George III Painted Mahogany Pembroke Table (ca.1780)

Recently I did some repair work on an exceptional  English Pembroke table with painted decoration that was made circa 1780. The style of this table is considered George III because he was the reigning monarch at the time of this tables construction. The primary wood used in the table was Cuban Mahogany and the secondary woods were Oak and Pine. The Mahogany served as a ground for the painted decoration, which adorned every visible surface. The style of the decoration was vines that connected Greek classical scenes.Painted Bellflowers were on the legs. This style of decoration comes right out of the designs of Robert and James Adam. A similar table with a serpentine top can be seen here:
 http://antiques.malleries.com/pembroke-hand-painted-table-18th-century-i-5305-s-89.html

The table had a bit of a mystery attached to it which I was unable to solve. One of the reasons that I was hired to work on this table was that on one side of the top, a 7/8" board which was added to the top surface had become separated along the joint. This piece had all of the indcations that it was original, including the fact that the painted decoration spanned the larger board on the top as well as this small board that was added on. When I removed the top The number 16 1/4 was written in chalk on the underside of the top. This number was the measurement of the width of the larger board that made up the top. Was this smaller board added later? If so, this meant that the painted decoration was also added later. Another clue was the fact that mortices with screw holes were cut into the original board. These hinge mortices were then cut into the added piece as well, as if the top had originally been smaller and the hinges were moved out to accomodate the added board. Perhaps the rule joint on the original top had been damaged and planed off to accomodate this new board early on. The only problem with this theory is that the number 16 1/4 is the measurement from the edge of the existing rule joint to the edge of the wide board. If there had originally been another rule joint there the board would have been wider.

Another interesting piece was that both rule joints were scribed on the under side to mark a line to center the barrel of the hinge on. The placement of the hinge in a rule joint is critical to the action of that joint. The scribe lines were identical and apperared to me to be done by the same hand.

My best guess is that the added board was original. Perhaps the craftsman who made this table wanted to use the board even though it did not span the width of the base. Perhaps two people were involved and the measurements were mixed up. This would explain the original hinge mortices, except for the fact that when you make a rule joint, you cut the joint first and then attach the hinges! Creating the hinge mortices first wouldn't make any sense.

I am going to stick with the theory that the added piece is original, even though I cannot expain the hinge mortices. It is easy to believe that the craftsman, knowing the table would ultimately be painted,would join this extra piece on thinking that the decoration would draw the eye away from the joint and the solid mahogany color for the ground was all that the buyer would see. As I said, it was a real mystery to me and it seemed that the closer I examined the table, the more questions were raised.

  Below are a few photos of the table before, during, and after the repairs were made. No restoration was done to the finish except to wax the table. This was due to the original condition of the piece.

These first few photos show the table as it came to me. The light reflected on the top but you can see some of the painted decoration.

Poseidon!

This photo, taken of the underside of the top, shows the 16 1/4" measurement referenced above.

Here is a photo of an olde repair to one of the hinge mortices.

This photo shows how the hinge mortices on the side where the strip was added were moved out and new holes were drilled.

In this photo, you can see some damage to the stretcher above the drawer. This was later repaired.

The next two photos show the top being glued.

It is difficult to see, but in this photo I am lifting a loose section of veneer on the apron of the base. the following photo shows the same veneer without being lifted. The glue beneath the veneer was cleaned and the piece was glued in place.

The stop blocks for the drawer were missing, causing the drawer to slide into the case. I added new blocks using old oxidized pine in the dimensions and location of the originals. The first photo shows the glue imprint of the original block and the second shows the new blocks being glued in place.

These last few photos show the table after the repairs were made, the finish was waxed, and a key was made to work the lock. This is an exceptional table and was a lot of fun to work on!

Poseidon again!

Two Caned Sack Back Windsor Chairs (20th Century)

I recently completed the restoration of two sack back Windsor armchairs. The chairs were made of Birch and were probably made sometime in the 20th century, or perhaps late in the 19th. One of the chairs had a hole in the cane seat and they were both loose and the finish needed some help. The customer and I decided to cane both chairs so they would match, but also so I could repair the loose and broken joinery. Below are a few photo of the work. Many thanks to Chris Frear for the beautiful job on the caning. She always does a great job!!

This first photo shows the chairs as they came to me. The next photo shows the chairs with the cane removed.

This photo shows one of the chairs disassembled.

Here I am gluing the joinery on one of the seat frames.

These next three photos show both chairs being glued.

This photo shows the restored chairs ready to go to the caner.

These last three photos show the completed work. The cane will darken over time as the cane oxidizes.

