Featured Chippendale Chairs Attribution

Sorry busy day today. Here are some photos in two posts. Since I don't know what to take a photo of, please guide me if these aren't adequate. Unfortunately, I will be out of the house until 3 PM my time, so I can't take more until after that and the light will not be as good. Thank you for taking the time to look at this. There were only blocks (?) on the front.

 

Second set of photos. The full size of the underside of the chair is totally inadequate. Sorry. Will take another when I get back.

Wonderful I so appreciate you taking the time to provide such detail. I will study every word of it later, but I have to run now. I just wanted to express my appreciation.

 

Well, it's 2 part, quarter round, and no nails but, may not be original to the chair.

Hmmm, not sure how I quoted myself!
There is no rush, you're doing fine, take your time, do your chores. The chair isn't going anywhere.

 

Suffice it to say, many times what Kiko bought it for!

 

She did WELL! Plus it is a period chair which was her goal.
There was speculation at that sale about one the arms being replaced, Joe Kindig didn't remember but didn't think so, did you? That may have contributed to the price.

 

The corner blocks do look to be later "Philadelphia style" quarter-round replacements. It would be interesting to see if there are nail holes underneath them, not that I'm suggesting removing them to find out! More to the point, the rosehead nails holding what look to be original knee blocks are very promising.

 

I did notice a repair to one of the arms, but no replacements that I saw. I remember Pook & Pook putting that in their description and raised an eyebrow when I read it. I will say, that in this internet auction age, a lot of auction houses are over-cautious, sometimes incorrectly, in their descriptions sometimes. I guess for liability reasons. They don't want to have the item returned by the buyer for lack of correct condition report. And of course maybe they were right, and Joe Kindig and I missed it.

There were tack holes that are a sign of earlier, probably Victorian over-upholstery, but so what. If I were 250 years old I'd probably have a few tack holes! It is a great chair, and if I knew then what I know now, especially considering that steal of a price, I might have well bid on it! She did indeed do very WELL.

Here's the image from my appraisal and accompanying comparables. I have to hold back on the appraised price for privacy reasons (heirs, lawyers, and the tax man specifically). Rest assured, like I said earlier, what Kiko paid was a fraction of what that chair was worth, especially pre-the antiques crash of 2008! You couldn't have a high quality bench-made reproduction made for three times that today.

 

EXACTLY! It's not returns that worry them though, it's lawyers.
Auction houses often miss what is and what is not important, hard to blame them though. Catalogues, photos, descriptions, condition reports, bla bla bla, they are often under severe time pressure. Add in many young people who work there are just out of school with an art history major and, easy to see how stuff falls thru the cracks. caveat emptor & experience rules in these situations

Yes, it is a very nice example. Kiko STOLE that chair!
Had to add that as I am often accused of stealing myself which is a lie!

 

Perhaps, the family papers were the most valuable historically.

 

You are right. It provides a context.

That's my chair all right!! Gasp - the prices that were paid for similar chairs. Thanks for tracking down your appraisal. You have no idea how much I will treasure this information.
I get no credit for the success of this purchase. James found the chair and told me his secrets for getting a good deal. I just held my finger over the button. He was absolutely right that this wonderful piece was lost amongst some far more notable items during this particular sale. Over months, I had found numerous pieces, many reproductions labelled as authentic and some way over my price point. I am so grateful to him for spotting the right chair in the right circumstances. I am also very appreciative of you adding to my joy in my chair by sharing your knowledge.

 

Could well be that they were replacements, as I can see assorted nail holes and the wood is lighter colored than the original that has layers of finish. No I will not be dissembling this piece to look underneath. Of course, knowing nothing, I had to look up knee blocks and I can see what you mean.

 

@Tim Naylor If you look at some of James' posts, you will see that he is the penultimate thief. He is able to snag the most amazing pieces for almost nothing.

 

You do realize there is a price depression in antique furniture these days, in fact, there has never been a better time to buy, at least in my lifetime.
Part of the allure of old furniture is the mystery that surrounds it, it is very rarely marked or labeled, leaving only construction details to determine whodunit and when.
Further, it provides almost limitless opportunities to unravel those mysteries as new research becomes available and people previously unknown to each other come together over a single object. The 17th law of the universe, the law of serendipity comes into play which is kinda cool.
And Kiko, you STOLE THAT CHAIR! Even Tim agrees!

 

Aha. This is what they should look like. Thanks for these photos of your chair.

 

Better picture of the underside. And details of arms. The repair to one arm is obvious. The first three photos are the original crack, the side of this arm with a nail hole below the wooden peg (nothing on the other side) and the place where the arm is inserted into the back.

The second group of two photos is of the points on the other arm which caused someone to think it was replaced. The main reason I can see is in the last photo that shows where the arm is inserted into the back chair. It looks like the surface was chipped here. The interior peg is slightly raised on this arm too.

The refinishing of the chair is very poor and uneven with pieces having thicker amounts of colored varnish/urethane and drips everywhere. So differences in color couldn't in my estimation be used as a parameter. I don't know if it would be a good thing to clean some of this up.

 

I don't see why not, although I would avoid the use of sandpaper.
Hard to tell what exactly is going on with detail photos except, it's an old chair that has had some repairs over the years.
A slightly raised wood pin is normal with old furniture as the wood surrounding wood pin shrinks over the years but the pin does not.

 

Thanks for this reassurance. It didn't seem to be different than the other arm - wood, grain, shape, etc. but I thought I would present it. I wasn't looking for a museum piece, so it's scars of 250 years of use doesn't diminish it in any respect in my eyes. Actually, I use it all the time. It doesn't deserve the poor refinishing job though. I think it is some kind of modern glop, so I have to do some testing on how to approach it.

 

Even museum pieces have issues, most of them anyway. Old furniture pieces don't get to be that old or older without having issues, just part of it. Some people want 300-year-old pieces in perfect condition, NEWS FLASH: they don't exist, they never have, and never will. Like the fantasy of an original surface, TOTAL BS in 98% or more of pieces that are that old, it's a marketing/ sales type dealio to increase the price.
These pieces are rare survivors from another age, they all have condition issues, better to acknowledge that reality and pass them on in as good or better condition than you found them.

Can't see any difference in the photo, Pook is probably wrong about that, matter of fact I thrive on auctioneer mistakes. They are generalists, they know a little about a lot of objects, they are not specialists in particular objects. Big difference there.

 

If those two pegged arm images are any indication, much less the inset rectangular patches covering up their respective screws at their joints with the back stiles, I don't think there's any question that both arms are original. And keep all those "imperfections"! It might have a harsher modern finish, but don't strip and/or refinish it. Just add paste wax and buff every now and then, over dust. Don't clean it before hand. The only way to create and supplement a fine old patina, is to do exactly what 's been done for 250 years.

 

I've always wondered about the original surface thing. I bought a 1919 Mahogany Four Poster Spool Bed that was so darkened with age and crazing that you couldn't see the beautiful wood grain. Even though people said it would affect the value, I spent months hand sanding off that mess and then gave it a light coating of varnish. It is beautiful.