HOLY COW!

jacon4

jacon4

Well-known member
OK, after lusting for a period american william & mary gateleg table for many years i finally scored last month, thanks most likely to snow storms which kept many collectors off line and unable to bid at auction. The auction title read "period colonial walnut W&M gateleg table" with top restored sometime in the 19th century. "restored top" is auction speak for replaced top, nothing unusual there as tables this old normally have issues, particularly the tops & hinges.

The table arrived a couple weeks later and after consideration, i decided to refinish the "new" top. As often happens, one thing leads to another and i decided to refinish the table base as well. As soon as i took the varnish/pigment stain off the table base apron, i knew i was in trouble as it became quite clear the table base was in fact maple and not walnut. HOLY COW!

So now the plan is use a gel stain on the maple base to try and match the single board walnut table top leaves, whaddya think, is gel stain the way to go on maple when trying to match another wood?

On another note, i now understand why 18th century forged iron butterfly hinges rarely make it, even if the top is original as the guy who replaced the top on this table used 3 of the original top butterfly hinges, they are very thin and quite delicate.

 
Nice table. I am unsure what is causing all the bovine interest here.
I have never used gel stain, but there are lots of ways to tint shellac. For a tabletop, I might tint some shellac to get the color right, and the put a topcaot of varnish on if the table were really going to be used. Alternatively, there are tintable lacquers and conversion varnishes which make a duable finish(think kitchen cabinet type systems);
I would probably just use shellac tinted, unless I was really going to use the table in an eating area-you need a more durable surface if you have a few calves about the homestead like myself.
 
The base is nice- are the feet original? Why don't you make a maple top like it had originally? Then you can tint the whole thing to look like old maple-Al
 
I agree an aged maple top is what I would do. However if you want to match the maple base to the walnut top I don't believe any single product will do the job. I would first finish your top to determine what the base needs to look like. Then use a combination of dye, stain, toner and glaze to simulate the look of the walnut top on the base.
 
Confused, I was. I mistakenly thought the top was maple. Poor reading comprehension on my part.
Must be the mad cow disease affecting me.
I did assume you wanted to keep the replaced, but old, top. I think I recall seeing gateleg tables with walnut tops and stained maple legs. I wonder if your table's legs were originally dark?If they are not figured maple, perhaps they were originally stained dark.
While I realize a figured maple top would probably be udderly fantastic,
if the qualtiy of the current replaced walnut top is particularly fine, I might be hesitant to replace.
 
Yes, the feet are original, the base is in remarkably good condition although the drawer has been reworked a bit. The only thing left of the original top is the wooden pins driven into the centers of the 4 legs to hold the center board/leaf. These pins were cut flush when the new  walnut top was attached with screws.

Yeah, i wanna keep the walnut top, its old growth walnut with good figure . Although not original to the base its still well over 100 years old and the guy who replaced the top had the good sense to use 3 of the original top hinges. (hardware is a big deal to collectors)

Yes, the plan is to orange shellac the top and then 4 or 5 coats of wiping varnish because the table will be used as a dining table. I was thinking of trying to match the redish brown color of the walnut top by using gel stain on table base. I hear maple tends to blotch when staining and gel stain is supposed to correct this problem.
 
Mike brings up a good point, period american william & mary furniture fashion was dark colored wood, its very likely that the original color of base & top was stained/painted a dark color.
 
I suspected that your 19th century walnut top might be particularly fine, I have seen a lot of it(not figured, but super fine grained)  that I would prefer over figured maple. I have never handled a genuine piece of W&M era furniture myself, so I can't really say they would have mixed their species. As a cabinetmaker, I am pretty certain it would be hard to beat really fine walnut as wide planks for a tabletop, and I sort of think its not too hard to imagine it being originally built that way.
 
Well, i have seen period windsor chairs that were made of different woods but never a table* or case piece which makes sense because windsors were always painted so it really didnt matter what wood was used decoration wise. (*exception, tavern tables)

I suspect the guy who replaced this top didnt have any wide maple on hand and since he was going to cover the entire table with a dark stain anyway..........

According to John T Kirk, dark colored wood dominated in furniture fashion and it wasnt until the 1780s when lighter colors that showed off the natural grain pattern of woods, became popular. In my case i have no choice, if i wanna keep the new top ( which i do) i have to go dark.

Heres a pic of a period gateleg in tiger maple and yup, they covered it in that deep reddish stain which i guess was supposed to simulate mahogany.
 
UPDATE:
This table has just returned from the restorer and guess what, theres is no walnut anywhere on this table, the top is in fact old growth carribean mahogany (swietenia mahagoni). But hey, the table base was maple as i suspected so at least i got that right. The auction house was totally clueless in their description as is often the case, all they got right was that it was old, lol.

