Featured Chippendale Chairs Attribution

Well yeah, 1919 isn't that old so probably did have an original surface, you did the right thing to refinish but I would avoid sandpaper. It's just not needed today anyway.

 

That was twenty years ago. I used Howard's on the matching dresser, whose surface wasn't as badly damaged as the bed. This was what was under a black layer of old varnish:

 

There is a "grunge" movement in the USA, although at one time it was all the rage, it has lost a lot of steam in the past few years and for good reason.
The grunge movement was inadvertently started by John T Kirk, an obscure furniture scholar who wrote a book in the 1970s with a chapter titled "Buy it Ratty and Leave it Alone".
Kirk was talking about PAINTED surfaces not clear finished surfaces but, you know America, some people figured out a way to make a buck off of "Filthy Furniture, A New Status Symbol", and "Collecting, Today's Art Lesson: Grime Pays,".
In 2000 Kirk wrote an article commenting on the grunge movement he had started 30 years before.

 

Looks good, you did the right thing to refinish in my view.

 

I had wondered where all that came from.

 

It was in an antique shop stuck behind a bunch of old dressers, hutches, buffets. It looked like it was painted black. I did some research at the library, when I got it home. I checked the label and found it was a Sligh Furniture of Grand Rapids fame, so I went and bought the matching high dresser.

 

Oh Boy, don't get me started! Many on this forum are grunge people I suspect, misguided souls but maybe good-hearted?

I did as well, many years ago so I researched the subject to find out just where in the hell all this "grunge" movement stuff was coming from.

Here is the article posted in The Magazine Antiques in 2000 by Kirk, the reluctant "father" of the "grunge" movement.

"In this article I wish to explore in detail the evolving understanding of what is today near the top of the list of questions most scholars, dealers, and collectors ask themselves when looking at an early piece: Is the surface original, and if so, how should it be treated?

In 1975 I wrote in The Impecunious Collector's Guide to American Antiques a chapter entitled "Buy It Ratty and Leave It Alone," addressing the then-current practice of removing original paint and its patina from furniture."

"Many seventeenth- and eighteenth-century painted pieces were made of two or more woods because each had a special structural quality needed in the design. A windsor chair, for example, might employ maple for the turned stretchers, legs, and supports under the fronts of the arms because its closed-grain character turned beautifully; pine, yellow poplar, or another soft wood made the shaping of the saddle seat easy; and springy ash or hickory might be used for the back spokes and top rail. A unifying coat of paint gave the chair a strong silhouette while covering the varying colors and grain patterns of the woods. The late nineteenth-and twentieth-century collectors who stripped the old paint, and the reproducers of early forms, reveled in the contrasts the different woods produced."

"After I wrote "Buy It Ratty and Leave It Alone," many collectors, and therefore dealers, took the ideas it expressed seriously, and, for a time, an untouched, grungy surface became more in demand, and even came to be known as a "Kirk surface."

"During the late 1970s and early 1980s the love and monetary worth of the ratty and dirty expanded from painted furniture to pieces that were highly styled and made to show off expensive woods, such as walnut, cherry, and mahogany. By the late 1990s the acceptance of the grungy was so widespread that on December 10, 1999, the Wall Street Journal ran an article entitled "Collecting, Today's Art Lesson: Grime Pays," with a subheading announcing "A Status Symbol: Filthy Furniture."

"The presence of dirty varnish on an object made to exhibit grain color and pattern as well as carving and pattern can help determine if parts have been changed, but it may unnecessarily reduce our ability to appreciate the maker's original vision."

"Dirt on a painted piece almost always means leaving it alone, for any cleaning normally diminishes the quality of the surface, but what about high-style pieces? Should they ever be cleaned of dirty varnish so that one can more dearly see the intention of the maker?"

