Featured Gaming the System.....Is it OK to say the "B-Word?"

Now that I have your attention....Yes, I know this is furniture, but I posted it in the general Antiques forum in hopes of getting a wider audience.

Just bought this game table this weekend at an estate sale in a beautiful Italianate mansion built in 1860. Yes, it's a (very) old fashioned game table, Rococo Revival ca. 1850-60, roses and botanicals carved by a master out of walnut. The distinctive thing is that the game surface is covered in a tapestry that was evidently made just for the table. It's a woman pushing a putto in a garden swing, with birds flying about. I thought to myself: What an odd choice for a gaming surface! It seems like it would be destroyed in no time. But no, it's remarkably intact, with just a small paint stain from some idiot in the past.

So what did I mean by the B-Word? Belter, of course! John Henry Belter, whose New York City shop turned out the finest carved furniture of the Victorian period, some say in all of furniture history! There were many furniture superstars in the 19th century: J and J Meeks, Louis Marcotte, Alexander Roux, Herter Brothers, Pottier & Stymus, and several more. But lovers of that era agree that Belter was the the finest. In fact, his shop was so lavish with their skill that they put themselves out of business; they just couldn't make any money after spending all that time carving. Talk about love before money!

Anyway, pitch in and give me your opinion. Could this be by Belter? It was not sold to me that way, but could it be? The roses match his level of accomplishment and style, for sure! How about "in the manner of" or "attributed to?"

 

Can't opine re Belter but... She's not wearing clothes of the 1850s-1860s period. Skirts were quite full then and supported by crinolines and hoops.

Debora

 

So what would you say, @Debora ? Is the tapestry a later addition? 1880s maybe? I still think it was made for the table, but you have a good point about the clothing.

 

She's not wearing a bustle which she would have been in the 1880s. Slightly raised waist with hint of pigeon-breast. Fitted sleeve, without the fullness that was seen for much of the 1890s. I don't think the costume is literal though; I think it's meant to hint at the classical as befits the setting. If I had to guess... turn of the 19th century. Late, late Victorian. Let's see what others think.

Is the tapestry machine woven? (I assume so.) And how is it affixed?

Debora

 

Gorgeous table. I wonder if the original surface is under the tapestry ? If my chairs cant be Belter then neither can your table !

 

Ha ha!

There is a hard wood surface underneath; the tapestry is solidly affixed to it, presumably by glue, though it's hard to believe that it has never come loose over the past 100+ years. So it seems. The fabric is clearly shaped to match the walnut burled border, but there is no channel between the two. It was carefully made to match the shape.

There are a few loose threads on the edges, but I am not able to pull at it enough to check the back, nor do I want to. I'm not enough of tapestry expert to know if it's handmade or not. I can tell you that up close the shapes look more "square," like needlepoint.

So we're left wondering if there was another tapestry here before this one? The table is clearly Rococo Revival ca. mid-19th century, and I doubt if there was a regular finished table surface that was exposed for the early part of the table's existence, then covered up with a tapestry ca. 1900. Yet it doesn't seem that there was ever anything else but a tapestry there.

Perhaps you're right, Debora, and it's an idealized classical image with classical clothing independent of the 19th century. Don't know.

 

I wasn't clear. The clothes are late 19th century but they do hint at Classicism. To my eye.

Debora

 

Well, I'm left thinking that there was another tapestry of some sort in the mid-19th century, which was worn enough to be replaced ca. 1900. Not too much of a stretch.

But is the table Belter?

 

I don't look for or own any Belter furniture, so can't speak from experience. I haven't even held any up close, so take this with a grain of salt.

You don't mention the material your table is made from. But my understanding is that Belter was always made from laminated rosewood. So if yours isn't made from laminated rosewood, then I think it is quite unlikely to be from them. Even if made from laminated rosewood it isn't necessarily by them, Belter was not the only manufacturer to use that material, but at least worth investigating further to see if it might be. I would start with major auction houses; there are known Belter patterns that they might be able to identify.

 

Jeff, he did work in mahogany and walnut, though his favorite wood was rosewood, as you said. The table is walnut.

 

Not just rosewood, but rosewood laminate. Four belter-style chairs at the MFA boston, the only two they firmly attribute to Belter were made of rosewood laminate. I don't know if his firm used solid walnut or maybe also a laminate? Maybe search other museum collections to see if you can find anything walnut firmly attributed to him?

 

No idea, but I agree her clothes are more 1895 than 1865. Kind of an idealized Mother instead of a nymph.

 

It's possible but likely no.
The first thing that jumps out to me is, the cloth top, I have never seen a Belter piece with one of those.
There are well-known carving patterns used by Belter so if your table was mine, I'd ask someone like Joan Bogart, a dealer who specializes in Rococo Revival by Belter & others. She buys & sells Belter regularly & is an expert on this style/maker.
To get an attribution that's legit, you would need a nationally know expert to evaluate your table. (like Joan)
https://joanbogart.com/antiques-belter

 

This is off thread but related to attribution, a Pilgrim chest that is coming to market next month has an attribution to a rather famous 17th-century shop in Boston.
It's at Brunk and, I am starting to be really impressed with this auction house, last month they offered a 19th-century paint-decorated step-back cupboard with many photos of the piece under a black light. VERY IMPRESSIVE to market it that way online.
Anyway back to the Pilgrim chest, they are looking for big numbers on this chest so they brought in Alan Miller who gave this piece a 7-page report "Accompanied by extensive treatment and condition report from Alan Miller, antiques consultant."
Alan is the guy who took down a rather infamous fake pilgrim "Chamber Table" some years ago thru a forensic examination (he took the piece apart, piece by piece).
If you scroll thru the photos of the piece, Alan's report is front & center, very clever by Brunk to do this.
https://brunkauctions.com/lot/rare-and-important-american-pilgrim-century-chest-4085325

 

https://www.etsy.com/sg-en/listing/...how_sold_out_detail=1&ref=nla_listing_details


https://www.royal-painting.com/Hans-Zatzka/Hans-Zatzka-artwork-III.html

 

Yep, MOS has got it I'd say, Austrian from 1901

 

LOL, I never saw those chairs!

 

Hate to kill the mood here but, I'd say we are getting further & further away from
John Henry...........

 

That's why we're here, to see what's what. MOS and Debora nailed the tapestry issue. 1901. I'm not an expert like Joan, but I'd bet the farm that the table is ca. 1850s, so evidently there was another tapestry there before this one, or some kind of game-appropriate surface treatment. I can't find out without tearing up the tapestry; needless to say that's not going to happen.

The carving looks like John Henry's roses and vines, no doubt about it. And if it's not JHB, then it's somebody just as good, and there weren't many of those. But I will likely never know, and the quality's the thing anyway.

So I got in contact with the auctioneer, and she said she had the receipt from the last owner's purchase in the 1990s. Evidently it was worth $3400 back then. Not so much for me last Sunday, so all's well

 

Which is why you fire off an email to Joan, she probably won't answer but she's not the only authority on Belter either!
I have been known to bug the hell out of others to get info, nothing beat a try but failure.
Agrees, don't mess with the tapestry, and there very well could have been another surface prior, baize or leather comes immediately to mind.