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.

Bentwood rocker

Bentwood chairs have become so much a part of our lives as to be almost invisible. In a simplified form they have been used in so many everyday places - shops, schools, private houses and public places - that it is difficult to imagine that their whole style was once a complete revolution in furniture-making. Today they are turned out in their thousands in factories all over
Signs of authenticity
1. Laminated wood, built up of alternately grained strips.
2. Generous curves with long unbroken sections curving under and over, rather than separate pieces joined at short intervals.
3. Taut panels caned on the diagonal to allow for the springiness of the chair.
4. Surface of wood smooth and silky, instantly recognizable once touched, compared with later solid bentwood.
5. Impeccable finish with sections shaped and smoothed to flow into the join.
6. Early solid birch bentwood chairs should be finely sanded and finished under black
I ebonized’ paint.
Likely restoration and repair
7. Laminated bentwood chairs and rockers which have been subject to too many changes in temperature and humidity will be ’sprung’ on curves, i.e. there will be splitting where the wood has shrunk and pulled away. It may be tacked and glued back into position but the damage is permanent and will occur again.
8. Recaned on the horizontal and vertical. The caning will break and the chair will not maintain its shape, but will eventually split from the strain.
9. Black paint stripped off. If this has been done by complete immersion in a caustic solution there may be some dissolving of the adhesives between laminations. Stripping must be done painstakingly by hand and there should be some small signs of remaining paint.
England, but their origins were elite and aesthetic.
Michael Thonet (1796-1871),
their inventor, was an Austrian who trained as a craftsman in the South German Biedermeier school of furniture-making. This was established as a reaction against French influence, in part motivated by the aspiration for a united Germany after the Napoleonic Wars, and in part aesthetic, a search for well-designed ‘bourgeois’ furniture. The parallel desire was felt in England, and was evident in the designs of J. C. Loudon and his school. Biedermeier was particularly successful with seat furniture, which was solid, well-made, elegant and, above all, comfortable. It was Michael Thonet’s search for new materials and techniques to
make chairs without ornament, carving or traditional construction that led him to experiment with the shipbuilding techniques of steaming and bending wood. His designs were first produced in laminated wood in the 1840s.
Thonet took out patents for his chair-making techniques, but when the patent ran out in the 1860s a London firm of furniture-makers, Hewlett and Company, took it up, and by the end of the century bentwood chairs were being made by many furniture-makers, particularly in High Wycombe, centre of England’s chair-making industry.
Construction and materials
Michael Thonet’s original designs were made in thin strips of wood, steamed and bent into shape and laminated together - a technique which had been known in England for about 100 years, although laminated wood had only been used for parts of furniture and not for a whole piece. Thonet’s first commission for these novel, smooth-curving designs was for the Leichtenstein Palace in Vienna, and although they were more detailed and complicated in their sinuous construction, the basic bentwood chair of today differs very little from those prototypes.
In England, the technique of steaming and bending wood had been applied to Windsor chairs for some years, using solid wood as
Variations
Bentwood chairs were particularly suitable for children, and both high chairs and small, miniature versions of the standard shape were made, particularly in the 1920s, for use in schools and nurseries.
Some early, finely designed, bentwood chairs made in England include versions of the sabre-legged S-armed chair, with the back made in a single hoop with the back legs, which are raked well back. Front legs curved forward in imitation of the line of the sabre-leg, but were round-sectioned and taper-turned. The S-curve of the arms was particularly suitable for the new bentwood technique.
Once furniture-making factories had begun to turn out bentwood chairs by the thousand, their finish and style degenerated into the ‘tearoom chairs’ of the 1920s and 1930s, being reduced to circular hoops and slightly splayed legs, whose timber was no longer carefully chosen for the correct grain, and which have since split and cracked.
opposed to laminated. The timber was generally birch, traditional wood for chair-legs because it was amenable to bending and was springy enough not to break or split. The cane seat, too, had been in production for country chairs and lightweight seat furniture ever since Sheraton had reintroduced it at the end of the eighteenth
century.
Early genuine Thonet bentwood chairs and rockers, for which the technique was particularly
suitable, were more curvaceous and elaborate, mainly due to the laminated wood which allowed more freedom than later bentwood chairs in birch, which consisted mainly of a series of hoops and standardized curves.
Reproductions
After a considerable spell of unpopularity as ‘cheap chairs there are now many extremely good reproductions of the original bentwood chair on the market, many of them originating in Taiwan and the Far East, where manufacturing is cheap and labour still skilled in traditional crafts such as caning. Their reappearance on the English scene can largely be attributed to the many well-designed small restaurants with imaginative decor, for which they were originally imported.
Price bands
Superb intricate shapes, top condition with original labels and original, unshipped
finish, £850-1,000.
Stripped or plain, simpler shapes with original label, £550-850.
Set of six chairs, original caning and labels, £350-500.
Period singles with labels and authentication, 135–50.
1920s plain but in good condition, £15-20.
Above: a child’s bentwood high chair, c.1870.
Right: an original Thonet, c.1860.

