Capen family Bombe desk up for auction

[ttalma]

Sothebys is auctioning off the Capen family Bombe desk. Estimate $500k - $700k.

http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/ecatalogue/2015/nutt-americana-n09305/lot.256.html

There are only a few pictures, but I didn't notice any power cable holes for your computer. So you'll have to drill you own.

[awleonard]

And some nice self closing slides...those old wooden slides are a little sticky after a century or so.

[Peter Storey Pentz]

If any of you get a hankering to reproduce this desk, let me know.  I got to look it over a few times as Ruth Nutt was one of my clients.  I miss her.   PSP

[jeffsr]

i will be making this desk . i cant find clear pics of the knee carving , any ideas of where to look ? my best lead so far is going to boston mfa , i guess there's a piece there with similar carving .
 thanks for any input

[Woodmolds]

CAPEN FAMILY CHIPPENDALE CARVED AND FIGURED MAHOGANY BOMBÉ SLANT-FRONT DESK, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS, CIRCA 1785

[jeffsr]

thanks !! that's awesome . do you happen to have a pic of the center drop carving too ? are these your personal photos or is there somewhere I can go to see more than the 3 or 4 pics that i can find on the Sotheby's page ?

[Woodmolds]

That picture was from the Sothebys site(link above). You can enlarge and zoom most of the pictures on that site.

[jeffsr]

oh ,  duh . I had only seen the 4 that come up , didn't realize you could scroll to see a 5th . maybe it's my phone

 thanks

[jeffsr]

i'm having a hard time believing that this desk is 49 1/2" wide . it doesn't look it and it doesn't scale it . you can see this if you do the math of the proportions at the base molding on the photo of the underside . if it is 22" deep then it isn't 49 1/2 wide  . i think it's 3-4" narrower     , am i missing something ?  do we know where this piece is now ?

[jeffsr]

perspective distortion ( photography ) i guess this effect will disproportionally affect a photo . if i understand it correctly ,, something further from the camera lens appears smaller so when taking a picture of a flat rectangle the long dimension will appear shorter more than the short dimension will .
  anyone have input on this ? i'm going to experiment and take a pic of a rectangle , see what it does

yes , my photo was affected almost exactly the same as how the photo of the bottom of the desk was . now i don't doubt the given dimensions