That's a beautiful home indeed! It might be over priced since it has been on the market for almost 2 years. How big is the house? I am guessing it's around 2500-2700 sqft.

CIRCA Old Houses website, and This Old House and Old House Journal magazines classified sections.

Sorry, but the house looks like a low budget flip not a thoughtful historic restoration. Too much remuddling that would need to be undone. Buying it at 186 and putting in all cheepchinesecrapola that needs to be ripped out is not a selling feature. It's a negative, and the house is way overpriced for what it actually is. It's no longer a "historic home" and does not have historic home appeal. For anyone who wants that, they will be badly disappointed. For someone who wants suburban tract house features? It's too old.

Reduce the price by at least 100K and maybe an old house lover will want to take on a restoration. But it will be a challenge. Not much original left but the exterior appearance.

A lot of it could also be the location, although I have no idea what the location is. It is common where I grew up for perfectly fine houses to sit for years, because the buyer pool who wants a particular sort of house of any type in that area is going to be small.

Thanks, everyone. We do get some feedback. All buyers seem to love it. For some it is location that turns them off, it is about 45 east of Atlanta. One buyer could not get their financing in order. We recently had 2 couples look at it but they are still thinking about it. Both agents have never had any complaints about price. Getting feedback from our agents is like pulling teeth. At first, I thought it was our original agent but it is difficult with both agents so I don't know what the problem is.
It is 4487 Sq. Ft. The restoration was as true as could be given we were not the original remodelers. We bought it as abandoned after another couple had started their own remodeling. It was empty for 5 years and we restored it with period pieces, like the stolen mantels, and left original fixtures when we could to pass code.

@Current Resident you can see the listing from the highlighted text in Sophie's comment. Tara I think your pool of potential buyers is limited for a few reasons. A lot of people believe that all older houses are money pits with constant need for upkeep and they don't want to take that on. The square footage is more than most people need. While the kitchen and bathrooms are functional I don't care for any of the finishes and would factor the cost of totally remodeling them if I were a potential buyer. The rooms are beautifully proportioned and I wish you luck with it.

HOW Sophie knows. (Links would be better in red. But unlike the wonderful Wild West days when mere unpaid content providers were allowed access to HTML, the bland corporatists get their bland way.)

The kitchen and bath redos are not in the slightest sympathetic to the home's historical character. And replacing original wavy glass with thermopane. Ugh. I wonder how much original plaster is left.

I've been scouting heritage homes in New England. The trouble from my point of view is that the unspoiled ones tend to be in remote communities out of the reach of the modern flippers and "improvers" raised on HGTV crap.

Folks taking nasty-pills today.

Home presents well. People want a modern kitchen in old/restored homes.

"The obsessive modernising of old houses is one of the great vandalisms of our time."

Thus you continue a pattern of weighing in late with nasty shots.

Bring back the pump at the sink, the outhouse, the lack of A/C, lack of central heat, etc.

Grazie!

I'll try to be faster off the line next time. (And I'll try for saccharine affirmations, which is what so many posters really, really want.)

I really think most people are not purists, and would not object to the updates to this house. Those looking for a high degree of authenticity are a small buyer pool.

It looks like original woodwork was painted which is a negative.

It looks like the fireplace tile in picture 4 was replaced with something more contemporary and not of the period, which is a negative.

It also looks like that fireplace is non-working which is also a negative.

In pictures 5 and 6 it almost looks like 1 room had been created from 2 rooms? Plus as mentioned before, the fact the woodwork was painted is a negative.

It's also a negative that the hearth has white subway tile and that it looks like the original fireplace grate was painted white. White subway tile was only used in bathrooms and kitchen back at the turn of the last century.

In picture 10, 11, 17 the molding is not authentic to the house era and is a big negative. The nipple lights don't help either.

In picture 12, it appears the fireplace hearth tile was replaced too. Again a negative.

The bathroom in pictures 13 and 23, 24 with modern large format tile tub surround and modern tile floors and jacuzzi tub is a big negative. Even if it all had been updated, it should have been updated with a period feel. That also includes the modern large mirror versus period medicine cabinets.

In picture 15 the fireplace tile is marble which is not period correct. That too is a negative as is the white doors and windows.

In picture 19 the fireplace with the white tile is a negative.

Picture 21 with square white tiles is also a negative. And in both cases the mantles were painted.

In picture 25 it appears something is not authentic with the hallway. Either the ceiling was dropped to put in AC or a room was removed or???

