Sheraton Single Chair in Mahogany with Straight Legs - A Regency Arm and Single Chair - Regency Mahogany Sabre-Leg Chair

A simpler Sheraton design with tapering legs normally made in mahogany, c. 1800. The arm uprights are of straightforward turning without the spiral reeding which adds greatly to price. An elegant and simple style
which remained popular for many years.
A mahogany armchair of c.1800 date. An excellent example of a good quality chair, as evidenced in the reeding and lightness of design of the back. The turned legs are a little clumsier and have hints of later things to come.
A mahogany Sheraton style single chair, c.1800, with Gothic arching in the design of the back. The legs are tapered on the inside edge only and are reeded, as is the back. An elegant and simple chair.
Country Sheraton design armchair in mahogany with bowed solid seat, c.1810. A satisfying and simple country design of which many were made to meet the popular demand caused by the town versions.
A rather heavier Sheraton style mahogany country chair with drop-in seat, c.1810. The broad top rail of the back has been made slightly wider than the back uprights which detracts slightly from the elegance of the
style. Otherwise the construction and tapering legs are typical.
An elegant chair of the early Regency period, c.1820, with caned back and seat. The outward turn of the simulated bamboo legs is most effective and the balance is completed by the curved top rail. The seat rail and the top rail are inlaid with stringing in the approved classical manner. Many of these chairs were made of birch or beech and then ebonised or painted. They are almost inevitably very expensive.
A country Sheraton single chair in mahogany with straight legs and solid seat, c.1810. The square back with vertical rails owes much to the popularity of Sheraton styles, otherwise the design comes from a
straightforward eighteenth century construction.
Late eighteenth/early nineteenth century oak spindle-back chairs, sometimes called ‘Lancashire’ chairs. They are rush-seated and are sometimes made of elm.
A very simplified country chair of c.1800. The design owes something to Sheraton in the tapering front legs and squared style of the back. The two horizontal rails are very plain and more ornamented versions are to be found. The solid bowed seat is made of elm and the rest of the chair is fruitwood.
Another very elegant Regency chair, c.1825, with rope twist motif on the back and sabre legs. The caned seat again adds to the overall lightness of design.
A similar pair of Regency chairs with reeding continuous down back uprights, sides and sabre legs. The carved decoration is simple and elegant,1830
A Regency period library chair which converts into a set of steps, c.1830. These chairs usually attracted a high degree of craftsmanship and are normally in either mahogany or rosewood. The arms and sabre front legs exhibit typical Regency characteristics although there is a hint of William IV in the broad carved top back rail.
Rather a hybrid piece of furniture which was either little made originally or subject to demolition from heavy bibliophiles. Either way, now becoming rarer and more expensive.
A Regency arm and single chair, c.1825, similar to the previous example in rope twist design but with drop in seats instead of cane. The panel between the horizontal rails in the back is inlaid with brass.
A late Regency or William IV period chair made of mahogany, c.1835. In the heavy curl of the arms and the reeded front legs the approach of the Victorian era is foretold. The bold, wide, outward-pointing top rail is
typical of the 1830 - 40 decade. Look out for conversion front legs, i.e. the original turned and reeded ones are sometimes removed and replaced by sabre legs to increase value.
Balance of top rail  (heavy top rails detract).
A typical Regency mahogany sabre-leg chair of pleasing proportion and design, c.1830. Elegant and small, yet comfortable, this type of chair has become understandably very popular since the war of 1939 - 45. They
are also to be found in rosewood, an even heavier and more durable wood which increases their value.

