Early 18th Century Walnut Table

[jacon4]

I had always assumed that oak secondary wood on early furniture was NOT American and, generally speaking that is correct. However, as is usual with very old furniture there are ALWAYS exceptions to these rules as new research emerges to challenge the conventional theories.
It is now known that at least one area in the american colonies did use oak as a secondary wood in furniture building in the years 1700-1740. That area is the Delaware River Valley and includes, Southeastern Pennsylvania, Philadelphia-Camden-Wilmington, PA-NJ-DE-MD.
I found this table that is up for sale this week & i think it's american, C. 1710-1730, built somewhere in the valley, probably Philly area.

[jacon4]

more pics

[jacon4]

last ones

[mart]

Well,, its definitely not an English piece !!  And I do not see anything wrong with the form ect,, !!  All looks right !! Oak was one of the most common woods,, could it be a little later ??  You know the closer to 1800 the more oak was used ??

[jacon4]

No, don't think any other colonies/areas used oak in secondary wood furniture construction, it was like they came out of the pilgrim period ( where everything was oak, primary & secondary) and they wanted nothing more to do with oak till 1900. And, it's a fairly small area we are talking about here where oak was used at all and they only used oak secondary here between 1700-1740.

[jacon4]

A couple points that come to mind about this oak "thing" in 1700 america. First off, joiners were losing their grip on the furniture trade, cabinetmakers were now dominate. Another thing is, joiners when making furniture were working with "green" oak which is fairly easy to carve, plane, etc, when "wet". On the other hand, oak that has been dried to say 10-15% moisture content which is preferred by cabinetmakers is notoriously HARD and difficult to work & tough on tools as well.
This is all pure speculation on my part, i have no evidence to back up these guesses.

[cogar]

No, don't think any other colonies/areas used oak in secondary wood furniture construction,

Now iffen that table is “C. 1710-1730, built somewhere in the valley”, …… then there is a slight possibility of mistaken identity, to wit:   

American pioneers commonly used chestnut wood to build furniture. This was partly due to the abundance of chestnut trees in eastern part of the country and partly due to the fact that the wood was easy to work with. Chestnut is easily sanded and it looks excellent with just about any finish. Antique American chestnut furniture is highly desirable and difficult to find in its original condition and finish.
http://www.furniture-refinishing-guide.com/articles/chestnut-furniture/

[cogar]

oak that has been dried to say 10-15% moisture content which is preferred by cabinetmakers is notoriously HARD and difficult to work & tough on tools as well.

Right you are, ...... it will take the "edge" off of the bestest steel blades and/or drill bits.

[jacon4]

Now iffen that table is “C. 1710-1730, built somewhere in the valley”, …… then there is a slight possibility of mistaken identity, to wit:

No, don't think so, with chestnut lumber, the "rays" are not visible except with a microscope. In second post, second photo down of back of drawer, look at those "rays" or figure in that wood, very little doubt that it's white oak.

[mart]

Well,, the oak in this table was surely not green when the table was made !!  Would have likely fell apart by now due to the shrinkage after drying !!  Joints are good and tight here !!    Is there any provenance with this table ??
I am not familiar with Chestnut grain,, but this is oak secondary wood !! 
Another thing about attributing furniture to any particular area,, I think they just used whatever they had that would work with that application !!  I am not sure that any of the makers really thought twice about what would not be seen !!  And they would follow what those before them had done over the years !!  Change did not come easily !!

[jacon4]

Well,, the oak in this table was surely not green when the table was made !!  Would have likely fell apart by now due to the shrinkage after drying !!

Not if it was "riven" or split when green. Oak that is riven is split along it's natural "radial plane" and is incredibly stable, even after centuries. Oak doesn't split, crack , check or shrink when it's riven "green" and "joined" with "draw bore" mortise & tenon joints as was done for centuries in furniture building.

[jacon4]

Alrighty then!Last Friday, I fired off an email complete with pics & info i had gathered to Christopher Storb, who is the Dietrich American Foundation Project Conservator at the Philadelphia Museum of Art. I just got an email back from Chris and according to him

Dear James,


Thank you for sending me the images of the table. Oak was definitely used as a secondary wood in the Delaware River Valley though it was not as prominent as the hard pines and, after 1740, yellow poplar. While it would be somewhat surprising to see oak used on what might be considered a Pennsylvania German table, it would not be completely out of the question.


I really can’t say much about an objects authentication without examining it in person. In the close-up views it does seem to be made of walnut and some of the elements seem to have the appearances associated with historic objects though I would question if that could be said about the top from what I can see viewing the images. Tables with easily removable tops are notorious for turning up with the top missing or replaced.


The Philadelphia Museum of Art owns a splay leg table of this form. It has been illustrated numerous times over the years and is plate no. 4 of the tables section in the museum’s publicationThe Pennsylvania German Collection. It has been reproduced hundreds of times yet it turned out to be a clever forgery made up of parts of old furniture in an attempt to deceive. It is such a beloved form and desired by collectors that I am wary of any similar tables.


Best,

Chris

And, here is the fake table that Chris mentions which is probably quietly stashed in the basement of museum in Philly

[cogar]

No, don't think so, with chestnut lumber, the "rays" are not visible except with a microscope. In second post, second photo down of back of drawer, look at those "rays" or figure in that wood, very little doubt that it's white oak.

Right you are again, ........ didn't know what the quarter-sawn chestnut looked like, To wit:

All species of trees have rays but they vary in size. In chestnut, the rays are small and cannot be seen with the naked eye. In the oaks, the rays are very wide and thus are readily visible to the naked eye.

Both oaks and chestnut are ring-porous – they have bands of large earlywood pores. In oak (left)[upper picture], the rays are clearly visible as light-colored lines oriented perpendicular to the growth rings. In chestnut (right) [lower picture], the rays are narrow and cannot be seen with the naked eye.
Ref:  http://web.utk.edu/~mtaylo29/pages/Identifying%20Chestnut.htm

Cheers, Sam C

[KC]

Enjoying this thread!    Afraid I don't have anything to offer for insight.  Really like the table!!!!

[jacon4]

Enjoying this thread!    Afraid I don't have anything to offer for insight.  Really like the table!!!!

Well, it's early but more important, it's "splay" legged which, Chris correctly states, coveted by collectors because they are rare. My feeling on this table is, it's a period PA table with a replaced top. If i can get it for the right price, consider it done! If the top is not original, that kills the deal for many collectors and price reduction as well. I am not that picky and very accepting of 300 year old pieces, very few of which have no issues, it's the form i want, i don't have one!