—We have thus far omitted to take into consideration the colours—or stainers, as most painters call them—that have to be used in the mixtures given in the last chapter, excepting, of course, when a white paint is required.

As a rule, one or several colours are added to the base producing a tint, shade, or hue, as may be required. Sometimes, but not often, colours are employed as “body colours,” that is, they are employed just as they are purchased, ground in oil, excepting that they are thinned down with the requisite quantity of oil and turpentine.

We may now give consideration to actual colour mixture, but must first make one or two points clear, so that the lists which follow may be properly understood.

First, then, it should be said that colours vary in appearance according to the light in which they are viewed. For example, a colour, when looked at in the light of a sunny day in the open, has a very different appearance to that when viewed in a dark room. This will be explained at greater length further on. The mixtures here given refer only to oil colours, and it must be clearly understood that the same results will not be obtained with artists’ water colours. In the case of the latter, tints are obtained by the addition of water just as they are produced in oil colours by the addition of white lead or other white pigment.

In examining the lists which follow the reader may ask why we do not give the actual proportions of the different parts. The answer is that this is impossible for two reasons, the first being that colours vary so largely in quality that the proportions would be useless unless some particular make of colours was taken as a standard, while the second is that the names of the same colour vary also largely. Let us consider this point at once.

The Nomenclature of Colours.

—If half a dozen practical painters, experienced in colour mixing, were asked separately to mix a given colour, say a sea green, it is almost certain that when the six colours were compared there would not be two alike. Each of the six painters might have had precisely the same make of colours to work with and yet the “sea green” would in each case be different. The explanation, of course, is that opinions differ as to what is a “sea green.”

In giving the samples of colour which are contained in this work the author was, under the circumstances, somewhat puzzled to know exactly the right names to give each. His idea as to what was a bronze green, for example, might differ materially from the opinion of others, indeed, as it has already been explained, no two practical men would probably be found to agree as to the exact colour of two or three dozen differently named colours. Under these circumstances, he hit upon the plan of following what appeared to be the general rule in the trade. With this object he obtained the colour cards issued by all the leading paint manufacturing firms in the country, as well as some from abroad. He then took out the colours which he thought would be most useful to his readers, and then very carefully, and with a considerable amount of labour, compared each colour with similar colours in the different colour cards, taking note of the different names which different manufacturers called them. The result was very surprising, because it was found that in many cases there were as many names as there were manufacturers’ cards represented. When, however, the same name was used by several manufacturers, that name was selected for the purpose of this work. The reader may, therefore, take it that the names employed here are those which are most general in the trade. As an instance of the variation in these names we may cite a few examples.

Bronze green was called by different manufacturers’ dark green, olive green, and sage green. In this case bronze green occurred more frequently than any other name.

Tea green was called also olive green and Queen Anne green.

Apple green was called very light sea green and Eau de Nil green.

Sage green was called also olive and pale Quaker green.

Venetian green was called also Imperial French green, light green, shamrock green, bright green, mountain green, middle green, and engine green.

Light chocolate was called dark maroon, red lake, metallic brown, and in one case the sample given of burnt sienna was almost identical.

Olive green was called also sage green, deep olive green, and Quaker green.

Dark green was called also medium green, Brunswick green, middle green, and deep coach green.

Moss green some manufacturers evidently thought was the same thing as bronze green.

Pea green was called also sea green and eau de Nil.

Ivy green was called bronze green, sage green, Quaker green, olive green.

Slate was called also Quaker blue and dark lead.

Pearl gray was called also light gray.

Lilac was called also French gray.

Warm gray was called also deep stone, French gray, and light stone.

Silver gray was called also lavender.

Steel gray was called French gray in several instances, but we prefer to use the other term, as it appears to be nearer to what is usually known in this country as a French gray, that is one which has a touch of red and blue in it.

Another instance of the variation in the names of these colours is shown by light stone, which one would think was sufficiently well known to remove any doubt about it, but this was called smoke gray, French gray, and dove.

Middle stone was called also light drab.

Dark oak was called also dark drab and yellow bronze green.

Light drab was called also middle drab and doe colour.

Sandstone was called also dark stone.

Dove colour was called also deep stone.

Stone colour was called also ecru and light stone.

Colonial yellow was called also straw, light stone, and deep Naples yellow.

Buff in one case was called yellow ochre.

Cream was called Manilla, light stone and deep deck.

Primrose yellow was called also mustard yellow, canary and straw colour.

Straw was called also Naples yellow and deep Naples yellow.

Deep cream was called also cream and lemon.

Fawn brown was called light drab and light lava.

Smoke colour was called rustic drab and drab.

Deep drab was called also dark stone, light drab, dark drab and fawn; one sample of raw Turkey umber was almost identical.

Dark drab was given also as dark lava and middle drab.