Eighteenth Century Windsor Chair - A Child’s Windsor Chair with the Gothic Arched Back in Yew Wood

Eighteenth century Windsor chair. Difficult to date exactly since this type was made for a long time, but probably late in the century and continuing into the early nineteenth century. The simple stickback without a splat, and the saddle seat are typical of the earlier types. The curving arm supports are also interesting, since during and after the Regency period turned arm supports became the fashion. This indicates that this chair may be earlier. However, this design appears in Gillows’ cost books in the early nineteenth century both in mahogany and an elm and cherrywood combination.
Elm and cherrywood.
A child’s Windsor chair with the Gothic arched back in yew wood. Although the arm supports and legs bear fairly representative nineteenth century turning work, the crinoline stretcher and well shaped splat make this a nicely proportioned and well made chair.
A Windsor chair of c.1760. The seat would be very ample and the chair of bold proportions. Note the curving crinoline stretcher between the front legs  a feature usually associated with better-made chairs.
A comb-back Windsor chair of approximately 1780. Note the well-shaped saddle seat and the leg turning which is emphasized at the lower part. Many American Windsor chairs are of this design.
Price Range: Single $30  $40
(Yew not often found in this design)
Also, sets of this type are not usually found.
A fairly typical Windsor chair of the nineteenth century. The proportion and the turning of legs and arm supports are altogether heavier. There are still reasonable numbers of these chairs in existence and their very strong construction, particularly when yew is used, makes them very durable and utilitarian antiques.
A fairly common type of low-backed Windsor used for dining purposes. Note the turned arm supports which indicate nineteenth century origins.
Another simple variation of a type which was made during the latter half of the nineteenth century. In this case there is no left arm since the chair was made for an Officers’ mess where the facility to rise, wearing a
sword, without picking up the chair as well was a considerable advantage.
A mid-nineteenth century Mendlesham chair of c.1830, a Suffolk variation of Windsor designs rather allied to Lancashire chairs in the decoration. Highly priced in East Anglia.
A late nineteenth century development of the Windsor chair. Rather ornate with heavy turning; simpler versions were common in schools and offices or institutions until recently.
The Smoker’s Bow, a chair very common in offices and public houses from the end of the nineteenth century onwards. A large heavy chair which will stand considerable abuse. The horizontal hoop is no longer made by
bending the wood but is constructed from several pieces shaped on a band saw and screwed together. In early Windsor chairs this method of forming the hoop was adopted, but not always by using screws; the upright spindles did this.

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 — balloon back
The nineteenth century saw the development of many new styles of which the dominant one from 1840-1880s was the balloon back with cabriole and turned legs. The evolution is clear but one has only to look at The Pictorial Dictionary of 19th Century Furniture Design to see how style persisted, often over several decades. Confusion on dating is therefore very easy. Prices are for sets of six.  Single examples range from $40 — 70.
The back rail is thin and no longer straight but the decoration on the splat still harks back to William IV (late Regency) as does the drop-in seat and decoration on the legs. c. 1835
Shows a simulated rosewood Regency bedroom chair made of beech in which the splat has developed and an early form of ballooning is evolving. This light and elegant chair contrasts sharply with the late ones.
Set of six each.
A later heavier type with solid turned legs and rather clumsy decoration on the splat. c. 1870
Almost a balloon back but not quite, nevertheless a good design with moulded edges to the legs as well as inside the back.
In walnut with a warm colour not obvious from the photograph. The slight shaping on the top and the small carved supports give the chair an elegant look. c.1850
The later mechanical applied groove decoration and a very simple splat, the legs are pinched (see Agius). The price is relatively high because many people simply do not differentiate between quality. c. 1880
Still a very good chair with an intricate splat which is in its favour, but less style than the previous example. c. 1850
Chairs  show how the balloon shape could infect other chairs of the period, even papier mach& as in 200. Note the difference between the Victorian idea of cabriole and that of the early eighteenth century; the former is bandy legged by comparison. 1860. Set of six.
Moving down the scale, a simple splat and a not entirely successful attempt at decoration just above. The legs lack some of the elegance of the previous examples. c. 1850. If back broken — forget.