The restoration was as true as could be given we were not the original remodelers

Unfortunately this is not a restoration but more of a remodel.

I know I sound blunt and negative but those of us who love and want historic homes, want a home that is as authentic as possible to the period. We don't want beautiful woodwork painted, or bathrooms and kitchens remuddled.

As a buyer, seeing the remuddling, I'm thinking of the work, time and dollars I would need to restore it. The paint I'm going to need to have stripped. The baths I'm going to have to completely redo to make more authentic. The tile fireplace surrounds I'm going to need to replace and also how I'm going to get those fireplaces working again. And how I'm going to redo the kitchen eventually.

Most of us who love old houses don't want an old house that has been "updated" in the latest and greatest HGTV version.

Home presents well. People want a modern kitchen in old/restored homes.

The home presents well if you don't care about the original details. And yes we do want a modern kitchen but one that pays homage to the period of the house.

Bring back the pump at the sink, the outhouse, the lack of A/C, lack of central heat, etc.

No one is saying that but again, there are ways to incorporate all the modern conveniences without taking out the charm of an old house or painting all the woodwork white.

Now having said that, the question is, are there buyers out there for this house? Yes, but what will it take to bring them in?

My guess is you're overpriced for the market.

Now because you lost the buyer like myself who is looking for more authentic and might have paid a premium for it, you now need to appeal to a wider pool of buyers who won't mind the painted woodwork or the new bathrooms. That means lowering your price to what the market will bear. If you haven't sold it in 2 years, then that tells you that you're most likely overpriced.

This article "magically" appeared after I read this thread -actually quite good - https://www.houzz.com/magazine/6-tips-for-staging-historic-homes-stsetivw-vs~3563613

Re: "most people are not purists" - that may be true, but I think most people DO viscerally respond to design dissonance whether they are concious of it or not, or can articulate reasons why something may look/feel off. As a long time online real estate browser (and occasional looky-loo) I can tell you its the houses that had been remuddled in an amateurish, cheap cheesy way resulting in a visual mishmash are the ones that sit on the market the longest

Not that this house is anywhere near that - I did finally take a look, and it wasnt anywhere near as bad as I feared based on the comments here - pleasantly surprised to see windows and other original features still there...still I think cpa's points are well taken that a certain no. of buyers who are willing to relocate somewhere for the right historic house may not consider it worth the price.

A few points to remember. Not all historic homes had stained wood. Craftman, four square and some other colonial revivals from early 1900s to 1920s often did but earlier true colonial homes often had colorful painted cheaper woods as standard. This house may not have had white painted woodwork but it also might not have been stain quality wood originally.

As a late 1800 house, bathrooms might have not been in the original house either and many historic home owners rightly feel when a house predates original bathrooms anything goes when adding them.

Honestly, your changes would not appeal to purists but appealing to a purist would have lessened your buyer pool substantially in today's real world so your changes are not why it is sitting on the market. I have two theories why it is.

first and foremost, it is almost always a matter of price. You are still too high. Zillow, though not usually the best pricing resource is what buyers use all to often and it has you valued under 400,000.

Secondly, I notice that 24 hours advanced notice is needed for viewings. This leads me to believe, rightly or not, that you might have tenants. I would never purchase or even view a family home with existing renters in it. I know to many people who did and than spent the next years trying to evict the tenants. If you are renting to help with the carrying costs of two mortgages, I would wait til the renter's lease is up and not renew and than relist the house tenant free at market value.

Roar, assuming its a place you would want to buy, having the tenants out would be a contingency - you wouldnt complete the transaction till that's accomplished - ie till they are physically out. You would also do the final walk through and be prepared to walk if it was a mess or junk left behind.

I know how hard it is to evict and thus I do not even look at houses with tenants and many others do not aswell. It is easier to sell if tenants are out before entering the market. Many buyers prefer not to put contingency clauses in offers for they either are not accepted or they waste time and fall through, just another reason why perhaps the house has sat for over 600 days...more likely it is priced too high though.

The age of the home is either an attractant, or a repellant. There is no neutral.

For an old home lover, it's an attractant. Until they see the remodel. For most, including the big home buying demographic of Millennials, the age of the home is a big turn off. It represents a bunch of unknown future problems and financial drains.

Price overcomes all objections. If it's low enough, the old home lover feels they can rectify the remuddle. If it's low enough, the modern home lover feels that they have saved enough to make some of those inevitable repairs.

