cause the marble to disaggregate or “sugar.” Subtle differences in texture

that occur in the marble from various parts of the quarry

probably cause some stones to be more susceptible to this

form of deterioration. These differences may not be readily

visible when the stone is freshly quarried.

INTRODUCTION

Praised as one of the purest marbles ever quarried, and

cited as a rival to the Italian and Greek marbles of classic

fame, the Colorado Yule marble was selected and used for

the exterior stone of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington,

D.C. Built between 1914 and 1922, the Lincoln Memorial

(fig. 1) is one of the most visited and treasured memorials in

Washington, D.C., and it serves as a symbolic focus for

many historic gatherings. Some believe that the marble,

selected for the monument at the urging of the architect

Henry Bacon, is integral to the effect and feeling created by

the memorial (Thomas, 1993).

After nearly 80 years of exposure to rain, wind, temperature variations, moisture, and urban pollution, the stone

in the Lincoln Memorial shows signs of deterioration. Characteristics of the deterioration include places that display a

roughened “sugared” surface, inclusions in the marble that

stand above the rest of the stone surface, and stain discoloration or blackened surficial alteration crusts. Many of these

weathering features are typical for marble buildings. However, one of the most striking deterioration features of the

marble at the Lincoln Memorial occurs where adjacent

blocks of stone have weathered very differently. The surface

of one block of stone appears rough, with loose surficial

grains and softened edges on carved details, while an adjacent block has retained its smooth surface and crisp edges

on carved features as seen in figure 2. Because adjacent

blocks are exposed to identical conditions of weather and

pollution, the difference in degree of deterioration must

arise from some characteristic of the stones. Characteristics

of the marble that might influence its durability include

composition of the calcite, type and composition of inclusion minerals, grain size, texture, and physical properties.

This study was conducted to characterize the Yule marble

and to identify any characteristic(s) that might cause its

variable durability.

When the Colorado Yule marble was chosen for the

construction of the Lincoln Memorial, its selection was

1

Formerly with the U.S. Geological Survey. Present address: 17 Lyme 

Bay, Columbia, SC 29212.
2 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL

Figure 1. The Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C. (dedicated 1922). Photograph taken in 1990.

Figure 2. Colorado Yule marble in the penthouse wall of the Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C.

Although the memorial gives an overall appearance of clear, white marble, some blocks (upper part

of photograph) have a roughened, sugared surface, whereas adjacent blocks retain smooth surfaces

and crisp edges (bottom of photograph).
GEOLOGIC BACKGROUND 3

controversial. The Lincoln Memorial Commission heard

testimony questioning the quality and durability of the

Colorado Yule marble. Questions also were raised about the

recently opened quarry’s ability to provide the quantity and

size of the blocks of marble required for the construction of

the Lincoln Memorial. Additional physical tests of the

marble were made in response to these questions, and

additional reviews were made of the quarry and the stone

quality before the Colorado Yule marble was finally

selected.

As the marble is examined today and options for the

treatment and preservation of the stone are considered, it is

important that characteristics of the stone be understood.

Just as the mineralogical and physical characteristics of the

marble have influenced the manner and degree to which the

stone has weathered, these features may also influence the

effectiveness of treatments that may be applied to the stone.

An examination of the mineralogy and physical characteristics of the Colorado Yule marble, along with observations of

the weathered features of this marble in various buildings,

may help guide the selection of appropriate preservation

choices for the marble in the Lincoln Memorial.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Steve Moore (National Park Service) helpfully provided copies of items from the National Archives pertaining

to the marble and to the construction of the Lincoln Memorial. The study described in this report was conducted as

part of a cooperative project between the U.S. Geological

Survey and the Denver Service Center of the National Park

Service, funded by agreement MT 2150–5–0001.

GEOLOGIC BACKGROUND

The Colorado Yule marble is quarried near the town of

Marble in Gunnison County, located in central Colorado. It

has been called by the trade names Colorado Yule marble

and Yule Colorado marble, but the stone comes from the

Leadville Limestone of Mississippian age (Vanderwilt,

1937; Gaskill and Godwin, 1966). The marble was formed

by contact metamorphism that occurred during the Tertiary

period, following the intrusion and uplift of the nearby granitic Treasure Mountain dome (Vanderwilt and Fuller, 1935;

Ogden, 1961). Local contact with the heat and pressure

from the intrusion of hot granitic magma recrystallized the

Leadville Limestone, which elsewhere in Colorado is a

dark-blue stone, into a distinctive white marble (Vanderwilt,

1937). 

In the vicinity of the quarry, the Leadville Limestone is

separated from the overlying and underlying rocks by

unconformities (Gaskill and Godwin, 1966). These unconformities may be the reason why some reports about the

Colorado Yule marble (Bain, 1936b) erroneously place the

age of the marble as Silurian instead of Mississippian. The

indistinct nature of the boundaries of the Leadville Limestone, particularly of the lower contacts near the Treasure

Mountain dome, also explains the varied thicknesses (166 ft

at the quarry on Yule Creek and 239 ft about 2,000 ft southeast of the quarry; Vanderwilt, 1937) that have been

reported for the marble beds of the Leadville Limestone.

The Pennsylvanian Molas Formation, consisting of argillites

that were metamorphosed to hornfels and quartzite, lies

above the Leadville Limestone (Gaskill and Godwin, 1966).

The Dyer Dolomite Member of the Devonian Chaffee Formation lies below the Leadville Limestone. The Dyer Dolomite is locally cherty; it was metamorphosed to lime silicate

marble and occasional serpentine marble (Gaskill and Godwin, 1966).

The Yule marble occurs as a massive white bed, 166 to

239 ft thick, with outcrops that usually form prominent

cliffs (Vanderwilt and Fuller, 1935; Vanderwilt, 1937). Its

most distinctive and productive occurrence is along the west

side of Yule Creek, about 2.5 miles south of where Yule

Creek joins the Crystal River. The Colorado Yule marble

quarry is at an elevation of 9,300 ft above sea level on the

west side of Treasure Mountain along Yule Creek. About

1,400 ft above the valley formed by Yule Creek, a nearly

200-ft-thick bed of the marble is exposed for more than a

mile (Lakes, 1910). The marble bed dips at an angle into

Treasure Mountain; however, because the metamorphism

that formed the marble obscured most traces of bedding in

the marble, it has been difficult to determine the angle of dip

of the marble. Lakes (1910) reported that the marble dipped

51° into the mountain; Merrill (1914) reported a dip of 35°;

and Vanderwilt (1937) reported that chert bands, which are

believed to be parallel to the original bedding, dip 65°

southwest in a prospect tunnel a short distance south of the

quarry. The quarry openings are located on the thickest portion of the bed where the exposed marble is overlain by a

“heavy covering” of rock that prevented erosion and limited

fracturing of the marble (Merrill, 1914). Vanderwilt (1937)

reported that the entire Mississippian formation (that is, the

Leadville Limestone) at the quarry is 239 ft thick. However,

Vanderwilt (1937) went on to say that only 100–125 ft of

this bed consists of salable white marble: the lower 100 ft is

unmarketable interbedded dolomite marble, and the upper

20–40 ft of the bed is also unmarketable because it contains

streaks of gray and red. 

Early reports (Lakes, 1895) stressed the massive nature

of the white statuary (best quality) marble beds, emphasizing that the beds could produce blocks of almost any size or

thickness. Lakes (1910) declared that the size of pure statuary blocks that could be produced from this deposit was

limited only by the machinery capable of handling it. In his

report to the Lincoln Memorial Commission, Merrill (1914)

observed that there were two principal series of joints in the

marble (north 70° west, and 20° south of west) and commented that the sizes of blocks obtainable from the quarry
4 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL

would be limited only by the joints and by the occasional

chert layers. Knopf (1949) described two sets of fractures or

joints: one set runs N. 65° E. and dips about 80° NW.; a second set of discontinuous, en echelon joints is not easily

seen, but the joints strike N. 55° W. and dip about 70° SW.

Vanderwilt (1937) also described two sets of fractures,

classed as “main headers” and “dry seams,” that are important constraints in the quarrying of the marble, but he further

stated that despite these difficulties, the quarry can produce

large blocks of essentially pure-white marble. 

In 1930, the Colorado Yule marble was selected for the

Tomb of the Unknown Soldier (in Arlington National Cemetery) because it was the only quarry that could provide a

solid block of marble of the dimensions required (Vandenbusche and Myers, 1991). When the 56-ton block of white

statuary marble was removed from the Colorado Yule marble quarry for the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, it was the

largest single piece of marble ever quarried (Through the

Ages, 1931).

QUALITY OF THE MARBLE

Two of the most remarkable characteristics of the Colorado Yule marble deposit are its quality and purity. Lakes

(1910) reported that the statuary marble from the Colorado

Yule deposit has “the same fine texture as the best grade

Italian.” Vanderwilt (1937) compared the statuary Yule marble to the Pentelic marble of Greece. Even today, the Colorado Yule statuary marble is praised, and its quality is

compared with that of the world-renowned Carrara marble

from Italy (Roberts, 1992; Compressed Air Magazine,

1993; Klusmire, 1993). The even grain size and lack of

inclusions are the reasons the Yule marble is praised as fine

and pure. Chemical analyses of the marble (table 1) confirm

its purity and show that it is composed mostly of calcium

carbonate (98.8–99.8 weight percent).

Vanderwilt (1937) described the Leadville Limestone

as pure calcite marble and reported that metamorphic minerals (that is, noncalcite inclusions) are lacking over large

areas. Although the marble was formed by contact metamorphism, and thus might show different characteristics

close to the intrusion that caused the metamorphism, typical

contact metamorphic silicate minerals did not form where

the “marbleized” Leadville Limestone came into contact

with the intrusive granite (Vanderwilt, 1937). The intrusive

contact exhibits relatively few metamorphic effects (Vanderwilt, 1937). Although the formations near the Treasure

Mountain dome were metamorphosed by the intrusion,

Table 1. Chemical analyses reported for the Colorado Yule marble.

[— = not reported]

SOURCE OF DATA AND DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLES

1. Analysis of samples submitted for Lincoln Memorial Commission: (Anonymous, undated).

2. Analysis by Von Schultz and Low, Chemical Laboratory and Assay Office, Denver, Colo.: (Von Schultz and Low, 1907).

Sample: “Golden Vein White Marble.”

3. Analysis reported by Vanderwilt (1937, p. 160): “Made under direction of A.W. Smith, Case School of Applied Science,

Cleveland, Ohio, Oct. 22, 1907.”

Samples: 3a, “Streak” represents the markings in the “golden vein” marble; 3b, “Clear.”

4. Analysis reported by Busenberg and Plummer (1983): Magnesium determined by atomic absorption spectrophotometry,

iron and manganese determined by spectrophotometry, calcium assumed to be only other cation present and calculated

from known weight of the sample and charge balance considerations.

Subsample (20–50 mg) of National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, sample 77858.

 1 2 3a 3b 4

CaCO3 ------------------ 99.79 99.72 98.84 99.50 99.73

MgCO3 ----------------- .15 trace .25 .19 .23

FeCO3 ------------------- — — .02 .03 .04

MnCO3 ----------------- — — .03 .02 .00

SiO2 ---------------------- .04 .10 .27 .05 —

Al2O3 -------------------- — — .05 .03 —

Fe2O3 -------------------- — — .28 trace —

MnO2 -------------------- — — .06 none —

CaSO4 ------------------- — — .08 .09 —

Fe ------------------------- trace — — — —

MnO, FeO,

A12O3--------------- — .07 — — —

Undetermined ------- — — .12 .09 —

 Total ------------------- 99.98 99.89 100.00 100.00 100.00
GEOLOGIC BACKGROUND 5

proximity to the dome probably had less influence on the

development of metamorphic minerals than structural and

permeability conditions along joints and contacts of various

formations (Vanderwilt, 1937). Where the marble is in

direct contact with the intrusive granite, the most consistent

change in the marble is that it becomes extremely coarse

grained; the grain size in the contact zone is 1.0–2.0 cm,

whereas the average grain size in the main body of marble is

2.0 mm (Bain, 1936a; Vanderwilt, 1937). Impurities in the

marble from the Yule quarry and variations in quality are

most common along joints in the stone (Merrill, 1914;

Vanderwilt, 1937).

Nodules of gray chert and bodies of “lime” are the two

main imperfections that have been encountered and that

have caused some problems in quarrying the Colorado Yule

marble. Merrill (1914) described lenticular masses of a

dense structure with a water-blue tint that were unpredictably encountered in quarrying, but he reported that they

could be avoided by judicious quarrying. Vanderwilt (1937)

described two types of “lime” that were avoided by the

quarrymen because of their color and because of the fractures that the bodies contain. One of the types of “lime”

forms irregular masses from a few inches to several feet

across that are slightly elongated parallel to the bedding.

These masses consist of fine-grained dolomite mixed with

calcite-filled fractures (Vanderwilt, 1937). The second type

of “lime” is also gray but has a tabular form with welldefined boundaries parallel to the bedding; cross sections of

these bodies are lenticular, and the dimensions may be as

large as 4 ft in length and 1 ft in thickness (Vanderwilt,

1937). These lime bodies have rims consisting of fine

quartz, calcite, tremolite, and possibly diopside with some

local concentrations of sphalerite along the borders (Vanderwilt, 1937).

GRADES OF THE MARBLE

The most celebrated samples of the Colorado Yule

marble are pure white, with no apparent variation in mineral

content or in grain size. However, the Colorado Golden Vein

grade of the Yule marble, which contains inclusions that

appear as fine lines of golden veining, is also well known.

The Yule marble is classified into grades by the quarry to

reflect stone quality and the amount of inclusions in the

stone. Grade names change with time; in 1992, four grades

of Yule marble were marketed for use in buildings. From

highest grade to lowest, these are Snowmass Statuary Select

(SSS), Snowmass Statuary (SS), Colorado Golden Vein

Select (GV select), and Colorado Golden Vein (GV); the

last three grades are shown in figure 3. A “select” designation indicates fewer inclusions and better quality. The

Snowmass Statuary grades contain very few inclusions and

are nearly pure white with an even grain. The Colorado

Golden Vein grades are also predominantly white but contain inclusions that occur as thin linear streaks or as clouds

of gold-bronze, tan, or gray (fig. 3). Vanderwilt (1937)

described five grades of marble: statuary marble, veined or

Figure 3. Slabs of three grades of the Colorado Yule marble marketed in 1992. Note how the

appearance and abundance of inclusions in the samples vary with the grade. From left to right, the

grades are Snowmass Statuary, Colorado Golden Vein Select, and Colorado Golden Vein.
6 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL

second statuary marble, golden-vein marble, bottom-base

stock, and crystal grade. The grade designations used in this

study appear to correspond to four of Vanderwilt's descriptions; however, there is no current grade specified that corresponds to the bottom-base stock grade described by

Vanderwilt.

MINERALOGIC AND PHYSICAL 

CHARACTERISTICS

Characteristics of marbles such as their texture, grain

size, color, and inclusions influence the quality and the

durability of the stone. Although pure-white, even-textured

marbles are sought after and praised, most marbles also contain some mineral inclusions within the calcite matrix that

give the marble a characteristic appearance. Merrill (1914)

described the pure whiteness and compact crystallization of

the Colorado Yule marble, but he also noted the presence of

chert bands in the marble and described two types of colored veins: a dark streak that he attributed to original

organic matter and a yellow veining that he attributed to

penetration of iron or manganese oxide solutions along lines

of strain. Bain (1936b) reported that the veining in the Colorado Yule Golden Vein marble is predominantly quartz with

small amounts of iron- and magnesium-bearing amphiboles,

the latter giving the veins their characteristic color. Vanderwilt (1937) listed dolomite, chert, diopside, quartz, sphalerite, and a small amount of fuchsite as inclusions in the

Colorado Yule marble. Many of the reported mineral inclusions in the marble appear to be minor constituents or are

constituents of zones of the marble that have not been routinely quarried. An example is fuchsite, which was reported

by Merrill (1914) from an occurrence in the cliff face

between quarries number 2 and 3 (see app. B for quarry

description).

For this study of the Colorado Yule marble, polished

thin sections were made from samples of all four grades of

the marble, from several pieces of stone previously removed

from the Lincoln Memorial, and from a sample collected at

the Yule marble quarry dump pile (table 2). More sections

were made from the Colorado Golden Vein grade stone than

any other in order to observe the largest variety of inclusion

phases present in the marble. The available samples from

the Lincoln Memorial were examined and compared with

samples currently quarried to look for similarities between

older and newer quarried stone. The disaggregated sample

from the quarry dump pile was selected because it was a

rare crumbly piece; it was examined to see if any characteristics could be identified that explain its lack of durability

compared to most typical samples of Yule marble. 

The polished thin section samples were examined by

using optical and scanning electron microscopy to

characterize the texture and grain size of the samples.

Mineral phases in the samples were identified with

qualitative energy-dispersive X-ray analysis on the scanning

electron microscope. Calcite and some inclusion phases

were analyzed quantitatively by using a JEOL JXA–8900

Table 2. Polished thin section samples of the Colorado Yule marble examined for mineralogic and petrologic characteristics.

