Just started building some early Penn and Conneticut valley stuff and am interested in seeing what other people can do. Any reference books on the stuff? How do you see period reproductions fitting into the ‘custom’ furniture industry?
Discussion Forum
Get It All!
UNLIMITED Membership is like taking a master class in woodworking for less than $10 a month.
Start Your Free TrialCategories
Discussion Forum
Digital Plans Library
Member exclusive! – Plans for everyone – from beginners to experts – right at your fingertips.
Highlights
-
Shape Your Skills
when you sign up for our emails
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. -
Shop Talk Live Podcast -
Our favorite articles and videos -
E-Learning Courses from Fine Woodworking
-
-
Replies
What do you mean? There are several periods and they all overlap. If you mean colonial and Pennsylvania Dutch then there are plenty of books out there. Do a web search on Franklin H. Gottshall. I have two of his books and they are very good. Simple Colonial Furniture, and Furniture of Pine, Poplar, and Maple. They cover everything from mantle clocks to four poster beds. American Country Furniture is another good book that shows construction teckniques for period furniture. Hope this has been of help.
Yes, I was using the term in a general sense to describe a broad range of furniture.
To answer the question in the title - Yes, there are many Colonial Period Furniture makers on this forum. Go thru the gallery, and watch the discussions.
I would second the Gotschall books. Anything by him will be useful, and provide much more detail than I have seen in more modern publications. I would also suggest looking at antique books. The best in my opinon, is "the new fine points of furniture" by Albert Sack. Highly recommended. For an encyclopedic overview, see if your library can get the three volume set by Wallace Nutting. He was very opinionated, but he discussed everything he saw, so the pictures and drawings are useful even for pieces that Wallace did not like.
I would also suggest looking into the SAPFM (sapfm.org). Very useful info, and if there is a chapter near you, a great source of cameraderie and hands on type help.
Mike
Norm Vandal Queen Anne Furniture is excellent. So is Michael Dunbar Federal Furniture. Jeffrey Greene American Furniture of the 18th. Century is also very good. In many ways the books put out by museums concerning their collections are better. Their descriptions of construction are sometimes a bit cryptic, but you are seeing pictures of originals, not originals as filtered through anothers eyes. The periodical series American Furniture from the Chipstone Foundation has articles pitched at museum conservators but very useful to furniture reproducers.
You should also check out SAPFM--Society of American Period Furniture Makers -- http://www.sapfm.org In addition to their web site they have several meetings per year with some of the best practitioners in the area. They also have a publication.
Most importantly go to museums. See the originals in the flesh, so to speak. If you want to reproduce a particular item, in many museums you can make advance arrangements with the curatoreal staff to see in up close and personal. (This is less possible with museums that licence their own furniture collections--particularly if you wish to make items for sale instead of personal use.)
I don't think it matters too much where you surf. There are only a few period woodworkers active on the internet.
In my opinion, the big thing happening in period furniture making is the attempt to capture the soul of originals by using original tools and techniques. The last generation developed the ability to create accurate dimensional copies of museum pieces. The next generation seems to be focusing more heavily on attempting to interpret the original makers' sensibilities as manifested in their work. I guess the one thing we can always count on is change.
I don't see period furniture fitting into existing the existing "custom furniture" industry as I know it. As i see it, "custom furniture" is plywood box kitchen cabinets for law firms, or a big veneered mdf table for a conference room.
I see period furniture making more in terms of making fakes for people who want antiques but can't afford them or can't find what they want. That's a very different market, and a different industry. I don't even think its similar to the studio/art furniture movement where the furniture is often more about the artist than about a certain style.