Additionally, there was a piece of paper found describing the table as comming from the Reid family in Weymouth Mass (burb south of boston i think) which was sold in 1952 at an estate sale there for $170.

So there we have it, mystery solved sorta & the restorer did a heck of a job, i am very pleased.
 
Mixing species in a singe pieces primary wood is very typical of early 18th c american pieces at least.  At the Philadelphia Museum of Art, conservators there say they have never encountered maple as a primary wood that doesn't have evidence of red pigment. 

Some of the period paints and stains weren't maintained properly and as they wore thru or wore off, I think folks removed them altogether leaving that warm maple.  But natural finish is probably not the original finish for maple. 

Maple was used as a cheap sub for mahogany.  In this case the 19th c restorer was probably trying to match the faux mahogany legs with his new top.

Naturally finished curly maple hutches and other primitives are probably one more thing we are getting "wrong".  They are attractive today and so all is well.  But at least in Philadelphia, they certainly aren't representative of the period.  My guess is that other regions were doing the same thing as Philly.  Of course one can beg the question as to when a reproduction is meant to be in time.   

Lastly, I'm not seeing William and Mary here. For Wm and Mary I would expect an oval shape to the top perhaps, barley twist legs, and some pretty rough secondary surfaces.  To have smooth secondaries, turned legs and maple I would probably put this table later, easily 3rd quarter or even later.  These would be things I would look for.

Adam 
 
Hey Adam,
The top is oval, 47" X 53" but barley twist legs on an american piece would be very rare, i have never seen it on a gateleg dining table.  The table base has 4 large wooden pins sawn off flush indicating that the top now there is not original. Additionally, the new top leafs are put together with 3 hand forged butterfly & 1 hand forged rectangular hinges, which indicates  early 19th top. The top rails of the base have 4 depressions chopped with a hatchet/axe to accept the hinges/pindles of the original top i assume & all of the stretchers show scribe marks which is rather typical of early work. ( if you can't see it, it does tend to get a bit rough underneath)

Finally, that scrap of paper is important to me as those turnings on the legs with the ball on each end with vase & ring in between was a popular Boston type turning during americas william & mary period. Turners from each region in America had very distinct differences within the same style/fashion of furniture, i am not sure why. Perhaps a typical American quirkiness, my turnings are better than yours kinda thing.

My best guess? table base made in the boston area 1720-40, the new top first quarter 19th.
 
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.  I have a story about these tables that you may find interesting:

Before these tables, English folks ate "last supper style". They typically sat on one side of a long narrow table so they could be served from the other.  Sometimes the tables are asymmetric, with a long over hang (where no one sat).  These tables were placed in "halls", a medieval living room dominated by a fire place which may or may not have been the main cook fire.  The important guy (chairman?) sat in the center of the table.

When the English renaissance occurred, folks changed the way they thought and lived and dined.  Halls became more comfortable rooms, typically furnished with chairs or couches.  Long tables weren't used so much.  Instead, oval or round tables, reflecting their more egalitarian world view allowed more intimate dining.

The folding nature of the gate leg table was also important to 18th c English.  The halls in which they used to dine became more similar to our living rooms.  Gate legs tables allowed folks to eat in different rooms or even outside.  This has remained popular to this day. 

Other things they did with these tables is have game nights.  Several tables would be set up in the hall and friends would come.  This too continues in some communities in England.

I always liked this story about gate leg tables.  I think this was something I read in Deetz. If not Deetz then it was David Freeman Hawke's "Everyday Life in Early America".  You can certainly see the difference in the interiors pre and post renaissance.

Adam
 
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.

True, at least in 18th century america where the populations of middle class furniture buyers were MUCH smaller than say England for instance. Plus in rual areas (most of the country at this time) it was not unusual for a certain style of furniture to linger on well past when urban centers had gone on to the latest fashion. And why not? it makes sense to me that cabinetmakers would continue making whatever sold, and if the the style was out of fashion it was no big deal. Indeed, they were most likely not even aware that the furniture they were making was out of style/period/fashion.

Once upon a time, when men were men & women and kids sat on stools (sorry ladies, i couldnt resist) i had this HORRIBLE chauvinism towards old furniture, if it wasnt American, it was just NOT RIGHT! Naturally, time has taken it's toll and my never ending quest for an American Pilgrim piece (jacobean) has softened my former harshness & i find myself wishing i could attend exhibitions like this one last fall, Searching For Thomas Dennis.
http://marhamchurchantiques.com/exhibition-view
 
Below is an example of what passes for american william & mary, it was made in connecticut around 1750. It has a cherrywood base with vase and ring turned legs/ stretchers and a single board pine top. Although many years out of the W&M period ( 1690-1720) one really could not call it queen anne, the period when it was built.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top