[Trade names used are from 1992; names of grades currently marketed may differ. EYP=Einhorn Yaffee and Prescott; NPS=National Park Service. Sample

numbers show how many thin sections were examined but are not used in the rest of the report because only representative and averaged data are given]

Sample type Description Sample number Source of material sectioned

SSS ------------- Snowmass Statuary Select grade SSS Slab obtained by David Coe, EYP, from Colorado

Yule Marble Company in 1992 as part of his work

for NPS on the “Lincoln Memorial Stone Survey”

(EYP, 1994). Thin sections were cut from these

samples with permission of EYP and NPS.

SS--------------- Snowmass Statuary grade SS–1 Ditto.

CGVS ---------- Colorado Golden Vein Select grade CGVS–1

CGVS–2

Ditto.

CGV------------ Colorado Golden Vein grade CGV–1

CGV–2

Ditto.

GV-------------- Colorado Golden Vein grade GV1–1

GV2–1

Samples given to E.S. McGee by Colorado Yule Marble Company in 1993.

LMP------------ Pieces removed from Lincoln Memorial during renovation; possibly

from stylobate steps; possibly in

mid-1970’s.

LMP1–1

LMP2–1

Samples given to E.S. McGee by NPS as part of

cooperative work.

LM0713 ------- Piece that broke from a badly weathered antefix on the Lincoln Memorial.LM0713–1 Ditto.

CYMR --------- Piece of marble collected from the

quarry dump pile because of its

badly disaggregated condition.

CYMR–1

CYMR–2

Sample collected by E.S. McGee from refuse pile at

Yule marble quarry.
MINERALOGIC AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 7

electron microprobe (app. A). The compositions of the main

constituents of the marble were determined in order to

compare them with the compositions of typical minerals in

marble; variations in composition or unusual characteristics

might influence the marble durability. 

Samples of weathered inclusion minerals were collected at the Lincoln Memorial and were analyzed to identify the phases (table 3). Typically, I collected these samples

because they appeared significantly different from the surrounding stone. They were collected by scraping or prying

small (usually a few grains to less than 0.5 cm2 area) pieces

away from the matrix, or they were collected where a small

piece of stone (less than 2 cm long) crumbled or broke when

it was touched. These samples were examined optically and

were analyzed by using the scanning electron microscope

with qualitative energy-dispersive X-ray analysis. Where

there was sufficient material, some samples were also analyzed by using powder X-ray diffraction.

GRAIN SIZE AND TEXTURE

The grain size and texture of marble influence both its

appearance and its durability. Qualities that are often sought

in marble are an even texture, a homogeneous appearance,

and a luminous surface that polishes well. Fine-grained

marbles have a homogeneous appearance and may take a

polish better than some coarser grained marbles. Similarly,

marbles with tightly joined calcite grains may appear more

luminous when polished and may prove to be more durable

than marbles that have large or loosely bonded grains.

The fabric and texture of the Colorado Yule marble

have been widely studied and examined. Early reports of the

marble described its fine texture and fine crystallization

(Lakes, 1910). The grain size of the Yule marble is reported

as 2,000–3,000 grains to the square centimeter (Vanderwilt,

1937, quoted Bain, 1936a, written commun.). Knopf (1949)

reported grain sizes in the marble as 0.5–1.5 mm, and Thill

and others (1969) reported an average grain size of 0.4 mm

for the sample they studied. The edges of the calcite grains

in the Colorado Yule marble are deeply crenulated (irregularly and minutely notched and scalloped) (Bain, 1936b);

these crenulations are believed to account for the resistance

to weathering of the marble. Bain (1936b) also reported that

the calcite crystals in the Yule marble are aligned so that the

long axes of the grains are essentially perpendicular to the

principal veining in the deposit. From a geographically oriented block of marble, Knopf (1949) examined calcite grain

dimensions in thin sections cut with respect to the grain

(texture) of the marble. Calcite grains are distinctly elongated in sections cut normal to the strike and dip vectors of

the grain (longer to shorter axis: 1.8:1) and in sections cut

parallel to the strike and normal to the dip vectors (longer to

shorter axis: 3:1), but they are nearly equidimensional in

samples cut parallel to the strike and dip vectors of the grain

(Knopf, 1949). 

As the major constituent of the marble, calcite grains

determine texture and fabric characteristics of the stone. In

the samples studied for this report, the calcite grains are

irregularly shaped, and they are generally equidimensional

to slightly elongated with irregular edges (fig. 4). Some of

Table 3. Inclusion samples collected at the Lincoln Memorial.

[Attribute: portion of the memorial from which the sample was collected. 

Field description: appearance of the sample in the memorial, includes observations made by E.S. McGee while sampling in 1990–93.

Phases: alt = alteration, ap = apatite, biot = biotite, Ca-fsp = calcium feldspar, cc = calcite, dol = dolomite, fs = feldspar, K-fsp = potassium feldspar,

mix = mixture, mus = muscovite, pyr = pyrite, qtz = quartz.

Phases were identified with energy-dispersive X-ray analysis on a scanning electron microscope or with powder X-ray diffraction] 

Sample number Attribute Field description Phases

LM00713–3 ---------------- Antefix Inclusion, pried off Ca-fsp.

LM00713–4 ---------------- Parapet Inclusion, raised; pried off K-fsp, Ca-fsp.

LM10820–1 ---------------- Penthouse wall Dark-gray inclusion streak, raised, with pyr K-fsp, mus, pyr, Ca-fsp.

LM10820–2 ---------------- Penthouse wall Yellowish-orange vein fill; scraped easily Dol? fluffy coating.

LM10820–3 ---------------- Parapet Pried raised fs? inclusion off K-fsp.

LM10916–2 ---------------- Attic wall Raised inclusion with dark edges; pried off K-fsp, pyr, alt.

LM10916–4 ---------------- Attic wall White, raised area chalky under; came off easily Qtz, cc.

LM10916–5 ---------------- Attic wall Chalky white area; fine powder, scraped easily Cc, qtz.

LM10916–6 ---------------- Parapet wall Pinkish-tan grains with fungus “inclusion” area Organic + qtz? + mix.

LM20603–1 ---------------- Column White area, center large inclusion; hard, scraped Cc, qtz.

LM20603–2 ---------------- Column Rim of large inclusion (603–1); hard to pry out Qtz, cc.

LM20603–3 ---------------- Column Rusty-black in raised grayish-brown inclusion; 

hard to remove.

Pyr, biot?, ap?, Ca-fsp?

LM20603–4 ---------------- Column Raised, rusty inclusion; pried pieces easily, left 

shiny/metallic film under.

Sphalerite, cc, alt.

LM20603–5 ---------------- Column Yellowish, soft, fills vein which follows crack Dol, alt?
8 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL

the grains meet at 120° angles, indicating that parts of the

marble are well recrystallized. 

The calcite is varied in size, ranging from about 50 to

1,000 micrometers in the longest dimension. In four to eight

randomly chosen areas of each polished thin section, the

average calcite grain is about 300 micrometers in diameter

(fig. 5). The calcite grain sizes in the four grades of marble,

in several samples from the Lincoln Memorial, and in a

crumbling piece of marble obtained from the quarry dump

pile are compared in table 4. Because the average calcite

grain sizes are so similar, the distribution of grain sizes in

the samples was plotted (fig. 6) to see whether there are any

textural differences among the samples. Most of the calcite

grains in the graded samples are between 100 and 600

micrometers in diameter (fig. 6A). The four graded samples

have fairly similar grain size distributions, but the Snowmass Statuary has a less pronounced peak between 200 and

300 micrometers. The grain sizes vary more widely in the

Snowmass Statuary grade than in the other grades. The

grain-size distribution patterns for the samples from the Lincoln Memorial and from the quarry dump are also similar to

the patterns for the graded samples (fig. 6B). The Colorado

Golden Vein Select grade samples are most similar to the

stylobate(?) pieces from the Lincoln Memorial (LMP–1 and

LMP–2) (fig. 7). In contrast, the texture of the sample from

a crumbling antefix at the memorial is very similar to the

texture of the Colorado Golden Vein grade samples (lowest

grade) and of the disaggregated sample from the quarry

dump (fig. 8).

MINERAL PHASES AND COMPOSITIONS

Acid dissolution and staining tests described by Knopf

(1949) showed that the Colorado Yule marble is practically

a pure calcite marble with very few inclusions of other

minerals. Whole-rock chemical analyses of the marble

given in table 1 demonstrate the purity of the marble. Thill

500

400

300

200

100

0

SSS SS CGVS CGV+GV LMP ANTEFIX CYMR

GRAIN SIZE (MICROMETERS)

TYPE OF SAMPLE

(LM0713–1)

Figure 5. Average calcite grain sizes in longest dimension

measured for each type of Colorado Yule marble sample. Sample

types are explained in table 2; grain size ranges are given in

table 4.

Figure 4. Backscattered electron image of a polished thin section showing calcite texture in the

Snowmass Statuary Select sample of the Colorado Yule marble. The irregular shapes of the grains

and the range of grain sizes in one area are fairly typical of this marble. “Micron” is another name

for micrometer.
MINERALOGIC AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 9

200

150

100

50

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

NUMBER OF GRAINS MEASURED

GRAIN SIZE (MICROMETERS)

SSS SS CGVS CGV+GV

A

Antefix (LM0713–1) LMP Quarry dump (CYMR)

200

150

100

50

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

NUMBER OF GRAINS MEASURED

GRAIN SIZE (MICROMETERS)

B

200

150

100

50

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

NUMBER OF GRAINS MEASURED

GRAIN SIZE (MICROMETERS)

CGVS LMP CGV+GV Quarry dump (CYMR) Antefix (LM0713–1)

200

150

100

50

0

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

NUMBER OF GRAINS MEASURED

GRAIN SIZE (MICROMETERS)

Table 4. Calcite grain sizes (in micrometers) in Colorado Yule marble samples.

[Avg = average, Min = minimum, Max = maximum, # grns = number of grains. Grain sizes were measured on scanning 

electron microscope images]

Type of sample

(table 2) Avg Min Max # grns

Snowmass Statuary Select (SSS) --------- 281 52 971 358

Snowmass Statuary (SS) ------------------- 389 63 1180 288

Colorado Golden Vein Select (CGVS)--- 311 58 1006 386

Colorado Golden Vein (CGV+GV) ------ 264 44 738 271

Lincoln Memorial pieces (LMP)--------- 305 62 1039 550

Lincoln Memorial antefix (LM0713) ---- 230 52 719 230

Quarry dump (CYMR)--------------------- 289 46 1390 508

Figure 6. Calcite grain size distribution in the Colorado Yule marble in (A) graded samples and (B) samples from the Lincoln Memorial

and from the Colorado Yule quarry dump. Sample types are explained in table 2; grain size data are given in table 4.

Figure 7. The calcite grain size distribution for the Colorado

Golden Vein Select grade sample (CGVS from fig. 6A) is similar

to the grain size distribution for the Lincoln Memorial pieces

(LMP from fig. 6B).

Figure 8. The calcite grain size distributions for the Colorado

Golden Vein grade (CGV + GV from fig. 6A), the Lincoln

Memorial antefix (from fig. 6B), and the quarry dump samples

(from fig. 6B) are similar to one another.
10 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL

and others (1969) reported that a 1,000-point-count modal

analysis of the Yule marble showed it to be 99 percent

calcite and 1 percent accessory minerals by volume. The

accessory minerals reported by Thill and others (1969)

differ slightly from the inclusion phases identified in the

samples for this study. However, Thill and others did not

provide any more details about the sample or about the

methods used for mineral identification.

Samples examined for this study—in hand specimen

and in thin sections made from recently quarried samples of

the marble and from pieces in the Lincoln Memorial—show

that the Yule marble is predominantly composed of white

calcite. The most common inclusion in the marble is quartz.

Minor inclusions include muscovite, phlogopite, feldspar,

pyrite, sphene, apatite, zircon, and rutile. In inclusion-rich

samples of the marble, such as those from the Colorado

Golden Vein Select and Colorado Golden Vein grades, the

inclusions commonly occur in clusters (fig. 9) and, with the

exception of some quartz grains, are finer grained than the

calcite.

The calcite (CaCO3) in the Yule marble is nearly pure

calcium carbonate (table 5). It does not vary significantly

among the four grades of marble (table 6). The compositions of the calcite grains in samples from the antefix, stylobate(?), and quarry dump are also very similar to the

compositions in the graded marble samples. Minor constituents determined in the calcite include MgO, MnO, FeO, and

SrO; all are present in amounts less than 0.5 weight percent

(tables 5 and 6). There is no correlation between the grade

of the marble and the presence or amount of the minor constituents in the calcite.

Quartz (SiO2) is the most abundant inclusion in these

samples of the Yule marble. The quartz occurs as rounded

grains in clusters with other phases or in clusters of quartz

grains (fig. 10). The quartz grains range in diameter from 7

to 400 micrometers. Electron microprobe analyses of quartz

inclusions in samples of the Yule marble show that the

quartz is nearly pure SiO2 (tables 7 and 8). Quartz in the

Colorado Golden Vein samples appears to be purer than

quartz in the Colorado Golden Vein Select samples (table

8). However, this slight trend may arise because the quartz

grains analyzed in the Select grade sample are smaller and

commonly occur with other (usually mica) phases, whereas

the quartz grains analyzed in the standard Golden Vein samples are generally larger, more isolated grains. Weathered

quartz inclusions occur as rounded, translucent gray grains

that may be slightly raised compared to the surrounding calcite (fig. 11A). Some quartz inclusions form lines or veins,

where they appear as clusters of small rounded grains (fig.

11B). Vanderwilt (1937) reported that the crystal grade of

the Yule marble was not marketed after 1936 because it contained a quantity of chert that occurred in thin streaks; by

that time, studies had shown that the chert weathered to an

unacceptable, dark-gray color. It is probable that some of

the quartz that occurs as distinct, dull-gray, rounded grains

in the stone at the Lincoln Memorial corresponds to the

chert described by Vanderwilt.

Mica inclusions occur as thin gold to brown lines and

streaks, and they also occur with quartz in clouds of gray

mixed with brown. Individual, isolated grains of mica are

rare in the Colorado Golden Vein and Colorado Golden Vein

Select samples. The mica grains range from 10 to 151

micrometers in the longest dimension; they average about

50 micrometers in length. Rare inclusions of mica in the

Snowmass Statuary grades occur in thin lines or as small

clusters of two to three grains. 

Most of the mica grains in the Yule samples of this

study are muscovite, but some phlogopite has also been

found. Muscovite in the samples is close to the ideal composition for muscovite—K2Al4Si6Al2O20(OH,F)4— but it contains small amounts (typically 0.5–2.0 weight percent) of

MgO (tables 7 and 8). Trace amounts of a calcium oxide

component detected in the muscovites (tables 7 and 8) may

come from simultaneous analysis of the adjacent calcite. A

comparison of muscovites in the two grades of Colorado

Golden Vein samples shows that muscovites in the Golden

Vein samples contain slightly higher amounts of MgO, CaO,

and Na2O than muscovites in the Golden Vein Select grade

samples (table 8). 

Mica inclusions in the marble at the Lincoln Memorial

do not have any distinctive weathering features. On a small

scale, the area around inclusion streaks may be rougher with

more relief in the calcite because of the loss of small flakes

of mica. However, for the most part, the weathering of the

mica inclusions at the Lincoln Memorial is not as noticeable

as the weathering of other, larger, more isolated inclusion

phases such as feldspar and quartz.

Feldspar inclusions are present in the Colorado Golden

Vein samples. They are intergrown in clusters with muscovite, quartz, and sphene (fig. 9), but they are not major constituents of these samples. Typical feldspar grains in the

polished sections studied are from 20 to 80 micrometers in

length; however, there are some rather large (1.5–3.5 cm)

feldspar inclusions at the Lincoln Memorial (fig. 12A).

Potassium-, sodium-, and calcium-bearing feldspars have all

been found in the samples (tables 7 and 8). Calcium feldspar

occurs as larger grains and appears to be slightly more abundant than the other two feldspars, but this relative abundance

has not been determined statistically. In addition to its size,

weathered feldspar is quite noticeable in some areas of the

Lincoln Memorial (fig. 12B) because it is typically white to

gray and is raised relative to the surrounding calcite. Weathered feldspar appears blocky, and gray feldspar grains are

less translucent than quartz inclusions. Although some feldspar occurrences stand out, feldspar is a less common inclusion than quartz in the Lincoln Memorial stone.

Text continues on page 17.
MINERALOGIC AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 11

Figure 9. Backscattered electron image of an inclusion cluster in a polished thin section of the

Colorado Golden Vein sample of the Colorado Yule marble. This image shows the mineral phases as

shades of gray that reflect their average atomic weight. Ap = apatite, Fsp = feldspar, Mic = mica,

Qtz = quartz, Sphn = sphene.

Table 5. Representative microprobe analyses of calcite in Colorado Yule marble samples.

