Featured 17TH CENTURY MULE CHEST

I’m not interested in a pissing contest. I was NOT being sarcastic or trying to attack you. I simply don’t see an authentic piece of antique furniture here.

It is rare to see adequate pictures on this forum, part of the reason I don’t post here much. And when I looked at your previous posts, you ARE capable of posting adequate pictures. You did it here https://www.antiquers.com/threads/table-found-in-vermont-please-help-me-date-it.80599/ and because you had good pics showing top, bottom, back, inside, drawers, construction, etc. it was correctly identified as a 20th century Chinese import table with pegged construction.

But your pics in this thread are not adequate, why is that? Four of your five pics are of the exterior surfaces. Those are always the surfaces that are made to look old. Only your last pic shows any part of the interior, and that shows serious problems: both new and old woods of very different age and type and character. You have NO pics of the back, the base, the full inside, the drawer, the drawer bottom, the drawer sides, the drawer back. It’s not that I don’t see dovetails - it’s that we have NO way to judge construction. These are the details that really matter when judging the age of antique wood. That plus the crudity of carving makes this highly questionable to me.

I don’t see any mortise and tenons here - the first pic looks like carved pieces falling off a box they were glued onto. Maybe that isn’t what is going on, but who can say from these pics?

I would be happy to recommend some good books on evaluating antique furniture, if you are interested.

 

Late to the party here, but I would have to agree that this is not 17th Century. Remember that the Victorians loved the 17th Century, and frequently interpreted 17th Century motifs to their own design satisfaction.
In short, the carving seems too shallow with pieces at times looking “glued on” as referenced above, the lock hardware looks wrong, and it would be extremely unusual to have a drawer under a 17th Century chest, but quite common in a 19th Century chest.
If you keep in mind that the Victorians loved 17th Century woodwork, then this is an interesting example of just that, obtained for a good price. It would have been great to get the “real deal” for that price, but sadly it’s usually true that you get what you pay for. In this case you got an example of the Victorian love of the 17th Century, and for a good price at that. Still a win!

 

Here's some more pics including the worm beetle holes that are present throughout. I've also included pictures of the wood pegs. The underside of the lid and bottom had glued paper which I'm removing. I tried to show how warped the lid is as well. As you can see most of the drawer bottom is missing.



/

 

OK, good, now we are getting somewhere. These are much more useful pics. And indeed, this clearly shows those elusive dovetails!

Based on these pics, it looks to me like an old box of oak and other woods with an old drawer on the bottom. Looks like the back, and probably the bottom of box have been replaced when rebuilt, probably in late 19th century as ghopper suspects. Can’t tell about other sides, the front or underneath.

Drawer looks genuinely old, could be as old as OP thinks, but could also be newer, especially if box started off from continental Europe where this style of construction persisted. Hard to be sure where in Europe it started without ID of secondary wood due to missing drawer bottom and replaced back and bottom. What wood is the drawer side - can’t tell from here but doesn’t look like oak.

Assume drawer is original to box - can’t be sure but assume it was. Though still don’t understand glued pieces falling off the front and glued-up four piece top. Is box as old as drawer and is top original or added - not sure without seeing in person. OP should try to understand why carved pieces are falling off front.

With these pics I am even more suspicious that the carving is not original and added later, probably when box was rebuilt. Maybe some of the carved wood pieces are original? But on at least most of what is seen, the quality of carving is not there, and depth too shallow as ghopper pointed out. Carving was added to old wood like ghopper said in Victorian times, but because it was added later to existing wood pieces it couldn’t be as deep and the skills weren’t there due to time pressure. This is similar to “clobbering” added to silver in Victorian times.

Word to the wise, next time post all pics before asking questions. Help us to help you, as komokwa is fond of saying. I conclude this is a heavily re-worked piece put together with old and new wood. If OP thinks it is better than this, he should take it in person to an auctioneer or other appraiser to be evaluated live.

 

Thank you Jeff for taking so much time to research this. I have a few questions. It was my understanding that wood peg construction like was used on this box went out of style in England around 1720 is that true? When and where did wood beetles damage wood like they did on this box? I thought it was only in England. I know it happened during the 17th century but I'm not sure how long it continued. I wish these objects could talk! The other one I have on this post was easy! The date is on it and the style is Yorkshire mid 17th century without much debate! If I could ask you a favor could you look at the "bible box" I posted under "1600' BIBLE BOX????. Everyone who I've shown this to has had a different opinion as to it's age and where it's from. Thank you for all your time.

 

Sorry Jeff one more thing. It looks to me like the carving of the legs match the carving on the front. Does this make any difference when trying to figure out if the carving was added later? Thanks

 

This isn’t research, it is from decades of experience with antiques. There are many good books available to learn from, and because antique furniture is far less popular today than it used to be, books can be bought for a pittance. Go to high end antique shops and auction previews and talk to auctioneers and ask questions. You don’t have to bid, just see and feel the real stuff up close and personal.

Insect tunnels in wood are world wide and can’t be used to localize. It is still happening so can’t be used to date either. It is seen in US furniture that has never left the US, I’ve seen it in 20th century wood.

Are you sure you want me to comment on your “dated” piece? Exterior carving is nice, much better than OP piece. But fake dates are not unusual and should not be believed without other good evidence. Provenance is the best evidence, but lacking that, other clues are everywhere. Clues - where is authentic dated English typically dated, and compare quality of interior carved initials and date to quality of exterior carving. Then look at piece from every side, exterior, but especially interior, back and underneath looking at age of wood, construction, wood stain, everything. Start with skepticism. Make the piece prove to you it is authentic instead of the reverse.

 

I have the provenance. It was featured in the 1971 catalogue of local furniture at Temple Newsam in Leeds.

 

I never thought for a minute that the initials and date were carved by the person who made the chest. I expect that the person who bought it did that.

 

It’s great to have that. To be clear, your provenance starts with a letter from Winterthur museum using a picture to identify your chest as being very very similar to Yorkshire England work done in mid17th century. Clearly the 1970s catalogue does not show the actual chest you have, but is so similar it is almost certainly as they identified it.

Since Winterthur has that 1970s book in their library, you might want to ask them more info (30 years later) to help you track down a copy of the book they sent photocopies of. You could also contact the Temple Newsam house museum in England if interested in taking a deeper dive.

 

Thanks. Yesterday I found a copy of the catalogue for sale and it's on it's way from the U.K. I know that photocopied picture is terrible so when the catalogue arrives I'll post the clear picture. I will contact Temple Newsam as well I'd like to dive as deep as possible.