Country Chippendale chair in mahogany - Hepplewhite chairs - Hepplewhite arm and single chair

Country Chippendale chair in mahogany c.1760. Fully upholstered seat covered in tapestry pattern fabric. A good example of a better quality country chair.
Mahogany Chippendale chair of pleasing simplicity and proportion, c.1780. The splat is elegantly curved and the back, though square in design, is curved and softened by the tapering uprights.
Proportion and quality of workmanship
An oak country chair of c.1760 with solid seat. The back splat still retains an echo of the Queen Anne period but the uprights and top rail join in an outward turn more akin the mid-eighteenth century. Similar chairs in
solid walnut with even earlier styles in the back pre-date these simple robust pieces.
Mahogany Country Chippendale chair of heavier proportion c.1780. The casters under the legs have been added later, possibly to compensate for wear caused by stone floors. There is considerable workmanship in the carving of the back but the rather flattened top rail lacks the elegance of London or even provincial work.
As for other Chippendale chairs.
Hepplewhite chairs of hooped back design, c.1790. The tapering legs are reeded or moulded this feature. Note that the armchair is not a match with the single chairs. The back splat this type, finely executed and
decorated with carving down the centre.
Arm and the back repeats designs are typical of
Set of 2 arm, 4 singles $600  $750 Set of 2 arm, 6 singles $1,000.
A mahogany Chippendale chair with fully upholstered seat. c.1770. The back splat design is one which seems to have been particularly popular with country and later makers of this design of chair.
A ‘Chipplewhite’ design mahogany chair of c.1780. Note that the influence of French designs has now cut the bold sweep of the arms to a more attenuated length and of less broad a scope.
A Hepplewhite design chair of c.1790 with hooped back. The centre splat decorated with the circular medal-like motif with leaf decoration radiating out from a centre. A fairly typical design which is associated with Hepplewhite but which more probably emanated from Robert Adam. The legs are still of the square section straight type of Chippendale period and not as light or elegant as the normal Hepplewhite type which were tapered. The seat is bowed. The chair is made of mahogany.
Fine quality Hepplewhite arm and single chair, c.1790. Note the leaf carving on the back and round the top rail to finish half way down the uprights. The influence of Robert Adam is evident in these.
A mahogany Hepplewhite chair  c.1790  which suggests a development from a Chippendale design rather than a break from it. The structure is very similar; the front legs are not tapered on the inside edge and the
camel-back form of top back rail tempers the outward sweep of the uprights.
This is a simple version of this design. A more decorated version could well double these prices.
Hepplewhite mahogany shield-back arm and single chair c.1790. The craftsmanship involved in making a successful shield-back chair is of the highest order and to obtain the necessary degree of comfort and stability as well as fine proportion is a task of considerable difficulty. The central balusters of these two fine chairs are joined to the top rail by the ‘Prince of Wales feathers’, a very favourite motif with Hepplewhite and one which was emphasized in his Guide. The shield-backs are edged with a small double beading on the inner and outer edges. The legs on these are not reeded and there is less decoration than that of the preceding example; the front legs end in spade feet.

CHAIRS — Hepplewhite
Hepplewhite designs are found along with Sheraton in the 1775-1790 period. They were both influenced by classical designs —a search for elegance. The main Hepplewhite forms are shown in this section.
A camel back design with 9 serpentine front and drop-in seat. The legs are Chippendale in form except that they now taper instead of being the same size throughout their length. The splat is reminiscent of Chippendale and so are the small leaf carvings on the top rail. What could be the start of the Prince of Wales plumes (which Hepplewhite was possibly the first to use on chairs) are to be seen halfway up the splat — an elegant chair.
c.1775    Set of six $6, 000 — 8, 000
A fine chair almost straight out of Hepplewhite’s design book but not a style normally associated with him. A high quality chair with tapering fluted legs, arms and back uprights. Leaf and swag carving in the square back are all classical motifs. (Just as Sheraton shows the shield back so Hepplewhite shows several of these square back designs.) c. 1780
A very good quality shield back chair. The Prince of Wales plumes and their supports are beautifully carved. The shield itself has a raised section at the edges which serves to emphasise the shape. This is repeated on
the legs. c. 1780
Set of six $7, 000 — .0, 000 Six  two $12, 000 — 16, 000
The legs are plain tapered, but the well shaped and moulded shield back, the balanced arrangement of the splat and the carved decoration mark it as a chair of some quality but it clearly does not come up to the
standard of the previous example.
Another Hepplewhite variation, the hoop back. Note the continued use of the Chippendale moulding but on a well tapered leg. The hoop-back is decorated with carving and the splat, which is typical of the type, fits the
hoop well. A successful chair. c.1790
A shield back design. There is a striking contrast between the well carved splat with the Prince of Wales plumes and the dumpy legs which appear to taper too quickly (compare the last example). The lack of any
decoration on the shield which is slightly awkward looking suggests a provincially made piece. c.1785
An interesting comparison with example 161. It is more Hepplewhite in that the legs taper. But the splat is a near disaster: the outline is not true, the lower half is mean and its design poor. Most marked, however, is
the contrast between the way 161 is successfully terminated at the top of the cuts in the splats and the way this fails.
A painted example of another popular Hepplewhite design and one which was extensively copied in late Victorian times. The quality of the painting determines the price. c. 1790

The camel back is there, the splat works well and the bottom half is Chippendale. A rather stiff little provincial chair but the outcome is successful, particularly if the patination is good.c. 1790-1810  Shows a much simpler treatment avoiding the use of any carving. The legs are now quite simple with no reeding or moulding. c.1810Shows a provincial interpretation of Sheraton design incorporating what might be thought of as a very simplified adaptation of the honeysuckle motif. Rather thick, squat and heavy with the back marginally small for the bulk of the seat.A country interpretation in beech or oak with drop-in seat and a simply formed decoration of horizontal splats. 1810
The simple country `Sheraton’ with dished solid wooden seat and stretchers. Decoration is confined to moulding lines with a veneered piece of mahogany in the centre of the splat. 1810
Before the end of the Georgian-Regency era a profusion of chair designs appeared which seems to indicate an explosion in production. It thus becomes more difficult to classify chairs by quality although certain obvious features can be identified.