SHERATON FURNITURE. SHERATON CABINETS, TABLES, CHAIRS, BUFFETS, DRESSERS, CHESTS OF DRAWERS, BEDS, SOFAS

THE reasons given in previous chapters for confining the   significance of  furniture-makers’ names to the styles in which they worked have even greater force when applied to Thomas Sheraton, the actual examples of whose work in existence are both doubtful and few in number. Sheraton may be fairly described as a successor of Chippendale and Heppelwhite, although he must have been working as a journeyman cabinet-maker when they were alive.  But the date upon which Sheraton came to London is much in dispute.  He was born at Stockton about the year 1750, and as late as 1782 issued from that town A Letter on the Subject of Baptism, followed  by  other publications of a religious character from time to time.   It has been assumed by various writers that he could not well have come under the influence of Chippendale, Heppelwhite, the brothers Adam, and other great designers until he had come to London after 1782.   But it is not certain that this date signifies residence in Stockton-on-Tees up to that time, because he may have been working in 198
London as a cabinet-maker and had his religious tracts
published from his native town.
The interesting dates to collectors are those which give simply the births and deaths of the three great cabinet-makers of their age. Unfortunately the exact dates of birth are unknown in each case. Miss Constance Simon’s researches supply us with the deaths.
THOMAS CHIPPENDALE. Born towards the end of the reign of Queen Anne (1714) ; died 1779.
GEORGE HEPPELWHITE. Born about the beginning of the reign of George IL (1727) ; died 1786.
THOMAS SHERATON.  Born about 1750 ; died 1806.
If we add to these dates the birth and death of Robert Adam (1728-1792), whose influence on furniture was so extended, we can begin to realise how indebted Sheraton must have been to the work of his immediate forerunners.
There is no reliable evidence that Thomas Sheraton in the prime of life was ever a master cabinet-maker like Chippendale and Heppelwhite.   That he was a skilled designer is  apparent by his best-known publication, the Cabinet Maker’s and Upholsterer’s Drawing Book 1 (1793), and that he was also a crafts-man is proved by the extraordinary detail he gives for the construction of the pieces he describes.   It is not the kind of technical instruction we look for to-day in the text book, but it shows close personal acquaintance and experience with tools and the many processes of the craft of the cabinet-maker.
Sheraton was apparently a very clever workman who in early life became sincerely religious.   He appears to have had ambition and considerable enthusiasm, for he did an enormous amount of work.   His   Drawing Book ” alone must have meant years of labour.  But he was no business man, being far more devoted to the theory of cabinet-making than its practical exercise. He succeeded in drawing together a large number of ideas culled from his immediate forerunners and his con-temporaries and welding them into a distinctive style. He was the last of the great furniture designers of the eighteenth century, and towards the end of his life began to feel the decay which set in with the Engish interpretations of Empire feeling.
The principal characteristics of Sheraton furniture are the use of the straight line in design and as perfect a combination of proportion and constructive bulk as Engiish craftsmanship has ever produced. Sheraton chairs, commodes, bookcases, and tables of ail sorts express daintiness and delicacy never reached before his time. The history of Engiish furniture for hundreds of years had been a gradual progress towards refine-ment of execution, the culmination of which came with Sheraton. Purity of outline and economy of material could go no farther.
More than any other designer Sheraton exploited the possibilities of mechanical action, in bureaux, dressing tables, secretaires, and many other pieces of furniture. He did this on the whole without sacrificing simple utility. Whatever comphcated construction he introduced was not in the way of added ornamentation, but more extended convenience.   Most of those bits of furniture one meets with in second-hand dealers’ shops, full of carefully thought out contrivances such as hidden mirrors, sliding screens, drawers, pigeon-holes, little boxes with lids, and so on, are of the Sheraton school. It is true that the bulk of them must have been made by cabinet-makers who were working either at the same time as Sheraton, or who took advantage of the publication of his book to reproduce his ideas for years afterwards. But the old drawing master must be credited with having done more to stimulate the manufacture of such articles than anyone else.
Heppelwhite, the Gillows, Shearer, and other makers used to construct dainty bits of furniture full of cunning fitments, and at page 122 will be seen a dressing table probably of Heppelwhite origin.  But those who go to the trouble of even a cursory glance through Sheraton’s principal book on furniture cannot fail to be Struck with the fact that he was at bottom a mechanic.  The twin arts of geometry and perspective were his forte. He must have known more about them as they applied to constructional woodwork than anyone living at his time, and it appears to the writer that the perfection of proportion of many of his pieces was quite as much the resuit of consummate knowledge of straight lines and angles and their relationships with each other as artistic perception.  A cabinet-maker may decide that a piece of wood is the right length, width, and thickness by instinct.   If it looks right to him then it is right.   But Sheraton seems to have arrived at such decisions through a complete knowledge of theories of proportion and a mastery of technical
draughtsmanship. It may be for this reason that much Sheraton work
leaves us rather cold. It seems so painfully accurate, so without blemish. Where he introduces curves they lack freedom, but it is to his credit that he never put in too many of them, nor did he put them in the wrong place. His decoration was remarkably reticent, considering the possibilities for elaboration which lay in marquetry, carving, and painting, ail sometimes employed together on one painting, ail sometimes employed together on one piece of furniture.
English designers were still looking to France for inspiration, and Sheraton and his contemporaries echoed Louis Seize decoration, more or less, in ail they did. Curvilinear forms after the death of Louis XV. gave place to a return to the straight Une, and inconsequent rococo ornamentation was supplanted by a more orderly treatment of the classic theme. The ” Drawing Book ” of Thomas Sheraton exemplifies this ail through its pages.
It is a very much more important work than any of the others pubHshed in the latter half of the eighteenth Century. It is less of a trade advertisement and has far more scholarship about it than either Chippendale’s ” Director ” or Heppelwhite’s f Guide.” But it is ex-tremely detailed and diffuse. Like the other publications it was very largely subscribed for by the furnishing trade, which no doubt used it for obtaining fresh ideas.
Sheraton took a very high line. He divided the book into three parts, the first concerning itself with geometry, the second with perspective, and the third with furniture. In the preface he feels himself called upon to give a short resume of the works which have preceded his, pointing out their shortcomings pretty plainly.   Of Chippendale’s ” Director ” he says :
” It has given us, it is true, the proportions of the Five Orders, and nes for two or three cases, which is all it pretends to relative to rules for drawing : and as for the odesigns themselves they are now wholly antiquated and laid aside, although possessed of great merit, according to the times in which they were executed.”
Another book, 1 The Cabinet and Chair-Maker’s Real Friend and Companion ” (Robert Manwaring), he charges with containing an assertion which ” exceeds the bounds of modesty and truth,” and for Heppel-white’s ” Guide ” he has obvious contempt. ” Some of the designs/’ he says, I are not without merit, though it is evident that the perspective is, in some instances, erroneous. But notwithstanding the late date of Heppelwhite’s book, if we compare some of the designs, particularly the chairs, with the newest taste, we shall find that this work has already caught the decline, and perhaps, in a little time, will suddenly die in the disorder.”
