George III Wing Armchair Upholstered - Mahogany Wing Armchair - Eighteenth Century French Armchair
November 25th, 2009
George III Wing Armchair Upholstered - Mahogany Wing Armchair - Eighteenth Century French Armchair
A George III wing armchair upholstered in leather c.1770. Note the square stretcher and leg construction of ‘Chippendale’ design. The curve of the wings is pleasant but the arms are a little stiff.
Price Range: $200 $300
N.B. As these chairs command high prices there is a grave temptation to make a set of legs in the Georgian style and cover the modern frame with leather. Such examples usually lack the fluency of curve which was
found in better class examples. A good dealer will leave the underneath uncovered to show genuine period features.
A Chinese Chippendale mahogany armchair with upholstered back and arms, c.1760. The bamboo motif is evident. The front legs are a remarkable achievement of craftsmanship and the nicely-scrolled brackets add
considerable balance. The upholstery covering is of typical period design. The legs are of clustered column design.
A later George III period c.1790 mahogany wing armchair. The sweep of the curve formed by the wings and the back rail is important. Compare the straight high line of the wings and arms in this example with the
fluency of the two previous examples. This example is also rather thin, lacking the generous proportions of the better quality chairs. The lines would be improved by upholstery but the basic quality is lacking. The legs are tapered, ending in casters.
Price Range: $60 $90
Value points: Line of back, arms and wings
Mid-eighteenth century chair in mahogany showing Chippendale construction in legs and stretchers, c.1760.
Carving or moulding on legs Originality of casters
George II period c.1740 mahogany chair with stuffed back and saddle-shaped seat. Covered in Soho tapestry woven with birds and small landscapes in broad naturalistic flower borders; on scrolled cabriole legs. Price Range: $150 $200
Regency period chair decorated with brass or painted gilt mounts, frequently ebonised.
Price Range: $20 $40
Value points.- Brass decorations
Well curved leg with stretcher
A later eighteenth century chair, probably c.1795, with leather upholstery, on turned legs. The shaping of the back still follows the ’saddle’ style, but the chair is cruder and the legs date it much later. Price Range: $100
$140
A George III period c.1780 open armchair with arched stuffed back and padded arms on curved supports with anthemion carving, the moulded frame with bead carving, the stuffed seat on turned tapering legs with
lotus leaf feet.
An open giltwood armchair c.1760 with considerable Adam influence in the frieze and fluted legs.
A later eighteenth century open armchair of French influence, but actually of a type made also by Chippendale, c.1780. The decoration includes cartouche backs headed by shell cabochons. The frame is carved with leaf mouldings, the scrolled arms with leaf shoulders. Covered in later gros-point needlework with panels of flowers in key-pattern frame against a blue ground with roses.
Bergere caned chair of Regency period, in rosewood, c.1830. These well made chairs have increased in popularity over recent years.
Country Chippendale chair in mahogany - Hepplewhite chairs - Hepplewhite arm and single chair
November 25th, 2009
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.
Antique Chairs Reproductions
November 19th, 2009
CHAIRS reproductions, 1880-1930
The return to 18th century styles in the 1880s affected chairs almost more than other furniture. Chippendale, Sheraton and Hepplewhite chairs were produced in varying grades of quality and exactitude. Queen Anne cabriole legs with ‘fiddle’ backs soon followed and, of course, the medieval oak craze had to be met by chair makers …
A mahogany ‘Chippendale’ chair of some considerable quality. The carved splat is of Gothic style in its origins and the scrolled cabriole legs end in ball-and-claw feet. It is still unmistakably Victorian, however, from its slightly narrow proportions. 1880-1900
A highly-carved ‘Chippendale’ chair with a wool-work tapestry seat. The narrow proportions, particularly of the back, proclaim it to be Victorian. The cabriole legs, which are elegantly carved, show that incipient bandyness and weakness at the ankle which are also characteristic.
A mahogany ‘Chippendale’ chair with a back of c,uite faithful reproduction. The seat is, however, smaller than the original would have been and the seat rai. has been made the same width as the legs. The original would have been more likely to have a deeper seat rail even if the legs were of the same proportions.
A mahogany ‘Chippendale’ ladderback chair with carved pierced rails to the back, which is well executed. The seat and the square legs are, again, small and thin compared with the 18th century original; the seat rail is not deep enough.
Typical mass-produced ‘Chippendale’ style chairs with rexine (imitation leather) covered drop-in seats. No problems of confusion with the originals here; both ‘carvers’ and single chairs are of proportion and dimensions well away from the 18th century. The Gothic style back splat is quite a good copy of an original design. 1890-1930
A mahogany `Hepplewhite’ chair of very good proportion, on moulded square tapering front legs. The back is a variation of the shield back, curved in shape with carving on the rails. The seat is full and bold, serpentine-shaped at the front and worthy of the original.
A classic shield-back ‘Hepplewhite’ chair with carved Prince of Wales’ feathers in the back design. The tapering square legs and slightly bowed seat are copied faithfully from the original and the proportion is good. A well-made chair like this was very much more expensive than a mass-produced, thin ‘Chippendale’ design about nine guineas for this as against one and a half for the mass-produced item.
A mahogany wheel-back ‘Hepplewhite’ chair of good proportion and workmanship. The carving of the back is a considerable achievement and, with wear, and without sight of the unpolished areas, such chairs can be difficult to tell from an original period chair. 1890-1920, but could be made even now
A mahogany arm chair in Sheraton style with inlaid boxwood stringing lines as decoration. There is also an inlaid oval satinwood and marquetry panel in the broad top rail. These panels were available ready-made by machine from the trade.
Not quite Sheraton and not quite Edwardian ‘own brand’, these small chairs still owe more to the late 18th and early 19th century than to the 1900-1910 period in which they were made. The back is a Sheraton design-book copy and the tapering square legs end in block feet. 1890-1910
An example of the mahogany ‘Queen Anne’ style of dining chair which had a great vogue from around 1900 to 1940. They do not seek to emulate original Queen Anne period chairs too closely these examples are usually mahogany or stained to look like it, and mahogany was not used in quantity until after 1730 and they are mass-produced in unmistakably economic ways, so there is little problem in differentiating them from the originals.
Elegant mahogany chairs based on a Queen Anne design and of a shape quite popular in the early 20th century. The front legs are an English variation on the cabriole, usually associated with country makers. The back curves are restrained without being stiff. The central panel of the back is caned and the pincushion seat is covered with a striped tapestry. Intended as an occasional chair but would now be sold for dining.
Four more variations on the popular `Jacobean’ chair theme, with pincushion seats covered in rexine (an imitation leather). More expensive than the previous examples because the stretchers between the legs are turned as well, not just left square for cheapness. The pair on the right have abandoned the twist turning normally used and have turned pillar supports capped by finials instead. (The rather elaborately carved top rail was not popular on post-1920 versions.) 1890-1920
Typical ‘Jacobean’ chairs, in oak, of a type also very popular from 1890-1940, made to go with the bulbous-legged refectory-style table of the ‘Jacobethan’ dining room. Twist turning is the key to these chairs which owe their form to the second half of the 17th century.
The end of the line for the ‘Jacobethan’ style. An oak chair with twist turning in prominent places and cheap square sections elsewhere. The drop-in seat is covered in rexine.
An oak arm and a single chair in ‘Carolean’ style with caned back and seat panels. They are fairly faithful reproductions of chairs of the Restoration period of 1680-1690, showing the elaborately-carved scrolled front stretcher between the front legs echoed in the top rail of the high back. They would be detected by the lack of age and wear apparent in them, and by their colour. Such chairs were originally made of birch, beech, oak or walnut and stained black. They are very decorative but not popular as dining chairs due to the
weakness of the seat jointing to the back and legs; the very thinness of the seat frame makes the joints very susceptible to breakage by weight or leverage. Nevertheless, this design, of all reproductions, is probably the one most faithfully copied. 1890-1930
A pair of oak bobbin-turned chairs in the style of 1660-1680 with leather covered backs and seats, peppered with large brass-headed studs like a pair of Restoration Hell’s Angels! These must surely have met the taste for medievalism with a vengeance. The bobbin-turned stretchers and the legs, with their square-section joints, look like faithful copies of the originals.
Another pair of oak chairs, known as Cromwellian in style, which emulate those of 1650-1670. They are similar to the previous examples but the more severe column turning of the legs, with plain square stretchers joining them at ground level, is perhaps more apposite to the Protector’s time. Covered in velvet and just right for that big reproduction refectory table in the dining room.
An oak chair of square design in emulation of the 1650-1670 period and often known as ‘Cromwellian’. The turning on the front legs is not of a period type.
A ‘Queen Anne’ style chinoiserie chair of considerable quality. There was a revival of lacquer of this type in the 1920s and 1930s, with some high quality ‘reproductions’, in somewhat free interpretations, being produced.