Windsor chairs

Although these chairs are usually attributed to the end of the eighteenth century, their origins go back much further, and chairs of similar design are known to have been made as early as the end of the seventeenth century. Their construction is entirely different from any other type of country chair, and relates more
Signs of authenticity
1. Figuring of grain clearly visible on underside of seat as well as surface — timber was split, not sawn.
2. On chairs with arms, yew wood arm hoop until c.1790.
3. Back and front legs with matching turning.
4. No nails, joints of any description other than plain taper-turned tenons on all joins.
5. Saddle shape to seats, on versions with and without arms.
6. On chairs with arms without V-support and ‘bob tail’, grain running from side to side on seat.
7. On chairs with V-supports, and ‘bob tail’, grain running front to back.
8. Uneven thicknesses of ’sticks’ on all hand-made chairs.
9. Back feet more worn from use than front feet.
10. Worn, rich patination on seat and all parts in contact with body.
11. On hooped backs, ends of hoops split and wedged under seat for added strength.
Likely restoration and repair
12. Legs replaced, so no wear on feet.
13. Sticks replaced and these not taper-turned.
14. Seats not saddle-shaped suggests recent reproductions.
15. Saw-marks on undersides of seats indicates recent manufacture. Seat timber was split not sawn.
16. Hoops not dowelled right through seat or split and wedged indicates recent manufacture.
17. Legs replaced with wrong timber, often elm, to match seat. Should be beech, birch or fruitwood.
closely to the joint stool than to any other early chair. It is probable that they evolved from the simplest form of seat furniture of all - the three-legged stool.
In the case of Windsor chairs, it is not the backs, arms or legs which are the most important feature. It is the seat, made of a single slab of wood, usually elm, and worked with an adze into a saddle shape. This single
feature remains constant in all true Windsors, with or without arms.
The bending properties of yew wood had long been known, since it was the wood from
which longbows were made. The first use of a yew-wood bow on Windsors was not the upright hoop but a circular back and arm support, parallel to the chair seat. Originally the legs were simply pegged into the
Construction and materials thick seat-timber without stretchers. and splayed to wedge them. A row of holes was dowelled round the seat, and straight taper-turned ’sticks’ joined oined the arm-hoop to the seat, continuing up to form a curved back. held in place by a simple crest rail.
These early Windsors are often known as ’stick-backs’ or ‘comb backs’ because the shaped crest rail resembles a comb. It was not a very solid construction, and sticks and legs
became insecure and fell apart with use and as the timber shrank. But as long as the seat was intact, the pieces could easily be replaced, since they were extremely simply made. This rudimentary design seems to have been made independently by foresters and wood-turners all over the country, with regional differences in woods and detail, wherever there were good supplies of suitable timber. They are found in the West Country, and the Midlands, and notably in Buckinghamshire, in and around High Wycombe, which later became the heart of English chair-making, and has continued to be the centre of the industry until the present.
Improvements in the rudimentary design were soon apparent: a thicker central splat, often only below the arm-hoop, appears on many chairs before the full-length decorative central splat. Stretchers were inevitable to make the construction more solid. They were either very simple, joining the front and back legs on either side, or H-shaped, taper-tenoned and swelling in the centre. Extra support was given to stick-backs with a short extension to the back of the seat, with two extra stays in a V-shape behind the back.
It is hard to determine precisely when the hoop back first became a feature of Windsor chairs, but certainly it was contemporary with Hepplewhite’s round-back chairs. Up to this period, the arm hoop was still a relatively open curve, but with improved steaming and bending wood, introduced continued overleaf.
Reproductions
Victorian
Windsor chairs have been in continuous production quite authentically until the end of the nineteenth century, with small differences in methods of manufacture. As is to be expected, those made during Victorian times, such as the smoker’s bow, have rather more bulbous turning than earlier periods, but not enough to detract from their obviously traditional pattern.
Twentieth century
Everyone should be familiar with the innumerable mass-produced versions - usually singles - made by furniture-makers with well-known names. Their chief difference lies in the materials: machine-sawn woods for seats, with no figured grain on the underside and very little on the seat surface, steamed hoops, straight ’sticks’ without taper turning, machine cut and fretted centre splats and identical machine-turned legs.
Recently, smoker’s bows have been made in blonde woods, and in cheap pale woods, stained and ebonized. Some are of excellent quality but will not endure one quarter the length of time as an original Windsor. Most of them are not cheap, and with diligent hunting it is still possible to find genuine Windsors in twos and threes, and even sixes, for the same price, though they are more likely to be of the less attractive ‘kitchen chair’ type than hooped backs, which are now extremely scarce.
Genuine Windsor chairs dating from the eighteenth century are extremely expensive and sought after. Even late nineteenth century Windsor chairs with hooped backs can cost as much as their dining-room counterparts. Good Windsor chairs with arms are very much in demand.
Variations

