Two dressing tables share characteristics of the high chest discussed in the previous article. One, in walnut, has been in the collection of the Philadelphia Museum of Art since 1925 (fig.
I suspect it was done to conserve wood. But the design of these particular legs lends itself to multiple components for several reasons I'll discuss in a follow up article. Many turned legs for stands from this time are made of just two pieces, the tall pillar, and the foot under the stretcher.
I will get to your interesting and important point about seasoning wood of these dimensions in the follow up, especially as it applies to whether the holes were bored in the components before or after they were turned.
Thank you for posting additional exquisitely turned pieces from this unknown turner. You refer to the dressing table (fig. 2), formerly owned by the Shelleys and now at Chipstone, as being of mahogany and red cedar. As I recall, only the ball feet were of red cedar. Might this have been to conserve material or for another reason?
Do you know of other pieces of non-inlaid Philadelphia furniture from this era incorporating more than one primary wood? Only two come to my mind. One survives in a private collection: a mahogany dressing table on maple cabriole-legs with ankleted “Spanish” feet. The legs have been ebonized to integrate with the darker appearance of the mahogany case. Although maple was harder to work, imported mahogany would have been more expensive. The other piece survives only as a reference in a contemporary record: John Head charged Sary Dimsdild [Sarah Dimsdale], £0-5-6, for "Tray & Staining: 4 Lags [legs]." See The Cabinetmaker’s Account: John Head’s Record of Craft & Commerce in Colonial Philadelphia, 1718-1753 (American Philosophical Society Press 2019), 242, n.12.
Thank you for the question. I'll say that this post, in an effort to not have it become overly long, is just the beginning of the story about these tables and the others you mention. I know the feet of the table in fig. 2 are red cedar but I don't know if microscopic wood ID has been done on the legs, stretchers, or drops. It's a possibility those elements are also red cedar. I just don't know how closely the woods have been examined with this possibility in mind. There is little info on the Chipstone website, which is all too common.
I was leaving this for a reveal in the next post but I contend the species of the leg of the Chipstone table should be carefully looked at, as the legs and feet of the walnut table in fig. 1 are red cedar.
Look at the overall photo of fig. 1 and notice the color and lack of distinctive wood grain of the legs and feet. Then look at the x-rays we made in 1999 and compare the wood grain seen in the high chest leg - definitely black walnut - that next to the x-ray of the table leg in fig. 1. (Fig. 5.) There are no pores visible in the table leg, they are not walnut or we would have seen grain as we see in the high chest leg. The contentious nature of the run-up to the exhibition meant that this information didn't make it into the catalogue. But the x-rays don't lie.
Besides the mahogany dressing table with maple legs you mention, a mahogany Philadelphia turned leg, single-drawer table with stretchers that are related to the Chipstone table, has maple legs. The stretchers may also be maple, there is a heavy, dark film finish that makes it difficult to determine the wood species by eye. It can be found here.
Very interesting. Can you comment on the advantage of making the leg from multiple parts? Why not a single turned leg? Would a single turning require too large a piece of wood that would have to be dried? Plus one mistake ruins the whole piece?
What a feast for the eyes!
I enjoyed that.
Very nice turning work.
I suspect it was done to conserve wood. But the design of these particular legs lends itself to multiple components for several reasons I'll discuss in a follow up article. Many turned legs for stands from this time are made of just two pieces, the tall pillar, and the foot under the stretcher.
I will get to your interesting and important point about seasoning wood of these dimensions in the follow up, especially as it applies to whether the holes were bored in the components before or after they were turned.
Thank you for your kind note.
There is great joy when you hand the reproduction leg to visitors who come prepared to not handle anything in the museum.
Hi, Chris,
Thank you for posting additional exquisitely turned pieces from this unknown turner. You refer to the dressing table (fig. 2), formerly owned by the Shelleys and now at Chipstone, as being of mahogany and red cedar. As I recall, only the ball feet were of red cedar. Might this have been to conserve material or for another reason?
Do you know of other pieces of non-inlaid Philadelphia furniture from this era incorporating more than one primary wood? Only two come to my mind. One survives in a private collection: a mahogany dressing table on maple cabriole-legs with ankleted “Spanish” feet. The legs have been ebonized to integrate with the darker appearance of the mahogany case. Although maple was harder to work, imported mahogany would have been more expensive. The other piece survives only as a reference in a contemporary record: John Head charged Sary Dimsdild [Sarah Dimsdale], £0-5-6, for "Tray & Staining: 4 Lags [legs]." See The Cabinetmaker’s Account: John Head’s Record of Craft & Commerce in Colonial Philadelphia, 1718-1753 (American Philosophical Society Press 2019), 242, n.12.
With every good wish,
Jay
Hi Jay,
Thank you for the question. I'll say that this post, in an effort to not have it become overly long, is just the beginning of the story about these tables and the others you mention. I know the feet of the table in fig. 2 are red cedar but I don't know if microscopic wood ID has been done on the legs, stretchers, or drops. It's a possibility those elements are also red cedar. I just don't know how closely the woods have been examined with this possibility in mind. There is little info on the Chipstone website, which is all too common.
I was leaving this for a reveal in the next post but I contend the species of the leg of the Chipstone table should be carefully looked at, as the legs and feet of the walnut table in fig. 1 are red cedar.
Look at the overall photo of fig. 1 and notice the color and lack of distinctive wood grain of the legs and feet. Then look at the x-rays we made in 1999 and compare the wood grain seen in the high chest leg - definitely black walnut - that next to the x-ray of the table leg in fig. 1. (Fig. 5.) There are no pores visible in the table leg, they are not walnut or we would have seen grain as we see in the high chest leg. The contentious nature of the run-up to the exhibition meant that this information didn't make it into the catalogue. But the x-rays don't lie.
Besides the mahogany dressing table with maple legs you mention, a mahogany Philadelphia turned leg, single-drawer table with stretchers that are related to the Chipstone table, has maple legs. The stretchers may also be maple, there is a heavy, dark film finish that makes it difficult to determine the wood species by eye. It can be found here.
https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-5970039?ldp_breadcrumb=back
Uncommon but not unknown.
Very interesting. Can you comment on the advantage of making the leg from multiple parts? Why not a single turned leg? Would a single turning require too large a piece of wood that would have to be dried? Plus one mistake ruins the whole piece?