Archive for the ‘Button-back Chairs’ Category

 

Victorian Button-back Chair

October 22nd, 2009

Victorian button-back chair

The relative austerity of Regency furniture and the soft clinging clothes worn by the ladies of the period were ousted during William IV’s reign by the new ‘Naturalistic’ line. Furniture became more curvaceous, seats of chairs wider to accommodate the increasing volume of ladies’ skirts and gentlemen’s frock coats, both of which were smartly nipped in at the waist.
Signs of authenticity
1. Solid ‘black’ Virginia walnut, rosewood or solid mahogany frame, carved and decorated.
2. Front arm supports and front legs in one continuous piece with decorative motif integral to the shape and design.
3. Deep, crisp carving with scrolling or floral and foliate motifs.
4. Original upholstery in worsted damask, cotton-andworsted, or silk-and-worsted, machine-woven, or in heavy velvet.
Floral, stripes and imitation tapestry or dark plain colours.
5. Deep buttoning to backs and inside arms, plain sprung seats until c.1890.
6. Backs curved in spoon shape to fit the body — buttoning to `waist’ of back only.
Likely restoration and repair
7. Back legs broken and
replaced. Replacements may be simple and slightly raked, looking well but less solidly balanced.
8. New upholstery — almost inevitable, but buttoning should not continue below the line of the ‘waist’ of the back.
9. Front legs and/or feet
repaired where broken or split. Change in patination is always on a diagonal line with repair and runs into the leg grain.
10. Original, bulbously turned legs, replaced with a ‘marriage’ of legs from another, similar chair. Line of front seat rail will carry through between arm and leg, whereas on genuine carved cabriole-type legs there is no break at seat level.
This hour-glass shape was echoed in seat furniture, and when Samuel Pratt took out a patent for sprung upholstery in 1828 it was in answer to a demand for even more comfortable chairs and sofas.
Even as late as the early Victorian period, it was considered strange for the centre of rooms to be cluttered with furniture except when in use, and seat furniture was always on castors so that it could be moved back into a tidy arrangement round the room when not in use. Once the rounded, curving lines of upholstered furniture began to be exploited, all kinds of central seat furniture made its appearance, notably the back-to-back sofa and the circular sofa, deeply sprung, tasselled and curving.
Arm chairs at first had sprung seats and button backs, developing from the lines of the Adam round-backed chair into one of the most familiar pieces. of Victorian furniture. Later, seats as well as backs were buttoned, and there were high-backed ‘grandmother’s chairs’, more dumpy, rotund `grandfather’s chairs’ and their counterparts without arms, as well as tub chairs, bedroom chairs, nursery chairs and parlour chairs, all made with carved mahogany, Virginia walnut or rosewood frames and beech underframes. Some of the most successful designs incorporate a cabriole-type leg with a scrolled `French foot’, far more elegant than the later, bulbously turned legs of mass-produced and provincial chairs.
Construction and materials
Early versions of Victorian upholstered chairs from c.1830-50 were usually open-armed, with small upholstered elbow pads and ornate curving scrolls to arms and back, with a solid Virginia walnut frame and a curved, plain seat back.
Underframes were of beech, ash or birch, and the construction was still similar to earlier armed chairs. From c.1850 the arms were filled and upholstered, and the backs, shaped with two low scrolls like a judge’s wig, had small decoratively carved features rising above the curved back frame. The back legs, until now plain and slightly raked, developed a bowed curve and there was often a decorative carved apron across the front seat rail below the upholstered sprung seat. At the same period low chairs with hourglass or balloon-shaped
Variations
Suites of drawing room balloon-back chairs with high backed ‘grandmother’s chairs’ with buttoned backs and open arms were made in great quantities, some of
upholstered backs were made without arms, their seats wide and generous, their curved cabrioletype legs set wider than the back legs. These were known as ‘ladies’ chairs’ and their high-backed, armed equivalents as `grandmother’s chairs’.
Detail
After the introduction of machine-carving around 1850, upholstered chairs of all shapes and sizes were made with less detail, shallow carving, and generally with turned front legs. Early upholstery tended to be unyielding because it was a mixture of linen waste and horsehair, but this was soon replaced with American cotton and wool waste mixed with horsehair, a combination that was much softer and more comfortable.
them very decorative, others of poorer quality, for they were mass-produced from inferior materials. As with much Victorian furniture, quality and craftsmanship distinguish between early, well-made and well-designed button back chairs and later versions. This type of chair continued to be made well into the early Edwardian period, although in the main it was relegated from drawing rooms and parlours to bedrooms and the servant’s upstairs quarters.
Right: a low button back, sometimes called a nursing chair.
Reproductions
The revival in popularity of Victorians in recent years has led to many furniture-manufacturers producing copies of the smaller tub chair with button back and low rounded seat. On the whole these look perfectly adequate, but fillings for upholstery are more often than not a polystyrene-type foam chip which goes flat and loses its spring after some use. In terms of value it is better to seek out one of the many varieties of original on the market than spend money on short-lived modern reproductions.
Price bands
Open-armed, well-carved, solid walnut frame and apron c.1850-70, £350-500.
Spoonback, no arms, cabriole-shaped legs, solid walnut carved frame, £400-550.
Curved back, integral upholstered arms, carved legs and frame. Rosewood more than walnut, £350-600.
Left: open-armed button back, c.1870.

Read full article      No Comments