I think it depends upon what the other housing stock is, as well. In most places I have lived, which have been either urban, or small-town rural, not suburban, the vast majority of old housing stock does not have anything resembling the original interiors particularly when it comes to kitchens and baths.

In the small towns I lived in much of the housing stock was probably 1890-1930 and then jumped to post 1960 or so. And I now live in a city with a lot of housing stock from 1790s to 1860s in my neighborhood and tracts of houses from 1900-1930 in others, and the majority of the houses have interiors that are far from intact.

In fact, people are still buying houses that were last bought in the 1960s and 1970s that are pre Civil War, and which were left relatively intact in the 1960s or 1970s except for new kitchens and baths, and people are Completely Gutting them and turning them into millennial houses in an antique shell. It's extremely common to take a scorched earth approach. I don't care what the Old House Forum thinks most people want. What most people want, if they can't buy a brand new house (because of location, for example) is a brand new house shoehorned into an old shell. Most people would not know Historically Appropriate if it came up and bit them on the ass. And they don't care.

Whatever the reason this house is not selling, I don't know, but it's probably a combination of location and price, not because most buyers who walk in the door are having their preservationist sensibilities offended. I see way too much destruction of historic fabric to think this could possibly be true.

I think Sophie hit the nail on the head.

Too close to train tracks.

I think sherry hit it... I missed the map when I looked at the listing.

Yep good call Sherry. Which means your price is too high.

It is a very pretty house and I like the updates inside. It looks like the neighborhood is kept up well. Does your lot go all the way to the street behind you? If so, I would have the realtor stress the size of the lot.

Really, the only negative I see is the train tracks.

What's the property tax now? It must be way more than $839 by now. If the property is too high, that can be hard to sell too........

We just bought an old home (1890s foursquare) and looked at several other similar homes when we were hunting. Ours has been remodeled somewhat like the OPs - it is attractive enough to the eye, but much of the original character has been lost. However, the location was perfect and we loved the basic layout and bones, so that was enough for us to overlook these negatives. It was also priced in a way that accounted for the fact that there had been a bit of deferred maintenance and that the baths/kitchen had been done on the cheap. We will eventually be able to restore some of what has been lost, without feeling badly about ripping out a pristine new kitchen - not the case with the OP's home.

We are not necessarily old home lovers but as someone mentioned upthread, it depends on the housing stock in the area. Our choices were mostly either old Victorian-era homes with various levels of remodel, or 70s houses in very generic looking neighborhoods (also with various levels of remodel). The older homes held much greater appeal for us but in a different town, we might have chosen something newer. However, the OP is trying to market her home as "historic," which is definitely going to limit its appeal to a much narrower group of people who are likely to be much pickier about period details.

Finally, the house is HUGE, which is further going to limit the group of potential buyers. I don't know anything about the real estate market in the OP's area but with all of these limiting factors, I wouldn't put too much stock in comps (if there even are any directly comparable sales given age, location and size). If the house has been on the market for 2 years, it's too expensive.

Thank you to all who have given advice. I have been reading it and discussing it with our agent.

Here's what you won't find on Zillow. The previous home owner left the house to be foreclosed on, stole 3 original mantles, toilets, and half started a reasonable bathroom renovation. Someone else stole the copper wiring. The previous kitchen was from the 1980's. The house was not habitable when we purchased it. The mantle in the dining room had been painted 3 times but we stripped it to discover tiger wood. The dining room also had 15 feet of load bearing wall removed to add the bay window so we installed a beam to support the weight because the room above was sagging. We discovered pocket doors in the dining room. The kitchen floor is heart pine that was covered in linoleum and the kitchen had a drop ceiling covering tongue and groove bead board. We added closet space in two bedrooms upstairs by accessing closed off attic space. The rooms originally had 15" deep by 20" long closets. There was no insulation, no AC, knob and tube wiring, the smallest attic access you've ever seen, cracked windows, rotted columns, a crumbling porch, etc.

I guess it is easy to throw stones when you only see the after pictures.

Upstairs bathroom

PS. Before some of you shame me for removing the old corn crib. It was a condition of purchase by the city to remove it because it was deemed a fire hazard. It was infested and crumbling.

Have you posted on the "Buying and Selling a Home" forum? They have a different focus and a lot of Realtors post there. They will probably say price + location, but they don't really have a "historic" bias, so in general their viewpoint will be a bit different.

