1909 Queen Anne – Minonk, IL

Details below are from July 2012, sold status has not been verified.
To verify, check the listing links below.

Added to OHD on 7/3/12   -   Last OHD Update: 4/12/20   -   22 Comments
Off Market / Archived

3009 200 N Rd, Minonk, IL 61760

Map: Street

  • $49,000
  • 5 Bed
  • 2 Bath
  • 3211 Sq Ft
  • 3.07 Ac.
Contact Information
Scarlett Palm, Jim Maloof Realtor

State: | Region: | Associated Styles or Type:
Period & Associated Styles: , | Misc: ,

22 Comments on 1909 Queen Anne – Minonk, IL

OHD does not represent this home. Comments are not monitored by the agent. Status, price and other details may not be current, verify using the listing links up top. Contact the agent if you are interested in this home.
  1. John C. Shiflet says: 5357 comments

    By 1909, the Gilded Age was already in the past. This is a late example in the Queen Anne style which by the end of the first decade of the 20th century was almost extinct. Pity that the former fretwork spandrel between the columns is gone. The staircase balusters are impressive but overall not much seen in these photos to get excited about. It’s on 3 acres which is a plus. But compared to the lavish Sumner mansion in Earl Park, IN which is only $6k more, the differences are striking.

  2. says: 461 comments

    Wow, I can’t get over seeing all the bells and whiistles in this rare gem! Finding this level of opulence and handwrought detail is a real rarirty in this day and age! Obviously no expense was spared in the construction of this masterpiece of architecture from a bygone era. This amazingly incredible home is truly a unique, once in a lifetime opportunity for some lucky buyer to experience the quality and artistic perfection of a home that could never ever be reproduced these days! Wow!!!

    But seriously, Mr. (or Ms.) Realtor, please reel it in a bit. It’s a nice enough house and the price is right. We get it. Personally I’d label this one a Colonial Revival. I don’t see anything “Queen Anne” about this house. At all. Also, I imagine that planting some trees and doing a little landscaping would make a huge difference.

  3. Kelly, OHDKelly, OHD says: 11871 comments

    1901 Folk Victorian
    Chestatee, GA

    I know it’s not a ritzy one, but it isn’t as bad as yall are making it out to be. 🙂

    • says: 461 comments

      I don’t think it’s a bad house at all. I wouldn’t mind living in it myself. But I find it amusing when realtors choose to engage in so much hyperbole with their descriptions. It’s a nice house, OK, but infinitely charming and opulent it aint. And I’m definitely not seeing all the bells and whistles of Queen Anne architecture here. But as Ryan noted, they may be referring to the plumbing or something like that.

      • John C. Shiflet says: 5357 comments

        The “Queen Anne” part is the wrap around porch, assymetrical massing, patterned sawn shingles, bracketed or corbeled roof eaves and porch eaves. The tri-partite gable window is not Palladian (most often seen on Colonial Revival or Neo-Classical influenced houses) which during this era was a larger arched topped center window closely flanked by two smaller rectangular windows. Agreed that there is no prominent Queen Anne style tower or turret and the house, because its post 1900 origin has a more horizontal appearance than earlier more vertical Queen Annes- but I stand by my LATE Queen Anne stylistic assessment nonetheless. The square, “Bungalow” style porch columns likely replaced earlier Neo-Classical or Tuscan style columns. The usual Colonial Revival wreaths, swags, urns, or Georgian Revival broken pediments and Adamesque type ornaments are absent here so it would be difficult to classify it solely as a Colonial Revival style house. If this house were painted properly in period colors (from the 1895-1905 period) I believe it’s familial connection to the Queen Anne style would be more evident.

        • says: 461 comments

          John, I guess you and I have different ideas when it comes to identifying American home styles! Some people seem to think that only relatively faithful copies of actual 18th century homes should be called Colonial Revivals, and some people think pretty much any late Victorian qualifies as a Queen Anne. Other rely on the build date to help classify the style of an old house. Et cetera. Personally, I think a house needs to display a number of very specific features to be a Queen Anne, and to me, this one just doesn’t fit the bill.