Pine Church Pew (ca. 1850)

A recent piece I restored was a church pew dating from sometime in the 19th century. It is hard to pin down a specific date on pews but I believe this was definitely made in the first half of the 19th century. The pew was bought in North Carolina and very well could have originated in that state. The pew was painted when I received it. In fact, it had several coats of different paint on it. Most likely, the pew was meant to be painted originally. One factor that points toward this conclusion is that the pew was made of several different woods. The woods were not necessarily picked to complement each other, but more for their structural and functional properties. For example the arms and the back were capped with molded Walnut. Walnut is a wood that is easy to carve and shape and takes detail well.The main boards were pine which lends itself to wide boards that are somewhat stable. Pine is a wood traditionally associated with seating, among other uses. The back panels were made from American Chestnut. Why this wood was chosen for this purpose is unclear, but I am always happy to find this wood in peices since it has vanished from our current landscape.

As mentioned above, the pew was painted seveal times in the past. The majority of the work in the restoration of this pew was the removal of this paint. The pew also needed structural repairs as well as cosmetic repairs. below are a few photos of the pew before, during, and after restoration.

These first two photos are of the pew as it came to me.

Once the paint was removed, the contrasting woods (in this photo Pine and Walnut) became apparent.

These two photos show the pew with all of the paint removed and the structural repairs made.

These last two photos show the restored pew.

John Henry Belter Rosalie Pattern Gentleman's Chair (ca.1860).

Recently I had the opportunity to do some repair work on a chair made by the firm of John Henry Belter of New York City, circa 1860. The chair is part of a parlor set and is considered a "Gentleman's Chair". This designation is due to its proportions as well as the presence of arms. Other pieces in a typical parlor set of the time would often have included smaller side chairs without arms, a ladies chair with or without arms, and also a sofa. This particular chair comes from a set including four side chairs as well as a sofa. I believe the entire set to be of the same pattern and all by John Henry Belter.

John Henry Belter was one of the preeminent American cabinetmakers of the19th century and much has been written about his furniture. What is interesting about his work is the use of Rosewood as a primary wood and the lengths he went to to overcome the inherent weaknesses of this wood. The most interesting of these was the use of laminated veneers oriented in plys, much like modern plywood. These veneers would be oriented with the grain direction of each ply set at right angles as they were stacked to create a solid piece that was strong and could be bent to fit forms or "cauls" that would create the desired shape. The backs of these pieces and this chair were made using this process of lamination. The result was that the chair was sturdy and could withstand normal stresses that might crack rosewood.

As I mentioned above, a lot has been written about Belter and his furniture. A simple Google search will give you ample insight into his back story and show many examples of his work. As a craftsman, the thing that fascinated me about Belter and other contemporary cabinet makers was how they not only transitioned from a pre-industrial mindset to an industrial mindset in their work during, but how well they did this. The blending of hand work and pre-fabricated parts in these pieces is done with precision and equal attention is given to the structural design and what visual forms could be exploited while mantaining that structure. The adoption of laminatied backs on these chairs allowed Belter to not only create something that was structurally superior to the same piece made from solid wood, but also to to transcend some of the visual design elements of those solid wood pieces and create something visually superior as well. It is no wonder that this furniture held the attention of the public at the time and continues to do so today.

In terms of identification, I usually restrain myself from attributing a piece to a specific maker without sufficient proof. This proof was given in a book entitled The Furniture of John Henry Belter and the Rococo Revival By Marvin D. Schwartz, Edward J. Stanek, and Douglas K. True Written in 1981. This book delivers all of the information known at the time of writing about John Henry Belter and his work. If you are a owner of one of his pieces I urge you to find a copy of it and read it. Even if you have an interest in Rococo Revival furniture or Furniture attribution or Furniture in general, I urge you to buy this book! It is facinating!!

One particular chapter I found to be of interest was the chapter entitled " Technical Observation". In it Mr. Stanek and Mr. True lay out all of the findings of how these pieces were made and patterns that emerge from close examination of several pieces that allow one to come to a near conclusive attribution. The pains that these men went to to discover the common features of these pieces is astounding and greatly appreciating.  Some common features that helped me with attribution were the amount of veneers used to make up the back, the thickness of each veneer, the casters used, etc. Their assessment of these chairs was very thorough!

The term "Rosalie Pattern" comes from a parlor set that was identified as made by Belter with very a very complete provenance. The set that carries the provenance is said to have been bought from Belter by Ms. Fannie McMurtry Wilson, who brought the pieces home from NewYork to her Mansion called Rosalie in Natchez, Mississippi. Even though no piece in this set carries a Belter label, The history is good enough to attach attribution. This pattern employed the use of grapes and roses as well as what look to be trillium flowers in the lower back. This was a popular design and pieces can be found fairly regularly in this Rosalie pattern. Absent from this design is Belter's use of pierced laminations that can seen on some of his work. regardless of this, the proportions of these chairs are wonderful and the detail given to the carving as well as the overall construction set them above and beyond other pieces of the Rococo Revival era.   