In those days the value of a knowledge of perspective was much greater than now, when the camera is of so much use to the furnishing trade in conveying a true idea of the appearance of a piece of furniture. Hence the great space which Sheraton devotes to the subject. An important section of the first part of the book is devoted to a consideration of the five Orders of Architecture as the base of classical design. The author even discusses their origin, which he suggests goes back to Solomon’s Temple, the dimension of the pillars of which he gives from Josephus. In parts the book is the quaintest mixture of morality and mechanics. Sheraton seems almost at times to feel that his rules of perspective even need justification by ethical law.
Sheraton’s notes on furnishiing in another book, the ” Cabinet Dictionary I (1803), are particularly interesting to students of old furniture as indicating the fashion of that day.  He says : ” In furnishing a good house for a person of rank, it requires some taste and judgment, that each apartment may have such pieces as is most agreeable to the appropriate use of the room.  And particular regard is to be paid to the quality of those who order a house to be furnished, when such order is left to the judgment of the up-holsterers ; and when any gentleman is so vain and ambitious as to order the furnishing of his house in a style superior to his fortune and rank, it will be prudent in an upholsterer, by some gentle hints, to direct his choice to a more moderate plan.”
This dangerous advice is one among many proofs that Sheraton’s moral scruples far outweighed his business acumen. He goes on to say : ” It is the business of an upholsterer not to recommend anything that would offend the known sentiments of his employer, when virtue and morality are not the question, but mere indifferent opinion.” . . . “But it is to be lamented, that both the pictures and prints of some gentlemen are but too sure indications of their looseness of principle ;  as to virtue and morality,
though these ought to be the principal ornaments of human life, which in no character shines more be-comingly than in the gentleman of rank.
The library,” says Sheraton, ” should be furnished in imitation of the antiques ; and such prints as are hung on the walls ought to be memorials of learning, and portraits of men of science and erudition.”
After a few hints as to the hanging of pictures in the  gallery of paintings,” and ad vice as to the prints of the muses in the music room, he gives particulars of the dining-room furniture. | The dining parlour must be furnished with nothing trifling, or which may seem unnecessary, it being appropriated for the chief repast, and should not be eneumbered with any article that would seem to intrude on the accommo-dation of the guests.
The large sideboard, inclosed or surrounded by Ionic pillars ; the handsome and extensive dining table ; the respectable and substantial looking chairs ; the large face glass ; the family portraits ; the marble fire places ; and the Wilton carpet; are the furniture that should apply to the dining room.”
Sheraton appears so overcome with the grandeur of the drawing-room that he omits to give any details of the furniture. But he is explicit as to the unsuitability of including such incongruous items as books, globes, and pictures ! ” Nothing,” he says, | of a scientific nature should be introduced to take up the attention of any individual, from the general conversation. . . .
Several plates show the proper disposition of furniture and the character of the decoration. The most interesting is that which illustrates the Prince of Wales’s Chinese drawing-room in Carlton House Terrace.   The author does not pretend that it is an exact drawing by any means. It was evidently a formal reception room and had none of that haphazard,
sketchy appearance with which we are familiar in modern drawing-rooms. Such casual treatment was permitted, apparently, only in the breakfast parlour or tea-room. The walls of the Prince’s room are panelled and hung with stretched silk having needlework with Chinese designs in embroidery. All the chairs are placed formally m position near the walls, there are pier tables under huge mirrors, a marble mantelpiece with looking-glass above, some square stools, and a large ottoman.
Some of Sheraton’s own remarks on this room may be quoted : ; The pier table under the glass is richly ornamented in gold. The top is marble and also the shelf at each end ; the back of it is composed of three panels of glass, the Chinese figure sitting on a cushion is metal and painted. The candle branches are gilt metal, the panels painted in the style of the Chinese ; the whole producing a brilliant effect.
The view contains an ottoman, or long seat ; extending the whole width of the room, and returning at each end about five feet. The Chinese columns are on the front of this seat, and mark out its boundaries. The upholstery work is very richly executed in figured satin, with extremely rich borders, all worked to suit the style of the room.”
A most curious arrangement is made for heating, for,  within this ottoman are two grand tripod candie-stands, with heating urns at the top, that the seat may be kept in a proper temperature in cold weather.   On the front of the ottoman before the columns are two censers containing perfumes, by which an agreeable smell may be diffused to every part of the room, preventing that of a contrary nature, which is the consequence of lighting a number of candies.
The carpet is worked in one entire piece, with a border round it, and the whole, in effect, though it may appear extravagant to a vulgar eye, is but suitable to the dignity of the proprietor.”
Sheraton shews another drawing-room which has similar characteristics.   There is a pier table opposite the fire-place having a high square mirror over it to correspond with the one over the mantelshelf.  Be-tween the four tall sash Windows are three console tables, and on the other side of the room a formal Sheraton settee with six arm-chairs.   No centre table, bookcase, china cabinet, horse screen, pole screen, or other piece of furniture having domestic interest is to be found in the late eighteenth century drawing-room, which was obviously copied from the French.   It is in the parlour and dining-rooms that the bulk of the furniture was seen.
The description of the Prince of Wales’s dining-room at Carlton House Terrace in one or two particulars suggests that the features seen there may be taken as indicating fashion in generai. They were not included exclusively for the Prince.
Sheraton says that there is ” a large glass over the chimney piece . . . to which are fixed candie-branches. At each end is a large sideboard, nearly twelve feet in length, standing between a couple of
Ionic columns, worked in composition to imitate fine
variegated marble, which have a most beautiful and magnificent effect. In the middle are placed a large range of dining tables, standing on pillars with four claws each, which is now the fashionable way of making these tables. The chairs are of mahogany, made in the style of the French, with broad top rails hanging over each back foot ; the legs are turned,” and the seats covered with red leather.” Sheraton remarks further : ” Many dining rooms of the first nobility have, however, only two columns and one sideboard, and those of less note have no columns.”
Collectors whose means do not permit them to compete in the auction-room for masterpieces may still find many bits of furniture of the Sheraton school well worth having, and at comparatively small pieces. In the chapter on Heppelwhite, distinctions have already been drawn between the chairs of the two designers, but a fuller analysis of the characteristics of Sheraton seats is necessary.
His best work was in solid satinwood, carved or painted.   He never succeeded, like Chippendale and Heppelwhite, in evolving a chair back which was peculiarly his own, but he certainly designed a large number of varying forms to which he imparted
recognisable character.   The amateur at once recog-
nises the typical Chippendale chair back with its
carved and pierced centre splat and bow-shaped crest-
rail.   He can see at a glance Heppelwhite’s shield back.
But there is no fundamental shape which we can say
is Sheraton’s.   It is rather in his treatment of designs
already known that Sheraton is distinctive, and that treatment is based upon angularity and accuracy of proportion. You will see, for instance, a Sheraton chair like the one opposite, obviously adapted from an Adam example, which has an almost unrelieved top rail above the lyre, another horizontal rail just above the seat level, and formal square legs decorated with fluting and carved feet.
Sheraton undoubtedly favoured the straight top-rail in his chair backs. He appears to have first thought of it as such, and then in response either to fashion or to a feeling within himself, to have modified it a little here and there. Sometimes one sees the middle third of the rail raised a quarter of an inch above the rest, the added thickness which resulted carved in short vertical flutings. The straight line, again, may be stopped short of the angles and dipped in a little concave curve to join the upright.
