Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Jeff Drum, post: 566503, member: 6444&quot;]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.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.</p><p><br /></p><p>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.[/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