As far as the repair is concerned, The chair had suffered a break to one of the arms. The break was along a joint as well as along the grain of the arm itself, so a piece was broken away entirely. Below are a few photos of the chair and the repair I made to it.

The first four photos are of the chair itself .The first shows the chair from the front, the second shows the chair from the back. The backs were typically made solid and the back made from two bookmatched Rosewood veneers.Because of this the backs can be quite striking. The third photo is a detail of the carving done along the crest rail and the fourth details the "trillium" carving in the lower back.

 

This next photo shows the laminations that create the back. One has to look closely to see them but they are there!

These next three photos detail the break to the arm. One thing that can be seen in this photo is how much darker the interior wood is. Rosewood lightens with age and because of this, extra care was made in positioning the broken pieces when they were glued to get the best possible fit. This would eliminate any unnecessary sanding that might cut through the lighter exterior and show the dark interior of the wood. The third photo shows the piece that had broken off of the arm.

Another consideration when dealing with Rosewood is the appropriate glue to use. Rosewood can be tricky because of the natural oils that it has in it. often certain glues will not hold a bond as well as others. Modern epoxys are often used. Because of the historical nature of this piece, I avoided the use of such a glue and opted for traditional hide glue that would have been used on the piece when it was made.The photo below shows the arm being repaired 

I included this photos taken from the side to show how thin Belter was able to make the backs of his chairs. This would have been impossible with a solid wood chair. The result is a streamlined design with structural soundness.

This photo shows the repair to the arm after it was completed and the clamps removed.

These last photos show the completed chair. It was a great opportunity to work on a chair with such a rich and fascinating history.

Stickley Drop Leaf Table (ca, 2000)

A customer recently contacted me about making a modification to the height of a drop leaf Stickley End Table.The table was made in November of 2000 by the Stickley Furniture Company. Like the famed Stickley furniture of the early 20th century, this table was made entirely of White Oak that had been quarter sawn. To quarter saw a board means to cut the board so that the faces of the board are sawn radially. This means that when the wood is viewed from the end grain, the growth rings appear to go straight up and down. Because the grain is oriented this way, the wood is less prone to cupping and bowing and it is generally more stable. As an added bonus, this type of cut shows off the medullary rays of the wood, or simply rays. In certain woods (like Oak) these are quite pronounced and appear as lightly colored streaks running diagonally across the grain.. By using radially cut (or quarter sawn) lumber, A designer can make the most visually of Oak while also creating a piece with stability. In this case, form and function go hand in hand!

As stated before, this table was made recently and had no problems. The only request was to shorten the table by 1.5 inches. The following photos show the table and the process of cutting it down to the requested size.

Here are a few photos of the table as it came to the shop. The base of the table is made utilizing a trestle design and contains mortise and tenon joinery both in the feet and in the shelf which connects the two legs. This joinery was sound and to try to knock it apart meant that I might possibly damage the piece. In addition, cutting  an inch and half off of the base would mean that the shelf would be that much lower. This would be visually unappealing, so the decision was made to remove the top and cut the tops of the legs down to lower the top. Following the photos of the table below are two photos showing the Stickley label and the date of manufacture.

.

Once the top was removed from the legs, the leaf support system was also removed, leaving the legs attached by the shelf near the bottom. As I said earlier, this joinery was tight and would have damaged the piece had I tried to knock it apart. I decided to work with the legs while they were together. The photo below shows the legs with the leaf supports and top removed. The leaf supports were held in place with dowel joinery, which made that part easier to remove than the rest of the piece which had tenon joinery.

The tenon for the shelf was actually called a through tenon, meaning that the tenon extends through both faces of the board that it is mortised into. The tenon protrudes slightly on the other side and the end is tapered. This design element is seen frequently in Arts and Crafts furniture and has a nice look. This through tenon and the feet on the base provided a challenge in cross cutting. I needed to be able to lay the face of the leg flat on the table saw so that I could make a square cross cut. I got around this problem by creating a sled which was fastened to the leg raising the whole leg off of the surface of the table saw. The sled only made contact with the flat surfaces on the leg. The result was that the leg laid flat on the surface of the table saw. Once this was accomplished I used a cross cut saw to remove 1.5 inches from the top of each leg. The photos below show this sled in action.

Once the cuts were made, new holes were drilled for the dowels which attach the leaf supports. This process was accomplished by using a dowel centering jig to center the drill and make the holes in the right location. The photo below shows this work.

After the dowel holes were drilled the leaf supports were reattached and glued in place as seen in the photo below.

The last step was to attach the top. The modified table can be seen reassembled in the photos below.. By taking the 1.5 inches off of the top, the height was adjusted while leaving the overall design intact and visually appealing.