[SSS = Snowmass Statuary Select; SS = Snowmass Statuary; CGVS = Colorado Golden Vein Select; CGV+GV = Colorado Golden Vein;

LM0713 = sample from crumbling antefix at Lincoln Memorial; LMP = piece from stylobate(?) at Lincoln Memorial; CYMR = crumbling piece of poor-quality marble from quarry dump. Carbon dioxide (CO2) was determined by difference and stoichiometry]

SSS SS CGVS CGV 

+GV LM0713 LMP CYMR

Major oxides in weight percent

CaO------ 55.60 56.55 55.83 55.99 55.90 55.68 55.96

MgO----- .05 .06 .08 .08 .07 .06 .03

MnO----- .00 .02 .03 .05 .07 .10 .14

FeO ------ .00 .00 .02 .03 .01 .06 .01

SrO ------ .00 .03 .00 .00 .04 .00 .01

CO2 ------ 44.35 43.35 44.03 43.85 43.91 44.10 43.85

Number of atoms

Ca-------- 0.988 1.015 0.995 1.000 0.998 0.992 0.999

Mg ------- .001 .001 .002 .002 .002 .002 .001

Mn ------- .000 .000 .000 .001 .001 .001 .002

Fe -------- .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .001 .000

Sr -------- .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

C --------- 1.005 .992 1.001 .999 .999 1.002 .999

Sum---- 1.995 2.008 1.999 2.001 2.001 1.998 2.001
12 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL

Table 6. Compositions of calcite in Colorado Yule marble samples.

[Avg = average, Min = minimum, Max = maximum, Sdv = standard deviation. Number in parentheses is the number of electron

microprobe analyses of the sample. Compositions are in weight percent]

Snowmass Statuary Select, SSS (25) Snowmass Statuary, SS (17)

Avg Min Max Sdv Avg Min Max Sdv

CaO--------- 56.28 55.37 56.79 0.361 56.43 55.64 56.82 0.303

MgO -------- .06 .01 .09 .019 .06 .01 .12 .026

MnO -------- .03 .00 .14 .041 .02 .00 .12 .033

FeO --------- .02 .00 .16 .042 .02 .00 .05 .020

SrO --------- .00 .00 .03 .007 .01 .00 .04 .012

CO2 --------- 43.60 43.05 44.44 .366 43.47 43.08 44.35 .315

Colorado Golden Vein Select, CGVS (49) Colorado Golden Vein, CGV+GV (64)

Avg Min Max Sdv Avg Min Max Sdv

CaO--------- 56.32 54.92 56.82 0.393 56.15 55.12 56.83 0.456

MgO -------- .06 .01 .11 .022 .11 .01 .33 .052

MnO -------- .06 .00 .41 .096 .06 .00 .40 .076

FeO --------- .02 .00 .21 .040 .04 .00 .16 .043

SrO --------- .01 .00 .08 .020 .01 .00 .07 .017

CO2 --------- 43.52 43.04 44.64 .355 43.64 43.07 44.63 .446

Lincoln Memorial antefix, LM0713 (24) Lincoln Memorial stylobate(?), LMP (39)

Avg Min Max Sdv Avg Min Max Sdv

CaO--------- 55.82 54.82 56.84 0.612 56.31 55.52 56.81 0.412

MgO -------- .08 .01 .13 .032 .05 .02 .09 .017

MnO -------- .03 .00 .12 .042 .08 .00 .37 .110

FeO --------- .02 .00 .18 .040 .02 .00 .14 .033

SrO --------- .02 .00 .07 .023 .01 .00 .07 .019

CO2 --------- 44.03 43.08 44.88 .565 43.52 43.06 44.41 .372

Quarry dump, CYMR (43)

Avg Min Max Sdv

CaO--------- 55.77 55.15 56.63 0.420

MgO -------- .05 .02 .13 .020

MnO -------- .06 .00 .22 .072

FeO --------- .03 .00 .17 .041

SrO --------- .01 .00 .12 .022

CO2 --------- 44.07 43.16 44.79 .407

Figure 10. Backscattered electron image of clusters of quartz inclusions in a polished thin section

of the Colorado Golden Vein sample of the Colorado Yule marble. This image shows the mineral

phases as shades of gray that reflect their average atomic weight. Dark gray = quartz, medium dark

gray = mica, medium light gray = feldspar, lightest gray = calcite, white = oxides and (or) sulfides.
MINERALOGIC AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 13

Quartz

GV CGVS

Major oxides and F, in weight percent

SiO2 ----------------- 99.40 98.82

Al2O3 ------------ .00 .00

CaO -------------- .01 .10

K2O -------------- .00 .01

Na2O------------- .00 .00

MgO ------------- .00 .00

FeO -------------- .01 .07

BaO -------------- .03 ---

MnO ------------- --- .03

TiO2-------------- --- .01

F------------------ --- .00

 Total----------- 99.46 99.05

Number of atoms

Si ----------------- 3.999 3.996

Al ---------------- .000 .000

Ca ---------------- .001 .004

K ----------------- .000 .001

Na ---------------- .000 .000

Mg --------------- .000 .000

Fe ---------------- .000 .002

Ba ---------------- .000 ---

Mn --------------- --- .001

Ti ----------------- --- .000

F------------------ --- .000

 Sum ----------- 4.001 4.004

Table 7. Representative microprobe analyses of inclusion minerals in Colorado Yule marble samples.

[GV = Colorado Golden Vein grade; CGVS = Colorado Golden Vein Select grade; SS = Snowmass Statuary grade; LMP = Lincoln

Memorial stylobate(?) piece; calc = calculated; cat = cation; fsp = feldspar (K-rich, Na-rich, or Ca-rich); ox = oxide. Totals may

appear inexact because of rounding]

Muscovite (mica)

GV CGVS

Major oxides and F, in weight percent

SiO2 ----------------- 47.35 46.47

Al2O3 --------------- 36.12 36.52

MgO ------------- .48 .39

CaO-------------- .21 .19

FeO -------------- .06 .02

MnO ------------- .04 .00

TiO2 ----------------- .15 .17

K2O -------------- 9.81 10.32

Na2O------------- .22 .20

F------------------ .00 .02

Total ----------- 94.43 94.28

Number of atoms

Si----------------- 6.269 6.187

Al ---------------- 5.629 5.724

Mg --------------- .094 .076

Ca ---------------- .030 .028

Fe ---------------- .007 .002

Mn --------------- .005 .000

Ti----------------- .014 .017

K ----------------- 1.653 1.749

Na---------------- .057 .051

F------------------ .000 .008

OH calc --------- 4.000 3.992

H2O calc -------- 4.532 4.497

F=O-------------- .000 .008

Ox sum-------- 98.97 98.77

Cat sum ------ 13.757 13.834

Feldspar—GV

K-fsp Na-fsp Ca-fsp

Major oxides and F, in weight percent

SiO2 -------- 64.96 67.61 49.68

Al2O3------- 18.65 20.59 32.61

CaO -------- .08 1.01 14.88

K2O--------- 15.56 .18 .09 

Na2O ------- .53 11.38 2.92

MgO-------- .00 .04 .01

FeO--------- .02 .00 .01

BaO -------- .16 .02 ---

MnO-------- --- --- .04

TiO2 -------- --- --- .03

F ------------ --- --- .06

Total------ 99.96 100.83 100.30

Number of atoms

Si ----------- 2.997 2.942 2.260

Al ----------- 1.013 1.055 1.746

Ca----------- .004 .047 .724

K------------ .914 .010 .005

Na ---------- .047 .958 .257

Mg---------- .000 .003 .001

Fe ----------- .001 .000 .000

Ba----------- .003 .000 ---

Mn---------- --- --- .000

Ti ----------- --- --- .001

F ------------ --- --- .008

Sum ------ 4.978 5.015 5.005

Pyrite

GV CGVS SS LMP

Elements, in weight percent

Fe --------- 46.80 46.59 46.13 46.58

Co--------- .08 .15 .33 .10

Ni --------- .08 .31 .23 .07

Cu--------- .00 .01 .04 .00

Zn--------- .00 .00 .00 .00

Pb --------- .14 .22 .36 .13

S----------- 53.85 53.90 53.59 53.84

 Total ---- 100.95 101.17 100.67 100.71

Sphalerite Galena

GV GV LMP

Elements, in weight percent

Fe------------ 2.50 3.15 0.08

Co ----------- .00 .01 .01

Ni------------ .02 .04 .01

Cu ----------- .02 .09 .02

Zn ----------- 63.44 .00 .00

Pb------------ .03 81.34 86.49

S ------------- 32.52 14.21 13.49

 Total------ 98.53 98.84 100.10
14 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL

Table 8. Compositions of inclusion minerals in Colorado Yule marble samples.

[Avg = average, Min = minimum, Max = maximum. CGVS = Colorado Golden Vein Select grade; SS = Snowmass Statuary grade; LMP = Lincoln Memorial stylobate(?) piece. Number in parentheses is the number of electron microprobe analyses of the sample. Ranges are not shown

for small groups of analyses. Dashes (---) indicate not analyzed]

 Feldspars: Colorado Golden Vein 

K-fsp (3) Na-fsp (2) Ca-fsp (7)

 SiO2 ----------- 64.56 68.07 50.99

 Al2O3---------- 18.84 20.61 31.26

 CaO ----------- .21 .99 13.46

 K2O ----------- 15.34 .14 .60

 Na2O ---------- .55 11.41 3.17

 MgO ---------- .00 .03 .01

 FeO ----------- .02 .00 .01

 BaO ----------- .16 .04 ---

 MnO ---------- --- --- .02

 TiO2 ----------- --- --- .01

 F --------------- --- --- .04

Quartz

Colorado Golden Vein (10) Colorado Golden Vein Select (6)

Avg Min Max Avg Min Max

SiO2 --------- 99.30 98.28 99.95 98.43 98.19 98.82

Al2O3 ----- .02 .00 .06 .16 .00 .47

CaO ------ .04 .00 .14 .12 .02 .20

K2O------- .00 .00 .01 .05 .00 .13

Na2O ----- .00 .00 .01 .00 .00 .00

MgO------ .00 .00 .01 .01 .00 .02

FeO------- .01 .00 .04 .03 .00 .07

BaO ------ .02 .00 .05 .00 .00 .00

MnO------ --- --- --- .02 .00 .06

TiO2 ------ --- --- --- .04 .00 .18

F ---------- --- --- --- .04 .00 .10

Muscovites (micas)

Colorado Golden Vein (42) Colorado Golden Vein Select (16)

Avg Min Max Avg Min Max

 SiO2 ------ 47.56 45.68 51.43 47.15 46.28 48.04

 Al2O3----- 35.85 28.51 37.66 37.12 36.15 38.19

 MgO ----- .98 .30 3.07 .41 .15 .61

 CaO ------ .29 .04 1.15 .19 .05 .39

 FeO ------ .09 .00 .27 .02 .00 .06

 MnO ----- .01 .00 .05 .01 .00 .04

 TiO2 ------ .09 .00 .37 .07 .00 .17

 K2O ------ 9.91 8.50 10.70 10.06 9.53 10.43

 Na2O ----- .22 .02 .91 .17 .12 .31

 F ---------- .07 .00 .25 .06 .00 .21

Pyrites

Colorado Golden Vein (35) CGVS (3) SS (3) LMP (17)

Avg Min Max Avg Avg Avg Min Max

Fe--------- 46.92 45.08 47.82 46.28 46.57 47.06 46.38 47.75

Co -------- .13 .05 .68 .31 .22 .09 .06 .13

Ni--------- .15 .00 .54 .26 .12 .06 .00 .16

Cu -------- .01 .00 .05 .00 .02 .02 .00 .06

Zn -------- .01 .00 .07 .00 .00 .00 .00 .02

Pb -------- .21 .00 1.40 .27 .29 .12 .00 .37

S ---------- 54.00 53.20 54.47 53.79 53.63 53.85 53.58 54.25
MINERALOGIC AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 15

Figure 11. Weathered quartz inclusions in the Colorado Yule marble. A, Typical occurrence of

large, fairly isolated quartz grains (in the Colorado National Bank, Denver, Colo.). B, Small quartz

grains may be clustered, appearing as a vein in the marble (darker gray areas at the lower right of the

photograph; in the Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C.).
16 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL

Figure 12. Large feldspar inclusions at the Lincoln Memorial (A) in a column shaft and (B) on the

roof parapet; note how the feldspar stands above the surrounding calcite.
MINERALOGIC AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 17

Pyrite, sphene, apatite, rutile, zircon, and sphalerite all

occur as minor inclusions in the marble. With the exception

of pyrite, which ranges in size from about 20 to 160

micrometers, these inclusions are small (typically about 10

micrometers). Rutile, zircon, and apatite are minor inclusions visible in polished sections of the marble but not

noticeable on weathered surfaces in buildings. Apatite is the

most common of these minor inclusions; it occurs as part of

the inclusion-rich clusters in the Colorado Golden Vein

samples, along with quartz, mica, and occasional feldspar

(fig. 9). Sphene, which is mostly noticeable in thin sections

of the marble, also occurs in the clusters of quartz, mica,

and feldspar in the Golden Vein samples (fig. 9). Typically,

pyrite and sphalerite inclusions occur in small groups of a

few isolated grains (fig. 13). The composition of the pyrite

in the samples studied is variable but within the usual range

for this sulfide (tables 7 and 8). At the Lincoln Memorial,

where they have weathered, sphalerite and pyrite are quite

noticeable compared to the surrounding white calcite. The

exposed sphalerite surfaces have a reddish-brown rusty

appearance (dark grain in fig. 13), the pyrite has a

golden-metallic appearance, and both of these inclusions are

raised compared to the surrounding calcite.

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS

Results from a number of physical tests of the Colorado Yule marble have been reported in the literature (table

9). Initially, tests were conducted on the marble as part of

the selection process for marbles submitted to the Lincoln

Memorial Commission (Stratton, 1913b; Bureau of Standards, 1914a). Additional tests were conducted on the Yule

marble after questions about its quality and durability were

raised when it was selected for use in the Lincoln Memorial

(Bureau of Standards, 1914b). Later, because of its purity

and homogeneous texture, the Yule marble was used in a

number of experiments, especially those conducted to

understand physical properties of rocks (Balsley, 1941;

Knopf, 1949; Griggs and Miller, 1951; Rosenholtz and

Smith, 1951). 

For discussion, the physical tests conducted on the

Yule marble can be divided into three categories: general

physical characteristics, strength characteristics, and

weathering or durability characteristics. General physical

characteristics describe attributes of the marble including

the weight, hardness, specific gravity, porosity, absorption,

and coefficient of thermal expansion (table 9A). Strength

characteristics are determined by various loading tests that

are applied to the stone to see how well the stone withstands

applied forces (table 9B). Weathering or durability

characteristics are determined by tests conducted to assess

the long-term durability of the stone when it is exposed to

environmental conditions such as temperature changes and

pollutants (table 9C). Because the tests reported in table 9

were performed in slightly different manners (see notes in

the table), direct comparison of the test results is difficult.

However, the results do give a general picture of the stone’s

characteristics. 

Of great interest in this study is how the Yule marble

compares with other marbles. A second important aspect is

whether the tests might have indicated a weakness that we

now see in the long-term durability of the marble. The Lincoln Memorial Commission had the Bureau of Standards

perform a number of tests on the candidate stones (Bureau

of Standards, 1914a). Comparisons of physical properties of

dimension stone have also been reported in the literature

(Kessler, 1919; Griffith, 1937). Unfortunately, the Yule marble was not among the 50 marbles tested by Kessler, and,

although Griffith included the Yule marble, he did not have

results for strength or durability tests of the Yule. To see

how the Yule compares with other marbles being quarried

and used in 1914, average physical measurements for the

Yule marble are compared in table 10 with measurements

for commercial marbles tested by Kessler (1919). Measurements made on some of the chief competitors of the Yule,

marbles from Vermont, Georgia, and Alabama, are also

shown in table 10. 

The general physical properties of the Yule marble are

similar to those of other marbles, but both the compressive

strength and the transverse strength of the Yule are lower

than those properties in most of the other marbles tested

(table 10). The low strength values on the Yule may arise

because the tests on the Yule did not specify whether they

were made with the grain or perpendicular to the grain of

the marble. Even allowing for the uncertainty of the grain

direction, the Yule appears to have lower strengths than

most other marbles. However, the strength values for the

Yule marble are not unreasonably low. For ordinary uses,

stone that has a compressive strength of 5,000 lb/in2

 is satisfactory (Bowles, 1939). In its report to the Lincoln Memorial Commission, the Bureau of Standards concluded that

none of the marbles tested for the commission were structurally unsound (Bureau of Standards, 1914a). Kessler

(1919) pointed out that even though few stones have compressive strengths that are too low, other factors in a structure, such as uneven loads, expansion of water in pores

during freezing, and vibrations, may reduce the strength of

the stone. The strength values of the Yule marble are likely

to be significant to the Lincoln Memorial only if they influence the durability of the marble. 