Where a Sheraton crest rail is slightly arched in the middle it appears as though the curve had been drawn with a pair of compasses, or struck from the two foci of an ellipse. It does not suggest the sweep of freehand drawing. The designer apparently thought in angles and admitted curves as modifications. In this no doubt he was constructionally right, particularly in developing an Anglicised version of Louis Seize which was in its essence a straight line style.
Sheraton chair legs, as already pointed out, may be looked upon as columns supporting the ends of the arms, with the seat junction an incident about two-thirds the way up.   In circular or turned legs he was undoubtedly the best interpreter of Louise Seize of his time. Heppelwhite and other makers used the turned leg, but collectors who find it in furniture of the late eighteenth century may assume that it denotes a Sheraton chair, table, or settee, unless there is conflicting evidence from some other part of the article. The carving will be in flutes, and the turning will show usually the thickest part about a quarter the way down from the top, just below a neck which in turn is under a square section decorated often with a carved patera. Sheraton feet run straight down in line with the leg. They do not splay out, excepting in the later examples which are adaptations from French Empire. In these instances it will usually be found that the backs curl over in convex fashion ” with broad top rails hanging over each back foot,’ as in the Prince of Wales’s dining-room.
Sideboards by Sheraton often have their front straight on plan, here again seeming to show that the designer regarded this as the fundamental une. The ends, however, were mostly convex, very rarely concave. The example at page 202 is interesting as showing features suggesting both Heppelwhite and Sheraton as the originator. It has a simple curved front with a top approaching the serpentine in shape. The treatment of the inlaid spandrils is very like Sheraton.
The side table with flanking pedestals and vases above had not given place to the fitted sideboard entirely, although the latter in Sheraton’s time must have begun to be very popular.   The author of the” Drawing Book * says that ” sideboards are often made without drawers of any sort, having simply a rail a little ornamented, and pedestals with vases at each end, which produce a grand effect.” This was no doubt precisely the case. If after 1780 or there-abouts a wealthy man with a large dining-room wished to express grandeur, he would have the side table and pedestals. But with Heppelwhite’s and Sheraton’s books to consult the country cabinet-maker could offer a very neat, composite piece of furniture to his clients who would doubtless prefer it, for reasons of space alone, if for no other consideration.
An interesting reference to sideboards with curved fronts occurs in the ” Drawing Book | which suggests that they were rather out of fashion to ten years before the end of the century. Sheraton says : ” It is not usual to make sideboards hollow in front, but in some circumstances it is evident that advantages will arise from it.   If a sideboard be required nine or ten feet long, as in some noblemen’s houses, and if the breadth of it be in proportion to the length, it will not be easy for a butler to reach across it.   I therefore think, in this case, a hollow front would obviate the difficulty, and at the same time have a very good effect, by taking off part of the appearance of the great length of such a sideboard.  Besides, if the sideboard be near the enter-ing door of the dining room, the hollow front will some-times secure the butler from the jostles of the other servants.”  A drawing and plan is given of such a sideboard, but it is over nine feet long, a most unusual length.
Small dining-rooms were often furnished in Sheraton’s day with sideboards having neither drawers nor pedestals. The custom was to place a wine cooler underneath, hooped with brass, partitioned and lined with lead for wine bottles. This attendant piece was easily accessible and took the place of cellaret drawers. It was occasionally used, however, in connection with sideboards which were fitted with cellarets, the arched opening in the centre of the larger piece of furniture being provided to enable the butler to get at the bottles beneath.
Dining tables at the end of the eighteenth Century were extremely well made, and even those showing Empire features can scarcely be regarded as having their appearance entirely spoiled.   Many patents were taken out for those which extended by means of loose leaves.   The ordinary useful dining tables about the year 1800 were supported upon pillars and claws, four claws to each pillar and running on brass castors. Both Heppelwhite and Sheraton curiously omit illustrations of dining tables in their works, but the former says :   ” For a Dining Room, instead of the Pier-tables, should be a set of dining tables,” and Sheraton gives a careful description of their mechanism in his dictionary.   Most of it is technical and of little interest to the collector, but it is evident that the tables were made any length to suit a particular room, ” by having a sufficient quantity of pillar and claw parts, for between each of these is a loose cap, fixed by means of iron straps and buttons, so that they are easily taken off and put aside.”   Sheraton used to allow in his calculation as to the size of these tables a space of two feet for each person sitting down. The patent tables of his day were made to draw out, loose flaps being enclosed in the piece to fall into place as required, an idea evidently the immediate forerunner of our extend-ing screw tables. Another patent dining table was on pillar and claw, but according to Sheraton ” the loose flaps cannot be mitred within the frame, but must be, when not used, put into some convenient place in the room where the dining table stands.”
Many pieces of Sheraton furniture made after 1800 are quite worth attention, if one allows for the fact that the best period of English furniture making was over. At the present time sofas of late Sheraton design, for instance, are cheap.   There is practically no demand for them.   But this will not always be the case, and the collector who makes money out of his hobby is he who buys at a low figure and bides his time for the market.  The character of these sofas is very easily recognised.   They have scroll ends, the legs are curved and splayed out and run on castors. The crest rail is usually perfectly straight, and the upholstery is horsehair as often as not.   Sheraton’s use of the splayed out legs at the latter period of his career was constant, and on the whole at this time they were the best support he designed.   His turned legs became vulgarised with the Empire influence, but this vulgarity did not appear so evident when French Empire was simply copied. Students of French work of this period will readily realise that it had character of its own, although it was heavy and pretentious.   But the Empire motif, clumsy and forbidding as it was, ruined Sheraton’s work entirely when he attempted to graft it on to his own delicately proportioned furniture.
Chair backs and the lattice work in bookcase doors which show diamond shaped divisions may generally be taken as later than 1800. Sheraton’s tracery in the best part of his career was flowing, even more so than that of Heppelwhite, but we see scarcely a curved one in the later glazed fronts. It is interesting to note that the revolt against wooden bedsteads on account of their supposed attraction for vermin came to a head at this time in the patenting of various methods of putting posts and rails together without having any crevices in which the insects could hide. Brass joints were used and when the posts and frame had been screwed together brass plates were fixed securely over at the point of junction. Some bedsteads had brass dovetail tenons which slipped into sockets of brass fixed in the pillars.
The four post bedstead had a long life after this, and Sheraton’s posts are particularly graceful and neatly ornamented. His schemes for upholstery were among the poorer parts of his work.
He designed three and four-back settees, sometimes upholstered, sometimes caned in back and seat. His dressing chests were often like chests of drawers when closed, the glass and other fitments being neatly packed away in the Upper compartment.
The short legs to such pieces are termed ” stump ” feet, the two inlaid cabinets at page 214 having them.

CHIPPENDALE FURNITURE. CHIPPENDALE TABLES, CHARS, BEDS, DRESSERS, CUPBOARDS, BEDS, SOFAS

NO style of furniture is better known to the average collector than Chippendale, yet no style  has  suffered  more  from  general ignorance about it.   The name appears to have caught the imaginations of collectors, apart from the huge prices realised at auction for authentic work of Chippendale.   Even to-day, when one would have thought the general characteristics of the style would be well known, it is not uncommon to hear auctioneers describe pieces of furniture as Chippendale which haveno more connection with the great cabinet-maker than they have with the great auk.   People rarely seem to mind this florid inaccuracy and most of the spectators at a sale do not appear to know it.   The name is a good one with which to advertise, and providing a piece of furniture looks more or less like mahogany in poor condition the seller is usually safe enough in describing it as Chippendale.   Alliteration, too, has done much to perpetuate the general belief that chairs were the principal work of Chippendale, and one is constantly finding their present price set up as a sort of standard by which to gauge values.   But for all this the fact remains that furniture by Chippendale is still the strongest magnet to draw those who are interested in eighteenth-century woodwork to any collection about to be brought under the hammer.