          To me, a typical Queen Anne porch will feature tall, slender, (usually)turned posts, often with spandrels between, but they don’t generally have deep eaves with brackets of this sort. Queen Anne wraparound porches are very often curved rather than squared, and they almost always have a much more vertical feel. Much more than this one, I mean. I have to admit I hadn’t even noticed those sawn shingles up in the small gable, and you’re right, that gable element is indeed more typical of a Queen Anne. But I don’t see much in the way of overall verticality here. I don’t see any turrets or towers. I don’t see fanciful decorative details, or turned porch posts, or balconies of any kind. I don’t see a wide variety of window shapes, and sizes thrown together randomly on the same facade. I don’t see much surface play between multiple siding materials. I don’t see a steeply pitched or domed roof. I don’t really see any of the typical things I’d typically associate with the Queen Anne style, so I do find it sort of surprising that someone could take a gander at this house and immediately think “Queen Anne.” I think you’re right, though, that this house doesn’t represent just one single stylistic period. Personally, I’d still opine that this place is mostly Colonial Revival with some Craftsman influence and, OK, a bit of Queen Anne thrown in for good measure….but hey, to each his own!

          Also, although the more elaborate, earlier Colonial Revival homes (those designed by McKim, Mead & White, and other architects of their ilk) did often feature a lot of swags, urns and other such classical decorative details, those elements are not required in order for a home to be classified as a Colonial Revival. An 1890s Newport mansion and a simple clapboarded suburban house from the 1930s might both be considered Colonial Revival in style. Wraparound porches, especially this simple type, are not peculiar to Queen Annes. They’re often found on many other styles, including the Colonial Revival. Corbelling is fairly common with other styles, too, both on porches and eaves.

          Also, just for the record, I wasn’t trying to contradict you when I posted about this earlier. I didn’t even realize that you’d mentioned anything about the house being a Queen Anne. I was only responding to the realtor (who done pissed me off).

          • Kelly, OHDKelly, OHD says: 11871 comments

            1901 Folk Victorian
            Chestatee, GA

            Yall both win. I see both Colonial Revival and a small bit of Queen Anne but then again, I suck at defining styles when it’s somewhere in between one or the other. 🙂

            • Kelly, OHDKelly, OHD says: 11871 comments

              1901 Folk Victorian
              Chestatee, GA

              PS: Maybe I should have called this an Eclectic?

              • John C. Shiflet says: 5357 comments

                I appreciate Ryan’s points and have no argument with them-I would say though that just as this house is weak in its Queen Anne identity, (for all practical purposes, by the end of the first decade of the 20th century the high style Queen Annes had already been “dead” for 10 years and those built during this period gradually lost most of their Queen Anne characteristics) it is equally weak in its Colonial Revival identity. I’ve heard of houses like this referred to as “Eclectic” but also as Turn of the (last) Century Transitionals. (as in transitioning from late Victorian details to more modern-simpler- 20th century details) We have a whole large historic district where I live (The Fairmount-Southside District) where nearly all of the homes were built after 1900 with many built right around the 1910 period. As one might expect, they are often hybrids of several styles and house types such as Foursquares with Colonial Revival and Prairie style influences. We old house lovers may wish for old houses to fit neatly into stylistic categories and when they are architect designed, they often do. But Vernacular or common residential examples (also called “Builder’s Specials”) sometimes try to exhibit a blend of popular styles to satisfy the owner’s tastes. No one knew in 1900 what styles of architecture would dominate the next century so stylistic eclecticism ruled for a while.

                • john c says: 434 comments

                  Another house in OHD, from the same county in Illinois, is simply referred to as 1907 with no further style designation. http://oldhousedreams.com/2012/05/14/1907-washburn-illinois/
                  Maybe in that era, in that county houses, were nondescript if not indescribable.

                  I have said “the same county”. Minonk is in Woodford County. Lacon, where JS Thompson was located and, I think, this real estate agent is located, is the county seat of Marshall county. You will notice that the agent refers to the house as being in Marshall County. I have not been able to determine if somehow this house is within the Minonk zip code but actually in Marshall county, and that is certainly a possibility. Unfortunately the maps I have tried using google don’t show the county boundaries.

                  • Jim says: 5103 comments

                    The house is definitely in eastern Marshall County, but is in the Rutland zip code 61358. It’s much closer to the little hamlet of Rutland in LaSalle Co. than Minonk. If you enter “Marshall County IL”, you’ll get county boundaries. As is often the case, zip codes don’t respect political boundaries, and most real estate agents can’t read maps.

                    • John c says: 434 comments

                      Well, and as I have proved I can read maps most of the time, perhaps I should think of real estate as a new career. You have definitely demonstrated to me what I already ruefully knew: cartography isn’t my strength. Thanks, Jim, for straightening that out for myself and everyone reading!

                    • Jim says: 5103 comments

                      John, I wasn’t trying to show you up – just nailing down the location for myself. For some reason, I have to find these places on a map, preferably with topo, aerial and street views, before I can take them seriously.

