Antique-shop.com
Antiques! => Antique Questions Forum => Topic started by: danny1979 on July 07, 2010, 02:26:21 PM
-
just been to pick this up and not sure on anything about it the only thing i do know is it is oak
(http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk64/bugfan1979/100_0770.jpg)
(http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk64/bugfan1979/100_0772.jpg)
(http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk64/bugfan1979/100_0771.jpg)
-
Looks like a very uncomfortable chair.
-
danny, does the seat lift up providing access to the 'box'?
-
I believe that it is lifts up...Looks like a victorian chamber chair or it could be a trunk chair!
Are there any wear marks inside? and if so, a pic!
The height can help determine the use/time period as well. (Height of seat itself and height of back. Dimensions of compartment and depth.
-
affraid not it is not lift up lid to the top of the seat its 17" and to the top of the back its 37"
-
Is there an opening in the back of the box... like maybe this was a "commode chair" with a place to hide the basin?
-
no it has never been anything else but a chair its very odd that box is only 7"deep and all the joins are wooden pinned
-
If not a commode, how about a gentlemen's butler or whatever they called those things you draped your coat over and sat on to put your shoes on.
-
Now wait a minute, if the top doesn't lift up ..... how do you know "that box is only 7"deep"?
I guess if the back is open I wouldn't call it a box.
-
As syl mentioned it obviously wasn't made for comfort. Then again ladies, at least, were 'trained' not to sit against the back of a chair. At 17 inches it's quite low and if the 'box' is not really a box, would it be for extra support? Was thinking along the lines of a step-stool of some sort but not low enough.
Danny, could you show shots of the underside and back? Also, is there a board missing from the seat? Possible inside shot?
-
In the pics, it appears that the back is not open. I think it's an old step stool. It's only 17 inches to the top of the step. And as you can see in these old step stools, they still had the back like chairs do. They just have a different seat than chairs do because they weren't really made to be sat on for comfort, just sat on if you had to sit for a second. Maybe a photography prop? Stepping up onto horses? Carriages? ???
That one is obviously older and more fancy than these pictured, they are just for reference.
-
hosman, I had also thought possibly for carriage or saddle due to the obvious sturdy build and what appears to be a fairly large 'seat'. At 37" even the back is rather low for a conventional chair. Have yet to come across similar images. Maybe tales can help out here.......a low ladies chair for someone wearing a bustle?? ::) ;)
BTW, I just measured out 17".....it'd do-able as a step, but at 5'2" definitely not easy :D
-
Sometimes I forget how tall I am. :P
I'm 5'10 or 11.
-
Takeing a first look. it appeared to be from the Jacobean time frame. but that's not the case. it's spool turned furniture, from about circa 1850 to 1865.( Jenny Lind Era)
It's purpose beyond a chair. I don't know. But I do know it would be considered some what rare.
-
Does this help at all? From true Jacobean period furniture:
In the early Jacobean period, chairs were comparatively scarce, stools and forms being in more general use. These early chairs usually had arms and were seats of great dignity. Both chairs and settles had high seats and usually heavy stretchers between the legs. Chair seats were square or almost so and chair-backs were high and perpendicular or so nearly perpendicular that the rake was scarcely perceptible. The triangular seated and heavily turned chairs, whose pattern had been brought to England, probably by the Normans, were met with but were survivals in type.
The characteristic chair of this date was the wainscot or panelled back chair (Key I, 1). These chairs probably owed their inspiration in the first instance to choir stalls. In Elizabethan chairs of this pattern, the top rail bearing the cresting is within the uprights of the back. In Jacobean chairs the top rail caps the uprights and is part of the cresting. These wainscot chairs continued to be made long after the Restoration. Seats were made high with the express expectation of using either the stretcher or a footstool. There were also occasionally to be found X-shaped chairs pretty well covered with upholstery, but these occurred in the earliest Jacobean days and were so scarce that we can afford to pass them without further mention.
-
yes there is a board missing on it but its not a problem for a photo as it is open bottom anyway
(http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk64/bugfan1979/100_0773.jpg)
(http://i277.photobucket.com/albums/kk64/bugfan1979/100_0774.jpg)
-
I'm not even close to knowledgeable about furniture, but to me that looks to be a replacement seat. Hard to tell from your other photos, but do I detect two different types of grain on the finished side? Underside looks too new compared to the sides of the 'box' part. JMO
-
think i will clean it down and have a proper look before any more photos
-
I notice chamfering (whittled or shaved) on the lower o/s edge of the back side of the chair box/frame - in the second photo above.