Invariably the saddle seat was made from well-seasoned elm, a wood which did not warp with damp and was less likely to shrink or split than oak. Ash is also sometimes found in some districts. Legs were often of straight-grained beech, easy to work and turn, and less liable to wear. Arm hoops were almost always of yew wood until the beginning of the nineteenth century. The ’sticks’ were of ash, beech, birch or fruitwood - pliant woods with spring, rather than solid woods like oak and elm which are more rigid and liable to split. All four legs were turned to the same pattern and pegged or tenoned into holes in the seat, often with the dowels continuing right through the seat, as on joint stools. Stretchers were plain H-shaped on most straightforward Windsors, taper-turned and tenoned into the legs. In the mid-eighteenth century the ‘cow’s horn’ or crinoline stretcher was a feature of Windsors with arms, curving back from the two front legs and joined to the back legs with two angled, taper-turned stretchers. On these chairs, legs and arm supports were of a simplified baluster shape with ring turning. The hooped back on armed chairs is pegged right through the arm hoop - on chairs without arms, right through the seat. The back ,sticks’ are the full height of the chair, running through the arm hoop from seat to crest.

Windsor chair towards the end of the eighteenth century, woods other than yew could be used. It was steamed and bent, then clamped and cooled in the shape of a horse-shoe or hoop. By this time there had already been many refinements in the basic design: legs were bobbin-turned, front and back, as were the arm supports. Cabriole legs were used in the mid-eighteenth century, in most cases not very successfully as far as design was concerned. During the `Chippendale period’ many chair-makers attempted variations on the ‘Gothic’ with some curious results.
The two best-known designs for the central splat of the hoop back are the ‘wheelback’ and the ‘Prince of Wales’ feathers’, both contemporary with Hepplewhite. It was probably around this period that these essentially country chairs were dignified with the name
`Windsor’, by which they have been known ever since
Child’s high chair, early nineteenth century, in elm, ash and yew, with cow’s horn or crinoline stretcher. The footrest is missing.
Price bands
Elm and yew smoker’s bow,£.150–200.
Comb back in yew, ash and elm, £240-450.
Child’s high chair, £650-750.
Cabriole leg, eighteenth century, £850-1,200.
Nineteenth-century ‘kitchen’ chair, £85-160.
Highly-prized late eighteenth-century Windsor, with Cabriole legs, crinoline stretcher, well-designed pierced back splat and curving arm supports.
Elm and yew smoker’s bow, with rather bulbous Victorian turned legs and arm supports.
Early nineteenth-century comb back.
From the beginning of the nineteenth century the hoop back armchair was made in a design known as a ’smoker’s bow’. This was a squat version of an arm chair, with a flat bow cut from a single piece of wood, with a dumpy little crest rail dowelled on to the back. The ’sticks’ were far stouter, and were usually bobbin-turned, splaying out from the seat and dowelled into the underside of the flat armpiece. Hooped-back armchairs, wheelbacks and Prince of Wales’ feathers designs have rather eclipsed all other varieties of the Windsor chair such as the rail back, the lathe back and the spindle back.
The two factors which characterize a Windsor remain constant however: a solid seat into which the legs are pegged or tenoned, and a separate back structure, pegged or tenoned into the seat. No Windsor chair has back legs which continue up to form the supports of the back.
Late nineteenth-century
version of classic Windsor, with heavy arms, crest rail and thick back splats.

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.

