Are ball-and-claw feet on a Queen Anne low boy period/style appropriate, or would purists raise an eyebrow as they would if gazing upon a digital grandfather clock? If style appropriate, should I do the B & C on all four feet or just the front? If all four, should the back two be facing forward or backwards (the case has secondary wood for the back and is intended to go against a wall).
I’m thinking about embarking on Phil Lowe’s version of the Queen Anne low boy (see Finewoodworking.com/plans), and don’t have a lathe with which to turn the feet as Phil suggests and would like to do the ball-and-claw.
Thank you . . . . Ozark Angler
Replies
Based on the clock going against a wall, I'd put plain feet at the back.
If using a digital "movement", however, I'd use carved sneakers for the front feet. (Generic sneakers to avoid a trademark infringement suit from Nike.) ;-)
Ball and Claw, or more properly, Claw and Ball feet predate both Queen Ann and Chippendale by many years, centuries actually.
Fine furniture of the 1700's was made to order, so it is entirely correct to have claw and ball feet on a lowboy that has Queen Ann styling cues.
As to two or four, it would be your choice. However, my *opinion* is that the few pieces I have seen with mixed feet look awkward.
It is your piece, and in the end, only *YOU* have to be satisfied.
Enjoy building it, enjoy using it, enjoy showing it off!
Mike
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled