Mahogany Hepplewhite Chair - Georgian Chair - Sheraton Style Arm and Single Chair in Mahogany

A mahogany Hepplewhite chair of pleas the late eighteenth century arms show the more restrained curves of the seat, legs and stretchers are still bold and firm in proportion.
Value points: Quality of back splat carving.
A Country Hepplewhite design chair, c.1795, of a type most frequently found made in elm. Normally they are stained or varnished to look like mahogany, and have been stripped and polished later if now in the natural
wood. The design is known as a camel-back and is a logical development of the town-made mahogany one; simpler in execution and less decorated.
Hepplewhite shield-back chair c.1790. The carving of the back is of particularly fine quality. The tapering legs are fluted and the decoration of brass studs adds further ornamentation. Normally executed in mahogany. Front legs end in spade feet.
Price Range: Considered by many to be a high point in English design, original shield back Hepplewhite chairs fetch very high prices. Those below are an indication.-
A country version of the two previous Sheraton style chairs, c.1810. The seats are solid and the back leg and upright very much straighter and rigid, with very little rake. The backs are also simplified; the front stretcher
is placed high between the two front legs as with earlier chairs instead of between the two side stretchers.
A later Georgian chair of Sheraton influence, c.1800, in the back but with arms more associated with Hepplewhite styles. The tapering front legs and the back are moulded; a mark of quality.
A mahogany chair of c.1790 of a design also associated with Hepplewhite although some of the conflicting trends of eighteenth century designs are evident in the square legs and eight pointed wheel effect. It is a fairly simple version of a beautiful design and represents a considerable accomplishment in craftsmanship. Note that the front legs end in spade feet.
A Sheraton design chair of considerable workmanship, c.1795. Many such chairs are to be found painted in white and gilt or otherwise having painted decoration on birch or beech wood. In the main the painted versions are more highly sought after than the mahogany ones, which makes for higher prices. Note the turned and fluted legs. The arm uprights have spiral reeding.
A Sheraton design arm and single chair in mahogany, c.1795. The uprights and arms are reeded, which lightens the square solidarity of design. Note the vase shaped turned arm supports and the way in which the
broad top rail is panelled.
A Sheraton style arm and single chair in mahogany, c.1800. The legs and back uprights are reeded; this effect is also carried round the panel in the wider top back rail.
Late eighteenth century arm and single chairs, c.1800. Note the broad top rail in the back, the panel veneered in figured mahogany. The spiral twist middle rail is a feature of quality particularly important in value assessment of these chairs. The legs are turned, without any fluting. The arms of the elbow chair sweep forward and curve down to meet the line of the front legs. The proportion of these admirable smaller dining chairs makes them extremely popular in the modern home.
Another late Georgian c.1810 mahogany armchair, something of a combination of Sheraton and prevailing styles. The wide top back rail is veneered with a panel of figured mahogany and the centre rail is elegantly
reeded. The turning of the front legs and the arm supports, with the popular vase shape, is lightly and gracefully done. Occasionally brass stringing will be found around the inlaid back panel, which adds to the
decorative value.

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  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.

