HOLY COW!

[jacon4]

Pictured below is an English William & Mary table about 1695. It has bamboo turnings and is made with beech & oak, painted black. Note the similar form to its american cousin above, ample overhang of the top & box stretcher.

[Chuck Bender]

Adam,

You really think there isn't much American made William & Mary stuff? I've been studying, in depth, American made William & Mary furniture for at least the last 25 years. I know collectors, dealers and curators who've been studying it far longer. By the time the furniture was fashionable, we had established settlements in America for quite some time. If you examine the species of wood used in the pieces, it's pretty easy to tell whether it was made in America or in England. Sure there's some overlap but you can't tell me that a wainscot chair made of sassafras is English. Also, if your implication is correct, how do you account for the regional variations in William & Mary furniture found in America? There are distinct turning variations between New England and Philadelphia. There are other design elements that also vary from region to region in addition to the use of native woods. If I've misread your post, please let me know. I'm baffled.

Chuck Bender

[Adam Cherubini]

Chuck,

Yeah, sounds like I didn't do a good job making my point;

All I was saying was, I wouldn't assume a Wm&Mary style piece dates to the William and Mary period since the forms were popular for a longer period and the pieces built (during the period) were relatively few.

Regarding the word "few", we'd have to discuss that over beer and within the context of other styles.  I'd say Wm&Mary is rare compared to many other popular styles.  That's one of the reasons I think reproducing it is fun.  It gives you a chance to see something you're not going to happen across at an antique mall in Michigan.

adam

[jacon4]

YEAH!!!, lets get some drama goin here, forum is kinda slow for some reason lately.

First off, we have to define when was the W&M period, i say 1690-1720.
Then, there is the not so small matter of American pieces built out of period. Some would say my best beer drinking conn table is not W&M but more properly defined as "colonial period".
Finally, there is population, according to a quick Google search i just did, a timeline puts our population in 1700 @ 275,000,  1720 @ 475,000 and in 1760 @ 1.5 million.

http://faculty.washington.edu/qtaylor/a_us_history/1700_1800_timeline.htm

[Chuck Bender]

Adam,

The same holds true for any other period. We are part of the Society of Period Furniture Makers. By definition we're making period furniture out of period but that doesn't negate the existence of the original pieces. You said "I just don't think there's a lot of American made Wm & Mary furniture." and, by comparison to the Chippendale furniture made in this country during the Chippendale period you're probably right if you are considering only the sheer number of pieces made. Realistically, the poplulation during the William & Mary period was far smaller so it stands to reason that the number of pieces would be proportionally smaller. What I took away from your statement was that very little, if any, furniture was made in the Colonies during the William & Mary period. Upon examining pieces in museums, collections and in antique shops this clearly isn't the case. Given that we had well established settlements in the Colonies by the start of the W&M period, it stands to reason that we had professionals looking to make a living producing and selling furnishing people in their communities wanted to buy.  I guess we'll have to have that beer and discuss the definition of the words "a lot". I'm willing to come to your place to discuss this in depth.

Given the research I've done, I haven't found American homes of the William & Mary period to be drastically more Spartan than those of the Queen Anne or Chippendale periods. Therefore, relative to the population, my guess is that the production numbers are relatively the same as a percentage. If we look at the number of surviving pieces from the periods mentioned, I'm sure there are a far greater percentage of surviving Chippendale pieces than there are William & Mary. There are most likely a series of factors that contribute to this reality, some of which would include: 50 years less hardship and abuse; changes in housing technology; and the shear number of pieces produced.