Several tests by the Bureau of Standards (1914a) and

by Merrill (1915) manipulated samples of marble to determine if a prediction might be made about the durability of

the marble. In these tests, loss of strength was evaluated

after the marble was subjected to cycles of freezing, depth

of penetration of a staining solution was estimated, and

weight loss was measured after the marble was suspended in

an acid solution for an extended period (table 9C). Compared with the other marbles tested, the Yule showed a
18 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL

Figure 13. Sphalerite inclusion (dark grain) at the Lincoln Memorial occurs as an isolated grain

with a rusty-brown surface. On weathered surfaces, sphalerite stands higher than the surrounding

calcite.

Table 9. General physical characteristics, strength characteristics, and durability characteristics of the Colorado Yule marble.

[Dashes (---) indicate no data available]

SOURCE OF DATA

1. Griffith (1937, table 1, p. 12): * Griffith reported pores = 0.45 percent and solids = 99.5 percent. The coefficient of thermal expansion was determined

from room temperature to 212°F on a sample 1/2 inch square by 4 inches long.

2. Bureau of Standards (1914a): Weight was given in description of samples, p. 2. Absorption was measured on 2-inch-square pieces cut from the sample

slabs; the value above is the average of eight total test results; the range of values was 0.086 to 0.123 percent. For comparison, absorption values are presented as percentages; referenced source reported them as a ratio (for example, 0.00103).

3. Merrill (1914, p. 16): Specific gravity test information was provided with analysis of sample made by A.W. Smith, Case School of Applied Science,

Cleveland, Ohio, October 22, 1907. Absorption tests are reported from Bureau of Standards test No. 14234 dated November 3, 1913; the value above is

the average of results of three tests on 3-inch cubes; the range of absorption ratios was 0.00061 to 0.00076. For comparison, absorption values are presented as percentages; referenced source reported them as a ratio (for example, 0.00103).

4. Knopf (1949, p. 440): No information was provided about how porosity data were obtained.

5. Stratton (1913b): The absorption ratio was obtained by the Bureau of Standards on five samples by using 3-inch cubes. Ratio range of 0.00061 to

0.00076 was reported, but no other values or average was reported.

6. Stratton (1913a, includes Bureau of Standards certificate for Colorado Yule marble, Test No. 14374, November 11, 1913): Absorption tests on 3-inch

cubes yielded ratios of 0.00072 and 0.00075.

7. Vanderwilt (1937, p. 162): In addition to showing data that were published elsewhere (for example, Merrill, 1914), Vanderwilt reported the average

result from absorption tests made on three polished 2-inch cubes.

8. Colorado Yule Marble Company (1996): The information sheet states that all tests were performed to American Standards of Tests and Measurements

[sic] criteria.

A. General Physical Characteristics

12345678

Weight (lb/ft3

) ----------------------- 168.7 170 --- --- --- --- --- 169.2

Hardness (Shore number)---------- 38.3 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Specific gravity---------------------- --- --- 2.711 --- --- --- --- 2.714

True specific gravity ---------- 2.72 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Apparent specific gravity ---- 2.70 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Porosity (percent) ------------------- * --- --- 0.15 --- --- --- ---

Absorption (percent) --------------- 0.19 0.103 0.067 --- 0.061 0.072 0.13 0.16

Coefficient of thermal expansion - 38 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
MINERALOGIC AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS 19

Table 9. General physical characteristics, strength characteristics, and durability characteristics of the Colorado Yule marble—Continued.

B. Strength Characteristics

[In the literature cited below, different terms are used for some of the tests. These include the following: crushing strength = ultimate strength, compressive

strength; modulus of rupture = transverse test, cross-breaking test; modulus of elasticity = Young’s modulus]

a Modulus of elasticity values in columns 3a and 3b are in pounds per square inch (lb/in2), as reported by Lepper (1949). b Modulus of elasticity values in columns 4a and 4b are in kilograms per square centimeter (kg/cm2), as reported by Knopf (1949). A conversion indicates that 4.01×105

 kg/

cm2 ~ 57×105 lb/in2 and that 3.84×105 kg/cm2 ~ 55×105 lb/in2.

SOURCE OF DATA

1. Stratton (1913b): The above value is the average of results obtained by the Bureau of Standards for “ultimate strength” of two samples (6,256 and 7,133 lb/in2); tests were

made on 3-inch cubes.

2. Merrill (1914, table on p. 16): Compression test and cross-breaking test data were supplied by Milo S. Ketcham, C.E., Dean, University of Colorado. Four samples were

tested in each test. Compression (crushing strength) was measured on 2-inch cubes; the range of values was 9,630 to 10,990 lb/in2. Cross-breaking strength (modulus of rupture) was measured on samples 6×2×2 inches; the range of values was 970 to 1,100 lb/in2. 

3. Lepper (1949, p. 573): Tests were made on four samples 1×1×2 inches. Results shown are averages for two types of measurements: a–Load applied parallel to the grain of

the marble (crushing strength = 5,810 and 7,710 lb/in2; modulus of elasticity = 83.4×105 and 90.0×105 lb/in2); b–Load applied perpendicular to the grain of the marble (crushing strength = 11,120 and 10,350 lb/in2; modulus of elasticity = 54.2×105 and 58.5×105 lb/in2). Grain is the plane of easiest splitting; the grain direction coincides with the

longest axis of ellipsoidal calcite grains in the marble.

4. Knopf (1949, p. 440–441): Data were reported from other sources, but no published references were given. Crushing strength: a–From Griggs and Bell on a cylinder

1 inch×1/2 inch with length parallel to the grain of the calcite; b–Quote from Bain, “in a direction normal to the ‘grain’ the strength could be 8000 psi [lb/in2].” Modulus of

elasticity (Young's modulus) results were quoted from Bain data with no information about sample size: a–Force parallel to veining; b–Force perpendicular to veining.

5. Bureau of Standards (1914a): Twelve samples were measured in the tests; average measurements are shown above. Crushing tests were made on 2-inch-square pieces cut

from the slabs (height approximately 0.9 inch); the range of values was 6,887 to 7,893 lb/in2. Modulus of rupture tests (transverse tests) were made on 12 samples,

14×2 inches, cut from the slabs, with a span of 10 inches in the tests; the range of values was 1,130 to 1,350 lb/in2.

6. Bureau of Standards (1914b): Load was measured on the bed faces of eight 9-inch cubes; three cubes were polished, and five were unpolished. The range of values obtained

was 8,557 to 10,842 lb/in2; there is no particular correlation between strength and whether the sample was polished.

7. Vanderwilt (1937, p. 161): Vanderwilt cited data supplied by the National Bureau of Standards in connection with the Lincoln Memorial from a letter to G.F. Loughlin (U.S.

Geological Survey) dated May 26, 1936. Crushing tests (compressive strength tests) were made on pieces 2×2×7/8 inch (load applied to 2-inch-square faces); reported value

is average of 12 test results. Modulus of rupture tests were made on pieces 12×2×7/8 inch; the reported value is the average of four test results.

8. Colorado Yule Marble Company (1996): The information sheet states that all tests were performed to American Standards of Tests and Measurements [sic] criteria.

C. Durability Characteristics

Loss of Crushing Strength after Freezing (Bureau of Standards, 1914a):

Two-inch-square samples from test slabs were treated, and crushing strengths before and after treatment were compared. Treatment: alternate freezing

(16 hr) and boiling (8 hr) for 9 successive days. Twelve samples were tested, and average loss of strength in crushing tests was 10.9 percent.

Stain Penetration (Bureau of Standards 1914a):

Four samples, about 1 inch square by 2 inches high, were dried, coated with paraffin 1/2 inch above the base, and placed in a dish with a highly colored

aqueous solution of eosin, about 1/8 inch deep. After 7 days, an estimate was made of how high the stain had risen in the four samples. Out of 12 samples, the 4 Yule marble samples were rated as 4, 7, 8, and 10 on a scale where 12 was the greatest penetration and 1 the least. A value for the four Yule

marble samples tested was reported as 1.25 inches.

Weight Loss in Carbonic Acid (Merrill, 1915):

One-inch cubes of marble with smoothed (but not polished) sides were suspended by threads in water kept acid by a carbonic acid stream. Some samples were weighed after 70 days, and other samples were weighed after 3 months. For the two time periods, the Yule marble samples experienced

0.0097 and 0.019 percent weight loss, respectively. The average weight loss for all marbles tested was 0.0083 and 0.0142 percent for the two time

periods.

Thermal Expansion (Rosenholtz and Smith, 1949):

Thermal expansion of three orientations of samples was measured from 20°C to 700°C. The elongation determined for each type of sample is given

below:

1 2 3a 3b 4a 4b 5 6 7 8

Crushing strength (lb/in2

) ---- 6,694 10,195 6,760 10,735 4,220 8,000 7,550 9,785 7,600 14,847

 Modulus of rupture (lb/in2) -- --- 1,030 --- --- --- --- 1,244 --- 1,200 1,374

 Modulus of elasticity (multiply 

each result by 105; units are 

in footnotes)---------------- --- --- 86.7a 56.4a 4.01b 3.84b --- --- --- ---

Orientation Elongation (percent)

Parallel maximum concentration of c-axes of calcite (E-W) --------------------------------------------------- 1.02

Perpendicular maximum concentration of c-axes of calcite (N-S)--------------------------------------------- .50

Perpendicular maximum concentration of c-axes of calcite (vertical)----------------------------------------- .71
20 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL

greater loss in strength, about the same amount of stain penetration, and slightly greater weight loss after exposure to

carbonic acid (tables 10 and 9C). None of the marbles submitted to the Lincoln Memorial Commission varies significantly from the others in the test results.

SELECTION OF THE YULE MARBLE FOR 

THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL

The selection of a white marble to be used for the exterior of the Lincoln Memorial was a competitive process.

Companies submitted samples of marble and bids to the

Lincoln Memorial Commission, which was charged with

making a selection. Five marbles were submitted for consideration for the exterior of the memorial (Bacon, 1913):

Cherokee marble from Georgia, Dorset White marble from

Vermont, Southern marble from Georgia, Amicalola marble

from Georgia, and Colorado Yule marble from Colorado.

However, Henry Bacon, the architect of the memorial,

thought only three were worthy of consideration, and he

preferred the Colorado Yule because it was “immeasurably

superior” to the other marbles (Bacon, 1913).

In 1913, the Colorado Yule marble was relatively

unknown because the quarry had only recently opened and,

in contrast to the marbles from Georgia and Vermont, the

Yule had been used in only a few buildings. Objections to

the selection of the Colorado Yule marble for the Lincoln

Memorial centered on three main issues: (1) whether the

relatively new (and remote) quarry would be able to provide

the quality and quantity of stone that would be required; (2)

whether the marble was sound and acceptable for exterior

use; and (3) whether this relatively unknown marble was as

durable as other, better known marbles. Copies of letters

Table 10. General physical characteristics, strength characteristics, and durability characteristics of commercial marbles tested by

Kessler (1919) compared with average values for the Colorado Yule marble (from table 9) and with data for five marbles tested for the

Lincoln Memorial Commission (Bureau of Standards, 1914a).

[Min=minimum; Max=maximum; Avg=average calculated for this report. Dashes indicate no data available] 

Marble Weight

(lb/ft3)

Specific gravity Porosity

(percent)

Absorption

Apparent True (weight percent)

Ranges and averages calculated from data given by Kessler (1919)

Entire set of 50 marbles Min 165.2 2.643 2.718 0.40 0.016

Max 178.9 2.863 2.879 2.09 .452

Avg 171.3 2.740 2.760 .61 .113

Vermont marbles-------- Min 168.8 2.700 2.721 .40 .030

Max 177.7 2.844 2.739 .77 .201

Avg 170.7 2.731 2.727 .51 .119

Georgia marbles -------- Min 169.1 2.705 2.722 .40 .085

Max 170.4 2.726 2.742 .84 .131

Avg 169.8 2.716 2.731 .54 .104

Alabama marbles ------- Min 169.9 2.718 2.732 .44 .059

Max 170.1 2.721 2.733 .51 .079

Avg 170.0 2.720 2.733 .48 .069

Individual values from Kessler (1919)

Dorset, Vt------------------- 169.2 2.708 -- -- 0.134

Etowah, Ga ----------------- 170.4 2.726 2.737 0.40 .095

Amicalola, Ga-------------- 169.9 2.719 2.742 .84 .085

Alabama -------------------- 170.1 2.721 2.733 .44 .059

Data averaged from table 9

Yule-------------------------- 169 2.71 -- 0.45* 0.104

Marbles tested for the Lincoln Memorial Commission (Bureau of Standards, 1914a)

East Dorset, Vt------------- -- -- -- -- 0.103

Tate, Ga --------------------- -- -- -- -- .107

Amicalola, Ga-------------- -- -- -- -- .102

Alabama -------------------- -- -- -- -- .093

Yule-------------------------- -- -- -- -- .103
SELECTION OF THE YULE MARBLE FOR THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL 21

from customers who had used the Yule marble were sent to

members of the Lincoln Memorial Commission by the Colorado Yule Marble Company to show that the company had

provided quality stone in a timely fashion (Manning,

1913b). A statement about the marble’s purity, from a Denver chemical laboratory and assay office, was also submitted to the commission to attest that the marble was likely to

resist discoloration or disintegration from weathering (Von

Schultz and Low, 1907; Manning, 1913a). 

Because of reports of cracks (rifts) in two buildings

where the Yule marble had been used in exterior work, in

the Cheesman Memorial and the Post Office in Denver (The

Financial World, 1913), a large portion of the testimony in a

hearing held by the Lincoln Memorial Commission focused

on the issue of the integrity of the marble (Lincoln Memorial Commission, 1913). To address concerns about the Yule

marble, a geologist, George P. Merrill, was sent by Colonel

W.W. Harts (Engineer Officer in charge of Public Grounds,

overseer of the Lincoln Memorial project) to the quarry in

Colorado to examine the stone and assess whether the

quarry would be able to produce the quality and quantity of

marble needed for the project. Merrill reported to Colonel

Harts that the quarry “can be made to yield stone of good

quality of the desired size and in quantity” (Merrill,

1913a,c). Merrill also stated that the chief defect, small rifts,

was limited to certain beds and “can be averted if inspection

is sufficiently severe” (Merrill, 1913b,c). 

After consideration of the testimony and review of

Merrill’s report, the Lincoln Memorial Commission recommended that the Yule marble be used for the memorial

(Vale, 1913). However, because of controversy about the

choice, the selection of the Yule marble for the Lincoln

Table 10. General physical characteristics, strength characteristics, and durability characteristics of commercial marbles tested by

Kessler (1919) compared with average values for the Colorado Yule marble (from table 9) and with data for five marbles tested for the

Lincoln Memorial Commission (Bureau of Standards, 1914a)—Continued.

*From Griffith (1937); similar (derived same way?) to porosity values of Kessler (1919).

Marble

Compressive 

strength (lb/in2) Transverse strength (lb/in2)

Change in compressive 

strength after freezing 

(percent)

Stain 

penetration 

(inches)

On bed On edge

Perpendicular 

to grain

Parallel to 

grain On bed On edge

Ranges and averages calculated from data given by Kessler (1919)

Entire set of 50 marbles ----------Min 9,058 7,850 322 607 -- -- --

Max 50,205 44,470 4,948 3,670 -- -- --

Avg 16,663 15,418 2,186 1,666 –6.1 –6.4 --

Vermont marbles ------ Min 9,058 7,850 322 618 -- -- --

Max 50,205 44,470 2,719 1,858 -- -- --

Avg 15,763 14,891 1,730 1,360 –11.3 –12.7 --

Georgia marbles------- Min 10,144 9,244 1,266 624 -- -- --

Max 11,945 11,908 1,596 1,346 -- -- --

Avg 11,123 10,295 1,455 1,106 –6.4 –14.2 --

Alabama marbles ----- Min 14,744 11,456 2,170 1,740 -- -- --

Max 17,787 11,515 3,442 1,740 -- -- --

Avg 16,266 11,486 2,806 1,740 7.25 29.95 --

Individual values from Kessler (1919)

Dorset, Vt ----------- 9,245 7,850 1,642 934 –5.6 –9.5 --

Etowah, Ga --------- 11,545 10,194 1,520 1,226 –10.6 –15.2 --

Amicalola, Ga ------ 11,012 9,922 1,596 990 23.6 –13.4 --

Alabama------------- 17,787 11,515 3,442 1,740 –5.3 16 --

Data averaged from table 9

Yule ------------------ 7,950 -- 1,200 -- –10.9 -- 1.25

Marbles tested for the Lincoln Memorial Commission (Bureau of Standards, 1914a)

East Dorset, Vt ----- 10,187 -- 1,436 -- –5 -- 1.25

Tate, Ga ------------- 11,296 -- 1,179 -- –11.6 -- 1.85

Amicalola, Ga ------ 8,801 -- 1,419 -- –8.3 -- 1.2

Alabama------------- 11,882 -- 2,040? -- 0 -- .6

Yule ------------------ 7,550 -- 1,244 -- –10.9 -- 1.2
22 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL

Memorial was not finalized for several months (Vale,

1914b; McCollum, 1993). Secretary of War Lindsley Garrison, the authorizing official, delayed announcing that a contract would be made until he had heard additional testimony

regarding the proposed marble selection, received testing

results from the Bureau of Standards, and received a recommendation on the marble selection from the Fine Arts Commission (French, 1914; Redfield, 1914; Vale, 1914a;

McCollum, 1993). An integral part of the decision to use the

Yule marble was the requirement that all of the marble was

to be carefully inspected before it was accepted for installation in the memorial (Lincoln Memorial Commission, 1913;

Taft, 1913).