CHAIRS  upholstered, Victorian uprights
As the wavy curves of the rococo died out, so a new, severer, heavier and altogether more stolid form appeared. Built rather too enduringly and associated with the graver, more portentous side of Victorian life, these chairs have not yet found great popularity and many more would have been broken up if they had not been quite so strongly built. Perhaps due for a revival.
This chair almost takes up where the last chairs of the previous section leave off. The back design is very similar but the arms and legs are altogether different. Note the heavy turning and the spindled gallery under the arms  very popular in the 1870s.
A successor to the spoon back but with classical additions, including pillars and a pedimented top. Note that the chair is missing its castors. 1880-1890
The classical and 18th century revival has arrived  note the use of the slightly Hepplewhite back, Adam-ish pillars and earlier 19th century legs but with a bit of incised grooving on the seat rail. A similar design occurs in C. & R. Light’s 1881 catalogue.
A heavy single chair, possibly intended for the dining room, with upholstered seat and back. The seat has an overstuffed appearance and it is clearly built for heavy use.
The style of ‘the Louis’ has intervened. A sub-French design of the turn of the century which is to be found in suites of furniture for about twenty years. In a sense, the rococo is back, but in a much less attractive form. 1895-1915
Another heavily-built chair with rexine upholstery using sub-classical design and carving. The broad, curved top rail with its base-relief carving of acanthus leaves, is approaching the Edwardian type. 1890-1900
CHAIRS  upholstered, ‘designers’ chairs, 1860-1910
The architects who were involved in the various design movements from 1860 onwards tended to produce chairs that were rather puritan in concept, perhaps as a reaction from the stuffed upholstery of Victorian comfort. A small selection is shown here  chairs by famous designers tend to be individually hunted and expensive.
An oak armchair of Gothic reformed design, with all the hallmarks of the movement in its motifs, its ‘revealed’ construction and decoration. The use of the leather upholstery with impressed sun or sunflower motifs is also very interesting and characteristic of the interest in Japanese design at the time. The chair is a version of a popular Victorian open-arm tub chair, much found in more conventional Victorian versions. 1860-1870
A leather-covered armchair which provides an interesting companion with the previous ‘Gothic’ chair with its impressed Godwinesque ’suns’. This is the traditional Victorian version, with baluster and bulbous turning to the legs and arm supports, made in an uncompromising mahogany and with a distinctly ‘club’ or institutional look about it.
A chair designed by E.W. Godwin (q.v.) for the William Watt catalogue on Art Furniture of 1877. A chair subsequently much copied, particularly the back, which was admired by the Arts and Crafts Movement (q.v.).
This mahogany chair with tulip-pattern upholstery is of a design derived from Godwin, particularly the back, which is similar to an AngloJapanese type in which the uprights continue vertically well clear of the back panel. Would now be loosely called ‘art nouveau’ particularly due to the tulip upholstery, but it is in fact much more of an Arts and Crafts Movement chair of carefully-considered design. Note the incised ring turning on the front legs and back uprights and the way in which the arm supports sweep right down through the seat rail to the stretchers between the front and back legs. 1885-1895
A stained beechwood chair, also of the Arts and Crafts Movement, with twist-turned arm supports. The use of vertical straight turned spindles is rather overdone but it is, again, a very carefully thought-out design.
A more flagrantly art nouveau chair, using the flat capped uprights associated with Voysey in conjunction with inlaid ‘whip-lash’ floral marquetry in the rather sinuous back rail.
There is a strange use of short curtain-like screens to the sides and back.
A simpler and more satisfying art nouveau chair, again with flat-capped uprights and inlaid marquetry, but this time in a more solid, almost ‘hall-porter’s’ or `saddleback’ derivation for totally enclosed comfort. C. 1900

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.

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.

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.