Just saw this! Your house is GORGEOUS. I am a huge old house lover, and I love original, original, original, but the next best thing is tasteful renovations that salvage what you can of the original and it looks like that is what you have done here. The right person is going to fall in love with it.

This was not throwing stones and I realize you put in a lot of love, sweat equity and care into the house but you asked why it's not selling.

If it's not selling after 2 years it's because you're over priced for a number of reasons which had been enumerated by many of us. We were trying to show you why a millennial might not want it versus why someone who's an old house lover might not want it.

I'm sorry your feelings have been hurt by the comments but you have to realize once you put a house on the market, it becomes a business transaction.

I know this is delving back into the thread so far that it's practically a non sequitur, but it's possible that a house this style would have had mostly painted interior millwork despite the year it was built. The turn of 20th c. Greek Revival revival houses in my local were mostly painted inside, as were actual Greek Revival interiors from 1820-1840. And the floors were raw until the end of the 19th c. at which point they were usually painted (brown) even when new builds of the era were getting stained floors.

Sorry I can't help with selling advice re agents, websites, etc. -- I just want to say your house is absolutely gorgeous!!! If that house were in this area, I'd find it difficult to resist. :)

I am curious about its status though, and wonder if that is affecting your selling potential... I find it listed as a 'Historic Site' by the Historic Preservation Society of Social Circle (here as 'Stanton (William Henry)'). Houses in the historic district in this area seem to have special restrictions imposed on any remodeling, and I'm told they are generally taxed much higher.

Hi! Your house is beautiful! I love old houses and while yours isn't a period accurate restoration, the brightness of the houses looks to me like what popular in remodeling today. For better or worse HGTV is a driving force in the tastes of the masses. I agree with not marketing it so much as a historic home to open up the pool of buyers. The negative reactions of posters here is showing why the historic marketing isn't working.

The one thing I would do is paint out any mill work that is stained to achieve a better sense of cohesiveness. My house was built in 1950 in the early American style that was popular at that time. We purchased from the original owners and absolutely love warmth of the stained paneling, but some people walk in and bluntly ask me when I'm going to get around to painting it. It is completely polarizing. I have a feeling the same buyer who loves the "fresh" look of the front rooms is going to see the stained crown in the kitchen and paneling in the other rooms as old and start thinking about what lurks behind the walls and all the weekend projects associated with owning an old home. You never know, but I doubt the buyer for this house is going to be someone specifically looking for a historic home unless you significantly drop the price. It is already too far removed from the original.

Good luck selling the home!!

Not to mention the railroad tracks just a couple of hundred feet away.

Railroad tracks make it unsellable for the price.

These silly people have never cooked in an original 100-year-old kitchen. I have. The fridge was newer, and the gas stove--probably only20 and 50 years old, each. Everything else was much older. It SUCKS. Later 1930s bath--which had rot problems because a window was put in the bath above the shower. Also sucked.

I have no expectations of an original bath or kitchen and wouldn't want them if they existed, which they almost never do. Bathrooms and kitchens are temporary. They really are. Especially if they predate 1950.

I street viewed around the little town and was impressed with your area for the most part. Saw another house like yours even. How are the schools there, medical facilities and other amenities? If this has been addressed previously in threads, just overlook my question.

I want to ask why you took on this project but you may not want to share that. I love your house and furnished it in my imagination!

Hey Tara, I hope you sell the house and make some money! Bury 2 St Joseph statues upside down, one in the front yard and one in the back yard. It wont hurt to try.......what the heck, may be bury 4, one on each side of house. It's time to collect your $$ after all the hard work!

Tara-I hope that you are able to sell your house...it is obvious that you put a lot of work into a house that was in very poor condition to start with. We live in a house built in 1920, which we love. My husband also struggled when we sold our previous house and listened to all the negative feedback when he had put so much of his own sweat equity into it. It is hard to see something as a "business transaction" when you would have poured your heart into it.

I think that the biggest problem is probably a location that leads to a vary small market. I think the renovation you did would be extremely popular where I grew up; where there are a few historic houses and a lot of 1960's or 70's houses, so a mostly modern interiors on the 1920's houses are more popular than the facades of the 1970's house. The land is also extremely valuable.

