| knowledge-database (beta) |
 |
Current group: rec.antiques.
Value of Queen Anne OAK dining table and chairs, buffet
| David Wagler | | Andy Dingley | | Andy Dingley | | Ronnie McKinley |
|
|
| | From: | David Wagler | | Subject: | Value of Queen Anne OAK dining table and chairs, buffet | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:33:13 -0600 |
|
|
 | I have a 54" round oak table with 2 leaves, 6 chairs and a matching buffet.
I wondered if these are pretty unique - I heard that they didn't do alot of
Queen Anne Funiture in Oak, I would guess these are from the 40's era. I
haven't looked to see if it is stamped with a manufacturer
I would like to sell the set - does anybody have an idea of the value - it's
not in great shape, but usuable.
Thanks.
Dave Wagler
dwagler@aol.com
|
|
| | From: | Andy Dingley | | Subject: | Re: Value of Queen Anne OAK dining table and chairs, buffet | | Date: | Sat, 22 Jan 2005 11:25:07 +0000 |
|
|
| On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:33:13 -0600, "David Wagler"
wrote:
>I would like to sell the set - does anybody have an idea of the value - it's
>not in great shape, but usuable.
David emailed me some photos. Maybe he'd be able to web them somewhere
too.
>Hi Andy - can you tell me anything about style and vintage ?
Not much - they're obviously American and I'm a Brit.
The material is oak, and it has been deliberately quartersawn to show
the ray flake figure. This is a '20th century touch. It wasn't done
in the original oak period, it arose from the US Arts & Crafts
movement. Even after the Craftsman period had waned, this use of oak
survived.
As we've already mentioned, oak disappeared from high-end furniture
around the Restoration in favour of walnut and them mahogany and
didn't re-appear until the Arts & Crafts. It was still used by rustic
makers, who also tended to be some years behind in following design
fashions. Lots of "walnut period" construction techniques just can't
be made in oak anyway.
The style is, as with most historically backward-looking repro,
something of a mixture. It's broadly English-speaking, with some later
European touches.
The cane back to the chair is a Restoration feature. Canework was a
Dutch technique that arrived in England with the Restoration, when the
court came back from overseas and brought new techniques with them.
This style, with the top as a separate shape to the sides (rather than
the later integrated "hoop" shape) is an earlier version, as is the
use of cane down a narrow centre stripe, rather than full-width. So
the influence here is up to around 1685 - Charles II
The sideboard has more of a Queen Anne style to it; the cabriole legs
and the curved edge to the lower apron. Cabriole legs appeared on
chairs at the Restoration, but case pieces stuck with turned cup legs
and horizontal stretchers for some decades later. I can't see how the
feet of the legs work though - whether they're a turned pad foot or a
carved duck or slipper foot. The flatness of the chair rails is clear
indication of very late Victorian or later factory manufacture - they
were sawn from flat on a bandsaw, not shaped by hand with a spokeshave
or chisel.
The rest of the detailing is a mish-mash. The drop ring handles are a
classical Greek or Roman feature, which wouldn't have appeared on
furniture until the post-colonial late 18th century. Definitely after
the larger sawn-out brass plate handles that are "high style" 18th
century American.
The applied detail mouldings are a French feature, from the period
leading up to the Art Nouveau at the earliest. Likewise the visible
hinges with what appear to be turned decoration to the pins. So that
dates them to the 1890s or so (Statue of Liberty period) when lots of
French influences appeared in the USA.
So those are where the bits come from. As to when and where your
particular piece was made, then you'd have to ask someone who knows
20th century American furniture (I have a gap between 1915 and the
Modernists). I'd guess it was made for the traditionally minded
middle-classes, some time between the wars. It's not an accurate
enough repro for a furniture collector, but it's too well made for the
low-end. Quartersawn oak is always more expensive than flatsawn, so
the more you see of it, then the more they were spending on materials
- especially for wide areas, like tabletops.
Looking at the rear legs of the chairs, there appears to be a small
round wooden cap over a metal screw fixing into the seat rails. This
is a later feature - factory work, not traditional joinery. In the UK
I'd think this was a '50s feature, but in the USA the move to
production-line techniques was earlier and it could be '30s.
If you _really_ want to date furniture, it needs better pictures and a
study of the internal joinery too.
Sorry that none of this really answers your questions, and that I have
no idea about pricing. They're probably well made and are not
unattractive though, so I hope you enjoy them.
|
|
| | From: | Andy Dingley | | Subject: | Re: Value of Queen Anne OAK dining table and chairs, buffet | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:11:28 +0000 |
|
|
| On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:33:13 -0600, "David Wagler"
wrote:
>I wondered if these are pretty unique - I heard that they didn't do alot of
>Queen Anne Funiture in Oak,
There is no "Queen Anne" furniture in oak. Of course plenty (if not
most) of the period's furniture was made in oak, but you can hardly
claim any real connection with the style if it is.
> I would guess these are from the 40's era.
And why would our guesses be any better ? Put a picture on the web,
especially of maker's marks or the internal joinery and maybe someone
can help. Without even that though, you'd be better with an astrologer
than an antique dealer.
>I would like to sell the set - does anybody have an idea of the value - it's
>not in great shape, but usuable.
'40s repro that's not in great shape ? Just how much were you
expecting ?
|
|
| | From: | Ronnie McKinley | | Subject: | Re: Value of Queen Anne OAK dining table and chairs, buffet | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 15:33:31 +0000 |
|
|
| In rec.antiques Andy Dingley wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 08:33:13 -0600, "David Wagler"
>wrote:
>
>>I wondered if these are pretty unique - I heard that they didn't do alot of
>>Queen Anne Funiture in Oak,
>
>There is no "Queen Anne" furniture in oak. Of course plenty (if not
>most) of the period's furniture was made in oak, but you can hardly
>claim any real connection with the style if it is.
>
c1670-1730 (of which Queen Anne comes in 1702-1714) was the 'Age of
Walnut' or IOW the 'walnut period' - c1670-1730 we are dreaming of
walnut. The glory days of oak was up to the end of the Restoration or a
slight overlap into the early years of William and Mary, but by c1670
was a dead 'un and as unfashionable as Dido.
>> I would guess these are from the 40's era.
>
>And why would our guesses be any better ?
Is that the 1840s or the 1940s? But then again Pugin and Queen Anne
ain't that hard to tell apart ;>)
--
Ronnie
|
|
|
| | |
|
 |