Sheraton chair

Even at its most decorative and ornate, Sheraton furniture is made with very little integral ornament, and relies for its originality and sparkle on painting and gilding, inlay and japanning. Sheraton was puritan by conviction and by nature, favouring straight lines rather than curves, and multipurpose space-saving furniture for the ranks of Georgian terraced houses which had recently been built. He came to London in 1790 from the North of England, and was designing during the Napoleonic Wars, when materials and money were short, and much of his furniture was made in cheaper beechwood and birch, rather than expensive mahogany, although he did favour satinwood which was costly. In construction, Sheraton was a
traditionalist. He reverted to the old manner of making chairs with crest rails tenoned between the back supports, as opposed to overriding them or curving into them. On chairs with arms, he took the line even higher than Hepplewhite, so that the arm of the chair sweeps up to the crest rail in an abrupt curve, almost as though it is part of the back itself.
Signs of authenticity
1. Made of beech, with ash or birch underframes.
2. Crest rail tenoned into sides of back supports.
3. On chairs with arms, arms joined oined to fronts of back supports, high up and usually on a line with a horizontal back rail.
4. On chairs with upholstered seats, pronounced height of seat above frame.
5. Front legs taper-turned to the frame, then square-sectioned, forming the corners of seat
frames on straight-fronted chairs.
6. On chairs with round seats, legs taper-turned to frame, then square-sectioned flush with curve to form solid underframe.
7. Back legs either square-sectioned or taper-turned, but always square-sectioned at seat level to form stout join of chair frame.
8. Crest rail, supports and arms all turned, reeded or fluted.
Likely restoration and repair
9. Original frames of seats overstuffed when re-upholstered – a frequent Victorian practice.
10. Stripped and repainted and gilded.
11. Recaned panels and seats.
12. New blocks on corners of drop-in seat frame.
13. Damaged cane seats overstuffed – signs of holes for original caning on underframe.
14. Made of cheaper birch entirely – probably a later copy.
Construction and materials
In spite of their air of fragility, Sheraton chairs were remarkably solidly constructed, often in beech, with a sound knowledge of timber and of stresses and strains. In their basic construction, they have more in common with the traditional framed construction than any chairs made from the beginning of the eighteenth century onwards. The back is supported by a top rail and lower rail set parallel and tenoned into the sides of the back supports. The back legs are raked back and square-sectioned in his early designs, though later they were less solid and usually tapered or taper-turned, like the front legs. On chairs with arms, the design exaggerates the line of continuity from front leg to arm support, carrying it up to elbow height, often without a curve at all. The back splats are arranged in geometrical patterns of parallel
lines, lattice, or a mixture of both. Seats were often curved or round, upholstered and built up on a solid front apron.
Drop-in seats were
supported with four shaped brackets on the four corners of the seat frame. Front legs were taper-turned, and the use of beech allowed a slight splay since it is a pliable, springy wood, not rigid or liable to split.
Detail
Sheraton seats were often caned, sometimes also with caned panels in the rectangular backs. The back splats were characteristically arranged in geometrical patterns of parallel lines, lattice, or a mixture of both. Japanning, painting and gilding were also used. Crest rails, supports and arms were often turned, reeded or fluted to lighten the design.
Variations
The return to the square back suited many country chair-makers who were still making chairs with traditional construction, to which Sheraton had returned. Most typical of the country versions of his designs are the plain bar-back and rail-back chairs. The other two types of country chairs of the period could equally well have evolved naturally, without benefit of Thomas Sheraton’s The Cabinet Maker and Upholsterer’s Drawing Book (1791-94), and indeed could have been the inspiration for many of his rectangular chair designs. Both originated in the North of England – the spindle back and the bobbin back with their deep plain crest rails developed from the old box-construction.
The country tradition of setting the front and back stretcher slightly higher than the side stretchers continued, and the front stretcher was also often simply turned, again a country tradition. On country chairs of this period, wooden seats were often slightly dished. On chairs with arms, the construction was traditional, with the arm support being a continuation of the front leg, with the arm tenoned into it.
Top: late eighteenth-century, cane-seated chair in simulated bamboo.
Above: Sheraton provincial chair, c.1810.
Reproductions
Nineteenth century
Sheraton was very much a designer for the trade, and contemporary production of his chairs and other furniture was extremely large. During the early nineteenth century
Gillows of Lancaster, the
Seddons, Edwards and Roberts, Cooper and Holt, Wright and Mansfield, Jackson and Graham, Johnson and Jeans and many other large furniture manufacturers made quantities of Sheraton furniture.
The Victorians copied some of his more fantastic ‘Egyptian’ and classical designs, suitable for the increasing
ostentation in taste, and many Sheraton-style chairs were made in mahogany to give them a more substantial appearance.
Some of these nineteenth-century variations are pleasing, solid and well-constructed. Later versions are not so successful, having square-sectioned tapered legs and stretchers, or more bulbously turned front legs. The height of the bottom back rail was an integral part of the construction as well as the design, and on late versions chairs look oddly proportioned, as though the chair back has been compressed.
Twentieth century
During the Edwardian period, countless cheap copies of Sheraton’s little cane-seated chairs, gold-painted and flimsy, were made for ballrooms and public functions. They should not be confused with Regency ,rout’ chairs, which were elegantly proportioned and well-made, though few of them have survived intact.
Price bands
Simulated bamboo, c.1810, £.115-125.
Square back, reeded, c.1810, £120-180 each.
Set of six, with two
armchairs, £3,200-4,000.
Provincial reeded and plain, £90-120 each.
Set of six, £1,500-1,800.