Jacon4, I?m not trying to start any drama. I was just baffled that Adam would make a statement that appeared to obliterate 30 or 40 years of furniture production in this country. To say, or imply, that most of the furniture from a single period was either not made here or made out of period eliminates the natural progression from one style to the next. All periods have what we define as beginning and ending dates but I?m pretty sure everyone in the country didn?t get the word to stop making Queen Anne style pieces at the same time. This is why there?s always overlap among the periods. It?s what everyone used to call ?transitional? (meaning pieces made out of period which may, or may not, exhibit stylistic elements from both periods).  Every style has built upon the styles that preceded them. As tastes and technology changed, cabinetmakers transitioned from one style to the next. Sometimes the transition was abrupt and clean while others muddled things up a bit and still others held on to the pure older form.  Life isn?t neat and orderly. It?s messy and wondrous.

Chuck Bender

[jacon4]

Hey Chuck,
I know you were not trying to start drama, i was, lol. But not in a bad way though, i enjoy lively discussions, debates about old furniture. I took Adams post to mean that American W&M furniture pieces as a whole, was small in relation to England for instance, which would be correct in my view.
I also think that to hold american adaptations of english furniture styles in the 18th century to rigid dates on a calendar is simply wrong and profoundly ignores the american experience during those times. Still, i recognize others have a different view on that particular issue.

[Adam Cherubini]

Chuck, you really are misreading me. What I was trying to say was no where near interesting enough to warrant further discussion, but let me try one more time so you don't leave this thread thinking I'm a complete knucklehead.

You said "I just don't think there's a lot of American made Wm & Mary furniture." and, by comparison to the Chippendale furniture made in this country during the Chippendale period you're probably right if you are considering only the sheer number of pieces made. Realistically, the poplulation during the William & Mary period was far smaller so it stands to reason that the number of pieces would be proportionally smaller.

Right.

What I took away from your statement was that very little, if any furniture was made in the Colonies during the William & Mary period.

NOOOO!  I never said that!  What I was saying is that there isn't a lot of it NOW.  Here's the quote:

"I just don't think there's a lot of American made Wm & Mary furniture. I don't think we have good ways of distinguishing this sort of furniture since it remained unchanged for so long."

The point I was trying to make was about the difficulty present day furniture dealers have making attributions since so little American made William & Mary furniture is on the market today.  So when one encounters a piece of furniture like the tavern table in the photo, I think it's more difficult to date that particular piece because we don't have this large number of tables with provenances dating to the Wm&Mary period that we can compare it against.  To make matters more difficult, this style of table remained virtually unchanged in design and construction from at least 1690 to probably 1750 or later.

You wrote: "The same holds true for any other period. We are part of the Society of Period Furniture Makers. By definition we're making period furniture out of period but that doesn't negate the existence of the original pieces."

Leaving us aside, this ISN'T the case of period furniture in general.  If you are following me, the distinction is important.  Some furniture forms (of varying styles) WERE NOT produced for decades and decades.  This makes dating them easier.  

Here's the heart of it:  When I see a table like the one in the picture, I'm not certain about when it was made.  If you radio carbon dated it to 1820, I wouldn't be surprised.  The mixture of woods, the finish, maybe even the hardware doesn't lock this piece down to 1690-1720 for me.  Could be that old, or could be later.
  
That's all I was trying to say.  By the way- Please don't interpret my responses as defensive in any way.   I really defer to your experience on this subject, Chuck.  I'm just writing to clarify my meaning, not to defend the veracity of my remarks.  Feel free to tell me I'm wrong. That's a learning opportunity for me and all who read along.

Adam  

[jacon4]

Unfortunately, carbon 14 dating of wood is not reliable from about 1650-1950 due to the quantities of fossil fuels released into the atmosphere. Naturally, that is EXACTLY the period that most folks are interested in, DRAT!

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/forensic-science.html

Next up is Dendrochronology (counting tree rings), however there are issues here as well due mainly to where the tree grew and climate conditions.