Authentic evidence of any piece of furniture having actually been made by Chippendale himself, or even turned out of his Workshops, is astonishingly rare, considering the immense inducements there are to find it.  For if the owner of a table, cabinet, bedstead, or side table supposed to be by Chippendale can bring documentary evidence in support of the claim the priee realised on selling may go up to almost anything, according to the competition there is among buyers. Considering the immense numbers of examples of Chippendale’s work in existence, which are generally accepted by experts as genuine, it is a very suspicious circumstance that more invoices and bills of the firm are not forthcoming to substantiate the belief in this authenticity.   The Chippendale firm must have had a big business in its dayЧindeed quite colossal if ail the pieces of furniture known by the name really came from the establishment, and after ail the period only dates back a Century and a half.   Mr. Percy Macquoid has given in his well-known work reproductions of bills from Chippendale, and Miss Constance Simon* also illustrates specimens.   But such documents themselves partake of the character of valuable manuscripts, so scarce are they, quite apart from their influence on the prices of furniture to which they allude. The fact is that Chippendale furniture in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred was made by Chippendale simply because authority asserts it. Proof is nearly always absent. The course taken is to conclude that if an article has the well-known decorative characteristics exploited by Chippendale, is exceptionally well designed and executed, and is old, then it is genuine.
Up to this time in English furniture no cabinet-maker had emerged as an individual.   Grinling Gibbons alone as a carver appears to have retained his per-sonality.   Daniel  Marot,  the  officiai  architect  to William III., as we have seen, influenced decoration and furniture considerably at the end of the seventeenth Century, but he was an imported expert and was not primarily a woodworker.  There must, of course, have been many extremely expert cabinet-makers in the later Stuart and early Georgian days, but they cannot be connected by name with any particular class of work.   Even if their names could be found, they would mean nothing to us.   But with Chippendale it was different.   He advertised himself, and it is largely through the advertisement of his book, ” The Gentle-man’s and Cabinet Maker’s Director,” that he has become so famous.   Original copies of this work (1754) are now exceedingly scarce, and if in perfect condition would bring ?50 or ?60 at auction.   Even editions subsequently published have appreciated in price, for collectors are glad to have for reference the principal means extant for authenticating Chippendale furniture.
Before dipping into the pages of the ” Director ” it will be helpful to give a few biographical details of the
family of the great cabinet-maker so as to fit him into his particular niche in the history of English furniture.
The first we hear of the family is that it was known in Worcestershire, where the great Chippendale’s father was a wood-carver of some local repute. There were three Chippendales concerned in the story of eighteenth-century cabinet-making, the last of whom succeeded his father in business and carried on the name with a partner named Haig, who subsequently retired. Miss Constance Simon gives the dates of the various developments of the Chippendales’ business through consulting records as follows :
The parish register of St. George’s Chapel, Mayfair, yields the information that a marriage was solemnised on the 10,th May, 1748, between Thomas Chippendale and Catherine Redshaw of St. Martin-in-the-Fields. Later on, ” at Christmas, 1749, Chippendale took a shop in Conduit Street, Long Acre, and in 1753 removed to larger premises N0. 60, St. Martin’s Lane.” The Gentleman’s Magazine, April 5th, 1755, says : ” A fire broke out in the Workshop of Mr. Chippendale, a cabinet-maker, near St. Martin’s Lane, which consumed the same, wherein were the chests of twenty-two workmen.” The Public Advertiser of 1766 is quoted as follows by Miss Simon : | Whereas by the Death of Mr. James Rannie, late of St. Martin’s Lane, Cabinet-Maker and Upholder, the partnership between him and Mr. Thomas Chippendale dissolved at his death, and the Trade will for the future be carried on by Mr. Chippendale on his own account.” The exact year of Thomas Chippendale’s death Miss Simon has found in an entry in the burial register of St. Martin’s Church. ” 1779 November 13, Thomas Chippendale.” In reference to the will, she also quotes under date of December, 1779: “On the sixteenth day, administration of the goods, chatteis, and credits of Thomas Chippendale, late of the parish of St. Martin’s in the ffields in the Co. of Middlesex, deceased, was granted to Elizabeth Chippendale widow, the relict of the said deceased, having been first sworn duly to administrate. ” After this event Chippendale’s eldest son succeeded to the business, Miss Simon’s consultation of directories yielding the following particulars :
The firm from 1779-1784 was styled Chippendale & Haig, but in 1785 Haig appears as the senior partner. Haig withdrew from the firm in 1796. In 1814 Chippendale opened a shop in the Haymarket, N0. 57, and for four years carried on the old St. Martin’s Lane business simultaneously with the new venture. In 1821 he removed to 42 Jermyn Street.” Miss Simon also notes that the will of this Thomas Chippendale was proved by Sarah Wheatley on 28th January, 1823.
A simple table of biographical details may be more useful to the average reader than further quotations which would only serve to elaborate facts already well authenticated.
FATHER
1720-1725. Approximate time of the first Thomas Chip-pendale removing from Worcestershire to London with his son, who became the famous cabinet-maker.
SON
1748.Marriage of the second Thomas Chippendale.
1748.His establishment of a shop in Conduit Street,
Long Acre.
1749.Removal to 60, St. Martin’s Lane.
1753.    His publication of У The Gentleman’s and Cabinet Maker’s Director.”
1766.  Death of Thomas Chippendale’s partner, Mr.
James Rannie. 1779.  Death of the second Thomas Chippendale.

GRANDSON
1779-1784. Partnership of the third Thomas Chippen-dale and Thomas Haig.
1796.  Withdrawal of Haig from the business.
1814.   Chippendale’s shop opened in the Haymarket.
1821.  Removal of the business to Jermyn Street.
1823. Proving of the third and last Thomas Chippen-dale’s will.
Now although the interest of the history of the family of Chippendale for a hundred years chiefly centres round the middle period when the most famous of the three cabinet-makers was in full work, collectors will find specimens dating from about 1780 very common. But they lack, as a rule, the character which distinguished the earlier work, and show evidence of the change in fashion which was asking for stiff, attenuated forms and inlay in place of substantial suavity and carving.
Reference has already been made to the walnut settee  as in some respects reminiscent of the work of Chippendale. At one time, indeed, it was actually catalogued as dating from 1760-1780. Ob-viously this was putting it very late, but the form of the ball and claw legs and the carving on the knees are very like Chippendale work about 1740. The legs of this piece may be usefully compared with those of the stool opposite, which show the C form on the insides of the knees.
The C form which is found over and over again in Chippendale’s work has been rather fancifully attributed to the cabinet-maker’s delight in introducing the first letter of his name into his carving.  A similar notion is abroad about the S shape in seventeenth-century work, which, as noted in chapter five, is regarded by the very imaginative as being derived from the first letter of Stuart.   But the C form is found in Louis Quinze decoration in profusion everywhere, and Chippendale is known to have been strongly influenced by French work of his day.   The gilt girandole in Room 56 of the Victoria and Albert Museum, acquired in 1913, is an excellent illustration of Chippendale’s French rococo manner.