1920-1930 For the single armchair. A set of two plus four singles
A reproduction of a caned French chair which, in Britain, has connotations of Adam and other classical styles. The chair is gilded over a gesso surface and has, unfortunately, an air of belonging to a ballroom or dining room of an old-fashioned hotel.
The return to 18th century styles in the 1880s affected chairs almost more than other furniture. Chippendale, Sheraton and Hepplewhite chairs were produced in varying grades of quality and exactitude. Queen Anne cabriole legs with ‘fiddle’ backs soon followed and, of course, the medieval oak craze had to be met by chair makers …
A mahogany ‘Chippendale’ chair of some considerable quality. The carved splat is of Gothic style in its origins and the scrolled cabriole legs end in ball-and-claw feet. It is still unmistakably Victorian, however, from its slightly narrow proportions. 1880-1900
A highly-carved ‘Chippendale’ chair with a wool-work tapestry seat. The narrow proportions, particularly of the back, proclaim it to be Victorian. The cabriole legs, which are elegantly carved, show that incipient bandyness and weakness at the ankle which are also characteristic.
A mahogany ‘Chippendale’ chair with a back of c,uite faithful reproduction. The seat is, however, smaller than the original would have been and the seat rai. has been made the same width as the legs. The original would have been more likely to have a deeper seat rail even if the legs were of the same proportions.
A mahogany ‘Chippendale’ ladderback chair with carved pierced rails to the back, which is well executed. The seat and the square legs are, again, small and thin compared with the 18th century original; the seat rail is not deep enough.
Typical mass-produced ‘Chippendale’ style chairs with rexine (imitation leather) covered drop-in seats. No problems of confusion with the originals here; both ‘carvers’ and single chairs are of proportion and dimensions well away from the 18th century. The Gothic style back splat is quite a good copy of an original design. 1890-1930
A mahogany `Hepplewhite’ chair of very good proportion, on moulded square tapering front legs. The back is a variation of the shield back, curved in shape with carving on the rails. The seat is full and bold, serpentine-shaped at the front and worthy of the original.
A classic shield-back ‘Hepplewhite’ chair with carved Prince of Wales’ feathers in the back design. The tapering square legs and slightly bowed seat are copied faithfully from the original and the proportion is good. A well-made chair like this was very much more expensive than a mass-produced, thin ‘Chippendale’ design about nine guineas for this as against one and a half for the mass-produced item.
A mahogany wheel-back ‘Hepplewhite’ chair of good proportion and workmanship. The carving of the back is a considerable achievement and, with wear, and without sight of the unpolished areas, such chairs can be difficult to tell from an original period chair. 1890-1920, but could be made even now
A mahogany arm chair in Sheraton style with inlaid boxwood stringing lines as decoration. There is also an inlaid oval satinwood and marquetry panel in the broad top rail. These panels were available ready-made by machine from the trade.
Not quite Sheraton and not quite Edwardian ‘own brand’, these small chairs still owe more to the late 18th and early 19th century than to the 1900-1910 period in which they were made. The back is a Sheraton design-book copy and the tapering square legs end in block feet. 1890-1910
An example of the mahogany ‘Queen Anne’ style of dining chair which had a great vogue from around 1900 to 1940. They do not seek to emulate original Queen Anne period chairs too closely these examples are usually mahogany or stained to look like it, and mahogany was not used in quantity until after 1730 and they are mass-produced in unmistakably economic ways, so there is little problem in differentiating them from the originals.
Elegant mahogany chairs based on a Queen Anne design and of a shape quite popular in the early 20th century. The front legs are an English variation on the cabriole, usually associated with country makers. The back curves are restrained without being stiff. The central panel of the back is caned and the pincushion seat is covered with a striped tapestry. Intended as an occasional chair but would now be sold for dining.
Four more variations on the popular `Jacobean’ chair theme, with pincushion seats covered in rexine (an imitation leather). More expensive than the previous examples because the stretchers between the legs are turned as well, not just left square for cheapness. The pair on the right have abandoned the twist turning normally used and have turned pillar supports capped by finials instead. (The rather elaborately carved top rail was not popular on post-1920 versions.) 1890-1920
Typical ‘Jacobean’ chairs, in oak, of a type also very popular from 1890-1940, made to go with the bulbous-legged refectory-style table of the ‘Jacobethan’ dining room. Twist turning is the key to these chairs which owe their form to the second half of the 17th century.
