Featured Birdseye and Tiger maple antiques

But the point you seem determined to miss no matter how plain it is made, is that this construction, without pins in the mortise and tenon joints, is completely consistent with pre-1850 American furniture construction. It is fine if you think you know more than everyone else, but it would be nice if you could explain why. How many experts dating how many tables do you need to see?

 

Who is everyone? I am disagreeing with you! Your first example stand was mahogany veneer which does not show any joinery & the second clearly states it could be 1850!
You haven't produced any other construction details on your stand except the drawer & drawers were largely hand made until 1900.
Well, first a bit of history on 4 leg stands, they replaced 3 leg candle stands & really didn't get going till the 1830s when oil lamps came into widespread use. These 4 leg stands were produced by the thousands, probably 10s of thousands in factories in Grand Rapids and Mitchell & Rammelesburg's furniture factory in Cincinnati, starting in the 1840s.
There was a very small window of time there for 4 leg stands to be entirely handmade (unlike candle stands) and i argue that the vast majority of these stands that survive today are machine made, 1840s and later.
Yes, some 4 leg stands were handmade but, i need to see a lot more than drawer construction to be convinced. Simple as that.

 

Let me post a couple examples, first 2 are clearly early and handmade, the last one is machine made in Ohio late 1840s

Boston table (sewing bag missing from slide out frame) C 1815



New Hampshire tiger maple early 19th original pull


This stand was manufactured in Cincinnati late 1840s by Mitchel & Rammelsberg


And the Makers mark

 

No it doesn't say that. It says it was made between 1780 and 1850. If the lack of pinned joints meant that it had to be made in 1850 or later, which is what you are claiming, then they certainly wouldn't estimate the date as early as 1780. The date 1780 to 1850 is saying it was made before the time time that factory production began. Is that really not obvious to you? It feels like I'm talking to someone who is intentionally misunderstanding.

And please don't change what I said. I never said that no maker pinned joints in the early 19th century - only that it wasn't necessary on a piece of furniture like this. YOU are the one who has said repeatedly that they ALWAYS pinned joints prior to 1850, and that is just wrong.

Here's a table from the Met made in 1740 to 1760 that has no pins:


Do you really want me to find more of these?

 

Jeff........James..... I now detect a digging in of heels.........
I just hope that by the end of this back & forth..... you can both shake hands & have this Forum ....come out the winner ! ...

 

Well my heels are quite dug in on the idea that pinned mortise and tenon joints are unusual in smallish examples of Federal furniture tables and case pieces made in the early 1800s. An examination of the Winterthur archive makes that obvious, where I could find only one piece of Federal case furniture described with pinned joints. In contrast I am relatively skeptical of dealer descriptions like James gives, though he may have found a couple more.

But the more research I’ve done the more certain I am that judging furniture age based on pinned mortise and tenons will disregard a lot of furniture that is authentically old and handmade. It is useful and something to consider when evaluating a piece especially one Queen Anne or earlier (where Winterthur reports widespread use, though the example I posted immediately above shows there are exceptions even there). But lack of pinned joints is not exclusionary especially when looking at early 19th C Federal furniture. And I still believe circular saw evidence is much more useful in making the distinction between craftsman and factory made.

For me this has been an interesting discussion and a learning experience. I discovered that there were more small and large furniture factories in mid 19th century US than I thought, scattered all across the US and not mostly in New England as I had thought. And it gave me some additional insight into when various joints were used since I hadn’t given it this much concentrated thought before. If someone else looks at the same evidence and disagrees that is their prerogative. I feel no ill will from this conversation and don’t think I stepped on any toes. At least I hope not.

 

This is the quote that started the discussion on early handmade furniture as opposed to machine made furniture in america.
I was guessing based on photos provided, not making an absolute claim, there are no absolutes in old furniture however, generally speaking most handmade american furniture in the 18th-early 19th century relied on dovetails & pinned M&T joinery in the assembly of furniture.
It takes an in person examination to authenticate old furniture and the piece needs to be evaluated in total, you can't single out one particular area of construction as the be all end all.
Were the boards hand or machine planed, are the turned elements machine or hand turned on a pole lathe, how is the top attached, what kind of nails if any or hardware, bla bla bla. Most of these construction issues can't be resolved with photographs.

No offence taken here! and, hope i didn't offend but, based on photos provided, i am still guessing Sheraton 2 drawer drop leaf stand, 1840s.
I would add that value wise there would be little or no difference in value if your stand was 1800 or 1840.

 

That was the quote that I consider to have really started the disagreement and that I was trying to address.