It is very much the wisest plan for the modest collector to regard the name of Chippendale as indicating a style in furniture, and not as that of an individual. There is plenty of character about the style, but there is very little recognisable evidence of individual work about any one article. A piece of furniture is not like a picture, which affords so wide a field for the manifestation of the artist’s personality.
Again, it was never the custom to sign pieces of furniture as pictures are signed. Yet there seems to be an idea abroadЧmore with regard to Chippendale than any other worker in woodЧthat pieces of furniture can be identified as actually having been made by one particular person. The collector may make up his mind that if he waits for proof of such authorship in the case of any English eighteenth Century cabinet-maker before buying, he will never become possessed of anything. Even in cases which can be proved by documentary evidence as having come from the firm of Chippendale, there is no certainty that the great Thomas Chippendale actually did the work with his own hands. If the paragraph in the Gentleman’s Magazine already quoted shews anything clearly beyond the fact that Mr. Chippendale had a Workshop, it is that in that Workshop no fewer than twenty-two cabinet-makers were regularly employed. These considerations, however, do not detract from the fame of the master whose influence on the furniture of his day was so manifest.
It is difficult to attempt a broad definition which will enable the novice to recognise Chippendale furniture when he sees it, because the style passed through so many different phases. Yet some such generalisation appears necessary to start with so that the collector can form a rough idea of its main characteristics.
Chippendale furniture is made most frequently entirely of mahogany, with carved enrichment, and no inlay. Its construction is sturdy, but its ornamentation often exceedingly light and fragile.   Most of it
shews skilful exploitation of curvilinear forms. Fretted or pierced ornamentation is common, and in generalthe design of the decoration foliows Louis XV. models. Old Chippendale furniture in colour is inclined to brown, often becoming deep chocolate with an almost metallic looking patina.   It is never a hot red.   The following articles are commonly found in old Chippendale : chairs, stools, settees, commodes, dining tables, side tables, bookcases, card tables, basin stands, wine coolers, tripod tables, picture and mirror frames, writing tables, brackets, wardrobes, console and pier tables, organ cases, bureaux, secretaires, tall-boys, candlestands, clock cases, china cabinets, fire-screens, tea-caddies, bedsteads, and chests of drawers.
As far as can be ascertained Chippendale never made a sideboard as we understand the term. Even his side tables rarely had a drawer in them. The piece of furniture exploited by Heppelwhite and Sheraton with its flanking cupboards and drawer between is never to be seen in Chippendale furniture. The brothers Adam, it is true, had pieces of furniture made by Chippendale to their design, which at first consisted of a side table with separate pedestals having cupboards on which stood knife cases or butlers’ urns. Later these separate pieces were incorporated into the well-known Adam sideboards.
The principal phases of decorative character exploited by the great cabinet-maker were three, but it must be understood in giving them that they are not necessarily to be found separately in separate pieces of furniture.  Frequently they are mixed together, not   always very successfully.   But they followed one another in point of time.
The first of the three was the mainspring of Chippen-dale’s decoration up to about 1750, after which the Chinese craze came in and continued up to about 1765, when the Gothic taste began to supersede it.  Late Chippendale furniture shews frequently the influence of Louis Seize ornamentation, with which, however, its true character has nothing in common.  After the death of the great Thomas Chippendale in 1779, the firm in its later development made furniture according to the demands for classical work brought in by R. and J. Adam, who commissioned the cabinet-makers to construct to their designs.   Very fine examples of this phase are to be seen in three mahogany chairs made by Chippendale from designs by Adam and in the possession of the Worshipful Company of Drapers.  These chairs have nothing in their design which is charac-teristic of what we know as true Chippendale.  They have fine oval backs fretted out in wheel fashion and the legs are tapered in the fashion of Heppelwhite, and finished with ” term ” feet.
It is difficult to see how the great Chippendale, who it is surmised must have been born in the reign of Queen Anne, could have been influenced in this work by Louis Quatorze furniture, though it is sometimes stated that his earlier work shows evidence of it.
Louis Quinze came to the throne of France in 1715 and was succeeded by Louis Seize in 1774, and French writers have within recent years argued that the style in French decorative art known as Louis Quinze in reality began long before the death of the Grand Monarque.
Mr. G. Owen Wheeler, in his valuable work on furniture,* has gone to great pains to establish his contention that Chippendale was fully acquainted with Chinese forms in decoration before the return of Sir William Chambers who is usually credited with the introduction of the Chinese vogue into England from the East, and the reasons he gives seem certainly convincing, it He points out that Chambers, who had left England in 1744 at the age of eighteen for the East Indies, only returned in 1755 and published the book of Oriental designs he had collected two years afterwards, whereas in 1754 Chippendale’s ” Director ” contained Chinese designs which he issued in the hope of improving  the Chinese taste.” Mr. Wheeler brings more evidence of a similar character to bear.
Sir William Chambers, it appears to the writer, can in this connection only be regarded as a convenient name wherewith to indicate a revival in the taste for Chinese art, which had fitfully been in evidence in various forms since the time of Charles II. Chippendale in his extensive borrowings from the French must have obtained Oriental detail with the debased rococo features he exploited. For the French had used this detail considerably, not only in schemes of lacquered and painted decoration, but also for the general structure of pieces of furniture. M. Andre Sag Ho points out that in studying the most rococo examples of the furniture of the Louis XV  period, such as some of the works of Meissonier or Jacques Cafheri, for instance, there is no difficulty in discovering Chinese detail. French as well as English travellers like Sir William Chambers went to the East and returned laden with ideas to incorporate into Western art.
Examination of Chippendale’s famous publication, ” The Gentleman’s and Cabinet Maker’s Direct or,” shows the list of subscribers to the first edition to have numbered 317, of whom 149 are returned as cabinet-makers, joiners, upholders, and others engaged in the furnishing trade. The rest of the subscribers are l* noblemen and gentlemen | whom Chippendale ap-peals to in his preface to believe that if they will only honour him with their commands  every design in the book can be improved … in the execution of it.”
The places of residence of the many cabinet-makers who subscribed are not given in the majority of cases, but from those which appear it is evident the publication had a widespread circulation. A number are returned as having been sent to subscribers in York and Liverpool, Nottingham and Scarborough, as well as London.
The object of the book is fully explained in the preface and appears to have been twofold, to assist the buyer in the choice of designs, and the maker in the execution of them. There are a hundred and sixty plates, with descriptive letterpress to each one, and as careful measurements are given of the pieces of furniture illustrated, the publication must have been of great service to the trade. The significance of the ” Director ! to collectors of to-day is the
Chippendale’s work as distinguished from that of his contemporaries, and the assistance it gives in identifying genuine pieces. But the embarrassing fact is that some of the features we regard as being essentially Chippendale are not to be found illustrated in the work, notably the bail and claw foot, and many of the engraved plates show designs for pieces of furniture which the author never executed. The discrepancies have been explained by students of old English furniture in various ways.