The end of the line for the ‘Jacobethan’ style. An oak chair with twist turning in prominent places and cheap square sections elsewhere. The drop-in seat is covered in rexine.
An oak arm and a single chair in ‘Carolean’ style with caned back and seat panels. They are fairly faithful reproductions of chairs of the Restoration period of 1680-1690, showing the elaborately-carved scrolled front stretcher between the front legs echoed in the top rail of the high back. They would be detected by the lack of age and wear apparent in them, and by their colour. Such chairs were originally made of birch, beech, oak or walnut and stained black. They are very decorative but not popular as dining chairs due to the
weakness of the seat jointing to the back and legs; the very thinness of the seat frame makes the joints very susceptible to breakage by weight or leverage. Nevertheless, this design, of all reproductions, is probably the one most faithfully copied. 1890-1930
A pair of oak bobbin-turned chairs in the style of 1660-1680 with leather covered backs and seats, peppered with large brass-headed studs like a pair of Restoration Hell’s Angels! These must surely have met the taste for medievalism with a vengeance. The bobbin-turned stretchers and the legs, with their square-section joints, look like faithful copies of the originals.
Another pair of oak chairs, known as Cromwellian in style, which emulate those of 1650-1670. They are similar to the previous examples but the more severe column turning of the legs, with plain square stretchers joining them at ground level, is perhaps more apposite to the Protector’s time. Covered in velvet and just right for that big reproduction refectory table in the dining room.
An oak chair of square design in emulation of the 1650-1670 period and often known as ‘Cromwellian’. The turning on the front legs is not of a period type.
A ‘Queen Anne’ style chinoiserie chair of considerable quality. There was a revival of lacquer of this type in the 1920s and 1930s, with some high quality ‘reproductions’, in somewhat free interpretations, being produced.
1920-1930 For the single armchair. A set of two plus four singles
A reproduction of a caned French chair which, in Britain, has connotations of Adam and other classical styles. The chair is gilded over a gesso surface and has, unfortunately, an air of belonging to a ballroom or dining room of an old-fashioned hotel.
English Country Chairs
October 24th, 2009
CHAIRS — country, Northern England
These chairs fall into distinct categories and can normally be allocated to various parts of the country. Basically, they are either ladderbacks, with or without a top rail, or backs made up of vertical spindles. A great deal of research has been and is being carried out on this subject. For more information see an article by Bill Cotton, who has studied this subject in depth, on ‘Country Chairs’, Antique Collecting Vol.8, No.6.
From left to right, top to bottom-Wavy line ladderbacks. A similar chair is in a Hogarth print c.1730. There are a number of variations of these Yorkshire chairs which are hardwearing and generally considered the best of the type.
1730-1800 Armchair
A variation from the Midlands, missing half its top rail. Again, good quality but the back design is perhaps not quite as well balanced as the first example.
1740-1830 Set of two six
The Macclesfield variation of the second category. Again the rush seat comes over the front rail as with all chairs of this type. 1740-1840
The Wigan shape of ladderback is again seen on these wooden seated top-rail types with shaped front rail. A carver is very seldom found. 1760-1840
The third main type, the spindlebacks predominantly from north Cheshire and south Lancashire. It is thought that the further north the chairs were made in Lancashire the thinner the spindles. Another variety has two lines of spindles with a top rail between the uprights often with some Chippendale design feature on it. They are lighter and are thought to come from Liverpool and Manchester. 1750-1840
Quite a different variety coming from Ormskirk or the Preston area of Lancashire. Very robust. 1840-1900
These chairs fall into distinct categories and can normally be allocated to various parts of the country. Basically, they are either ladderbacks, with or without a top rail, or backs made up of vertical spindles. A great deal of research has been and is being carried out on this subject. For more information see an article by Bill Cotton, who has studied this subject in depth, on ‘Country Chairs’, Antique Collecting Vol.8, No.6.
From left to right, top to bottom-Wavy line ladderbacks. A similar chair is in a Hogarth print c.1730. There are a number of variations of these Yorkshire chairs which are hardwearing and generally considered the best of the type.
1730-1800 Armchair
A variation from the Midlands, missing half its top rail. Again, good quality but the back design is perhaps not quite as well balanced as the first example.