COLORADO YULE MARBLE IN THE 

LINCOLN MEMORIAL

The Colorado Yule marble was used for all of the exterior marble at the Lincoln Memorial. Many of the marble

blocks were quite large. For example, the column drums

were cut from blocks of marble that weighed 35 tons each

(Kirsch, 1915), and there are 12 drums in each column of

the memorial. All of the marble used in the memorial was

fabricated and carved in Marble, Colo., before it was

shipped to the Lincoln Memorial. The marble pieces were

inspected at the quarry by a superintendent of the Yule Marble Company to make sure that all the stones that were

shipped conformed to the specifications (Baird, 1914a).

Although the government would not inspect the pieces at

the quarry prior to shipping (Harts, 1914a,b), when the marble pieces arrived at the Lincoln Memorial, a government

representative inspected the pieces as they were uncrated

and put into storage (Baird, 1914b). At the beginning of the

project, Colonel Harts (1914a) listed six general criteria that

could cause rejection of a stone: (1) failure to meet color or

veining requirements; (2) flaws that would result in structural weakness or defect of appearance; (3) repairs, patches,

or concealment of defects; (4) improper quarrying so the

stone does not lie on natural quarry beds; (5) improper

matching of adjacent stones, so that appearance is affected;

and (6) incorrect dimensions.

The high standards set for the quality of the marble and

the large quantity of stone required for the Lincoln Memorial project were a challenge for the Colorado Yule Marble

Company. Even at the start of the job, the company was

aware of the very high standards that Harts and Manning

were setting for the stone to be used in the memorial. In

June 1914, Manning (Colorado Yule Marble Company)

wrote that he was setting a standard for the marble that “will

require us to take out of our quarries about 80,000 cubic feet

of stock a month in order to ship 12,000 to 15,000 feet of

finished material on the Lincoln Memorial job” (Manning,

1914). When some of the stones shipped to Washington

were rejected, the George Fuller Company wrote to Colonel

Harts about the difficulty of obtaining perfect stones of such

large sizes, stating “... it is practically impossible to get marble, especially in large sizes, that does not show any seams”

(Baird, 1914d). Harts reminded the Fuller Company that

stones were rejected only if they did not meet the contract

specifications (Harts, 1914d). Harts also later reiterated his

position that “... the contract does not specify that the marble furnished shall be the best which any particular quarry

may be capable of producing, but that it shall be equal to a

certain standard established before the contract was entered

into” (Harts, 1915). 

Many stones were rejected at the quarry. Sometimes

less than 10 percent of the stone that was quarried was

shipped to the Lincoln Memorial job site (Manning, 1915a).

Manning also wrote (1915a) that the Colorado Yule Marble

Company had quarried six times for cheek pieces and was

able to ship only four out of six pieces. Apparently, Manning felt that some of this high rejection rate was unnecessary because of the very high standards that were set. He

wrote to Baird “... we are throwing out many blocks which

should in my opinion go into the contract, but which would

be criticized if we shipped them” (Manning, 1915a). Even a

representative of the construction company reported back

from a visit to the quarry that “for every block that is

shipped four are thrown out” (Butler, 1915). 

There were three main reasons for the difficulties

encountered and the high rejection rate of stones that were

quarried: the sizes required, the presence of flint (chert) layers in the marble beds, and the nature of the flaws in the

marble. Many of the pieces required for the memorial were

large, particularly the column drums, the stylobate pieces,

and the architrave pieces. Their size meant that very large

blocks of good marble were needed. In addition, it was not

always possible to get all the large pieces from a particular

section of the quarry. Manning (1915a,b) reported quarrying

in several different areas for drum pieces and stylobate

pieces. Another difficulty posed by the sizes was that some

pieces, such as the stylobate blocks, required special dimensions, and no other pieces could be cut from blocks that had

failed as sources of stylobate pieces (Manning, 1915a). Further problems were encountered because in some areas of

the quarry, thick flint layers had to be removed to get to

good-quality marble (Butler, 1915). In addition, the quarrymen encountered “... cutters and the blue coloring matter

which comes in spots here and there through the layers that

are absolutely statuary marble” (Manning, 1915a). Even

once the necessary sizes of quality marble were obtained,

the stone might be rejected. Cracks and seams in the marble

were the main reason for rejection of the stones. However,

many of the cracks were not visible until the stone was cut

and a smooth face had been put on it (Butler, 1915).

Despite attempts to inspect the stone in Colorado and

to find stones of the very best quality, some stones that were

shipped were rejected (app. B). The main problem encountered in the stones was the presence of cracks, but other
DURABILITY OF THE MARBLE 23

problems mentioned in the inspections included excessive

veining, sand pockets, and surficial discoloration (Baird,

1914b,c; Harts, 1914c). Stones that had veining that

exceeded the veining in the samples originally submitted to

the Lincoln Memorial Commission were rejected (Baird,

1914b). In at least one case, a stone step with “considerable

blue” was accepted, but the Colorado Yule Marble Company was warned that no other stones with that much blue

would be accepted in the future (Baird, 1914c). While some

stones were rejected, others were conditionally accepted or

modified and used even though they contained minor flaws

(app. B). The inspection team decided that stones with open

seams on exposed faces would be rejected, as would stones

where the seams might cause a spall that would affect the

appearance of the stone (Harts, 1914c). However, a stone

with a seam was considered acceptable if the seam did not

extend to (or close to) the face of the stone. Some stones

with seams were conditionally accepted as long as the

seams did not increase in size or appear to be a more severe

defect before final completion of the building (Harts,

1914c). Attempts were also made to accommodate stones

with localized defects. Where it was possible, a stone with a

cracked end or corner might be cut and used if it was possible to modify the lengths of surrounding stones or to adjust

the joint patterns (Baird, 1914c; Harts, 1914c). Manning’s

(1915a) correspondence from Colorado describes efforts

made by the Colorado Yule Marble Company to obtain

replacement stones for some of the rejected pieces. 

Unfortunately, few records have been found that document details of the construction of the superstructure of the

memorial. A fire destroyed the construction field office in

February 1917 (Warren-Findley, 1985), but it is not known

whether records of the construction were lost in the fire. The

last stones for the exterior of the Lincoln Memorial were

shipped from Marble, Colo., on June 8, 1916 (Vandenbusche and Myers, 1991). The exterior marble work on the

memorial was completed in February 1917, and the memorial was dedicated on May 30, 1922 (Warren-Findley, 1985).

The beauty of the memorial was praised in reviews after its

dedication (Cram, 1923), although the marble in the memorial was rarely singled out for comment (Thomas, 1993). 

DURABILITY OF THE MARBLE

One of the concerns that was raised about using the

Colorado Yule marble for the Lincoln Memorial was that no

one knew whether it would prove to be a durable stone. In

an effort to address that issue, prior to the selection of the

marble for the Lincoln Memorial, laboratory tests for durability were performed by the Bureau of Standards on the

five marbles submitted for consideration by the Lincoln

Memorial Commission (table 10). The Bureau of Standards

(1914a) concluded that resistance of the marbles to weathering would be best determined by a comparison of structures

made of the marbles. The other marbles that were proposed

for the memorial had been used in a number of buildings,

and so it was possible to anticipate how those marbles might

appear years after the memorial was built. However, when

the Lincoln Memorial was being built, the Yule marble was

a new and relatively unknown marble; few buildings had

used the Yule marble. Now, more than 70 years since its

construction, it is possible to examine the condition of the

Yule marble in the Lincoln Memorial and see how well it

has withstood the impact of weathering agents over time.

Stone on the exterior of buildings is exposed to the

weathering effects of wind, rain, temperature cycles, and

urban pollution. Although all stone weathers (or deteriorates) because of chemical, physical, and biologic effects,

variations in the characteristics of the stone can influence

the degree or rate of deterioration. Marble is particularly

susceptible to deterioration in urban environments because

it is composed primarily of calcite, which dissolves in weak

acid. Sulfuric and nitric acids can form from the reaction

among water, oxygen, and urban air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and the nitrogen oxides. Typically, marble that is

exposed to weathering agents and urban pollutants is subject

to deterioration (Amoroso and Fassina, 1983; McGee,

1991). It loses sharp edges, details of carved features are

softened, and the surface of the marble develops a granular,

sugary texture because of dissolution along calcite grain

edges at the surface of the stone. In areas where the stone

surface is sheltered from rain and washing, marble may

develop a blackened surficial crust of gypsum alteration

plus dirt particles that disfigures the marble (Amoroso and

Fassina, 1983). Eventually the marble underneath the black

surficial crusts will disaggregate, and pieces of the stone

will be lost (Camuffo, Del Monte, and Sabbioni, 1983).

CONDITION OF THE MARBLE IN THE

LINCOLN MEMORIAL

The marble in the Lincoln Memorial has deterioration

features that are typical for marble used in buildings.

Although some cracks exist in the marble of the Lincoln

Memorial, few of the cracks resemble the “rifts” that were

of such concern in the Cheesman Memorial (The Financial

World, 1913; Bain, 1936a). On the upper areas of the Lincoln Memorial on the penthouse walls and along the entablature, in particular on the cheneau and antefixae, exposed

surfaces of the marble have a sugary texture, and some

stones show differential wear on the exposed surfaces,

where the marble surface has weathered unevenly (fig. 14).

Inclusions of quartz or feldspar, particularly in some of the

stones around the roof entablature, stand higher than the

surface of the calcite grains because they are more resistant

to weathering (fig. 12B). The column shafts also show a differential weathering of inclusions or a localized pronounced
24 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL

Figure 14. Differential wear on a cheneau piece along the roof at the Lincoln Memorial.

variation in stone quality, where there are chalky white areas

in the marble (fig. 15). 

There are very few black surficial alteration crusts at

the Lincoln Memorial. This lack of crusts may be because

the ornamentation on the memorial is simple with classical

lines, so that most surfaces of the marble are washed by

rain, and there are few areas where the carving provides

recessed and sheltered surfaces in which surficial gypsum is

likely to accumulate. Gypsum accumulation might also be

slowed in many areas of the building because the National

Park Service regularly washes accessible surfaces of the

building. The main area where black crusts are visible at the

memorial is on the guttae, on the cornice underside of the

roof entablature. In this sheltered and relatively inaccessible

area, many of the encrusted guttae are crumbling and falling

apart (fig. 16). 

Another characteristic surficial weathering feature on

some stones in the Lincoln Memorial is a slight yellowishorange surficial discoloration that is most visible on some of

the antefixae and in the penthouse (fig. 17). Some of this

discoloration may be a natural “antiquing” that is fairly typical of marbles, because as the calcite weathers, dirt adheres

to the roughened surface (Bain, 1936a). In areas where the

yellowish-orange discoloration is concentrated, bacteria

may be growing on or between the calcite grains below the

structure’s surface. Alternatively, some of the orange surficial discoloration may have developed during shipment to

the memorial site (app. B). 

A detailed visual survey conducted at the memorial in

1991–92 documented the condition of the stones in the

memorial (Einhorn Yaffee and Prescott, 1994). When the

baseline condition information from the visual survey is

analyzed, it will be possible to describe the distribution and

amount of the deterioration features at the memorial. This

information will then be used in conjunction with an understanding of deterioration processes to develop plans for

preservation and routine maintenance at the memorial. 

One striking feature of the condition of the marble in

the Lincoln Memorial is that while some blocks of stone

appear to show little or no signs of deterioration at all, adjacent blocks show mild to severe deterioration (figs. 17 and

18). Stones that have withstood weathering are clear white

and hard and retain crisp, well-defined edges on corners and

carved features. In contrast, stones that have weathered

poorly have pronounced surficial sugaring; they may show

surficial cracks and a slight surficial discoloration; and in

some cases, particularly where the stone has been carved,

they appear to be badly crumbling. The presence of inclusions in a block of marble is not correlated with the degree

of deterioration of the stone. This contrast in overall stone

condition occurs in several places at the memorial but is

most noticeable along the roof entablature and on the penthouse walls (figs. 2 and 17). 
DURABILITY OF THE MARBLE 25

A puzzling aspect of this contrast in stone integrity is

that stones which have had identical exposure to weathering

agents show such a significant difference in durability.

Because the deteriorated stones occur on all sides of the

building, it appears that exposure to microclimatic effects

around the building is not an adequate explanation for the

variability in the stone surfaces. Similarly, because of the

distribution of the affected stones and because there are no

visible unique characteristics of the stones other than the

sugared surface, it seems unlikely that salts moving in the

stone or accumulating on the stone surface are the cause of

the variations.

Although tooling of stone surfaces may cause minor

variations in the stone that weaken the stone or make the

surface more susceptible to weathering (Alessandrini and

others, 1979), this seems an unlikely explanation for the

stones at the Lincoln Memorial. All of the stones at the Lincoln Memorial were finished at the Yule fabricating facility

in Marble prior to shipping to the memorial. If finishing of

the stone caused the surficial variations, then the variations

would not be distributed randomly around the memorial.

Instead, the badly sugared surfaces would be restricted to

stones with specific types of carved features, or to stones

processed during a limited period of time when the usual

stone handling procedures were not followed. Although the

variable stones are most noticeable on the penthouse walls

and on the roof entablature, variations in the surface roughness are found all over the building (Einhorn Yaffee and

Prescott, 1994) on many types of architectural features, and

it seems unlikely that a change in stone procedures at the

fabricating plant could have affected the stones in such a

random fashion. It seems more likely that the difference in

integrity arises from some characteristic feature of the

stone, which is probably an inherent feature of the marble.

VARIATIONS IN THE YULE MARBLE

One element of this study was to examine the characteristics of the marble to see whether any specific characteristics of the marble might correlate with its durability and its

tendency to stay intact. Because we did not want to take

samples from the Lincoln Memorial, the stone was examined in situ on the building. Graded samples of the Yule

marble were obtained from the Colorado Yule Marble Company. For comparison, a sample of disaggregated marble

was collected near the dump pile at the Yule quarry, and a

few broken pieces of marble that were found at the Lincoln

Memorial were also examined (table 2). The composition of

calcite in the various samples does not vary significantly

(tables 5 and 6) and does not correlate with grade or type of

sample. The type and composition of inclusions in the samples also do not correlate with the type of sample (tables 7

and 8). So it seems that neither composition nor the presence of inclusions explains the significant variation in durability observed in the Yule marble. 

Figure 15. Chalky white inclusion on a column shaft at the Lincoln Memorial.
26 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL

Figure 16. Blackened surficial alteration crusts accumulate on the underside of the roof entablature at

the Lincoln Memorial. A, Black surficial alteration crusts accumulate in areas that are sheltered from

washing and rain. B, Detail of the guttae under the roof entablature showing that many are

disaggregating. A portion of black surficial alteration crust is still visible on the side of the crumbling

gutta near the center of the photograph. The rest of the blackened surface on these guttae fell off when

they were touched during examination of the area.
DURABILITY OF THE MARBLE 27

Grain size and shape have been identified as key factors

in stone durability (Dale, 1912). The calcite grains in a marble interlock to form a network of crystals; therefore, the

grain boundaries in marble are likely to be weak points

where dissolution can occur (fig. 19). Dale (1912) suggested

that although fine-textured marbles present more surface

area for rain water to react with the calcite, a coarse-grained,

loose-textured marble may allow water to move more rapidly

along the grain boundaries and speed deterioration of the

marble. The width of the grain boundaries also influences

the rate of deterioration. If the openings are very small, water

cannot easily penetrate, but slightly wider openings allow

water to penetrate and dissolve the marble along the grain

edges. However, once the grain width boundary expands,

dissolution of the boundaries may be less effective in widening the openings, and the weathering rate may decrease

(Bain, 1941). So as time passes, the effect of water penetration in marble along grain boundaries will change. 

Bain (1941) also observed that the width of grain openings is not the only factor that influences marble durability.

Thin sections of marble examined with the optical microscope show that smooth-grained marbles have distinct grain

boundaries compared to irregularly grained marbles (Bain,

1941). Bain (1936b) stated that deeply crenulated grain

boundaries may account for the weathering resistance of

some marbles because the spaces between grains must be

widened enough to free adjoining crystals (fig. 19). By measuring the grains per square centimeter and the length of conFigure 17. Orange surficial discoloration on the penthouse at the Lincoln Memorial looks darker

gray in block at center of photograph. Note the difference in surficial integrity of the discolored stone

compared with the other stones. However, orange discoloration and surficial roughness are not

always correlated (see fig. 18).