Perhaps the appeal of the book to the two classes, gentlemen and cabinet-makers, and its date (1754) will together show why the work appeared as it did. Chippendale appealed to gentlemen as prospective customers, so he showed them articles of the latest fashion which in decorative character partook of a mixture of rococo, Chinese, and Gothic details.   He was asking wealthy and aristocratie people for commissions to execute fine and elaborate work. Obviously it would have been of no use putting before these the plain, unadorned furniture of the farmhouse, or the old-fashioned claw and bail which had been in use for half a century.   Then cabinet-makers would need no instruction in perfectly plain work which they had been turning out more or less according to tradition for the same period of time.   They would want some-thing in fashion which would help them in their work for fashionable people. It seems to the writer that Chippendale advertised the new, the fashionable, and the elaborate, and left the plain and homely alone as being scarcely worthy of the expense of copperplates.
The book starts with a bow of veneration to the Five Orders of Architecture, and a few rules as to how to draw in perspective, the rest of the work being taken up with examples of many different pieces of furniture.   Notwithstanding  the  rules,  many  of  the pieces are in  most villainous perspective and  it requires little imagination to agree with Chippendale in his statement that in work the designs will be vastly improved.  He notes in his preface that some of the profession have been diligent enough to represent them (especially those after the Gothic and Chinese manner) as so many specious drawings, impossible to be worked off by any mechanic whatsoever.” “It is not altogether surprising that they did take this point of view, for the detail in some of the plates is far too elaborate for woodwork, and as far as we know never was carried out.
A great many pieces of plain Chippendale furniture (using the name in its broad sense) which were made subsequently to the publication of the ” Director ” might well have been copied minus most of the ornament directly from the pages of the book.   For there are chairs, bookcases, tables, chests of drawers, china cabinets, settees, and other pieces which a good cabinet-maker would translate easily enough without the costly enrichments, yet still retain the essential characteristics of the style.   The hundred and forty-nine craftsmen who obtained possession of the book by subscription, one may be sure, used it in their Workshops and did a good deal to multiply the ” Chippendale ” furniture found so easily all over the country to-day.
The following list of pieces of furniture made by Chippendale or cabinet-makers of his school is given to enable the collector to identify some of the common characteristics of the style.
Tables.Supported on cabriole legs with ball and claw foot, or with legs square in section, finished with brackets, often perforated, in angle between top of leg and horizontal rail. A Chinese fret will sometimes be found on legs and rails. Dining tables are rare. They have the cabriole or square legs, and big, rather cumbrous flaps supported when up by legs which swing out as brackets.
Chairs.Cabriole legs with ball and claw in earlier specimens, with backs having perforated splat resemb-ling in general formation Queen Anne models.   Crest rail sometimes straight, but more frequently curved in one of the many bow-shaped interpretations of the period.  Arms padded in those which have upholstered backs.  The backs of those having perforated splats . composed in fine specimens of ribbons with rococo detail.   Rococo detail carved below the seat and on the knees of the legs.   The C scroll commonly in evidence, often in the chair backs and in the angles between seat and legs.   In specimens having square legs the Chinese fret is often employed, and there may be an underframing perforated or fretted out to correspond.   So-called ” French ” Chippendale chairs feet formed of scrolls taken from Louis Quinze examples. Gothic detail is seen in frets designed in imitation of lancet Windows.
Bookcases. Often made with the centre projecting a few inches, the wings being thus set back. Small ones four or five feet wide will be on the same plane without projection. The cornice with dentils may have a broken pediment and a centre ornament. There will be glazed doors, and in the lower part cupboards or drawers. Perforated decoration is often a feature of the top inside the angles of the broken pediment.
China Cabinets. Sometimes standing on four legs, square in section and decorated with frets ; at other times with the lower part filled in with cupboards and designed with a projecting centre like the bookcases. Chinese frets form a cresting above the cornice and there is frequently a pagoda-shaped top over, enriched with Louis Quinze detail. Top part frequently, but not always, glazed on three sides. The cornice above centre part may be surmounted with a scrolled or horn-shaped top filled in with fret perforation. If the lower part is not filled in the legs may be connected by a decoratively arranged underframing. Plain examples of Chippendale china cabinets usually have cupboards in the lower parts.
Bureaux. Made with a bookcase above enclosed by two doors or by a china cupboard. The lower part may stand on ogee feet and have four or five drawers with a hinged slab for writing. Above the cornice the broken pediment may occur, and sometimes a crown silver and border of greene damaske round it  and feathers will be in the centre, perforated frets being employed as well. Fittings inside the bureau follow Queen Anne models closely as to their arrangement, but the carved decoration is Chinese, Gothic, or Louis Quinze.
Side Tables.Long and fairly narrow, a common proportion for a small piain one being five feet long by two feet six inches wide. They have no drawer and stand on square legs finished with moulded or terminal feet. The carved cabriole with pad or claw and bail feet is also seen. In fine specimens the legs are perforated or ornamented with Gothic strap-work or Chinese frets.
Tripod Tables.Made, as their name indicates, to stand on three spreading legs, from the junction of which a carved and turned column rises to support a circular, square, or shaped top. This top has a ” gallery ! round it, often fretted out. A common edging in the shaped topped tables is the ” pie-crust ” which forais a boundary to a dished out centre.
Candlestands.On tripod feet with a more or less decorated column supporting a circular or shaped tray.
Clock Cases.Arched door to face. Case long and narrow, the waist having columns at the sides.   Gothic or Chinese fretted ornaments in spandrils over face, in frieze and possibly in the angle pilasters.   A pagoda-like dome with carved finials.
Tea Caddies.Not square and box-like, but more resembling caskets with curved sides and carved corners and feet.   Fitted inside with small compartments.
Writing Tables. In principle constructed much like our modern pedestal writing desks with drawer at each side of a central opening for the knees. Sometimes the angles were rounded, and rare shapes are serpentine fronted. Angle columns are also seen in elaborate tables. Lion feet and masks above are characteristic but rare.
Settees and Sofas. Those with open backs are often of the two and three chair variety, carved with ribbon work, and C scrolls. The ” apron i or front rail below the stuffed seat may also be carved with gadroon and other ornaments. Chinese frets occasionally form the backs, and square legs are connected by rails. Carved bail and claw feet are common.
Chests of Drawers. Sometimes double or ” tall-boy ” with frieze and angle pilasters fretted in Chinese or Gothic style. The feet are ogee or square bracketed. The low chests of drawers have a simple wave moulding, the ” tall-boys I a cornice.
China Shelves. Usually examples of elaborate fret-work and small carved detail. They have no backs and are made to hang on the wall. Hanging cup-boards of similar character are sometimes to be met with having glazed fronts and wooden backs.   The shelves are sometimes ornamented with carved edging and a cresting of perforated work surrounds the
Beds. These had beautifully carved posts, sometimes made up of cluster columns, decorated with twisted ribbon work. The cresting above the cornice was a feature, being elaborately carved and perforated, the Louis XV. interpretation of acanthus and endive ornaments being used on many examples. Lions-paw feet are seen, but more commonly the posts are plinth-like at the bottom with terminal ends.
From the writings of Horace Walpole, whose voluminous letters might, one would have thought, have contained some gossipy reference to Chippendale, we get little to assist us in forming an idea of an interior of the eighteenth century with furniture from the fashionable cabinet-maker. But in a letter dated March 27th, 1760, to George Montagu, he gives an entertaining description of a house which might easily have been furnished with articles made from recipes culled from the ” Director ” published six years before.