Hepplewhite shield-back chair

George Hepplewhite started his career as an apprentice to Gillows of Lancaster, and is the first recorded furniture designer to work for a large company of furniture manufacturers. His pattern book, The Cabinet Maker and Upholsterer’s Guide,
Signs of authenticity
1. Correct proportions laid down by Hepplewhite: height of seat frame 17 in, depth of seat 17 in, width of seat 20 in, overall height 37 in.
2. Legs and back of good quality, dense-grained mahogany.
3. Seat frames in beech.
4. All carving in low relief, softened with age and wear.
5. Top of shield construction still a crest rail, joined to the upward-curving sides of the shield.
6. Waisted join of back support to shield secured with hand-turned screws, concealed by plugs or dowels, now almost invisible.
7. Bottom of shield rounded, never pointed.
8. Tapered front legs fluted or carved with restrained motif.
9. On chairs with arms, arms set forward or directly over tops of legs.
10. Arms set into sides of shield, not spoiling the line.
11. Legs tapered on insides only.
Likely restoration and repair
12. Underframes of pinkish-tinged birch, used in the nineteenth century.
13. Seats upholstered within wooden frame indicate
nineteenth century.
14. Arms set into sides of shield indicates possible replacement of original arm, or nineteenth-century copy, or a single chair with added arms to increase value.
15. Front legs tapered from the outsides indicating a
replacement or a later copy.
16. Back legs square- sectioned to seat frame, then waisted (originals were shaped from the seat frame upwards in a graduated curve) indicates back supports replaced, or a later copy.
was not published until 1788, two years after his death. Its intention was ‘to combine elegance and utility and blend the useful with the agreeable’. Although Hepplewhite died in relative obscurity, his designs continued to be made both in London and the provinces in large numbers well into the nineteenth century.
The shield back is probably his most famous design, which has been copied and reproduced in many variations, though seldom successfully. The remarkable point about the design is that the entire back is concave to take the sitter’s back comfortably, yet seen from the front there is little or no distortion of proportion or shape. The shield-back design was a direct outcome of the round- or wheel-back chair and it marks another radical change in construction.
Construction and materials
The shield-shaped back was entirely supported by a short continuation of the back legs, shaped and waisted to flow into the outward curve of the shield. The base of the shield was rounded and the top crest rail was an exaggerated cupid’s bow. Without the centre splat, the seat could be overstuffed at the back as well as the front, which was serpentine or curved with a much deeper apron than previous designs. As no part of the seat frame was visible, it could be made in beech, which was less expensive and did not split when close-nailed for upholstery. On chairs with arms, the arm support sprang from the tops of the front
legs and curved up to meet the arms which were often set higher at the back to follow the natural line of the body.
Detail
A favourite motif for the central design of the shield back was the Prince of Wales’ feathers and another was the Greek urn.
All the carving on the seat back was in low relief and, like the Adam round-back chair, the legs were tapered and fluted.
Occasionally, there was restrained decorative carving on the front legs and, on chairs with arms, on either side of the seat where the tops of the legs formed the corners.
Variations
The difference between a country version of a round back and a shield back is marginal, since both designs merged in the wheatsheaf, which could also be said to be a simplified Prince of Wales’ feathers design. They were usually made in elm, beech and fruitwood, with square-sectioned legs and four stretchers (with the back one set slightly higher than the other three). The other variation of the Prince of Wales’ feathers design is to be found in Windsor chairs (see pp. 70-73).
Reproductions
Nineteenth century
The shield back is one of the most copied and reproduced chair designs in the whole spectrum, yet it is seldom correctly achieved. Nineteenth-century copies were frequently made with stretchers to add strength to the construction. In spite of its apparent simplicity it was a difficult chair to make, and many of them were made with upholstered seats with solid mahogany frames and aprons instead of underframes and overstuffed seats.
Shields were made in three sections, tapering to a point at the base and mitred together, and the low-relief carving is mechanical and repetitive, adding little to the overall appearance.
Reproductions are quite easy to detect, since the shield looks flattened and too broad when seen from the front, although from the side the proportions seem right. Undeterred, manufacturers of reproduction furniture continued to make sets of ’shield backs’ and its close relative, the ‘lyre-backed’ chair (with brass uprights to simulate harp strings), throughout the nineteenth and well into the twentieth century.
Price bands
Good quality, c.1780, £220-500 each.
Provincial camel back, £75-125 each.
Set of six, £900-1,350.
Nineteenth-century shield back, £120-140 each.
Set of six, £900-1,300.
Variations, far left: camel back, c.1790.
Left, above: stubby, stretchered version, with the arms set into the front of the shield.
Left: shield back, c.1780.