1740-1830 Set of two six
The Macclesfield variation of the second category. Again the rush seat comes over the front rail as with all chairs of this type. 1740-1840
The Wigan shape of ladderback is again seen on these wooden seated top-rail types with shaped front rail. A carver is very seldom found. 1760-1840
The third main type, the spindlebacks predominantly from north Cheshire and south Lancashire. It is thought that the further north the chairs were made in Lancashire the thinner the spindles. Another variety has two lines of spindles with a top rail between the uprights often with some Chippendale design feature on it. They are lighter and are thought to come from Liverpool and Manchester. 1750-1840
Quite a different variety coming from Ormskirk or the Preston area of Lancashire. Very robust. 1840-1900
Cabriole Leg Chairs
October 24th, 2009
CHAIRS — cabriole leg, low back
The lower back chairs are normally associated with the George I period. Certainly the design settled down around the 1720s and carved decoration became increasingly used.
A good George I example. The seat rail is much deeper than those of the previous section and the back is lower. The carved shell is hipped into the seat and the top rail is scooped into a definite hollow in the middle.
The top rail is also more rounded in appearance and the distinction between it and the back uprights more difficult to define, as they flow into each other. The flat face of the uprights, splat and seat rails are veneered
for decoration. c. 1725 Single $2,500 — 3,500 Pair $8, 000 — 12, 000
This very fine chair with the shepherd’s crook arms has superb cabrioles with hipped decoration on the knee, ball-and-claw feet and despite the low back, superb movement. A collector’s dream. c.1720
A country version with the fashionable low front (not always a pot cupboard), a veneered back splat and firmly fixed shepherd’s crook arms. c.1720
A lesser quality chair on which the shell carving on the knee has an almost stuck-on appearance and looks out of place. Note that the chair is made of solid walnut and features no veneer, although the face of the back uprights is flat, as though to be veneered. See how material has been saved in producing the shaped back uprights — the lower inward curve of the left hand back upright is a different piece of wood joined to the main upright: the lighter colour betrays it. c. 1720
A mahogany high quality chair with carved decoration — see how the curving back uprights end in eagles’ heads where they meet the top rail. Cuban mahogany encouraged a revival in the carver’s art. Notice too that
the seat has become larger and generally more solid. A move towards Chippendale. 1730-1740
A fruitwood chair with rounded back uprights rather like chairs from the previous section. It has a rather country appearance despite the quality of the cabrioles and back splat, which is quite sophisticated. c.1730
Although this chair has lost its front feet, it illustrates a stretchered type with flat-faced back uprights, the whole chair being made in solid walnut. It has little of the curvature of the back which the chairs in the previous section show, although akin to them below the seat level. Note that the shoulder piece is missing on the right hand cabriole. c.1735
The lower back chairs are normally associated with the George I period. Certainly the design settled down around the 1720s and carved decoration became increasingly used.
A good George I example. The seat rail is much deeper than those of the previous section and the back is lower. The carved shell is hipped into the seat and the top rail is scooped into a definite hollow in the middle.
The top rail is also more rounded in appearance and the distinction between it and the back uprights more difficult to define, as they flow into each other. The flat face of the uprights, splat and seat rails are veneered
for decoration. c. 1725 Single $2,500 — 3,500 Pair $8, 000 — 12, 000
This very fine chair with the shepherd’s crook arms has superb cabrioles with hipped decoration on the knee, ball-and-claw feet and despite the low back, superb movement. A collector’s dream. c.1720
A country version with the fashionable low front (not always a pot cupboard), a veneered back splat and firmly fixed shepherd’s crook arms. c.1720
A lesser quality chair on which the shell carving on the knee has an almost stuck-on appearance and looks out of place. Note that the chair is made of solid walnut and features no veneer, although the face of the back uprights is flat, as though to be veneered. See how material has been saved in producing the shaped back uprights — the lower inward curve of the left hand back upright is a different piece of wood joined to the main upright: the lighter colour betrays it. c. 1720
A mahogany high quality chair with carved decoration — see how the curving back uprights end in eagles’ heads where they meet the top rail. Cuban mahogany encouraged a revival in the carver’s art. Notice too that
the seat has become larger and generally more solid. A move towards Chippendale. 1730-1740
A fruitwood chair with rounded back uprights rather like chairs from the previous section. It has a rather country appearance despite the quality of the cabrioles and back splat, which is quite sophisticated. c.1730
Although this chair has lost its front feet, it illustrates a stretchered type with flat-faced back uprights, the whole chair being made in solid walnut. It has little of the curvature of the back which the chairs in the previous section show, although akin to them below the seat level. Note that the shoulder piece is missing on the right hand cabriole. c.1735
Hepplewhite Chairs
October 24th, 2009
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
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.