” I breakfasted the day before yesterday at Elia Loelia Chudleigh’s. The house is not fine nor in good taste, but loaded with finery. Execrable varnished pictures, chests, cabinets, commodes, tables, stands, boxes, riding on one another’s backs and loaded with terreens, figures, and everything upon earth. Every favour she has bestowed is registered by a bit of Dresden china.   There is a glass case full of enamels, eggs, ambers, lapislazuli, carneos, toothpick cases, and all kinds of trinkets, things that she told me were her playthings ; another cupboard fu 11 of the finest japan, and candlesticks and vases of rock crystal ready to be thrown down in every corner.”
Although the house was not. according to Horace Walpole, in good taste, it would scarcely be fuller of incongruous articles than Strawberry Hill, where he went to live in 1747.  The published catalogue of the contents of this house makes it one vast museum of curiosities, and the references to furniture there are comparatively few. Yet he must have been furnishing when Chippendale was at the zenith of his fame. But Walpole had apparently no love for the new and fashionable, and was even critical of Adam’s work at Osterley. His letter to the Rev. William Mason, dated July 10th, 1778, refers to :
” the new apartments at Osterley Park. The first chamber a drawing room, not a large one, is the most superb and beautiful that can be conceived, and hung with Gobelin tapestry, and enriched by Adam in his best taste, except that he has stuck diminutive heads in bronze no bigger than a half-crown, into the chimney pieces of hair.’ The next is a light plain green velvet bedchamber. The bed is of green satn richly embroidered with colours, and with eight columns; too theatric and too like a modern head-dress, for round the outside of the dome are festoons of artificial flowers. What would Vitruvius think of a dome decorated by a milliner ! The last chamber, after these two proud rooms, chills you! It is called the Etruscan, and is painted all over like Wedgwood’s ware, with black and yellow small grotesques.  Even the chairs are of painted wood. It would be a pretty waiting room in a garden. I never saw such a profound tumble into the Bathos. It is going out of a palace into a potter’s field. Tapestry, carpets, glass, velvet, satin, are ail attributes of winter. There could be no excuse for such a cold termination, but its containing a cold bath next to the bed chamber and it is called taste to join these incongruities ! I hope I have put you in a passion.”
These chairs Mr. Macquoid states were made by Chippendale, though in design they are Adam. Like the chairs in the possession of the Drapers’ Company, already alluded to, they illustrate the way in which Chippendale was employed to make furniture quite different in character from that which is usually associated with his name. There is an arm-chair in the Victoria and Albert Museum given by Mr. R. Berens, made of beech veneered with walnut and sycamore and having a cane seat which is notwithstanding its marquetry.
After the death of the great Thomas Chippendale the firm became more and more the executera of designs by other people, and in the early nineteenth century nothing to distinguish it from other makers all furniture. It by quite possible that some all the debased Empire work which characterised Engiish furniture after 1800 was made in the workshops of the last Chippendale.

Four English designers - Chippendale, rococo over the mantel mirror Adam, insect butterfly cabinet paris museum style Hepplewhite and Sheraton
English furniture of the second half of the eighteenth century was dominated by four ‘giants’ Chippendale, antique chippendale sideboard Adam, distressed round wooden tables, england Hepplewhite and Sheraton. In a resume of this size a brief look at the work of these men should be enough to show the very great heights to which English furniture rose in the period. But any further study must include examination and appreciation of the work of other extremely fine designers and craftsmen of the time, rectangular drop leaf dining table such as Kent, antique 3 drawer commode Vile, steinzeug pottery Cobb, cupboard neoclassical Ince, round mahogany antique dining table los angeles Mayhew and Linnell, antique drum table restoring leather inlay not to mention the creative work of a number of gifted and imaginative architects.
Thomas Chippendale was born in Yorkshire in 1718. By 1748 he was in London in business as a cabinet-maker, 20th century hepplewhite style sideboard and five years later he moved to a house in St Martin’s Lane, seventeenth century english wood carving which he occupied until his death in 1779. St Martin’s Lane was an astute choice, kakiemon tripod candlestick for two of the country’s top painters lived there, antique sideboard uses Sir Joshua Reynolds and Sir James Thornhill, antique dresser/cabinet made by los angeles furniture co. the patron of Hogarth. In 1754 Chippendale produced a book of furniture
designs called The Gentleman and Cabinet Maker’s Director.
It was not the first work to contain designs for furniture, j.w.benson carrage clocks as de Vries and Ducerceau (see pages 27 and 30) among others had produced design books, antique military chest of drawers but it was the first to consist entirely of drawings of furniture by a furniture-maker, antique buffets identifying and it was an instant success. It was reprinted the next year and again in a larger edition from 1759 to 1762, frederick james halnon and it had a decisive effect on English styles for at least a decade.
At this time English furniture-makers were dabbling with Rococo designs and also with Chinese and Gothic styles. Chippendale adopted all three and modelled them in a sharply individual manner. He adorned his
furniture with exquisite fretwork in the Chinese taste, steel cabinet cabriole legs employing it for the edges of tables, mahogany desks edwardian doors of cabinets, louis 14 ceramic inlaid boudoir tables canopies of beds. He also designed Chippendale four-poster bed in the Chinese style, verlys with pagoda top, italian cupboards now at Badminton House, lamp manufacturers, f in hexigon, deco era Gloucestershire. This style of furniture was popular in the mid 18th century and sometimes executed chairs in the Gothic taste, kidney-shaped over the chair tray tables with ecclesiastical-type splat-backs and top rails. He decorated some pieces after the French manner with Rococo motifs, rouenpottery combining shell ornaments with his own ideas. Principal pieces in his Rococo style were chests of drawers, calamander brass inlay sofas, plinth bronze bust china
cabinets, carved medieval lion mask writing tables, friezes cupboard dressing tables and bureau-bookcases. They were made chiefly of mahogany of the best grain and figure, georgian pie crust pedestal end tables which looked marvellous after waxing and polishing. The styles he devised were often
such that the ordinary country carpenter could emulate with little difficulty, 1920s reproduction settee set even if without the exquisite refinement of the master craftsman. This is why there is so much furniture today which is described in sales and shops alike as Country Chippendale. It was copied in his time and it has also been ever since.
Chippendale himself appears to have made very little furniture, barley twist antique chairs 1700’s and only a few pieces can safely be ascribed to his hand, 5 legged gateleg table through bills made out by him to purchasers. The Chippendale armchair in the Gothic taste
owner of Nostell Priory was billed by Chippendale for a table for 72 10s. Chippendale ceased to hold the centre of the stage after the advent of Adam in the decade 1760 to 1770, origins of the chicken coop chair but, antique oak and bamboo settee quick to see which way the wind was blowing, antique chaise lounge styles scrolling head and foot rest he accepted commissions from Adam to make furniture in the Neoclassical style, directoire breakfront which Adam was pioneering in architecture and furniture.
