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.

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  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.

Carolean cane-back chair

Historical background
The art of twist turning and swash turning came to England from Spain and the Spanish Netherlands at the time of Charles II and revolutionized the shape of chairs, tables, stands and stools. Oak, which had previously been the dominating wood for furniture, was abandoned in favour of
Signs of authenticity
1. Walnut is particularly susceptible to worm: most chairs of this period have feet eaten away and boreholes noticeable in solid parts of timber.
2. If uprights are twist turned they all run in the same direction, not opposite, as in later Victorian copies.
3. Twists and turning are not even: hand-turning and carving is always slightly irregular in depth, and measurements differ fractionally between each twist.
4. Caning holes on seat frame and back worn, cutting through timber from tension: caning was part of the construction and as such, subject to considerable strain.
5. On arm versions, outward splay follows the line of the body: arms tenoned into fronts of back supports rather than sides.
6. Early chairs had no splay to back legs and tend to be top-heavy and unbalanced.
7. Crest rail carving deeply incised.
8. Deep patination on all parts of arms, seat and back.
Likely restoration and repair
9. Caning replaced in back and seat. Original caning was fine with star-shaped holes in weave. Modern caning has diamond-shaped holes.
10. Seat frame strengthened with blocks on inside corners.
11. Ornate crest rails and front stretchers may have been replaced, repaired.
12. Cane seat and back replaced with upholstered panel.
13. Caned backs replaced with carved panels; seats of wood.
walnut which was ideal for turning and carving. Many of these chairs were, however, quite successfully made in oak, although the carving on the ornate crest rails was not as crisp and as detailed. The whole design reflected the Continental taste for greater ornament and elegance, so typical of the Restoration period.
Because the cane back and seat weakened the construction of chairs, additional H-shaped stretchers gave added strength, as did a central stretcher between the back legs set on a level with the elaborately carved front rail. Later, as backs became exaggeratedly high in the William and Mary period and scrolled legs were set at an angle, X-stretchers joined the legs, sometimes with a small central finial. These chairs were often known as periwig’ chairs because the extreme height of their back seemed to mimic one of the fashionable hairstyles of the period.
Construction and materials
The best examples of these chairs were made in solid English walnut which was close-grained and far less liable to split when heavily carved and decorated. They were also made in oak with less decoration owing to the coarser grain of the wood, and in beech, painted and gilded. The cane back to the seats was usually square in English chairs and oval in Dutch designs.
On chairs without arms, the front legs continue above the seat to form ornamental bosses designed to hold a loose cushion, and from c.1670 most chairs with arms were also made to have cushions on their seats, with the lower seat rail set correspondingly high so as to be seen above the level of the cushion.
From c.1690, the construction suffered in favour of ornament, and crest rails were often simply pegged to the tops of the chairs between
Variations
Country versions were usually made in oak, but are sometimes to be found in mixtures of fruitwood and walnut, plane and sycamore, usually less ornately carved. They have wooden or rush seats and straight slatted backs, a raised bottom back rail for strength, and simple carving on the crest rail. The seats are often dished to take a cushion. They were also made with double stretchers on three sides, with a simple turned decorative stretcher in front. Another variation of later date has plain
the uprights. Front legs of single chairs were pegged into the undersides of seats – a construction which was hardly robust.
Detail
The crest rail, as its name implies, was originally heraldic and the carving varies from a fairly simple combination of ‘S’ and ‘C’ scrolls to the most intricate and ornate pierced work, of which the amorati – two little boys holding up a crown between them – is probably the best known. Carved and scrolled arms are also a common feature, but only the grandest chairs have scrolled feet. The majority of pieces have block feet, sometimes with a turned bobbin (usually worn or cut off) below. Reel-and-bobbin turning to stretchers, arm supports and even back supports is not unusual, though twist turning is commoner.
turned front legs, double side stretchers, a plain slatted back and a rush seat.
Left: late seventeenth century, high-backed chair, with simple G scrolled crest rail, bobbin and baluster turning and rush seat. Centre: Carolean, with delicate ‘boyes and crown’ crest rail. Oval cane panel may suggest Flemish origin.
Right: William and Mary stained beechwood armchair.
Reproductions
Nineteenth century
The most common are Victorian, in a mixture of early designs and later versions, with X-stretchers and a Flemish scroll on the crest rail. Another version has
upholstered seat and back panel, often in Berlin woolwork, with twist-turned uprights, scrolled feet and twist-turned legs and stretchers. The over-sleek,
slightly greenish-coloured copies of the periwig chair are a
familiar sight, with a lower
back, caned back panel and splayed back legs. They were first made in the Victorian
period, and have been
reproduced many times since.
Price bands
Walnut, c.1680, £1,500-2,250 pair.
Continental, c.1680, £1,000-1,500 pair.
Rush-seated country chairs, £300-400 each.
High-backed beechwood, £300-400 each.
Nineteenth-century reproduction, £50 75.

