High Children`s Chairs
October 24th, 2009
CHAIRS — children’s high
Here of course, one cannot judge a chair by its correctness of proportion as against the adult equivalent. Instead the test has to be how successfully the maker has elongated the piece while keeping in sympathy with the style of his period.
In this fine child’s oak chair the maker has got it just right. The design calls for stability and he has achieved it without losing the feel of the heavy panelled back. The simple turning on the front legs and the low stretcher work very well. As these chairs were very popular before the war one should always look at them very closely. Second quarter 17th century .
At first sight a late seventeenth century style but the outline of the splat and the shape of the turning suggest a later date. Lacks the stability and balance of the previous example, but then chairs of this period,
dependent on turning, were rather square. Arms are good. 1690-1720.
A Hepplewhite design in which the back with its careful moulding and well-balanced splat is much more successful than the heavy front legs. The sweep outwards at the bottom gives an improved line. c. 1780
A strange crude little high chair which gives problems of dating. The dished seat suggests a Windsor chair origin but the scratch moulding and the crude little inset cross pleads for an earlier date. The top rail argues for an early nineteenth century date, as does the exaggerated chamfering of the side rails. Probably early 19th century.
(far right) Very much the traditional Windsor design, good rake to back legs gives feeling of solidarity. The back is well made and the splat fits in well. Early 19th century.
Very appealing little piece, partly because it is a child’s chair but also because of the generous sweep of the arms. Well turned front legs, the only drawback is the absence of a splat.
Low Children`s Chairs
October 24th, 2009
CHAIRS — children’s low
Very well made walnut child’s chair. Gloriously successful cabrioles, arms, legs and back. Only possible fault is that the back should perhaps be a fraction higher to be in proper proportion, but this is a very minor quibble about a superb piece. c.1720
An early eighteenth century child’s country chair; from the photograph it looks as though the right hand arm and the top rail are oversized, but again this is a minor point, for the overall proportions are excellent. c.1730
Children’s chairs naturally follow the same styles as those of their parents and one assesses them in the same way. The acid test is that if one sees a photograph without background it should not be obvious that it is a miniaturised version. Making a miniature in the correct proportions is extremely difficult and requires a very good maker to get them just right. As chair making itself is one of the most difficult arts, a good child’s chair calls for a top craftsman.
To generalise on prices, fine town made examples of earlier types tend to fetch less then their adult equivalent while children’s versions of country or late chairs fetch more.
Again the work of a competent maker, this Mendlesham chair can only be detected as a child’s because the arms are a trifle thick and pinched inwards. A very rare and desirable piece. c.1820
An endearing child’s Windsor rocking chair in ash. More simply made than the last example. The arms are a bit crude at the ends and the spindles have been tapered off slightly too much. 1820-1860
Ignore the fact that about 2ins. are missing from the bottom of the legs and holes drilled to provide support for a foot rest and this Hepplewhite example is another top quality piece. Look at the carefully moulded back, carved honeysuckle decoration and the excellent curve of the arms. c. 1770
A sweet little yew Windsor missing about an inch off the bottom of its feet. It has a slight Gothic appearance purely because the top rail would not bend so it cracked. Yew does not take kindly to tight curves.
Very well made walnut child’s chair. Gloriously successful cabrioles, arms, legs and back. Only possible fault is that the back should perhaps be a fraction higher to be in proper proportion, but this is a very minor quibble about a superb piece. c.1720
An early eighteenth century child’s country chair; from the photograph it looks as though the right hand arm and the top rail are oversized, but again this is a minor point, for the overall proportions are excellent. c.1730
Children’s chairs naturally follow the same styles as those of their parents and one assesses them in the same way. The acid test is that if one sees a photograph without background it should not be obvious that it is a miniaturised version. Making a miniature in the correct proportions is extremely difficult and requires a very good maker to get them just right. As chair making itself is one of the most difficult arts, a good child’s chair calls for a top craftsman.
To generalise on prices, fine town made examples of earlier types tend to fetch less then their adult equivalent while children’s versions of country or late chairs fetch more.
Again the work of a competent maker, this Mendlesham chair can only be detected as a child’s because the arms are a trifle thick and pinched inwards. A very rare and desirable piece. c.1820
An endearing child’s Windsor rocking chair in ash. More simply made than the last example. The arms are a bit crude at the ends and the spindles have been tapered off slightly too much. 1820-1860
Ignore the fact that about 2ins. are missing from the bottom of the legs and holes drilled to provide support for a foot rest and this Hepplewhite example is another top quality piece. Look at the carefully moulded back, carved honeysuckle decoration and the excellent curve of the arms. c. 1770
A sweet little yew Windsor missing about an inch off the bottom of its feet. It has a slight Gothic appearance purely because the top rail would not bend so it cracked. Yew does not take kindly to tight curves.