OK, then we're good, and certainly no offense taken. As you say evaluating a given piece of furniture is always a judgement call based on pictures provided and experience, and I wasn't really arguing about this one piece but trying to clear up expectations about characteristics to expect to see in the marketplace. Unfortunately we got so wound around the axle on pinned joints that we never really got to the reason I thought this was earlier rather than later (the thickness of the veneer), but we can save that for a later piece!

 

So I ran across another birdseye stand with drawer that is closely related to the first one, so I'll post it here. This one also has the solid hand planed top and drawer bottom, but has a single drawer with solid birdseye front, no extension leaves, and the pinned joints like James likes to see. I see this one as closely related and from the same early 19th century "Federal" time period that the first one is. A different maker, with different techniques, but working in the same aesthetic style and time period.

There is a distinct feature of this one that I don't remember seeing before, that maybe @James Conrad or @Ghopper1924 or @verybrad or someone else may recognize. Notice in the last two pics how the drawer front panel is not cut square to the sides, but is made a little wider in front. That struck me as something that could be a regional difference, or possibly some identified maker(s). Anyone know?

 

I've never see a lightly chamfered drawer front as we see above. In addition to regionalism, is there any ethnic tradition that might explain it? Or perhaps it's a "sport" in the traditional sense, i.e. one-of-a-kind?

 

Can't say I have seen such a beast either.

 

How about one maker putting his own personal 'touch' on it???????

 

It is interesting to me that the base of the drawer in this table,pine with nails along the back,Circa 1840-50 is the same as on the side board that everyone except me is saying is a repro.
Do members know the main construction in the 50S-60S for drawer bottoms was plywood and not solid timbers.

Regards Giotto

 

The Image of the last table, is a picture of a very badly made table ,there is really not much to say about it ,to me it really does not matter how old it is (not very Old)
tables like this could be made using old timber that was lying around ,A lot of skill was not needed to make it.
Giotto.

 

Sorry, but I don't know which table you're talking about; between James and me we've posted probably ten. Do you mean the first table that I opened the thread with, or the one I just posted - in which case they are both most likely dated earlier than 1840. In any case, that pine bottom, grain side to side, with nails in the back, was used in American furniture from the mid 1700's up to the late 1800's. But there were subtle differences as time went on - from the type of nails used, to the sawing pattern on the pine board, to the dovetails used; and these are the details to look for to find to clues to when made.

p.s. I looked up the sideboard you mentioned, and noted that looked to be made in UK, not US, so drawer construction materials and techniques were quite different.

 

Again, this is confusing since I'm not sure which table you're talking about, but if you mean the birdseye drawer table that I just posted, it may be a "very badly made table" and "not very Old" compared to tables made in the country you're from (I don't know where that is), but it's construction is pretty typical of ones made in the US at this time, early 19th century. Clearly it isn't pretending to be a high-style New York piece from a well known maker. But you may want to look at early American Shaker furniture from the 19th century (this piece is definitely not Shaker). Shaker furniture is quite plain, even plainer than this table, but considered very well made and prized here in the US.

 

Hello I am from Australia
I agree with you shaker furniture was usually well made,interesting styles clean lines fine craftsmanship ,as I said about the badly made table,it was probably made by a hobby type cabinet maker, the dove tales are quite crude and re the drawer front seems like he did not know how to use a square ,or he did not have one.

I would be saying the same thing if I saw this table in Australia.

Regards Giotto.

 

Sorry I am talking about the last table you posted.

Regards Giotto

 

Jeff, I own high quality repro stuff made here in the 70s. Solid wood drawers and bottoms.

As to standard of making in the early 19th, it's entirely feasible that a small country caarpenter a) did not have the same tools as their city counterpart and b) was self taught to a degree. Same with older country made stuff here.

 

I certainly agree country made away from the cities, though I believe the drawer chamfer was not because of a lack of a square but was by design. All the other wood is perfectly square, but all four sides on the birdseye piece have the same chamfer. If not a regional or maker quirk, maybe meant to close gap when drawer is pushed in?, really don't know. I was hoping someone had seen it before but I guess not.

I also don't think it's correct to say "badly made" but that's just my opinion based on owning, working with and repairing a lot of antique furniture. Heavy stock, every joint is tight, even took the time to pin the mortise and tenons, well turned legs. Nice dove tails - those in America were not thin like those in europe until later in the century.

As a country made piece it isn't going to appeal to those looking for fancy inlay and carving as seen in city made pieces from the same time period. On the other hand, simple period figured maple pieces do have an appeal in this country that may not appeal in other countries.