Yes, it was previously painted. Which is why REpainting it isn't a problem in the least.
The biggest knock on painting, BTW, is the unintentional FUTURE damage it causes to otherwise largely weatherproof materials. Paint traps water behind it, water turns to ice, freeze, thaw...etc.. Also paint has to be maintained going forward, so if you are painting a surface that has been UNpainted for a century, you are unnecessarily saddling future owners with new upkeep. Some future owners will be up to the additional painting demands, others not. The ones who are NOT up to it (or another subsequent owner) will one day complain that the building looks ratty or has structural problems - which it WILL have developed courtesy the damaging processes listed above - and will shrug their shoulders and ask for a demolition permit, which they will probably receive. That has been the life cycle for many historic structures not only here but throughout the U.S.. This is a major reason that the HP standard is to leave historically unpainted surfaces alone. The HP standard is attempting to head off a problem before it exists, which hopefully preservationists AND non-preservationists alike can agree is good policy.
But again, once a surface has paint, maintaining or repainting it is generally not making the problem worse, though if at all possible outright removal is of course encouraged.
Bookmarks