Adam Cherubini
http://www.adamcherubini.com
Interesting comment you make about trying to capture the soul of the piece by using accurate tools and technique. I have always been under the impression that the soul of any thing man made (read furniture) is bestowed unto that thing by the connection one has to that thing. In other words, the devotion, passion, etc a person has for what they make is tranferrred into that thing in an almost tangible fashion. I think it is this feeling that people are willing to pay for. In the 18th century the mechanism through which this is imparted may have been hand planes and crosscut saws, but today 12" jointers and 5 HP cabinet saws. Life cannnot be given by the lifeless.
hdgis,
My planes aren't alive and they all have soles ;?p>
I suspect it's Adam's romantic attachment to the 18th century that inspires him to say those things. And it's that idealised image of the times that gives the furniture at least a bit of its charm, mystique, or "soul". One of the Chipstone Foundation's "American Furniture" series has an article about an 18th c Phila. cabinetmaker who was threatened with suit (anathema to a Quaker) for his poor work which was of inferior materials, put together shabbily, and delivered late- a little different picture than most of us have, of the thoughtful workman lovingly making long shimmering shavings, from a 3' wide plank of mahogany, while puffing on his pipe.
I confess that for me, an antique has an undeniable "something", entwined with its existance thru history, which it inscrutably withholds from us who would like to know more about the events it has "witnessed" (I know, furniture can't see, unless it's birdseye maple). Or maybe it is the obvious presence of signs left by the maker- plane tracks, tearouts left on an interior surface, layout scribe marks, the hammer marks on a nail head- that inspire us to make some kind of connection with those hands, long dead.
Do circular saw marks, jointer ripples, and pneumatic staples have that effect on you? Does a modern one-off piece have that "something", if the maker has carefully erased all signs of his workmanship, hand or power?
They say souls are immortal, but I have a pair of loafers that are on their third set. Insert groan here,
Ray Pine
"And it's that idealised image of the times that gives the furniture at least a bit of its charm, mystique, or "soul" "Yes, I agree that our idealized image of the past is largely responsible for the 'soul' of a piece. However, how many of us are familiar with the deplorable working conditions of most industry based economies of the 18th and 19th century?I wonder, can we tap (as business people) the soul of the period and if so, how?
hdgis,
How can we capture the soul of the period? By marketing the furniture as coming from "Geppetto's workshop", or something similar. You know, the old coot doddering around his shop carefully crafting only masterpieces. Like Sam Maloof. Or me, ha hah.
Cheers,
Ray
I generally hesitate to get into threads like this because they revolve so much around ideologies and intangibles. But, in spite of my better judgment...,You asked, hdgis 1, "I wonder, can we tap (as business people) the soul of the period and if so, how?"Of course we can, it's the cornerstone of my work and sales. I sell traditional designs. It's really unfortunate that people don't see furniture design as a continuum rather than a series of compartments. I suppose it's natural since designers fell off the same precipice created by the Industrial Revolution but that fall only happened to the very large design and production houses. There have always been Gepettos building furniture in their workshops oblivious to the mega trends mass production made possible (desirably so) to the general public.There is a universe of furniture built using traditional designs that are not in any way repros or copies. It's a simple matter to employ these design features in today's designs.Lee
"It's really unfortunate that people don't see furniture design as a continuum rather than a series of compartments"I couldn't agree more! What we are dealing with today, while called 'period furniture' is essentially the continuation of an aesthetic that encompasses all of the fine points that other posters have mentioned. However, I feel as if a lot of period furniture makers today are to wrapped up in recreating a piece in its entirety - plane marks etc. Good craftsmanship transcends any period and a smooth surface today (which may not include the hills and valleys of old) is as good as it was 200 years ago. ALL - cant remember original poster but the comment was along the lines that the only thing we can tell about furniture makers today is the conditions of the trunnions on the saw they used. I wonder if this comment would have been appropriate 200 years ago when the local hot shot bought the latest and greatest?
All,
<!----><!----> <!---->
Just to summarize my remarks- the original poster hdgis1 asked about what period woodworkers can do.
<!----> <!---->
I think my answer is “quite a bit”. And I’d characterize that both in terms of accurately reproducing furniture in a wide range of styles to the sorts of woodworking processes involved (everything from carving to timber framing, veneer to riving). Many period woodworkers I know are involved with some degree of historical research. Some have become recognized experts in their areas of interest. (I'm not one of those- I'm thinking of specific individuals). It might be my perception, but this seems to be a relatively new trend.