"Thus, what to clean is really a two-part question. Painted pieces usually should not be touched because their surfaces are like those of early bronzes, where the original finish has become pitted, encrusted, and discolored, and we generally accept that it cannot be altered. In most cases it is even inadvisable to remove the finishing coat of varnish given to many painted pieces to make them brighter and easier to clean: in most cases the paint, varnish, and dirt cannot be separated from one another and leave a surface worth looking at. On the other hand, objects that were originally covered with a clear varnish to enhance and give a gloss to beautiful wood can be cleaned and revarnished without diminishing the maker's final aesthetic statement. (Undoubtedly, one of the reasons the cleaning of varnished pieces became unfashionable is that in the past many objects were ruined by drastic overcleaning.) Museums will probably take the lead in such cleaning, and there will undoubtedly be an outcry against it, as happened when restorers began to remove much of the famous golden light from Rembrandt's paintings by cleaning away yellowed varnish."

" The present high value of a dirty varnish on beautiful wood will diminish when connoisseurs begin to want to see clearly the maker's original choice of materials and design features and the glowing patina the wood has achieved."

 

The irony of it being called a Kirk surface, when this was never his intention. I'm so glad you shared this insight. It is the bible to some people. I can see the point of confirming all the pieces are original, but that has always been my vision to display the wood as it was intended by the maker. I try to have a light touch of protection on everything. I have left pieces with just a coating of wax and other like the bed needed radical changes.

 

Yes, Kirk in the 1970s was trying to discourage the then disgraceful practice of stripping painted furniture, which was all the rage at that time. Again, some were making money stripping old painted furniture. It's ALWAYS about the dollars here!
He had NO IDEA he was starting a grunge movement or how that would play out.

 

One final point about all this, wood is an organic substance, to survive for centuries it needs to be protected against the elements or it tends to go nite-nite. This means in most cases, a protective surface to absorb the blows the elements and time are sure to inflict.
What is the chief enemy of clear coat finishes? sunlight, there is no getting around this. Better to have the finish absorb the sun's attack than the piece itself. Sooner or later, all clear coat finishes are degraded to the point that they offer no protection to the wood underneath, it's just a question of time & exposure to the elements.
Nevermind the idiotic notion that some dealers have tried to sell to Mr & Mrs America, that "Filthy Furniture" is a good thing & needs to be placed in their home.
Yeah right! good luck with that sales pitch, it's done wonders for sales in the antique furniture industry over the past 20 years!

 

Does anyone have any idea about the price of this chair?

 

I paid $1,300 for it at auction. The auction house charged $325 for their services for a total cost of $1,625.

 

Thanks for this advice. You clearly know your stuff. I have had it for a while and have just done that. Actually, I've been too scared to do more.

 

This chair is gorgeous, and it was obtained for an amazing price. This has been informative.

So, what do the experts suggest using to protect this chair? I see reference to beeswax, but what exactly? I have some vintage and antique wood chairs that I would like to protect.

 

@James Conrad and @Tim Naylor. Can you please help her. I will watch with rapt attention too.

 

I use Johnson's paste wax for exterior surfaces. And no, it's not fancy but it works very well, is readily available & inexpensive.
You can spend a lot more but at the end of the day, it's still just wax.

 

Thank you. It's good to add this information to this discussion.

 

I don't wax very often, once a year at most, sometimes every other year. Wax can build up on a wood surface and become a dust magnet if you wax to often. A lot depends on how the piece is used, if it's used a lot, you can wax more often

 

What am I missing here? This is supposedly a late 18th century Chippendale chair, with provenance. Bidding starts at $200.

https://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/96516210_chippendale-mahogany-side-chair-having-pierced-carved

 

I'd say the auction house screwed up the listing here so not sure what chair/s they are trying to sell. The title of the listing is "Chippendale Side Chair" with a description that says " set on cabriole legs flanking gadrooned center all set on ball and claw feet".
Problem is, chair in the first photograph is an armchair, with Marlboro legs.......
so unless bidding in person, I would pass on this listing.