Figure 18. Close examination of a column shaft at the Lincoln

Memorial shows a stone with a rough, sugared surface adjacent to

a stone that has retained a smooth, nearly new appearing surface

finish. The rough surface is not discolored.
28 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL

tact of the grains (centimeter per square centimeter), Bain

(1936b, 1941) devised a coefficient of irregularity for marbles. He defined the coefficient as the length of contact

between grains on a surface divided by the square root of

the number of grains exposed on that surface. He used the

coefficient to indicate which marbles might be more resistant to weathering. According to Bain, the coefficient of

irregularity for marbles is typically 1.8, but it may range

from highly irregular (deeply crenulated) (2.1) to nearly

smooth boundaries (1.65). 

Another factor that can influence the resistance of the

calcite grains to dissolution is orientation of the crystals.

Marble blocks cut so the exposed faces parallel the basal

face of the calcite crystals may be more weather resistant

because the basal faces of the calcite crystals are less soluble than the prism edges (Bain, 1941). 

Most features of the texture and crystal grains of the

Yule marble seem to indicate that it should be resistant to

weathering. The grains in samples examined in thin sections

appear to be tightly interlocked, they are fairly angular, and

there is a mixture of grain sizes in many areas of the samples (fig. 4). Bain (1941) gave the coefficient of irregularity

for four Yule marble samples as 2.06, 2.00, 1.95, and 1.91.

All the values are above the typical value of 1.8, indicating

that the marble samples would be likely to be resistant to

weathering. In some samples of the Yule marble, the calcite

grains appear to be slightly elongated. One of the special

characteristics of the Yule marble is the preferred orientation of the marble grains observed if the stone is cut in certain directions (Knopf, 1941). This preferential orientation

may also account for some of the weather resistance of

some of the blocks of marble in the Lincoln Memorial.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to determine what the

width and amount of crenulation of the calcite grain edges

were on the stones that have weathered poorly at the

Lincoln Memorial. The process of weathering widens the

openings between grains and smooths the grain boundaries

so that it is impossible to determine the original grain

characteristics. In two of the less intact samples of this

study, the thin sections from the antefix and from the

crumbling quarry sample, the textures are more uniform

than in the thin sections from the fresh, graded marble

samples. The grain sizes of the grades and types of Yule

marble samples in this study do not vary significantly (table

4), and the calcite grains in the graded samples have more

irregular shapes and a wider range of grain sizes in a

particular field of view compared with the antefix and

quarry samples. However, it is impossible to determine

whether the antefix and quarry samples were more

homogeneous or had more rounded grains than the typical

sample before they began to deteriorate. 

Bain (1936a) and Vanderwilt (1937) both pointed out

that marble from the Yule quarry varies depending on the

part of the quarry that it is from. Bain (1936a) identified

three areas—the east side, the bench, and the west side—

that show distinct differences in integrity of the stone.

Vanderwilt (1937) described the east-side marble as a relatively coarser grained, soft stone, with a high ratio of

absorption (has a tendency to absorb moisture). He stated

that the marble from the east side is not suitable for exterior

work because it crumbles readily, and the polished surfaces

lose their smoothness after a few years of exposure. After

the Yule quarry was reopened in 1990, the company found

that marble from the east section of the quarry was softer

than marble from other areas of the quarry (Reis, 1994). In

contrast, the marble from other portions of the quarry

appears sound. Bain (1936a) described the west-side marble

as very well preserved; the bench marble is intermediate in

quality. 

Because of the nature of this marble deposit, it seems

entirely possible that there might be variations in the characteristics of this marble, depending on its location in the

quarry. The deposit was formed from contact metamorphism, meaning that a local rather than a regional heat

source caused the original limestone to recrystallize to form

marble. Thus, the amount and degree of metamorphism

within the marble body might have varied across the deposit

depending on its proximity to the granite intrusion (the heat

source) that caused the stone to recrystallize. Grain size,

degree of recrystallization of the calcite, and types of inclusions other than the calcite that are present in the marble are

features that vary with the amount of heat and pressure that

the marble experienced during metamorphism. Vanderwilt

(1937) and Bain (1936a) both reported that there are grain

size variations in the marble body and that the marble that is

A B

C D

Calcite grains in marble are 

irregularly shaped. They are 

locked together like pieces of a 

jigsaw puzzle.

Water penetrates into the marble 

at the weakest place: along the 

grain boundaries.

As water enters, the calcite grains 

dissolve slightly, and the opening 

between the grains widens.

With time, as the openings widen, 

the grain edges smooth, and the 

grains become rounded. As the 

surface grains become round, they 

loosen and fall off the stone 

surface.

Figure 19. Sketch of calcite grain boundaries in marble and

the progressive change that occurs along grain boundaries when

water penetrates into the marble. Arrows show the entry point

for water into the marble.
DURABILITY OF THE MARBLE 29

in direct contact with the granite is very coarse grained.

Both reports also describe inclusions, such as bodies of

“lime,” some garnet, and dolomite, that are present in some

areas of the marble body but absent from others. 

It seems quite likely that some of the variation in deterioration of the stones at the Lincoln Memorial may be

because the stones were taken from different parts of the

quarry. Merrill (1914) and Vanderwilt (1937) both reported

that, at the Yule quarry, impurities and variations in quality

were encountered along joints in the stone. Butler's correspondence (1915) from the quarry indicates that several

fairly thick layers of flint and lime were removed in order to

obtain pieces for the Lincoln Memorial. To supply large

blocks that met the sample standards and to replace stones

that failed in cutting or were rejected at final inspection,

several different areas of the quarry were used (Manning,

1915a,b). Unfortunately, we do not know where specific

stones came from in the quarry. However, some of the distinctive features of the marble are present only in some

areas of the memorial, suggesting that certain characteristics

were typical of the areas used for that particular stone size.

For example, a number of the column drums have broad flat

areas that appear as chalky white inclusions (fig. 15). This

particular feature is not seen on any of the other areas of the

building, such as walls, steps, and cheneau. In addition,

some location information can be interpreted by considering

the sizes of the stones and comments in the fragments of

remaining correspondence (app. B). 

Because the stones were all inspected prior to acceptance, one would anticipate that there should be little variation in the quality and characteristics of the marble in the

Lincoln Memorial. However, the primary focus of the

inspections was to find stones that fell within the established

standards for veining and to reject stones with cracks or

seams that might become cracks (Harts, 1914a; Baird,

1914b). The stones that now show significant differences in

deterioration at the Lincoln Memorial most likely would

have met the inspection criteria, because most do not contain significant inclusions; cracks in these stones are rare.

The primary characteristic of the more deteriorated stones is

extreme sugaring of the surface and pronounced rounding of

edges and carved features. It is possible that even though the

stones were carefully inspected, features that might have

indicated that some stones would tend to sugar more than

others may have been overlooked because that was not of

primary concern in the inspections. Alternatively, it may

have been difficult to identify these stones when the memorial was being built because the features that would indicate

future extreme sugaring may have been too subtle to see

before significant stone exposure occurred.

If variations in the integrity of the Yule marble are a

typical feature of the marble, then it is likely that they would

have appeared in other buildings. However, once the variable stone integrity was recognized at the Lincoln Memorial, and if a characteristic that caused the variable integrity

was identified and could be avoided, then younger buildings

should show more uniform deterioration than the Lincoln

Memorial. By examining buildings with exterior Yule marble, it may be possible to determine whether variable durability is a common feature. It may also help to determine

whether the problem was restricted to stone quarried at a

specific time or from a specific part of the quarry.

CONDITION OF YULE MARBLE IN

OTHER BUILDINGS

In contrast to the situation faced by the Lincoln Memorial Commission, it is now possible to examine the general

deterioration features of the Yule marble in a number of

buildings of varied ages. The Lincoln Memorial is probably

the most prominent building, nationwide, in which the Colorado Yule marble was used. However, between 1905 and

1940, the Colorado Yule was used on the exterior and interior of many important buildings and monuments built

throughout the United States (fig. 20; table 11), and it has

also been used nationally and internationally for many small

jobs such as private grave markers. Extensive lists of structures that used the stone are provided by several authors

(Vanderwilt, 1937; Holmes, 1991; Vandenbusche and

Myers, 1991; McCollum, 1993); however, some of these

buildings have changed names or have been taken down.

Some specific examples of structures that use the Yule marble are given in table 11. The conditions of buildings built

about the same time as the Lincoln Memorial are of particular interest because some of the stone quarried in 1914–16

that could not be used for the Lincoln Memorial was used in

other, smaller jobs (Manning, 1915a,b). 

Six buildings in Denver have Colorado Yule marble on

the exterior (table 12), and, with the exception of the Cheesman Memorial, they are all located in downtown Denver.

The Cheesman Memorial is close to the downtown area, but

it is in a park on a small hill; it is also the oldest building

(1908) using the Yule stone. The construction dates for the

buildings in Denver reflect the history of the Yule quarry

(app. C), as most were built in two time periods: 1914–16

and 1930–36 (table 12). One advantage of examining several buildings in the same city is that climate influences on

the buildings should be similar, so variations in deterioration

in the buildings are likely to reflect differences in age of the

buildings and variability of the stone. 

In 1993, I visited Denver to examine some of the buildings that have Yule marble on the exterior. The main purpose of the visit was to gather an overall impression of the

condition of the marble in the Denver buildings so as to

make comparisons with the condition of the marble in the

Lincoln Memorial. Another goal was to see if the variations

in the marble and in the inclusions at the Lincoln Memorial

appear to be typical of the Yule marble in other structures. 
 30 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL

Table 11. Notable examples of structures that used the Colorado Yule marble.

[Sources that list buildings using Yule marble: Vanderwilt, 1937; Holmes, 1991; Vandenbusche and Myers, 1991; McCollum, 1993;

Murphy, 1993. ---, no date information]

Building Location

 Date 

completed

 Marble 

position

Colorado State Capitol Building ---- Denver, Colo --------------------------- 1895 Interior

Cheesman Memorial------------------ Denver, Colo --------------------------- 1908 Exterior

Cuyahoga County Court House ----- Cleveland, Ohio ----------------------- 1912 Interior

U.S. Post Office1----------------------- Denver, Colo --------------------------- 1914 Exterior

Colorado State Museum Building2-- Denver, Colo --------------------------- 1916 Exterior

Lincoln Memorial--------------------- Washington, D.C ---------------------- 1916 Exterior

First National Bank ------------------- Portland, Oreg ------------------------- 1916 Exterior

U.S. Customs Building --------------- Denver, Colo --------------------------- 1931 Both

Tomb of the Unknowns--------------- Arlington National Cemetery, Va --- 1931 Exterior

Merritt Building ----------------------- Los Angeles, Calif--------------------- ---- Both

Providence County Courthouse ----- Providence, R.I ------------------------ ---- Interior

Figure 20. Locations in the United States where the Colorado Yule marble has been used for

notable buildings and major structures. 

Table 12. Buildings in Denver, Colo., with exterior Colorado Yule marble.

[Dates from Vanderwilt (1937) or from cornerstones]

Building Address

Date

completed

Cheesman Memorial -------------------------------------------------------------- Cheesman Park---------- 1908

U.S. Post Office (now houses Federal courtrooms)--------------------------- 18th & Stout Street ----- 1914

Colorado National Bank---------------------------------------------------------- 730 17th Street ---------- 1914

Colorado State Museum Building (now houses the State administration)- 200 E. 14th Avenue ----- 1916

U.S. Customs Building ----------------------------------------------------------- 19th & Stout Streets ---- 1931

State Capitol Annex (now houses State Department of Resources; Capitol 

Complex Facilities)---------------------------------------------------- 14th & Sherman--------- 1930’s

1 Now houses Federal courtrooms. 2 Now houses the State administration.
SUMMARY 31

The general condition of the Yule marble in the

buildings in Denver is very similar to the condition of the

marble at the Lincoln Memorial. When buildings made of

Yule marble are viewed as a whole, they appear in good

condition, and the stone is white and unblemished (figs. 1

and 21). Even from a close view, the marble is clear and

nearly white, and the edges and surfaces appear to retain

much of their original crispness. The inclusions are

relatively subtle and show no appreciable difference in their

weathering compared to the rest of the stone. There is little

surficial blackening of the stone. However, I have no

information about the cleaning or maintenance of the

buildings in Denver. 

At the time of my examination, the Denver Post Office

building was undergoing a major renovation; it had been

cleaned with a high-pressure water spray that had removed

all or most of any blackened surficial crusts (fig. 22). It

appears that the slight orange discoloration seen in some

stones at the Lincoln Memorial may be typical of the Yule

marble because some of the stones in the Denver buildings

also have a similar orange discoloration. A pronounced reddish-orange stain at the Denver Post Office apparently

resisted poultice treatments during the cleaning of that

building (conversation with one of the workers at the site)

(fig. 23). 

Close examination of some of the stones in various

buildings shows that their condition is similar to the condition of the marble at the Lincoln Memorial. There are variations in the surface textures of adjacent stones in several of

these buildings (fig. 24), similar to that seen at the Lincoln

Memorial. However, the effect is most noticeable at the

Cheesman Memorial, where stones that retain crisp tooling

marks are adjacent to stones with very sugared surfaces (fig.

25). Some of the stones in the buildings have slightly grayed

“chert” inclusions like some of the stones at the Lincoln

Memorial, but they are relatively uncommon. However, I

did not see any of the shallow chalky white inclusion areas

like those on the columns at the Lincoln Memorial. This

observation suggests that those inclusions were restricted to

the area of the quarry used for the column drums, and they

could not be completely avoided when the drums were quarried because of the large sizes needed for those stones. Few

(if any) of the stones in the Denver buildings are as large as

many of the stones in the Lincoln Memorial. The “rifts” or

surficial cracks in the Cheesman Memorial, of such concern

during the hearing of the Lincoln Memorial Commission,

are still visible on many of the stones in the Cheesman

Memorial (fig. 26). However, I did not see this type of crack

on any other building. It seems likely, as Manning implied

at the hearing (Lincoln Memorial Commission, 1913), that

this feature was present only in some of the top layers of the

marble. It is also likely that inspections of the stone on subsequent projects successfully avoided this problem.

Overall, there are no significant differences in the condition of the marble in buildings of the two age groups

(circa 1914 and circa 1930) or in the climate settings of

Washington, D.C., and Denver. Some blocks of marble seen

closeup have weathered so they are no longer pure white,

but their discoloration seems reasonable for the “antiquing

of marble” that might be expected on an older building.

Inclusions are present in the marble but are not particularly

noticeable on the buildings unless close inspection is made.

Most significantly, visible variations in surface sugaring of

the marble are present in all of the buildings examined.

However, the variations are noticeable mostly only upon

close examination; the sugaring and softening of the surface

is not particularly visible from a distance of more than 10 ft.

Differences in climate, particularly cycles of moisture and

temperature that the marble experiences in Washington,

D.C., have not had a significant effect on the weathering of

the Yule marble. There are no marked differences in the

general state of the marble in buildings in the two cities.

Similarly, there is no significant difference in the weathering of the marble in the Denver buildings of different ages;

thus, a 10- to 20-year difference in length of exposure, independent of climate, does not appear to correlate with specific deterioration of the marble.

SUMMARY

Ever since its discovery, the Colorado Yule marble has

been praised for its quality and appearance. It was selected

for the Lincoln Memorial specifically because of its aesthetic attributes and the quality that it would bring to the

memorial. Although there have been concerns about variations in the marble and about the long-term durability of the

marble, overall, the early praise for the quality of the marble

was well founded. 

The marble is nearly pure calcite. The irregularly

shaped calcite grains are equidimensional to slightly elongate, and while they range in size, most have diameters of

between 100 and 600 micrometers. Physical tests of the

Yule marble do not show any significant weaknesses; the

results for the Yule marble are similar to typical results for

other marbles. As a natural material, the marble is heterogeneous. It contains inclusions of quartz, mica, and feldspar,

but the inclusions are present only in minor amounts and

they are unevenly distributed. The predominant inclusion is

mica, which occurs as thin traces and does not weather significantly differently from the rest of the marble. In a few

older buildings where the Yule marble is used on the exterior, large inclusions of quartz or feldspar have weathered to

form noticeable, slightly gray, more resistant features that

stand out compared to the surrounding marble. However,

specific defects such as quartz inclusions and surficial

cracks in the marble are not present in more recent buildings; apparently the defects were avoided once they were

recognized in early buildings that used the Yule marble.
32 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL

Figure 21. Structures with exterior Colorado

Yule marble generally appear to be in very good

condition. A, Cheesman Memorial, Denver,

Colo. (built 1908). B, Colorado State Museum,

Denver, Colo. (built 1916). C, Tomb of the

Unknowns, Arlington, Va. (1931).
SUMMARY 33

Figure 22. Cleaning at Denver Post Office in 1993. The workers had not yet removed the

blackened surficial discoloration on the sides of the three column capitals on the left side of the

photograph.

Figure 23. Reddish-orange stain at Denver Post Office (dark area at center of photograph) after

several cleaning attempts in 1993.
34 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL

Figure 24. At the State Capitol Annex Building in Denver, there are variations in surficial integrity

in some blocks of marble. A, The State Capitol Annex Building (built in 1930’s). B, Some blocks

have a very rough sugared surface, whereas adjacent stones retain a smooth, finished surface.

