07.02.2016 (G. Kueber)
(Below in italics is from the National Register listing; not verified for accuracy by this author.)
This small, one-story, flat-roofed, Colonial Revival-style brick building has a brick parapet with recessed sign panel, corbelled cornice, and terra cotta coping. The replacement storefront and pent roof were installed in the 1980s concurrent with the storefront and pent roof on the adjoining building (103-105 West King). The entrance is located on the left (east) end of the façade and has a leaded-glass transom and a denticulated cornice. Small display windows on the right (west) end of the façade rest on a brick knee wall with plywood sheathing above. An asphalt-shingled pent roof extends across the storefront. The building likely dates from around 1900 when it appears on the Sanborn map as a jeweler.
As I've written a few times, I disagree with keeping this building non-eligible for historic tax credits simply because of the dumb awning on the front, but I do agree that it is atrociously ugly. It really pains me to see it cross the facades without respect for the vertical building lines. I don't know the history behind these, but it seems like someone had the bright idea to make downtown fauxlonial.
This focus on the colonial history of Hillsborough is good in one sense - I am more than glad that Hillsborough embraces its history as something to be cherished. I would advocate for embracing all of its history, though. We know an awful lot as the lay public about the 'important' people who lived in Hillsborough before the Civil War, but there's no decent history of the people who lived in Hillsborough when 95% of our current downtown was built - i.e. ~1880-1950.