It's a bit of an unusual place to have wear.
The construction of this chair looks like mid-1800s to me, like D&b stated.
-
thr reason for the two types or grain is the boards are missing and it is sat on a pine table to take photos
-
LOL! I can see that the top is missing now!
That is a very strange area to have wear on the back/underside of the chair!
Does the top of the seat have any wear that you can see that the picture isn't showing?
Agree Jenny Lind style. But something doesn't quite sit well..........
-
Sara Finn made a good observation. The corner is also gnawed or whittled away while the turned leg is not. I think this is a put together or married piece. The legs have little wear while the box boards have heavy wear. It makes no sense.
-
its the pictures that make them look good there is alot of wear on them that bit you are on about looks like someone has been at it with a pocket knife or something like that it is damage that has been done on purpose
-
You know, I've seen a lot of old bed headboards/footboards similar to the turned style of this chair. I wonder if it was cobbled together from an old bed and pieces of something like dresser drawer fronts? It definitely looks like two different pieces of furniture to me too.
(http://pmimages.worthpoint.com/thumbnails2/1/0407/30/1_d5cd138bf9789ab2ebf076f6ff05c4c0.jpg)
-
Wait a sec... old beds have bed rails along the sides like in the photo above. If this were made from an old bed, that might explain the wear on the "box" if it were made from an old bed's side rails. It gets banged by the broom when you sweep underneath, but the spindles do not. Also notice that the wear on the box boards is on the exterior finished side, and the edge on the interior of the box is still sharp. This would be entirely consistent with being bumped over and over by a broom when sweeping underneath a bed.
I'm beginning to think this chair is actually a "recycled" Jenny Lind era bed that was given a new life as a chair!
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_YcWWjFfA-ys/S8Bp4VD7QWI/AAAAAAAAAdU/aaFmZWGX5pI/s640/Jenny%20Lind%20Spindle%20Bed.jpg)(http://www.sweetlibertycreations.com/JennySpindleBed.gif)
-
Tales, I think you are right. If you are not right, then whoever originally designed that chair made one heck of a clunky piece and should have been designing tanks instead of furniture. Your observations on the wear would be entirely consistent with years of sweeping under the bed side rails or some future boy scout practicing whittling with his pen knife. I would be less gender specific but we all know girls never whittled on furniture, don't we?
-
I have known quite a few that could whittle!
The wear on the underside is consistent with one sweeping under the chair over the years when the chair is turned back upright!
I still have to ask...does it appear that it had a bottom on it at some time? (This is one of those I would love to be able to see hands on!)
Just something doesn't sit right! (No pun intended! Ha!)
-
I would'nt get to hasty Removeing the patina etc. it takes years of ageing to aquire. a refinish can cost you 50% percent of it's value.
-
After looking at those new photos in post #15 it is my expert opinion that chair is “original construction” ….. and what it is missing is the actual/original “seat” which rested on and/or was affixed to what you all are thinking is the “seat”.
Looking at an enlargement of the 2nd picture of the lead post there appears to be dark spots on the top of the left, right and front frame or sideboards which indicates something was attached. Also, note the rear frame or sideboard in that picture extends up from the “seat boards” by 2+- inches and with a “center piece” attached. No one would make that fancy of a chair and leave that portion visible.
The height of the original “seat” was probably “mid-way” on that cross-brace between the seat-back spindles and the original seat was assuredly fabric covered w/horsehair stuffing or whatever.
I wouldn’t touch the finish on it until it was looked at by a “period” expert on such furniture.
-
Thank you Cogar. that's well spoken advice.
-
After reading cogar's excellent explanation and remembering hosman mentioning Jacobean, I did a little digging and came up with this. Very similar style and interesting read.
http://www.archive.org/stream/jacobeanfurnitur010515mbp#page/n39/mode/2up (you can flip through the pages of the book)
It's pointed out that cushions were a normal part of this type of chair and those without arms for ladies with their petticoats.
-
well the next thing is do we think it is worth anything?
-
Great job sapphire! Agree cogar and D&b! Also agree about a close up of the pic about a cushion. (That can be easily remedied and is okay to be missing in a piece that would be this old....)
DON'T TOUCH THE FINISH - YOU CANT GET TIME IN A BOTTLE THIS WAY!!!!!!!!!
I personally would get it appraised, hands on, by a professional. If it is a true Jacobean, or made by a cabinetmaker who copied the famous style in early America.....you could have $$$$$$$$$.