Photograph is a detail of the 5th and 6th course from the ground, near the right front corner of the

building.
SUMMARY 35

Figure 25. Detail at the Cheesman Memorial, Denver, Colo. Three column drums retain original

tooling marks, but a fourth stone has a rough sugared surface with no trace of the original finish.

The mortar layer is approximately 7 mm thick.

Figure 26. Rifts or surficial cracks in the marble at the Cheesman Memorial, Denver, Colo.
36 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL

With time and exposure, the Yule marble remains

remarkably white and solid. Buildings of Yule marble and

many blocks of marble in three Colorado areas—in the

quarry dump, along the Crystal River, and at the site of the

abandoned finishing plant at Marble, Colo.—appear nearly

pristine. However, when closely examined, one characteristic feature of this marble is the heterogeneous manner in

which some of it has deteriorated. In buildings in Washington, D.C., and in Denver, some surfaces of the marble retain

a crisp, nearly new appearance while adjacent surfaces

soften and disaggregate with severe sugaring of the calcite

grains. The varied durability of the marble does not appear

to be related to the composition of the calcite or the inclusions. The composition of the nearly pure calcite grains

does not vary significantly in various grades and samples of

the marble. The badly deteriorated stones do not contain

more distinct inclusions than their more resistant neighbors,

and because the contrasts in durability occur in adjacent

stones, the differences are not due to exposure of the stones

to specific, local weathering. 

Variation in texture and grain size is a characteristic of

the Yule marble deposit. The deposit was formed by contact

metamorphism, and so some portions of the marble body

were closer to the intruding heat source that caused the original limestone body to recrystallize. Thus, some portions of

the marble could have been more extensively recrystallized

than other portions, and the heterogeneous durability of the

marble may reflect subtle differences in the resulting texture

of the marble. The pronounced surficial sugaring that distinguishes the less resistant blocks suggests that the problem

may arise because of some characteristic weakness along

the grain boundaries in the marble. Weaknesses along grain

boundaries would be likely if the original grain boundary

widths were wide enough for water to penetrate easily or if

the original calcite grains were rounded. Alternatively, in

resistant blocks, calcite grains may be aligned with the face

of the block, so that water is less able to penetrate along

weak grain boundaries. If samples of resistant and disaggregating stones at the Lincoln Memorial were collected so that

the texture and grain boundary characteristics could be

examined, it might be possible to clarify the role of grain

boundary characteristics in relation to the variations in durabilty that we see at the memorial.

Although the stones with pronounced weathering are

very distinctive on close examination, they constitute a relatively minor proportion of stones in an entire building (Einhorn Yaffee and Prescott, 1996?). Thus, although they do

not present the ideal appearance, the badly deteriorated surfaces do not impair the overall structural integrity of the

building. However, the rate of deterioration may be a concern in the long term. Where the stone of poor durability is

decoratively carved or where it may be further weakened

because it is exposed to direct and continual impact of

weathering agents, such as along a roof parapet, its future

integrity may be a concern. If steps are taken to synthesize

knowledge of the marble characteristics with an understanding of deterioration processes, specifically those that have

been identified at the Lincoln Memorial, the National Park

Service will be well prepared to develop an effective and

timely preservation approach for the Lincoln Memorial.

REFERENCES CITED

Alessandrini, G., Peruzzi, T., Manganelli Del Fe, C., Vannucci, S.,

Tampone, G., and Cecchi, R., 1979, Investigation on the degradation of stones. VIII, The working effects on the Candoglia Marble: Third International Congress on Deterioration

and Preservation of Stone, Venice, October 24–27, 1979, Proceedings, p. 411–428.

Amoroso, G.G., and Fassina, V., 1983, Stone decay and conservation: New York, Elsevier, 453 p.

Anonymous, undated, Description of samples of marble [List of

data that probably were submitted to the Lincoln Memorial

Commission]: 3 p. (Records of the Office of Public Buildings

and Grounds, Record Group 42, National Archives.)

Bacon, Henry, 1913 [Letter to Lincoln Memorial Commission]:

September 25, 1913, 4 p. (Records of the Office of Public

Buildings and Grounds, Record Group 42, National

Archives.)

Bain, G.W., 1936a, Colorado Yule marble deposit: 35 p., figures.

(Unpublished report on file at the National Park Service, Denver Service Center, 12795 W. Alameda Parkway, Lakewood,

CO 80225.)

———1936b, Petrology of marble: Mineralogist, v. 4, no. 2, p. 3–

4, 30–31; no. 3, p. 5–6, 36–37.

———1941, Geological, chemical and physical problems in the

marble industry: American Institute of Mining and Metallurgical Engineers Transactions, v. 144 (Mining Geology), p.

324–339.

Baird, James, 1914a [Letter to Col. W.W. Harts]: April 14, 1914, 2

p. (Records of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds,

Record Group 42, National Archives.)

———1914b [Letter to J.F. Manning]: July 6, 1914, 3 p. (Records

of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds, Record Group

42, National Archives.)

———1914c [Letter to J.F. Manning]: September 9, 1914, 2 p.

(Records of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds,

Record Group 42, National Archives.)

———1914d [Letter to Col. W.W. Harts]: September 24, 1914, 2

p. (Records of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds,

Record Group 42, National Archives.)

Balsley, J.R., Jr., 1941, Deformation of marble under tension at

high pressure: American Geophysical Union Transactions, v.

22, p. 519–525. 

Bowles, Oliver, 1939, The stone industries (2d ed.): New York,

McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 519 p.

Bureau of Standards, 1914a [Report of tests of marbles for the Lincoln Memorial Commission]: January 23, 1914, 15 p.

(Records of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds,

Record Group 42, National Archives.)

———1914b, Report of the Bureau of Standards on the crushing

tests of eight cubes of Colorado Yule marble submitted by

Lincoln Memorial Commission, Washington, D.C., on July
REFERENCES CITED 37

31, 1914: 6 p. (Unpublished(?) report signed by E.B. Rosa,

Acting Director, August 1, 1914.)

Busenberg, Eurybiades, and Plummer, L.N., 1983, Chemical and

X-ray analyses of 175 calcite and marble samples from the

collection of the National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report

83–863, 8 p.

Butler, John, 1915 [Letter to James Baird]: July 24, 1915, 2 p.

(Records of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds,

Record Group 42, National Archives.)

Camuffo, D., Del Monte, M., and Sabbioni, C., 1983, Origin and

growth mechanisms of the sulfated crusts on urban limestone:

Water, Air, and Soil Pollution, v. 19, p. 351–359.

Colorado Yule Marble Company, 1996, Colorado Yule marble

physical and mechanical properties: Glenwood Springs,

Colo., 1 p.

Compressed Air Magazine, 1993, Yule marble: Compressed Air

Magazine, March, p. 6–13.

Cram, R.A., 1923, The Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C.,

Henry Bacon, Architect: Architectural Record, v. 53, no. 297,

p. 479–508.

Dale, T.N., 1912, The commercial marbles of western Vermont:

U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 521, 170 p.

Einhorn Yaffee and Prescott, 1994, Lincoln Memorial stone survey: Final Report to the National Park Service, Denver Service Center, Lakewood, Colo., 285 p.

———1996?, Analytical data base for Lincoln Memorial stone

survey: Report to the National Park Service, Denver Service

Center, Lakewood, Colo.

The Financial World, 1913, Yule marble poor for monuments: The

Financial World (New York), March 29, 1913. (Records of the

Office of Public Buildings and Grounds, Record Group 42,

National Archives.)

French, Daniel C., 1914 [Letter to the Secretary of War (Lindsley

Garrison)]: January 23, 1914, 2 p. (Records of the Office of

Public Buildings and Grounds, Record Group 42, National

Archives.)

Gaskill, D.L., and Godwin, L.H., 1966, Geologic map of the Marble quadrangle, Gunnison and Pitkin Counties, Colorado:

U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Quadrangle Map GQ–512,

scale 1:24,000.

Griffith, J.H., 1937, Physical properties of typical American rocks:

Iowa State College Engineering Experiment Station Bulletin

131, 56 p.

Griggs, David, and Miller, W.B., 1951, Deformation of Yule marble. Part I, Compression and extension experiments on dry

Yule marble at 10,000 atmospheres confining pressure, room

temperature: Geological Society of America Bulletin, v. 62,

p. 853–862.

Harts, W.W., 1914a [Letter to George A. Fuller Company]: March

30, 1914, 2 p. (Records of the Office of Public Buildings and

Grounds, Record Group 42, National Archives.)

———1914b [Letter to George A. Fuller Company]: April 6,

1914, 1 p. (Records of the Office of Public Buildings and

Grounds, Record Group 42, National Archives.)

———1914c [Letter to George A. Fuller Company]: September

16, 1914, 2 p. (Records of the Office of Public Buildings and

Grounds, Record Group 42, National Archives.)

———1914d [Letter to George A. Fuller Company]: September

25, 1914, 1 p. ( Records of the Office of Public Buildings and

Grounds, Record Group 42, National Archives.)

———1915 [Letter to George A. Fuller Company]: May 27,

1915, 1 p. (Records of the Office of Public Buildings and

Grounds, Record Group 42, National Archives.)

Holmes, Polly, 1991, Patterns past—A photo essay of Marble, Colorado: Denver, CO-OP Publishers, 19 p.

Kessler, D.W., 1919, Physical and chemical tests on the commercial marbles of the United States: Bureau of Standards Technologic Papers, no. 123, 54 p.

Kirsch, J.P., 1915, The marble columns of the Lincoln Memorial:

Scientific American, v. 112, no. 12, p. 267.

Klusmire, Jon, 1993, Monumental success: Colorado Business

Magazine, May, p. 70–72.

Knopf, E.B., 1949, Fabric changes in Yule marble after deformation in compression: American Journal of Science, v. 247, no.

7, p. 433–461 (pt. 1); no. 8, p. 537–569 (pt. 2).

Lakes, Arthur, 1895, Colorado marble: Stone, v. 11, no. 3, p. 213–

222.

———1910, Some remarkably fine marble quarries in Colorado:

Mining World, v. 32, p. 609-611.

Lepper, H.A., Jr., 1949, Compression tests on oriented specimens

of Yule marble: American Journal of Science, v. 247, no. 8, p.

570–574.

Lincoln Memorial Commission, 1913 [Hearing transcript]: September 26, 1913, 54 p. (Records of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds, Record Group 42, National Archives.)

Manning, J.F., 1913a [Letter to W.H. Taft]: June 19, 1913, 2 p.

plus 3 p. enclosures (see Von Schultz and Low, 1907).

(Records of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds,

Record Group 42, National Archives.)

———1913b [Letter to H.A. Vale]: June 30, 1913, 1 p. plus 4 p.

enclosures. ( Records of the Office of Public Buildings and

Grounds, Record Group 42, National Archives.)

———1914 [Letter to James Baird]: June 26, 1914, 1 p. (Records

of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds, Record Group

42, National Archives.)

———1915a [Letter to James Baird]: July 20, 1915, 3 p. (Records

of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds, Record Group

42, National Archives.)

———1915b [Letter to James Baird]: July 24, 1915, 2 p. (Records

of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds, Record Group

42, National Archives.)

McCollum, Oscar, Jr., 1993, Marble—A town built on dreams, volume II: Denver, Sundance Publications, Limited, 352 p.

McGee, E.S., 1991, Influence of microclimate on the deterioration

of historic marble builidngs: APT (Association for Preservation Technology) Bulletin, v. 23, Special Issue: Historic

Structures in Contemporary Atmospheres, p. 37–42.

Merrill, George P., 1913a [Statement (copy of telegram) to Col.

W.W. Harts]: September 23, 1913, 1 p. (Records of the Office

of Public Buildings and Grounds, Record Group 42, National

Archives.)

———1913b [Statement (copy of telegram) to Col. W.W. Harts]:

September 24, 1913, 1 p. (Records of the Office of Public

Buildings and Grounds, Record Group 42, National

Archives.)
38 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL

———1913c [Letter to Col. W.W. Harts]: September 29, 1913, 2

p. (Records of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds,

Record Group 42, National Archives.)

———1914, A report on the Colorado-Yule marble properties,

based on examinations made in August 1914: 16 p. (Unpublished report in Records of the Office of Public Buildings and

Grounds, Record Group 42, National Archives.)

———1915, Report on some carbonic acid tests on the weathering

of marbles and limestones: U.S. National Museum Proceedings, v. 49, no. 2108, p. 347–349.

Murphy, Jack, 1993, Mine locally, build globally: Denver Museum

of Natural History Museum Quarterly, Winter 1993, p. 11.

Ogden, Lawrence, 1961, Non-metallic minerals from rocks of

lower and middle Paleozoic age, in Berg, R.R., and Rold,

J.W., eds., Symposium on Lower and Middle Paleozoic Rocks

of Colorado, Twelfth Field Conference: Denver, Rocky

Mountain Association of Geologists, p. 190–194, 196.

Redfield, William, 1914 [Letter to the Secretary of War]: January

26, 1914, 1 p. plus enclosed 15-p. report. (Records of the

Office of Public Buildings and Grounds, Record Group 42,

National Archives.)

Reis, M., 1994, Rebirth in the Rockies: Stone World, July 1994.

Roberts, D., 1992, When the quarry is marble: Smithsonian, v. 22,

no. 10, p. 98–107.

Rosenholtz, J.L., and Smith, D.T., 1951, The directional concentration of optic axes in Yule marble—A comparison of the

results of petrofabric analysis and linear thermal expansion:

American Journal of Science, v. 249, p. 377–384.

Stratton, S.W., 1913a [Letter to W.J. Cary]: November 11, 1913, 2

p., includes Bureau of Standards certificate for Colorado Yule

marble, Test No. 14374. (Records of the Office of Public

Buildings and Grounds, Record Group 42, National

Archives.)

———1913b [Letter to A.O. Bacon reporting Bureau of Standards

data]: November 21, 1913, 1 p. (Records of the Office of

Public Buildings and Grounds, Record Group 42, National

Archives.)

Taft, W.H., 1913 [Letter to Senator Shafroth]: September 30,

1913, 3 p. (Records of the Office of Public Buildings and

Grounds, Record Group 42, National Archives.)

Thill, R.E., Willard, R.J., and Bur, T.R., 1969, Correlation of longitudinal velocity variation with rock fabric: Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 74, no. 20, p. 4897–4909.

Thomas, C.A., 1993–94, The marble of the Lincoln Memorial

“whitest, prettiest, and ... best”: Washington History, v. 5, no.

2, p. 42–63.

Through the Ages, 1931, A block of marble for the unknown soldier’s tomb: Through the Ages, v. 9, no. 3, p. 24–28.

Vale, H.A., 1913 [Minutes of Lincoln Memorial Commission

meeting]: September 25–26, 1913, 10 p. (Records of the

Office of Public Buildings and Grounds, Record Group 42,

National Archives.)

———1914a [Letter to W.H. Taft]: January 17, 1914, 5 p.

(Records of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds,

Record Group 42, National Archives.)

———1914b [Telegram to W.H. Taft]: January 26, 1914, 1 p.

(Records of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds,

Record Group 42, National Archives.)

Vandenbusche, Duane, and Myers, Rex, 1991, Marble, Colorado—

City of Stone: Denver, Golden Bell Press, 227 p.

Vanderwilt, J.W., 1937, Geology and mineral deposits of the

Snowmass Mountain area, Gunnison County, Colorado: U.S.

Geological Survey Bulletin 884, 184 p.

Vanderwilt, J.W., and Fuller, H.C., 1935, Correlation of Colorado

Yule marble and other early Paleozoic formations on Yule

Creek, Gunnison County, Colorado: Colorado Science Society Proceedings, v. 13, no. 7, p. 439–464.

Von Schultz and Low, 1907 [Analysis of “Golden Vein” white marble for the Colorado Yule Marble Company]: August 22,

1907, Von Schultz and Low, Chemical Laboratory and Assay

Office, Denver, Colo., 1 p. (Typed copy included as enclosure

in Archives document Manning letter to Taft, June 19, 1913.)

Warren-Findley, Jannelle, 1985, Historic documentation, Lincoln

Memorial: unpublished report of work performed for the

National Park Service, National Capital Parks-Central, under

contract PX–3000–4–1919, 26 p.
APPENDIXES A–C
40

APPENDIX A. MICROANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES

Both electron microprobe analysis and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) with energy-dispersive X-ray analysis (EDAX) are useful microanalytical techniques. The

particular advantages of these techniques are that a sample

(polished thin section, grain mount, or small chip) can be

analyzed nondestructively and that very small areas (~1

micrometer in diameter) can be selected and analyzed while

the sample is examined. The ability to analyze a small area

is especially useful for samples containing very small grains

or for samples having compositional zonation.

In both electron microprobe analysis and scanning

electron microscopy, a beam of electrons is focused on or

rastered across the surface of a conductively coated sample.

