The Avonlea Hall Painting Fiasco was a public setback for A.V.I.S.: a paint-order misunderstanding turned a community improvement project into a conspicuous mistake. The hall was intended to be green, with its roof dark red, but it was painted blue instead. The error brought financial frustration and criticism, yet the response also rallied support for the volunteers and left the blue hall as a lasting local reference point.

The project and its choices

A.V.I.S. had raised enough money to paint the hall and shingle its roof. Anne Shirley reported that most people had contributed generously, making the project a visible result of the society’s fundraising and collective effort. The chosen scheme was a pretty green for the building and a dark-red roof. The work was divided between the roofing and painting: Joshua Pye of Carmody had nearly finished the shingling, while the paint was to be obtained in town by Roger Pye.

The choice of contractor had already involved a compromise. The Pye family consisted of four families, and they had said they would contribute nothing unless Joshua received the contract. Together they had subscribed twelve dollars. A.V.I.S. accepted their condition rather than lose that contribution, although some people thought the society should not have yielded. Rachel Lynde believed the Pyes were trying to control affairs. The later mistake therefore landed amid an existing disagreement over whether the society had made a sound decision in giving Joshua the work.

How the wrong color was ordered

The paint was Morton-Harris, whose cans were numbered to correspond with a color card. A purchaser selected a shade from the card and ordered it by number. A.V.I.S. wanted shade 147, the green it had chosen. When Roger Pye said he was going to town and would obtain the paint, the society sent its instruction through his son, John Andrew: John Andrew was to tell his father to get 147.

The crucial message became disputed. John Andrew consistently maintained that he had delivered the number 147; Roger Pye was equally firm that his son had said 157. The book leaves the disagreement unresolved. The society’s clear intention and the differing accounts of its instruction explain how the wrong paint might have been ordered, but the surviving account does not establish which version of the conversation was correct.

The mistake became apparent when Joshua painted the hall a deep, brilliant blue instead of green. The account assigns blame broadly to the Pyes, but distinguishes the parts they played: Roger obtained the paint, John Andrew carried the message, and Joshua applied it. Joshua’s later position was that he had been hired to paint the hall, not to decide whether its color was suitable, and that he expected payment for his work.

Payment and public reaction

The mistake initially caused dismay among A.V.I.S. members and anger among the wider community. People felt aggrieved because their money had gone toward a result they had not chosen. Criticism centered on the Pyes: Roger and John Andrew were said to have mishandled the order, while some argued that Joshua should have suspected a problem when he opened the cans and saw the color. Joshua answered that the community’s preferences were not his responsibility and that he had received the cans and been told to proceed.

A.V.I.S. consulted Peter Sloane, a magistrate, before paying Joshua. Sloane advised that they would have to pay: Joshua said he had not been told the intended color, only given the cans and instructed to go ahead. The society therefore paid him despite its dissatisfaction. The payment settled the immediate question of his wages, but did not undo the error or remove the cost of painting the hall in the wrong shade.

The society had expected the fiasco to make Avonlea more hostile to its efforts. Instead, public feeling shifted toward the volunteers, whom residents regarded as having worked hard and been treated unfairly. Rachel Lynde urged them to continue and prove that people could complete improvements without making a muddle of them. Major Spencer offered to clear the stumps along the road frontage of his farm and seed the ground with grass at his own expense. Hiram Sloane’s wife privately told Anne Shirley that, if the society planted a geranium bed at the crossroads in spring, she would keep her cow from damaging it. Even J. A. Harrison, who had previously complained that people were always asking for money, was outwardly sympathetic after the mistake.

A lasting local landmark

J. A. Harrison tried to console Anne Shirley by observing that the hall was now roofed and would no longer leak, and that the blue paint might fade into a more attractive color. His reassurance separated the project’s practical success from its visual failure: the roof had been shingled and painted, so the building had gained a useful repair even as its walls displayed the wrong shade. Anne feared that the hall’s appearance would become a byword in neighboring settlements. The narration confirms that it did.

The incident did not end A.V.I.S.’s work. Rather, the expected ridicule gave way to expressions of sympathy and offers of help. Its consequence was double-edged: the blue hall became a public reminder of a preventable communication failure, while the response to the mistake demonstrated that the society’s efforts had won support beyond its own members. The fiasco thus turned a failed color choice into a test of the group’s standing and its neighbors’ willingness to see it continue.