Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Jeff Drum, post: 4376683, member: 6444&quot;]I have to say I&#039;ve never come across the designation &quot;Charles II&quot; in describing American furniture, though of course it is used for English furniture all the time. I suppose it doesn&#039;t hurt to call it that, but since it is not in common usage it doesn&#039;t convey much information. American furniture usually goes from &quot;Jacobean&quot; or &quot;Pilgrim&quot; to &quot;William and Mary&quot;. Using accepted naming convention, your table is correctly described as William and Mary and not the earlier Jacobean (which is much heavier, etc). See here for examples and why this is done <a href="https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/will/hd_will.htm" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/will/hd_will.htm" rel="nofollow">https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/will/hd_will.htm</a> &quot;American furniture of the early colonial period generally falls into two stylistic categories: the Seventeenth-Century style (1620–90) and the Early Baroque, or William and Mary, style (1690–1730).&quot; or <a href="https://www.worthpoint.com/articles/collectibles/american-antique-furniture-styles" target="_blank" class="externalLink ProxyLink" data-proxy-href="https://www.worthpoint.com/articles/collectibles/american-antique-furniture-styles" rel="nofollow">https://www.worthpoint.com/articles/collectibles/american-antique-furniture-styles</a> &quot;After taking into account what might be called “regional influences”—meaning the Colonies—the style itself is essentially “Jacobean,” that catch-all Latin term referring to England in the time of King James I, Charles I, the Commonwealth, the Restoration, Charles II and James II. In other words, most of the 17th century until William and Mary came along, circa. 1688. The furniture was blocky, big, solid, dark and ungainly, mostly made of oak—just like at home.&quot;</p><p><br /></p><p>Also, the most likely reason for a lack of interest wasn&#039;t the replaced table top, because that is considered an unfortunate but pretty common fault for early furniture like this. The larger issue is the other replaced pieces: the decorative brackets and drops. These decorative pieces would likely not be restored if this piece turned up today because there is insufficient evidence to know what was there back when the piece was complete. But I understand why you are not removing them, given it&#039;s documentation and provenance with these additions. Unfortunately this is a catch 22 with collecting furniture that was restored early in the 20th century. Over restoring pieces was common then - just look at the number of times early painted furniture was stripped of original paint (shudder).[/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