Hepplewhite Chairs
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.
Tags: CHAIRS, chippendale, decoration, hepplewhite, high quality, leg, Legs, Sheraton, solid wood, stretchers, striking contrast