Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Jeff Drum, post: 4413653, member: 6444&quot;]Yeah, but unfortunately some of the info is wrong. Right about the age and mix of woods, which was already said by others above. But these things just aren&#039;t right:</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>No, this is definitely NOT a Boston Rocker. The Boston Rocker started being made about a half century later, as shown and talked about here: <a href="https://www.antiquers.com/threads/boston-rocker.67587/" class="internalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.antiquers.com/threads/boston-rocker.67587/">https://www.antiquers.com/threads/boston-rocker.67587/</a></p><p><br /></p><p>And the modern Windsor chair reproducer you are quoting seems to be the only one who calls a chair like this a Thomas Rocker. The correct term for the OP&#039;s chair was already given - a comb-extension sack-back, or more commonly a triple-back sack-back, or simply a triple-back windsor - see Charles Santore, The Windsor Style in America, 1997.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>No, this was not a rocker originally. It was a chair that had rockers ADDED to it sometime in the last 200 years, then had those rockers removed and patches put on more recently. Probably when the seat and crest rail of the chair were repaired. Rockers were not original is shown by the way they were attached - that is NOT period way to attach rockers.</p><p><br /></p><p>You know, James, it would help you post correct information if you wouldn&#039;t block the posts of others but would read what they wrote when they wrote it. Who knows, you might learn something.<img src="styles/default/xenforo/smilies/wink.png" class="mceSmilie" alt=";)" unselectable="on" />[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in