Victorian button-back chair

The relative austerity of Regency furniture and the soft clinging clothes worn by the ladies of the period were ousted during William IV’s reign by the new ‘Naturalistic’ line. Furniture became more curvaceous, seats of chairs wider to accommodate the increasing volume of ladies’ skirts and gentlemen’s frock coats, both of which were smartly nipped in at the waist.
Signs of authenticity
1. Solid ‘black’ Virginia walnut, rosewood or solid mahogany frame, carved and decorated.
2. Front arm supports and front legs in one continuous piece with decorative motif integral to the shape and design.
3. Deep, crisp carving with scrolling or floral and foliate motifs.
4. Original upholstery in worsted damask, cotton-andworsted, or silk-and-worsted, machine-woven, or in heavy velvet.
Floral, stripes and imitation tapestry or dark plain colours.
5. Deep buttoning to backs and inside arms, plain sprung seats until c.1890.
6. Backs curved in spoon shape to fit the body — buttoning to `waist’ of back only.
Likely restoration and repair
7. Back legs broken and
replaced. Replacements may be simple and slightly raked, looking well but less solidly balanced.
8. New upholstery — almost inevitable, but buttoning should not continue below the line of the ‘waist’ of the back.
9. Front legs and/or feet
repaired where broken or split. Change in patination is always on a diagonal line with repair and runs into the leg grain.
10. Original, bulbously turned legs, replaced with a ‘marriage’ of legs from another, similar chair. Line of front seat rail will carry through between arm and leg, whereas on genuine carved cabriole-type legs there is no break at seat level.
This hour-glass shape was echoed in seat furniture, and when Samuel Pratt took out a patent for sprung upholstery in 1828 it was in answer to a demand for even more comfortable chairs and sofas.
Even as late as the early Victorian period, it was considered strange for the centre of rooms to be cluttered with furniture except when in use, and seat furniture was always on castors so that it could be moved back into a tidy arrangement round the room when not in use. Once the rounded, curving lines of upholstered furniture began to be exploited, all kinds of central seat furniture made its appearance, notably the back-to-back sofa and the circular sofa, deeply sprung, tasselled and curving.
Arm chairs at first had sprung seats and button backs, developing from the lines of the Adam round-backed chair into one of the most familiar pieces. of Victorian furniture. Later, seats as well as backs were buttoned, and there were high-backed ‘grandmother’s chairs’, more dumpy, rotund `grandfather’s chairs’ and their counterparts without arms, as well as tub chairs, bedroom chairs, nursery chairs and parlour chairs, all made with carved mahogany, Virginia walnut or rosewood frames and beech underframes. Some of the most successful designs incorporate a cabriole-type leg with a scrolled `French foot’, far more elegant than the later, bulbously turned legs of mass-produced and provincial chairs.
Construction and materials
Early versions of Victorian upholstered chairs from c.1830-50 were usually open-armed, with small upholstered elbow pads and ornate curving scrolls to arms and back, with a solid Virginia walnut frame and a curved, plain seat back.
Underframes were of beech, ash or birch, and the construction was still similar to earlier armed chairs. From c.1850 the arms were filled and upholstered, and the backs, shaped with two low scrolls like a judge’s wig, had small decoratively carved features rising above the curved back frame. The back legs, until now plain and slightly raked, developed a bowed curve and there was often a decorative carved apron across the front seat rail below the upholstered sprung seat. At the same period low chairs with hourglass or balloon-shaped
Variations
Suites of drawing room balloon-back chairs with high backed ‘grandmother’s chairs’ with buttoned backs and open arms were made in great quantities, some of
upholstered backs were made without arms, their seats wide and generous, their curved cabrioletype legs set wider than the back legs. These were known as ‘ladies’ chairs’ and their high-backed, armed equivalents as `grandmother’s chairs’.
Detail
After the introduction of machine-carving around 1850, upholstered chairs of all shapes and sizes were made with less detail, shallow carving, and generally with turned front legs. Early upholstery tended to be unyielding because it was a mixture of linen waste and horsehair, but this was soon replaced with American cotton and wool waste mixed with horsehair, a combination that was much softer and more comfortable.
them very decorative, others of poorer quality, for they were mass-produced from inferior materials. As with much Victorian furniture, quality and craftsmanship distinguish between early, well-made and well-designed button back chairs and later versions. This type of chair continued to be made well into the early Edwardian period, although in the main it was relegated from drawing rooms and parlours to bedrooms and the servant’s upstairs quarters.
Right: a low button back, sometimes called a nursing chair.
Reproductions
The revival in popularity of Victorians in recent years has led to many furniture-manufacturers producing copies of the smaller tub chair with button back and low rounded seat. On the whole these look perfectly adequate, but fillings for upholstery are more often than not a polystyrene-type foam chip which goes flat and loses its spring after some use. In terms of value it is better to seek out one of the many varieties of original on the market than spend money on short-lived modern reproductions.
Price bands
Open-armed, well-carved, solid walnut frame and apron c.1850-70, £350-500.
Spoonback, no arms, cabriole-shaped legs, solid walnut carved frame, £400-550.
Curved back, integral upholstered arms, carved legs and frame. Rosewood more than walnut, £350-600.
Left: open-armed button back, c.1870.

