Plans for Chippendale desk with bookcase or secretary

[Whitnall Gardens Studio]

I plan to build either (i) a Chippendale desk with bookcase or (ii) a Chippendale secretary. I'm still in the planning stage, and I'm looking for alternative designs.

I have plenty of vintage books with photos of varying quality (Nutting, E. Miller, etc.), but not much in the way of actual plans or drawings. I did download two of the Phil Lowe plans, and I have the Glen Huey plan from his book. I also just received the two Tony Kubalak books on carving the elements that are commonly used on such furniture.

1. Are there any plans or sets of drawings that I should also consider? If so, please let me know.

2. If you have built one yourself, which plan or set of drawings did you use...or did you design your own?

3. A general question about period pieces: Is it preferable to (i) build as close to an exact replica of an extant piece, or to (ii) design your own, using the appropriate elements that you most like? I know this is a personal decision, but I'm curious as to what others think.

I have made a list of the many design alternatives I wish to consider for this project. Among the many photos I have, there are pieces having many different combinations of these features, but I may still not be able to find an example that has all the exact features I like, which might lead me to pick and choose design elements (at the potential risk of ending up with a hodge-podge design). In an ideal world, I would find a plan or set of drawings for a piece having the exact features I want. However, that seems unlikely. Maybe the best I can do is to use a published plan and incorporate some small changes to it.

I guess one could liken it to some extent to classic cars - would you rather own a vintage automobile that has been faithfully restored to it's original features, colors, etc. or one that has been modified with features that you happen to like better?

 

[Whitnall Gardens Studio]

I'll ask two other related questions here to learn what others think :

1. Do you prefer to use (i) construction methods that are not ideal, given today's added knowledge or (ii) more modern construction techniques so that the piece is less likely to crack, experience excessive drawer wear, etc.?

For example, one of the first pieces I ever made (early 1990's) was a ca. 1750 highboy chest with cabriole legs (using Carlyle Lynch's drawing), and I elected to do the same cross-grain construction between the lower casework sides and the cabriole legs, without slotting the drawbore holes in the tenons to allow for seasonal wood movement. The sides eventually cracked a bit, just like many of the ones I have seen at a museum, which I felt made it even a bit more authentic.

2. Do you (i) consciously leave rough surfaces and use inferior wood (such as wood having knots) where they would have been left rough in the originals (inside surfaces or the back of casework, etc.), or do you (ii) finish off all surfaces and use only good quality lumber?

I was surprised to read an article in which the author substituted a plywood back for the more common ship-lapped back of an otherwise beautiful piece featuring a lot of carving; the author cited plywood's stability as the reason. To me, it cheapened the project just a bit, but that's just my opinion.

What's your opinion?

 

[Mark Maleski]

Michael, our Cartouche award recipients demonstrated opposing approaches to this at the recent annual conference.

Bess Naylor, our most recent recipient, showcased her portfolio. Through established relationships with Winterthur and other museums, she has been able to take careful measurements and tends to reproduce copies as exactly as possible, even when certain features may not have been what our eyes expect (examples included heavier inlay than the modern eye expects, or straight feet when bun feet might be more expected).

OTOH, Ray Journigan gave a presentation on how he modified the "Acme of Perfection" tea table (which includes work from the Garvan carver). He made the point that the old masters were designing their pieces themselves, and if we're not doing the same at least some of the time then we're missing an important aspect of reproductions.

I say neither perspective is perfectly right (and neither of our Cartouche winners were arguing there is only the one way). I need to first carefully copy original pieces to develop my eye and my skill, as well as to learn what's "original." But I also want to be able to apply classical design principles to develop my own pieces based on period precedents.

 

[Whitnall Gardens Studio]

Thank you, Mark. I didn't attend the annual conference, but it's interesting to learn of these two opinions. Although they are opposing viewpoints, it's nice that neither thinks that there is only one correct way (wouldn't it be nice if more politicians felt this way?). It would be interesting to survey all members and see where on the spectrum most people lie.

One design feature that might have to be modified to comply with modern home construction is the height of very tall pieces. While we happen to have 9' ceilings in our current house, many houses don't, and it appears that many Chippendale-style secretaries with gooseneck pediments and finials or cartouches exceed 8' in height.

FWIW, in order to help me to select an overall design, I made a list of all of the common options for the various design elements of a Chippendale-style desk/bookcase or secretary (for example, flat front/bombe/serpentine or block front drawers; fluted/reeded/combination pilasters; etc.). I then looked through my pile of reference books for photos of actual pieces having various combinations of these elements, in order to see what I liked best. This helped me to decide on a specific design.

A week or so ago, I was very fortunate to be able to borrow, from a previous cartouche winner (who I would rather not name without his permission) the personal sketches, drawings, templates and photos of a piece he built - the exact same design that I am interested in building! It was very generous of him to offer to me this opportunity, and if he's reading this, thank you once more.

 

[Michael Stiennon]

For others in the same situation Al Breed sells his drawings of the Brown scy/bkcs on his website. I am also in the process of designing the piece and am opting to go with an all cockbead design rather than the usual thumbnail for the flap/bookcase. I am also planning to center the bookcase shells over the secretary ones which will eliminate the waist moulding on the bookcase.

 

[Jeff Thompson]

Mike,
I built Glen Huey's (God let him rest), and I did pretty much the entire piece according to his direction except I did not use the bonnet top, I made mine flat with a beautiful crown. I respect Mark's opinion regarding how he tries to duplicate as much to learn and build his skill levels. It's why I have built several of Glen's projects for that reason and, because I liked the way he handled his interpretations of the "Period" process. However, I didn't have the room for a bonnet top in my home therefore, it caused me to rethink the entire top, specifically with respect to the top blade above the arched doors and how much reveal to leave between them and the crown to make an esthetically pleasing vision. It wasn't a stretch to consider but nevertheless, a deviation from the plan.

I recently finished the Townsend Document Case and deviated from Al Breed's plan in a couple of areas. One was about a construction concept that I learned (ironically from Glen) that isn't visible in the finished piece and the other involved the elimination of the bun feet. I used a modified bracket foot.

So, in my opinion it's easy to follow someone else's plan but it is also easy to deviate. In the end it can never be the original, but it is yours, and that's an original!