Panel-back Chair
variations which are quite distinct and recognizable, for the feudal lords were still the equivalent of petty kings in their own territories.
Earlier versions have completely boxed-in seats, a design which lasted until the end of the sixteenth century and overlapped the more sophisticated design with turned legs, built more on the
Historical background
These chairs were among the earliest pieces of furniture to be elaborately decorated and, carved, as befitted the important seat of power they symbolized, whether ecclesiastical or temporal. There are many regional
Signs of authenticity
1. Well-worn oak, with no crisp edges. Carving should be worn and rounded with age and wear.
2. Panelled backs and seats of uneven thickness as wood was split and not sawn.
3. Same turning on front legs and arm supports.
4. Back legs slightly splayed, always square-sectioned, never decorated.
5. Panel grain vertical, not horizontal. Frame construction with chamfered panel to fit into grooves on the uprights, on the grain and not across it.
6. Dowelling and mortise-andtenon joints to stretchers, frieze, seat and back frame. No nails used in construction.
7. Thick build up of patination under arms and arm scrolls where chair has been handled.
8. Some damage and distressing to vulnerable front legs, front stretcher, arms.
Likely restoration and repair
9. Back panel replaced with different panel, often Flemish, taken from coffer, church panelling, etc. Decoration will not accord with crest rail or other decoration on chair.
10. Completely replaced chair back, planed out to resemble framing. Grain will run on over the top and bottom frame.
11. Front legs broken and replaced. Grain of front leg will change, often on ring-turning, or below frieze where it has been joined.
12. Original plain back `improved’, usually by
Victorians, often with early date added, in carving of wrong technique for the period, or with patriotic symbols:
Scottish thistles, etc.
principle of the joint stool. Panelled backs persisted long after the base of the chair had lost its enclosed, coffered construction. Plain chairs without arms, which derived from this pattern, formed the basis of many country chairs for centuries, and the straight-backed, panelled chair continued to be made well into the eighteenth century.
Construction and materials
Like all furniture of this early period, the panel-back chair was made of oak, quarter cut and split, with a ripple in the grain. The solid stretchers were often at ground level, reminiscent of its origins as a boxed-in chair. Where the stretchers are raised off the ground, legs always terminate in square block feet to take the width of the stretcher tenoned into it. Arm supports were a continuation of the front legs and the sides of the back panelling were a continuation of the back legs.
Detail
Arms were often scrolled, but square in section rather than rounded and often had carved decoration on the outer side.
The top rail or crest rail was elaborately carved and often ended in scroll ‘ears’.
Some chairs had plain backs, richly painted and gilded while others had carved backs with architectural elements – arches, architraves, columns, pillars and arcaded or geometrical strapwork –more reminiscent of the stonemason’s, than the carpenter’s craft. Stylized scrollwork and foliage is also to be found richly and deeply carved; rarely one might find carved heraldic devices or royalist symbols.
Variations
Variations are regional and quite distinct. The North country design is distinguishable by its overrunning carved sides either side of the arms, and elaborately carved crest rail terminating in rounded scrolls. The East Anglian design frequently featured an arched panel in the back, which fanned out on a level with the arms and not below, as in the North country version.
Northern chairs are heavier, with more ornate scrolled carving incorporating leaves with column-
turned or reel-turned legs, whereas southern counties followed more fashionable shapes, such as the baluster and a simple cup and cover or acorn shape for legs and arm supports. The straight-backed chair without arms also has distinct regional variations, notably the Yorkshire and the Lancashire, both of which derive from the armed chair, and have shaped crest rails and distinctive though simplified carved scrolled ends or ‘ears’.
Reproductions
Nineteenth century
Whole sets of ‘Lancashire’ and ‘Yorkshire’ chairs were made to match up with the bulbous-
legged ‘medieval’ tables made for dining in Victorian baronial halls, recognizable principally by the grain and colour of the oak, which is sawcut, stained and uniformly dark and lacklustre. Although the carving was shallow, these chairs were too ornamented, with frilled aprons and exaggeratedly curving, scrolling arms. The carved backs and crest rails were made in a single piece, with the grain running from top to bottom, with shallow carving in the wrong designs. The carved crest rail was made separately and pegged to the top rail.
Stretchers are too high off the ground and often the whole design has been ‘modified’ to what was considered to be better proportions and decoration.
Single chairs were made to approximately the same design for public buildings, hotels, institutions and assembly halls, with plain panelled backs, or with leather backs studded to the sides, and overstuffed leather seats, also studded, a design that lasted well into the twentieth century.
Price bands
Plain backed, with ‘ears’, £2,000-3,000.
Genuine period carved back, rare, 15,000 +.
Eighteenth-century country version, no arms, 185-100. Set of six, £ 650-750.
Nineteenth-century reproductions, £10-20.
Variations, far left: James 1, South Yorkshire or Derbyshire chair,
with scrolled ‘ears’ and sophisticated turned and fluted arm supports and front legs. Left: seventeenth century panel-backed chair, with baluster turned legs and high front stretcher.

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.