When the electron beam interacts with the sample, secondary electrons, backscattered electrons, and X-rays are generated. The secondary electrons and backscattered electrons

are detected so that an image of the sample is produced.

Secondary electron images generally show surface features

and topography of the sample. Backscattered electron

images provide compositional information because the various gray levels in the image reflect variations in the average

atomic number across the sample. 

The X-rays that are generated by the electron beam

interaction with the sample also provide compositional

information. If an energy-dispersive X-ray spectrum is collected, then the energy levels for all of the X-rays generated

are displayed. However, if a wavelength spectrometer is

used to detect the X-rays, it is tuned to measure the X-rays

for one specific wavelength, for a specific element. Quantitative analyses are made by measuring the X-rays from standards of known composition so that the X-rays from the

sample of unknown composition can be calibrated.

In this study, the scanning electron microscope (JEOL

JSM–840 with a Princeton Gamma Tech (PGT) energy-dispersive X-ray detector) was used to examine samples and to

provide qualitative analysis of the mineral phases. The electron microprobe (JEOL JXA–8900) was used for quantitative analysis of the major mineral phases in the samples.

Standards of known compositions, similar to the minerals

being analyzed, were used to analyze calcite, mica, quartz,

feldspar, and sulfides (pyrite, sphalerite, and galena): 

• Calcite was analyzed at 12 kV accelerating voltage with

a beam current of 1×10-8 amps, using a rastered beam

and the Phi-Rho-Z correction method (Pouchou and

Pichoir, 1991). 

• Mica, quartz, and feldspar were analyzed by using 15

kV accelerating voltage with a beam current of 2×10-8

amps, using a focused beam and the ZAF correction

method for oxides (Armstrong, 1995). 

• Sulfides were analyzed at 25 kV accelerating voltage

with a beam current of 2×10-8 amps, using a focused

beam and the ZAF correction method for metals (Armstrong, 1995). 

Analyses were judged to be of good quality if the

oxide total was between 98.0 and 102.0 and if the

stoichiometry was correct for the phase being analyzed.

However, the check for a good oxide total for the mica and

calcite was made after water and CO2 were determined by

difference with a check on stoichiometry for micas and

calcite, respectively. 

REFERENCES CITED

Armstrong, J.T., 1995, CITZAF—A package of correction programs for the quantitative electron microbeam X-ray analysis

of thick polished materials, thin films, and particles: Microbeam Analysis, v. 4, p. 177–200.

Pouchou, J.-L., and Pichoir, F., 1991, Quantitative analysis of

homogeneous or stratified microvolumes applying the model

“PAP,” in Heinrich, K.F.J., and Newberry, D.E., eds., Electron

probe quantitation: New York, Plenum Press, p. 31–76.
41

APPENDIX B. INFORMATION ABOUT THE QUARRYING AND INSPECTION OF STONE 

FOR THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL

Unfortunately, only scanty information is available

about the quarrying and the rejection of stones during construction of the Lincoln Memorial. However, information of

that sort may be useful when the durability of the stones in

the Lincoln Memorial is evaluated. Stones quarried from

one particular portion of the quarry may possess similar

characteristics that become visible years later as the stone

weathers in the building. If it is known that stones with a

specific characteristic all come from one part of the quarry,

it is easier to narrow the problem down because it may be

closely related to a characteristic of the stone and less influenced by exposure or something that has been done to the

stone in the building. Likewise, any descriptions or questions about flaws that arose during inspection of the stones

might correspond to problems that we can see now in the

stones.

QUARRYING REPORTS

Information about which parts of the Yule quarry were

used for the stone in the Lincoln Memorial might aid in

understanding and correlating the observed variations in

durability of the marble. Several portions of the marble

deposit were used in quarrying operations; the openings

were designated as quarry numbers 1 through 4. During the

construction of the Lincoln Memorial, all quarrying operations were directed at obtaining stone for the Lincoln

Memorial project, so it is possible that stone was taken from

all portions of the quarry. However, most of the stone for

the Lincoln Memorial may have come from quarries number 1 and 2. Correspondence from 1915, during the construction of the Lincoln Memorial (Manning, 1915a,b),

indicates that quarries number 1 and 2 were being used to

obtain large pieces for the stylobate courses and drum

blocks. Portions of both quarries were used for drum

blocks, cheek pieces were obtained from quarry number 2,

and while they tried to get pieces for the stylobate from

quarry number 1, they failed (correspondence from Manning, 1915a). 

Blocks quarried for the stylobate that failed, presumably because some flaw showed up as they began finishing

the stone, were used for the GG, WW, and PP courses and

for the architrave (Manning, 1915a). A few blocks that

failed for the stylobate and architrave were used for the

frieze and carved courses (Manning, 1915b). Similarly,

blocks for the column drums were cut to meet the largest

sizes needed (at the base of the columns) and then cut down

for smaller drum courses if flaws appeared during the finishing. Butler’s letter (1915) describes how a block that was

cut for an AB drum was cut for a GH and then for a KL

drum. If the stone designations used in this correspondence

are the same as those used in the stone setting and recent

stone condition survey at the memorial, it may be possible

to examine particular stones for similarities in texture or

inclusions. Comparisons of some of the stones from the

areas and courses mentioned may also show some similarities in their condition at the Lincoln Memorial and help

show whether any specific characteristics of the marble

might have been restricted to certain areas of the deposit or

if they occur randomly.

INSPECTIONS

All of the stone was checked before it left the Yule

marble finishing plant to make sure that it met the dimensions needed (Baird, 1914a). In addition, the stone was

inspected after delivery at the Lincoln Memorial site after it

was uncrated (Baird, 1914b) to determine whether it met

criteria pertaining to quality, appearance, and proper dimensions (Harts, 1914a). Correspondence, preserved in the

archives, from September 1914 indicates that some specific

stones were identified as having problems when they were

inspected. Six or seven stones were rejected, four stones

were tentatively accepted, and three stones would be used if

they could be modified. The stones and descriptions (Baird,

1914c; Harts, 1914b) were as follows:

• rejected:

- AD 39 west—column base; cracks from fluting to

edge and on face

- AC 33 north—[no specifics given]

- AC 54 south—open crack on face and corner off

- AC 27 north—open crack on the vertical face

- AC 52 west—open crack on face and spalled

- AD 37 west—column base; open crack from fluting

to edge and at corner

- AB 54 west—sand pockets [Harts, 1914b, listed this

as AC, not AB]

• tentatively accepted:

- AC 16 north—closed crack, vertical face

- AC 36 west—closed cracks, horizontal face; accepted

if stone placed on north front

- AC 32 west—closed cracks, vertical face

- AB 33 west—closed crack, horizontal face

• stones to be modified:

- AC 44 west—broken corner; use if cut 2 inches off

- AB 56 south—crack at corner; use if cut 3 1/2 inches

off

- AC 33 west [no specifics given]
42 COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL

The stones that were tentatively accepted could be

rejected if, by the conclusion of the construction, the cracks

had opened or gotten worse. The stones to be modified

would be used if an acceptable change in the joining plans

was submitted. Two of the stones are specifically identified

as column bases; the others are probably from the stylobate

course because they were described as large stones and the

numbering of the stones is like that used in the stone setting

plans for the stylobate. The numbers used for the stones

here may be the same as those used in the information we

have now for the stone settings. If so, it might be possible to

examine their condition as documented in the recent stone

condition survey (Einhorn Yaffee and Prescott, 1994) to see

if the flaws identified nearly 70 years ago are still apparent. 

DISCOLORATION

Another interesting piece of information in the

archive’s correspondence that may relate to the present condition of some of the marble at the Lincoln Memorial

describes some surficial discoloration on two stones. During an inspection of the marble in July 1914, two stones

showed a yellowish discoloration that workers were unable

to remove from the stone (Baird, 1914b) even after washing.

Baird and a group of people (Bacon, Harts, Gillan, O’Connor, and Kennedy) suspected that the discoloration might be

from cinders on the surface of the marble that had reacted

with rain. There is no further mention of this issue in later

correspondence, and the Colorado Yule Marble Company

may have tried to avoid future problems with discoloration

by careful boxing and loading of the stone prior to shipment

(Baird, 1914b). Today, some of the stones in the Lincoln

Memorial, particularly some of the antefix stones on the

roof entablature, have a light-orange coloration. It is possible that, rather than being an inherent characteristic of the

stone, some of that surficial discoloration might instead be a

residue of very fine particles of iron (from cinders?) that

rusted on the surface and lodged in the intergranular spaces

of the marble surfaces. Although some discoloration like

this is present on other buildings that used Yule marble, it

may not cover as many stones in those buildings as it does

in the Lincoln Memorial.

REFERENCES CITED

Baird, James, 1914a [Letter to Col. W.W. Harts]: April 14, 1914,

2 p. (Records of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds,

Record Group 42, National Archives.)

———1914b [Letter to J.F. Manning]: July 6, 1914, 3 p. (Records

of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds, Record Group

42, National Archives.)

———1914c [Letter to J.F. Manning] September 9, 1914, 2 p.

(Records of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds,

Record Group 42, National Archives.)

Butler, John, 1915 [Letter to James Baird]: July 24, 1915, 2 p.

(Records of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds,

Record Group 42, National Archives.)

Einhorn Yaffee and Prescott, 1994, Lincoln Memorial stone survey: Final Report to the National Park Service, Denver Service Center, Denver, Colo., 285 p.

Harts, 1914a [Letter to George A. Fuller Company]: March 30,

1914, 2 p. (Records of the Office of Public Buildings and

Grounds, Record Group 42, National Archives.)

———1914b [Letter to George A. Fuller Company]: September

16, 1914, 2 p. (Records of the Office of Public Buildings and

Grounds, Record Group 42, National Archives.)

Manning, J.F., 1915a [Letter to James Baird]: July 20, 1915, 3 p.

(Records of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds,

Record Group 42, National Archives.)

———1915b [Letter to James Baird]: July 24, 1915, 2 p. (Records

of the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds, Record

Group 42, National Archives.)
43

APPENDIX C. BRIEF HISTORY OF THE YULE QUARRY

Although the Colorado Yule marble deposit was first

reported in 1882 (Vanderwilt, 1937), a producing quarry

operation was not established at the deposit until 1906

(Manning, 1914). Samples of the Colorado Yule marble

exhibited at the Colombia Exposition in 1893 brought much

attention to the quality and purity of the marble. The Colorado-Yule Company's first large contract, for the Cuyahoga

County court house in Cleveland, Ohio, was obtained in

1907 (Vandenbusche and Myers, 1991). The company made

major improvements to its operation and finishing plant to

help it handle the work necessary to fulfill its contract to

provide the marble for the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. However, almost immediately after completing

that high-profile contract in 1917, the quarry went into

bankruptcy and ceased operations because of financial problems, natural disasters, and the loss of skilled laborers during World War I (Vandenbusche and Myers, 1991). The

quarry was reopened in 1922 (Vanderwilt, 1937), but it

closed again in 1941 when marble was declared nonessential to the war effort, and much of the machinery and equipment was sold for scrap metal (Vandenbusche and Myers,

1991).

In 1990, the Yule quarry reopened (McClean, 1990;

Klusmire, 1993). The Colorado Yule Marble Company is

currently operating the quarry and producing dimension

stone for large projects, such as the interior of the new Denver airport (Klusmire, 1993). In 1992, the quarry shipped

1,000 cubic meters of marble; it will produce about 7,080

cubic meters at full production (Peterson and Cappa, 1994).

The U.S. Bureau of Mines 1992 Annual Report for Colorado predicts that at the present rate the quarry could last

300 years (Peterson and Cappa, 1994).

REFERENCES CITED

Klusmire, Jon, 1993, Monumental success: Colorado Business

Magazine, May, p. 70–72.

Manning, J.F., 1914, Quarries of the Colorado-Yule Marble Company: Thirteenth Biennial Report of the Bureau of Mines of

the State of Colorado, Denver, Colo., p. 142–144.

McClean, Steve, 1990, Colorado marble was used in Lincoln

Memorial: Pay Dirt, p. 2–4.

Peterson, E.K., and Cappa, J.A., 1994, 1992 Annual Report: Colorado. U.S. Bureau of Mines Minerals Yearbook, 17 p.

Vandenbusche, Duane, and Myers, Rex, 1991, Marble, Colorado—

City of stone: Denver, Golden Bell Press, 227 p.

Vanderwilt, J.W., 1937, Geology and mineral deposits of the

Snowmass Mountain area, Gunnison County, Colorado: U.S.

Geological Survey Bulletin 884, 184 p.
Selected Series of U.S. Geological Survey Publications

Books and Other Publications

Professional Papers report scientific data and interpretations 

of lasting scientific interest that cover all facets of USGS investigations and research.

Bulletins contain significant data and interpretations that are of 

lasting scientific interest but are generally more limited in 

scope or geographic coverage than Professional Papers.

Water-Supply Papers are comprehensive reports that present 

significant interpretive results of hydrologic investigations of 

wide interest to professional geologists, hydrologists, and engineers. The series covers investigations in all phases of hydrology, including hydrogeology, availability of water, quality of 

water, and use of water.

Circulars are reports of programmatic or scientific information 

of an ephemeral nature; many present important scientific 

information of wide popular interest. Circulars are distributed 

at no cost to the public.

Fact Sheets communicate a wide variety of timely information 

on USGS programs, projects, and research. They commonly 

address issues of public interest. Fact Sheets generally are two 

or four pages long and are distributed at no cost to the public.

Reports in the Digital Data Series (DDS) distribute large 

amounts of data through digital media, including compact discread-only memory (CD-ROM). They are high-quality, interpretive publications designed as self-contained packages for viewing and interpreting data and typically contain data sets, 

software to view the data, and explanatory text.

Water-Resources Investigations Reports are papers of an 

interpretive nature made available to the public outside the formal USGS publications series. Copies are produced on request 

(unlike formal USGS publications) and are also available for 

public inspection at depositories indicated in USGS catalogs.

Open-File Reports can consist of basic data, preliminary 

reports, and a wide range of scientific documents on USGS 

investigations. Open-File Reports are designed for fast release 

and are available for public consultation at depositories.

Maps

Geologic Quadrangle Maps (GQ’s) are multicolor geologic 

maps on topographic bases in 7.5- or 15-minute quadrangle 

formats (scales mainly 1:24,000 or 1:62,500) showing bedrock, 

surficial, or engineering geology. Maps generally include brief 

texts; some maps include structure and columnar sections only.

Geophysical Investigations Maps (GP’s) are on topographic 

or planimetric bases at various scales. They show results of 

geophysical investigations using gravity, magnetic, seismic, or 

radioactivity surveys, which provide data on subsurface structures that are of economic or geologic significance.

Miscellaneous Investigations Series Maps or Geologic 

Investigations Series (I’s) are on planimetric or topographic 

bases at various scales; they present a wide variety of format 

and subject matter. The series also incudes 7.5-minute quadrangle photogeologic maps on planimetric bases and planetary 

maps.

Information Periodicals

Metal Industry Indicators (MII’s) is a free monthly newsletter that analyzes and forecasts the economic health of five 

metal industries with composite leading and coincident 

indexes: primary metals, steel, copper, primary and secondary 

aluminum, and aluminum mill products.

Mineral Industry Surveys (MIS’s) are free periodic statistical 

and economic reports designed to provide timely statistical data 

on production, distribution, stocks, and consumption of significant mineral commodities. The surveys are issued monthly, 

quarterly, annually, or at other regular intervals, depending on 

the need for current data. The MIS’s are published by commodity as well as by State. A series of international MIS’s is also 

available.

Published on an annual basis, Mineral Commodity Summaries is the earliest Government publication to furnish estimates 

covering nonfuel mineral industry data. Data sheets contain 

information on the domestic industry structure, Government 

programs, tariffs, and 5-year salient statistics for more than 90 

individual minerals and materials.

The Minerals Yearbook discusses the performance of the 

worldwide minerals and materials industry during a calendar 

year, and it provides background information to assist in interpreting that performance. The Minerals Yearbook consists of 

three volumes. Volume I, Metals and Minerals, contains chapters about virtually all metallic and industrial mineral commodities important to the U.S. economy. Volume II, Area Reports: 

Domestic, contains a chapter on the minerals industry of each 

of the 50 States and Puerto Rico and the Administered Islands. 

Volume III, Area Reports: International, is published as four 

separate reports. These reports collectively contain the latest 

available mineral data on more than 190 foreign countries and 

discuss the importance of minerals to the economies of these 

nations and the United States.

Permanent Catalogs

“Publications of the U.S. Geological Survey, 1879–1961”

and “Publications of the U.S. Geological Survey, 1962–

1970” are available in paperback book form and as a set of 

microfiche.

“Publications of the U.S. Geological Survey, 1971–1981” is 

available in paperback book form (two volumes, publications 

listing and index) and as a set of microfiche.

Annual supplements for 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986, and 

subsequent years are available in paperback book form.
McGee—COLORADO YULE MARBLE—BUILDING STONE OF THE LINCOLN MEMORIAL—U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 2162

Printed on recycled paper