Joint stool
Signs of authenticity
1. Grain of wood coarser than saw-cut timber, showing slight figure and rippling.
2. Thick timber for seats, curving slightly on the grain from shrinkage and age.
3. Stretchers, legs and feet worn with constant use.
4. Dowelling from tops of legs standing slightly proud of seat due to shrinkage and movement of timber.
5. Pegs on stretcher joints and frieze joints should not stand proud. Green timber was used and knocked in as it shrank.
6. Good width of overhang to seat.
7. Build-up of patination on underside of overhang which should feel almost polished with years of wear.
8. Legs and frieze tapering outward slightly on longer side of stool – neatly flush on short end for pushing together to make a bench.
9. Feet showing signs of ‘frayed’ end-grain damaged by damp and use and unevenly worn.
Likely restoration and repair
10. Legs replaced, usually below the square section, and concealed by turning.
11. Grain of wood ridged, artificially aged with wire brush, not worn. smooth.
12. Grain running across width, not down length.
13. False dowelling in new seats where tops have been replaced. Regular shapes of dowels and holes drilled with mechanical drills.
14. Legs of wrong period baluster and turning – possibly replaced with old staircase balusters, quite old, but quite wrong.
15. Seat timber not thick enough. Genuine joint stools have seats at least an inch thick, tapering slightly where timber has been split, not sawn.
16. Pristine, glowing oak with good patination but not a sign of chip or crack is suspect: no genuine joint stool is likely to have survived so long without some damage or splitting.
Historical background
Seat furniture was very limited in range until the end of the sixteenth century. Built-in benches along walls and in window embrasures, and benches or formes which ran the length of trestle tables, were the most common.
Church stools were made by carpenters, who also made panelling and rood screens, choir stalls and pews. They were slab-ended with rough V-shapes cut to make rudimentary legs, and often the seats which slotted into the tops, contained a deep box with a hinged lid.
The joint stool or joined stool was made by the joiner, and its construction was the basis for
all chair design until the eighteenth century.
The legs were turned by hand in simple baluster and ring: the seats were tenoned to the tops of the legs, and a frieze was joined to the underframe with mortiseand-tenon joints. They had squared stretchers, set low, almost at ground level.
Joint stools are sometimes known as `coffin stools’ and in varying heights and shapes they were made almost continuously until the end of the eighteenth
century. There was a renewed fashion for these useful little stools during the Victorian Jacobethan revival, when they were made by the thousand.
Construction and materials
The joint stool was made of oak, quarter split and showing some figure in the grain on the seat. The legs were square-sectioned at the top and bottom, the tops forming the sides of the frieze and directly supporting the seat. The legs were slightly splayed for stability, from the top, so that the frieze slopes outwards very slightly, on the two longest sides of the seat only.
The grain of the wood always ran the length of the seat, and was usually finished with a simple edge moulding, and the timber was very thick. The dowelling which secured the seat ran the entire thickness, so that four irregular pegs and holes can be seen on the surface of the seat.
Detail
The frieze might have some simple arcaded or geometrical carving, and the legs were turned in simple baluster or reel-and-bobbin between the stout square sections into which the stretchers were fixed with mortise-and-tenon joints.
Variations
Before c.1500, no one other than people of importance had furniture of any kind, and at this time, virtually all furniture of any consequence was made of oak. It is probable that there were some stools made with elm tops, possibly some in yew wood and some in fruitwood, but a difference in material cannot constitute a dividing line between ‘country furniture’ and the rest. The joint stool itself became an essential part of country furniture at a later date, when there were chairs of all kinds for those who could afford them.
Variations, right: seventeenth-century oak joint stool, with chip-carved decoration on the frieze, turned legs and block feet.
Reproductions
Victorian
The greatest number of reproduction joint stools were probably made during the Victorian Jacobethan revival, using the same construction methods, but making them of machine-cut timber with machine-drilled holes for dowels. On Victorian copies there are almost certainly lining-up marks on the tops of the legs indicating where the frieze should slot in, and above and below the stretchers. There are often
patches of paler wood, mistaken for age, due to years of handling, wood which was originally stained. Victorian copies were made with saw-cut, relatively unseasoned timber of
commercial thickness, with shallow machine-cut carving, sometimes also around the edge of the seat but almost certainly on the frieze.
Left: sixteenth century, oak box-stool. Above: oak, with decorated frieze, cylindrical turned legs and block feet.
Price bands
Seventeenth-century oak, £1,000-1,500.
Seventeenth-century yew wood, £1,250-1,750.
Restored original, £430-600.
Victorian reproduction, £125–150.