Robert Adam was born in Scotland in 1728, dressing table chairs old brass the son of an architect. He and his three brothers studied under their father at Edinburgh. Then in 1753 Robert went to Italy to continue his training, cama de bilros and he fell under the
spell of the new Italian ideas which derived directly from the recent discoveries at the excavations at Pompeii and Herculaneum. He got to know Piranesi who by his etchings had done so much to popularize the Classical Revival. Adam grasped the importance of relating interiors to exteriors of buildings, rene lalique porcelain lamps with nude women and when he returned to Britain in 1758 he had already formulated a whole series of new ideas of architecture and schemes of interior decoration. We are not concerned here with his architectural ideas (see Architecture in the all-colour paperbacks series), dining chair with wide center splat but in decoration he based his modes on ancient Roman motifs, antique campaign box such as strings of flowers, antique round split pedestal dining table formal shell ornaments, empire sideboards palm leaves and disciplined scrolls of foliage. He produced a vast number of drawings, victoria s roll desk many of which are now in the Sir John Soane’s Museum, beau mercier watch lady’s baumatic London. They included a whole range of items of furniture, antique corner hutch pine which were only part of the whole interior of a house.
Adam was commissioned both to design and build new houses and decorate them, antique claw foot double pedestal table and to redecorate existing ones. Among his important works were remodelling Harewood House and Nostell Priory in Yorkshire and Syon House and Osterley Park in Middlesex. At Osterley he commissioned Linnell to make furniture, baloon back chairs round cane seat including a pair of bow-front commodes in the Neo-classical style. Occasionally, 1630 english gothic hall chairs Adam furniture was painted to fit into the general colour schemes of his rooms, identifying 19th century cane chair types some of which were executed by such distinguished artists as Angelica Kauffmann and Cipriani.
Adam chairs had new forms, robert rutland spoons straight tapered turned legs, claw leg cherrywood dressers fluted, antique english windsor chairs reeded or plain. Backs were often oval within a plain wood frame, french stile chair legs the wood being mahogany or beechwood. The
influence of French ideas was here and there evident, antique drop leaf oak table with trestle footed although nothing displaced the predominance of Adam’s own individuality. One of the finest emulators of his ideas was George Hepplewhite.
Hepplewhite is something of a mystery. His beginnings are unknown and his date of birth unrecorded. He learned the trade of cabinet-making in Lancashire and set up in business in London. He was active from about 1775 to his death in 1786. Two years after his death his widow published a book of his drawings of furniture styles called The Cabinet-Maker and Upholsterer’s Guide, ballon back chairs and it was this which made him famous. It was the first book of its kind since Chippendale’s Director. It had nearly 300 illustrations, antique german cupboards a great many of which reveal the influence of Adam. Much of the furniture is designed to be made of mahogany, 1920 dining sets with satinwood inlay, antique oak tallboy dresser or marquetry in the French manner.
Many of Hepplewhite’s designs were not unlike those of Chippendale’s later years. These were less classical than Adam styles, pull sides antique expanding table and curves abounded, half moon pedestal desk-biedermeier especially in chests of drawers’ fronts and feet, what are a set of six silver apostle spoon worth cabinets, antique royal worcester potpourri jar h and chair
backs. It is for chair backs in fact that Hepplewhite is best known, bronzes de m.bouval although
Tnis bow-fronted satinwood commode, antique qashqai rug one of a pair made in the Adam manner by Linnell in about 1770, antique french art deco club chair is at Osterley Park, biedermeier sofa Middlesex
Two designs for chairs with shield-backs, antique table with roman engraving on wood below glass top from The Cabinet-Maker and Upholsterer’s Guide, china cabinet, 1930s, danish, blonde wood, weight published by Hepplewhite’s widow in 1788
Armchair designed in the Adam style for the drawing room at Saltram House, antique bail oval handle Devonshire, style buffet fluted legs in about 1770. The ornament beneath the front seat rail is an unusual form of English decoration
he might well have wished otherwise, antique, buffet, doors for his solid piece are very beautiful indeed. Many different chair backs figure in the book, breakfront bookcase and bar the most popular being the shield-back with < variety of splats inside. One favourite
inside pattern rang( incorporated Prince of Wales ostrich feathers. The chair: have square or turned legs, escritoire antique oak the former sometimes with spade feet.
The variety of Hepplewhite pieces was extensive: ward. robes, antique bottles with gold leaf decoration with or without oval door panels of satinwood, georgian mahogony sloped front bureau bookcase with or without three or four drawers underneath; chests of drawers sideboards in many shapes and sizes, antique red dutch table
bow-fronted, victorian washstand straight or serpentine; sofas with upholstered backs and sides, south carolina stoneware jug decorated of with backs formed by three or four splat-backs joined in a row; card tables with fine inlay or marquetry; Pembroke tables, rococo england chippendale s-curve with rectilinear flaps with rounded ends or serpentine edged flaps, george 11 carved mahogany side table inlaid or banded in satinwood. Not one piece of furniture, 2 pedestal antique 1800 century however, antique furniture book exists that can be ascribed definitely tc Hepplewhite as the maker, mahogeny wood drop leaf dining room table and in his own time he enjoyed no fame. And yet, myott son & co shakespeare if comparisons are permissible, antique dresser / carved leaf handles Hepplewhite furniture is finer and more graceful than Chippendale.
The last of the giants was Thomas Sheraton, bronze archer figure a man of violent opinions and with little tolerance of other mortals, small box hasps who lost his reason in the last years of his life. He was born at Stockton-on-Tees in 1751. He studied as a draughtsman-designer and journeyman cabinet-maker. For a while he made a precarious living, maghogany pie crust shelf two-tier claw supplying designs to other cabinet-makers. He does not appear to have had either shop or workshop in London, curly maple antique chest of drawers nor is there any furniture that can be attributed to him.
Between 1791 and 1794 Sheraton published a book of furniture designs, period furniture company italian chest in sections. It was full of advice and also of criticism. He considered that Chippendale styles were antiquated and that Hepplewhite styles had
‘caught the decline.’ There is no doubt, early oak coffer 1725 however, antique game tables from 1930s about the very high quality of his own designs, english walnut stool which were in many respects more original. This is abundantly evident from the many pieces of furniture that were made
according to his designs in his time and afterwards. Sheraton preferred delicate furniture, tambour desk for sale which was light in colour, old victorian 8 drawer mahogany dresser including painted pieces, antique french renaissance style trunk for linens and valuables-oak late 1700 and he specified that many items were best made in satinwood or other light tropical woods. His designs are straighter than Hepplewhite’s
and so closer to Adam. They had a strong influence on furniture at the end of the century, silver toilet set not only in England but also abroad.
Sheraton designed a number of intricate pieces, antique german blue white pitcher 1700’s some of them for women, small antique half table such as small graceful cylinder-top desks, louis xiv style dining room 1880 oak dressing tables, south carolina stoneware jug decorated work tables and games tables. The mahogany used was often brought into relief by light inlay or banding in satinwood. In particular, antique cedar chest value july 25th 1929 his chairs were favoured in most large houses. The backs were straight rather than curved, antique curule chair square rather than oval, large modern dining tables from france and often in-filled with classical motifs. A series of six designs illustrates this theme.
One piece of furniture with which Sheraton is associated, kashan trefoil but which he did not invent, splayed reeded leg was the Carlton House table. It is an unusual and very fine article, blue cut glass pair lustres especially if made in satinwood.
Sheraton spent the last years of his life writing about furniture, oak dining room chairs 1800 not overlooking opportunities of criticizing both predecessors and contemporaries alike, small chest made from ivory with sustained impatience. The increasing instability of mind which in the end rendered him insane is reflected in his last works. Despite his very great skill and originality and his high reputation he died impoverished in 1806. And with him died the last major individual influence in English furniture history.
Serpentine-fronted Hepplewhite style sideboard of the late 18th century