                    • John c says: 434 comments

                      Good heavens, I didn’t think of it as showing me up. Whenit comes to maps, I think of people like yourself as kindly showing me out of the woods or hills or wherever I have landed myself. It is splendid you are following Kelly’s site and can add that wonderful aspect to all this!

    • Annette says: 11 comments

      I love it, reminds me of the house and barn in Twister.

  4. john c says: 434 comments

    John Strawn Thompson was, so far as I can determine, a citizen of Lacon. This must have been a country house, at most. A long biographical sketch is set out at http://files.usgwarchives.net/il/marshall/bios/1001593gbs.txt Moreover, he died in 1903. http://records.ancestry.com/John_Strawn_Thompson_records.ashx?pid=14244701 Thompsons (and John Strawn Thompson’s mother’s family, the Strawns), were early settlers in this area. See http://books.google.com/books?id=sBIVAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA687&lpg=PA687&dq=Lacon+IL++John+Strawn+Thompson&source=bl&ots=MYgmLLql-J&sig=Un82HZ9Nx1mKDa9AKo5DxG3EzLY&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vGfzT7asNJKtqwHZxcTKAw&ved=0CF8Q6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Lacon%20IL%20%20John%20Strawn%20Thompson&f=false

    I suspect something has become confused in the telling over the years — I don’t think this was built by JS Thompson as a home for himself, and I know it wasn’t built by him in 1909 at all, since he was six years dead.

    Part of the confusion may come about because there is or was until recent years a JS Thompson trust with farmland in Marshall County. http://farm.ewg.org/persondetail.php?custnumber=A03369063

    • Jim says: 5103 comments

      C’mon John, it says right there in the listing that J.S. Thompson designed and built the house, and constructed it as well. Love it – so prestine.

  5. john c says: 434 comments

    In the 1870s, there was a Levi Thompson who farmed in Minonk Township. http://genealogytrails.com/ill/woodford/minonk_taxpayers.htm Some of the dates regarding “those” Thompsons might fit this house:
    Thompson, Frank L: d. Feb 13, 1907, RR accident, b. Apr 29, 1890 Clifton – Feb 14, 1907
    Thompson, James H: d. Jan 17, 1911, Lacon, wife – Jan 19, 1911
    Thompson, Levi: d. Apr 18, 1911, Minonk, b. Oct 1829 Ohio, md 1857 Sarah Jane Kirby d. 1899, 4 ch, named, md Dec 21, 1899 Martha J. Thompson, Minonk cem – Apr 20, 1911

    Source: http://genealogytrails.com/ill/woodford/MinonkDispatch.html

  6. john c says: 434 comments

    To my mind, one of the oddest assertions is that the foundation is out of cut Joliet limestone. Joliet limestone is a term used to describe a kind of dolimite stone found in and near Joliet, Illinois. http://designslinger.com/2011/06/08/designslinger—word-of-the-week-joilet-limestone.aspx

    Joliet Limestone
    Joliet limestone was seen around the world when Barack Obama announced his candidacy for president at the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois on February 10th, 2007. The structures built of Joliet limestone are identifiable precisely because they all weather to a rich, buttery yellow and have a permanence akin to the Egyptian and Aztec pyramids. Some other prominent buildings made of Joliet limestone include Joliet Prison, Chicago’s Water Tower and Pumping Station and Joliet Township High School’s Central Campus. (source: http://www.wttw.com/main.taf?p=32,2,1,16)

    However, by 1910 Joliet limestone was not being used in construction even in Joliet, being largely replaced by Bedford limestone. See http://www.lewisu.edu/imcanal/JohnLamb/section_46.pdf Joliet limestone had peculairities that made it less than competitive with Bedford stone.

    I don’t think that in 1909 Joliet limestone would have been hauled this distance to a farm near Peoria; I suspect some local stone was used.

  7. echo says: 112 comments

    I think a lot of work for a home buyer. The 3 acres is a plus. It has a great front large porch also, but a lot of time,money and hard work before she is a gem again. But…in her day she was a charm.

Comment Here

To keep comments a friendly place for each other, owners and agents, comments that do not add value to the conversation in a positive manner will not be approved. Keep topics to the home, history, local attractions or general history/house talk.

Commenting means you've read and will abide by the comment rules.
Click here to read the comment rules, updated 1/12/20.

OHD does not represent this home. Price, status and other details must be independently verified. Do not contact the agent unless you are interested in the property.