Dark oak was called also copper brown, light oak, and Imperial brown, whilst in one case a sample of dark ochre was almost identical.

Snuff brown was called also light brown, sepia, dark ochre, umber brown and Arabian brown.

Sienna brown was called also teak brown, coffee brown, deep Indian red and terra cotta.

Amber brown was called also bison brown, sepia, and dark oak.

Autumn leaf was called also leather lake, mast colour, middle oak, old gold, and light fawn.

Signal red was called also vermilion, geranium red and poppy red.

Moss gray was called also silver gray.

Acorn brown was called also umber, dark oak, dark brown, light brown, dark Indian brown, chestnut brown, middle chocolate and Portland brown.

With the above instances before him the reader will not, we think, take any exception to the names we have chosen for our sample colour. The same is true concerning the instructions for colour admixture. If a reader makes a mixture according to those instructions and finds the result disappointing, the reason will probably be that his conception of the particular colour differs from that of the author. And it should be mentioned again, here, that every one of the mixtures have been made in oil colours, checked and checked again.

For many years past efforts have been made by scientists and others to formulate a permanent nomenclature for colours, tints, shades, and hues, but it cannot be said that so far any success has been met with. Should the efforts made prove ultimately successful, there is no doubt it would be a great boon to decorators, painters, and others; for example, if a decorator wanted to order from his manufacturer a certain tint of colour, all he would have to do would be to send in the name. Prang, of Boston, in his work, “The Standard of Colour,” endeavoured to systematise the subject, and he did this in the following manner. He produced sheets of colour divided up into several thousand squares. On the first sheet at the top was the spectrum of pure colours divided up, and beneath this similar squares with similar colours, to which had been added a small portion of white. The line below this was the same again with more white added, and so on till the bottom of the sheet was reached, when the colours were greatly reduced by the while, the tints being naturally very light ones. The second sheet was exactly the same as the first, but a small portion of black had been added to all of the colours and tints. The third sheet was the same thing again, with more black added, and the fourth sheet more black still, and so on to the end of the work. The colours were distinguished with letters, and the lines indicated the amount of white added by numbers. To anyone who possessed a copy of the work it would be a comparatively easy matter to order any colour from the book by number and letter, but the reader will readily perceive that this work falls short of the requirements of practical decorators, inasmuch as it does not provide for the admixture of different colours, but only those which are in the spectrum. It is true enough that all colours are as a matter of fact included in the spectrum, but it is not so easy a matter to separate them for practical purposes.

The Economy of Using Good Colours.

—It may be taken as a safe rule for the painter to follow that where a good job is required the best materials only should be employed, but the reader may answer to this that the price paid to him for his work will frequently not permit of his doing this. We may then leave the subject an open one which has really no place in these pages, except in so far as it relates to tinting colours, and here we can definitely and positively assert that it pays the painter best to use the best qualities of colour, quite irrespective of whether he gets a high price or a low price for his work. We must now proceed to explain this. Let the reader assume that a large surface is to be painted a very light Prussian blue. The price for the work is fixed and the question to be determined is whether it will pay to use cheap Prussian blue or one of high quality. Assume that a high quality blue costs 2s. per pound, and that just one pound of it is sufficient to tint the whole white to the required shade. We are purposely giving a simple case so as to make the matter clear. Now a Prussian blue can be bought for, say, 1s. 3d. a pound, but it would probably consist of at least one half of barytes or some other adulterant, which is of no value whatever as a tinter. If this colour is half strength it is obvious that two pounds of it would be required to tint the white for the work in hand, and this would cost 2s. 6d., against 2s. for the better class colour. This homely example should be taken to heart by every painter. He has only to experiment to find out that it never pays to use inferior tinting colours. Of course there is another reason why the best quality should be used, and that is, the appearance of the inferior colours is always muddy and unsatisfactory.

Hue, Tint and Shade.

—There is a good deal of confusion among some painters as to the meaning of the word “hue,” “tint,” and “shade,” although there is no reason why any confusion should exist. The word “hue” is employed to mean practically the same thing as a “colour.” It may consist of any mixture of other colours, or may be a pure colour itself. Now when white is added to any hue or colour a tint of that colour is produced. If black is added a shade of that colour is produced. In the decoration of our rooms we shall see that as an actual fact we obtain shades of the colour by the omission of light, because the addition of black as a pigment to a colour acts in the same way as shutting off light. In mixing colours it is important to remember that black should not be used to lower the tone of a colour excepting in rare instances. It only has the effect of producing a muddy appearance. A yellow that is too bright can be reduced, or made less staring, a painter might say, by adding a little blue and red. If a blue is too bright a little red and yellow should be added; or if a red is too bright it may be toned down by the addition of a very little blue and yellow. This is a most useful rule to observe, and as long as the quantity of the colours added is not too great the results will please.