Now there is something recent, IR Spectroscopy, which claims +/- 20% accuracy in dating many species of wood.

http://www.spectroscopyforart.com/


The real problem with all of this is, it does not take into account folks building new antiques out of 200 year old wood. Indeed, in europe for example this sort of thing has been going on for many, many years, with container load after container load of "antiques" shipped to america for most of the 20th century. (and still shipped today)

[jacon4]

Although way off thread, this sort of thing happens quite often in the antique furniture world. Linked below is a story of a restorer and a dealer who got into a fuss over money, ALOT of money as it turns out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/garden/22hobbs.html?_r=1

HAPPY LABOR DAY EVERYONE!

[Chuck Bender]

Jacon4,

In the business we have a saying "the British have been making antiques for 300 hundred years." Your link reinforces that saying.

Adam,

I understand what you are saying now. From your original post, I just took away a completely different idea of what you were saying. Although, stylistically a table like the ones in this thread didn't change much over a very long period of time, there are a number of ways to relatively date a piece from the W&M period. Jacon4 is correct about the radio carbon dating thing but the guys at Winterthur have been using spectroscopic analysis for decades now. They essentially look at a cross section of the finish and begin to analyze it the same way an archeologist studies layers of earth. They can by what is present in the finish and approximately when those layers were applied. Beyond that, there's tool marks and hardware that give away the age of a piece as well. Materials and production methods changed throughout the periods. I usually say, if I'm having a hard time deciding if it's in period or not...it isn't.

As far as the theory that items were not made as frequently out of period for periods other than W&M, I offer the example of the clearly Chippendale clock I had a class make recently. We copied the clock from the one in the kitchen at Monticello. It was made in the Philadelphia area between 1803 and 1804. Most styles held on for quite some time beyond their official ending dates. It doesn?t mean its common practice but it did happen. Sure, the ?W&M tavern table? was a form produced in abundance for three quarters of a century but I think that was more a factor of cost and ease of production than it was anything else. The gateleg table which started this thread was something that changed greatly in form from period to period. While I?m sure there are a number of gatelegs made ?out of period? I truly believe that the vast majority were made ?in period? because the style was ?old fashioned? by the mid-Queen Anne period. The cabriole legged drop leaf had come fully into vogue by that point.

I never took your response as defensive. We're just friends talking. Hopefully we can both come away with something beneficial. If nothing else, I got the invite for a beer... and I?ll offer, when you get the chance to be on this side of the Pond, you?re welcome to come out for your favorite libation at my place.

[jacon4]

 So when one encounters a piece of furniture like the tavern table in the photo, I think it's more difficult to date that particular piece because we don't have this large number of tables with provenances dating to the Wm&Mary period that we can compare it against.

Adam is right about that, it is difficult to date a table like that considering tavern tables were made for at least a century in the american colonies. Take that table, theres not a single piece of iron or brass on it, no nails, no pulls/escutcheons that would assist one in dating, it's entirely joined so all one really has to go on is tool marks & construction details. Another thing, it's virtually impossible to evaluate old furniture with pic's alone, one has to get up close and personal to really examine those details. I'll say this though, over on Peter Follansbee's blog, he's got this new-fangled (to me at least) pic thingy where one can zoom in anywhere on the photo thats very impressive, snap shots i think it's called.

Bottom line? that conn table could just as easily be 1730 as 1750 although i doubt it is much later than mid 18th century. The big deal about this kind of form is: does the top belong to the base, does the drawer belong to the base and are the feet original.

[millcrek]

I agree that it is almost impossible to distinguish a 20 year difference in age on a 250 year old piece of furniture with out irrefutable provenance. However I don't think it matters. I have found that in most areas of collectibles there is an authoritative person the one that everybody accepts as the one that knows. If that person says it is period William and Mary, then it is, no matter when it was made, and it will remain so until someone can prove he or she is wrong. The truth is relative to impression and belief.
Pot well stirred.
 

[jacon4]

One final point about that conn. table and i know this is going to seem weird to many SAPFM members, the underside of the top has it's original black paint intact. What this indicates is, at least the top and most likely the entire table (cherrywood included) was painted black, just like it's english cousin.