Anecdotal evidence is much beloved of architectural historians, particularly in their attempts to recreate the social context in which architectural practice took place. But there are dangers inherent in its use. Using examples relating to the West End house in the periodc. 1765 toc. 1785, this paper argues that architectural historians should be wary of tacking on such evidence to corroborate what they read from built evidence; rather they should treat the body of anecdotal evidence as a source worth investigating in its own right. Only then will they unearth new readings and new understandings which elaborate and sometimes contradict received interpretations of architectural forms.