But no matter how well you did at restoring what was available, I don't think that this going to appeal to the audience looking for a restored historic house who has little geographical preference. As someone who likes historic houses I would be fine with your kitchens (although not what I would have chosen) but I don't like your bathrooms. I have the original bathrooms...and I love soaking in my clawfoot tub and we replaced the insides of our toilet bowl...their warranty was only for five years...it expired in 1925 (we saved it!). My other bathroom has the original hex tiles and the subway tiles. I would rather a big modern bathroom in a new house with a nice walk in dual shower or maybe a big jacuzzi tub or my historic clawfoot. I do NOT wish that I had the original kitchen :)

But I think the bigger problems are things you do not have any control over. When I took a google streetview look, it is not the "setting" I would choose for a historic home. The overhead powerlines down the front yard really detract for me. I would either want a historic home in a neighborhood of historic homes (which is what I currently live in) or I would want a southern country estate with the long curvy driveway a la Gone with the Wind.

There are a lot of options in that price range in that geographic area...If I was looking for a large historic house in that vicinity, I would be far more likely to choose this one https://www.redfin.com/GA/Oxford/1102-Emory-St-30054/home/24180388 and use my $75K to fix the finishes to the way that I like them.

If you put in a dual zone system so that you only need air condition part of the house, or the efficiency of the new systems insulation is great, you might want to highlight that. Personally we looked at some historic houses that were larger than we needed and the large size was actually a negative factor...we did not want to pay to heat or cool that space. Even in a 2200 square foot townhome built in 1920 we were paying $1000K a month during the winter to heat our house...because of a very inefficient oil boiler. We fixed that and saved a lot of money...so if you know what heating/cooling costs you might want to provide that info rather than just "new HVAC"

Is living in the house yourself an option? Was this a renovation for yourself and then you had to move or was this just an investment renovation? I just don't think there is much that you can do other than drop the price...I don't like the round kitchen table with the built in square benches or the fridge that is much smaller than the built in space with the trash next to it, but other than those minor issues I think that if you really want to sell that you are just going to have to start dropping the price (significantly).

Anytime a house doesn't sell in two years time, it's the price. YOU may value it more - you may have more money in it - but if others don't, they will not buy it.

My hairdresser and his wife are in this predicament now. They put their house on the market nearly 2 years ago. It's in one of the most desirable neighborhoods in town - all the houses are large and very expensive and most were built either pre-WWII or right after the war. But there house was always the smallest house in the neighborhood. It also was built on a fall-away (very STEEP fall-away) lot. He loves to garden so they had the back terraces and put in extensive plantings. It was gorgeous and often on the Garden Club tour.

The house was lovely and it was beautifully furnished (now empty). Even if they had not removed all the furniture, it was decorated in a very tradition al style with lots of beautiful antiques. The young don't want that today and it's a huge turn-off for them. And the house has problems. A large 2nd floor addition didn't have a separate HAVC system installed - instead they put in those "in-the-wall" units one finds in older motels. Awful! The kitchen is a bit dated and they had not put in top-of-the-line appliances (no SubZero). Access to the back is a bit awkward and limited.

They have had 3 different listing agents but no one has ever looked at it twice. Most people buying in this neighborhood are wealthy young families and it's not a great house for children. Now I know quite well that today, very few children EVER play outside in the yard (with the exception of my grandsons). I drive through neighborhoods with those $5000 playhouses and not a child in sight. But their parents THINK they will and so the terraced back is a turn-off. They also don't want to maintain it and it takes a LOT of maintenance. In fact, that's why the owners decided to sell it - tired of the upkeep on those extensive gardens.

The house was priced about $250,000 to $300,000 too high. They've lowered the price but not enough and after this long, people have questions and think of it as "damaged goods". They need to lower the price, have a "fire sale" and be done with it.

This home has a happy ending. It was sold for $382,500!

Borrowing this thread to ask a window question since a lot of old house pros are here. We checked out a historical home. All the windows are original, the stained glass windows are lovely but have many cracks. How do you fix these old stained glass windows? The house is in zone 5b, the low temp can be -15F, without fixing the windows the house (3,800 sq ft) won’t be warm. I think none of the windows are insulated.

What a beauty! I've never worked with them but there are specialists that can replace broken pieces of stained glass windows. As for insulation, all you need is to restore the windows and some form of storm window. That combo will be just as good or better than the new frequent-replace windows in efficiency.

Thanks for the input. It’s a brick house on a very very steep hill ( in a bad spot). It could be dangerous if we were riding our motorcycles down the driveway to a busy street......but the house was so beautiful from far away......when we walked closer we saw the rotted wood all over the place. That house needs a lot of work, not sure we can handle It. Thanks again for the input.