<!----> <!---->
So for folks interested in period woodworking, there’s clearly “quite a bit” to get involved with. Its certainly not as restrictive as one might initially assume, again, both in terms of activities and style of work. I’ve certainly enjoyed many different facets of period woodworking and don’t feel I’ve really scratched the surface of what can be done. In my humble 18th c basement, I get the satisfaction of executing an individual joint successfully, the exhilaration we all feel when completing a project, and also a thrilling sense of discovery as I learn things long forgotten. I think its a great way to enjoy woodworking.
<!----><!---->
I always hope these threads are interesting to a broad audience. Accordingly, I usually try to keep my comments general and in the process I sometimes skip some personal questions or remarks. I would like to say publicly that I am familiar with Rob Millard’s work and I’m flattered that he reads my articles! Rob is a giant in the field, a nationally recognized period woodworker, and I was wrong not to acknowledge his post. Sorry Rob.
For any others, participants or otherwise who have questions, comments, or just want to call me names please feel free to contact me via email! (I haven't been raked over the coals since I left my electric wood lathe in the background of one of my pictures in the magazine so I'm due!)
<!----> <!---->
Thanks everyone for a great discussion on my favorite subject!
<!----> <!---->
Adam Cherubini
Adam,
You had your hands full, defending your positions, so there is no need to apologize for not replying.
I'm the one who should be flattered by your comments. I liked your current article on making the wooden squares, so much that I'm making one next week.
Rob Millard
I
There is plenty of room for everyone. In the instruction of art it's common for students to copy works of the masters, why not in woodworking? If there is a market for repros more power to them. Personally, I would like to see much more emphasis placed on the instruction of traditional styles and techniques and workmanship. From there any woodworker is better equipped to venture out into whatever form of design he/she chooses. The lack of grounding in traditional work is leading to a lot of crap in the marketplace. Having said that I'll readily say that there is a great deal of fantastic woodworking going on as well, some of it in the production shops many amateurs and studio furniture makers like to shun.I don't see an issue between those doing period work and those doing circa 2006 work as long as one does not misrepresent their own work. To think one is better than another is just egocentric nonsense.Lee
Every woodworker, even the venerated old master, stands on the shoulders of those who came before. It would be an amazing act of chutzpah to assert that any piece is entirely "original," yet even the least of us can take pride in adding to what there is.My goal is for my work to outlast me. Expect my joinery to get simpler as time goes by.
Sheesh! I used the wrong word, I guess. Let me try it this way: There's the color of a piece of furniture. And that changes over the course of its life. But you can copy that. And then there are dimensions. You can measure originals and get height and width dimensions and copy those. Then there are little details. The exact shapes of the moldings for example. Or drawer spacings. And for many guys, period furniture making (or whatever we call it) stops there.
Others go on. They see the way the joints were made and used and copy those. They'll put in an octagonal pin instead of a round one for example. And these things add to the charm of the piece.
But there's more beyond that. Tool marks, imperfect surfaces, imperfect joinery. Little things that reflect the choices or sensibilities of 18th c builders. Things that reflect the day to day reality of working in an 18th century shop.
These are not spiritual things, but physical things people (very often women) can see. And while the piece of furniture has no soul, a careful examination can reveal things about the workman, about how he worked, what his life was like etc or not (as in the case with machine made pieces for example where the story revealed is about Delta's cast trunnion). So while it may not be the soul of the furniture and may not even be the soul of the craftsman, there is a lot of information about the craftsman imbedded. I don't know what to call this or how else to describe it.
This is certainly something I'm interested in and something I seek in my furniture. But more and more people (woodworkers mostly but not exclusively) are speaking to me about these issues. It appears to me that these represent a new set of requirements on pieces that weren't there before. I suspect that in some time, all reproductions will be required to be like this to be recognized as decent. I think this is news and this is what I was trying to tell you. Reproduction furniture making has, as its goal, a moving target. I'm trying to describe in what direction I think that target is moving (since you asked about the industry).
Adam
Adam,
I've been following your posts with interest. What sources would you recommend for learning more about 18th century furniture making? I'm particularly interested in learning more about the tools and techniques that would likely have been used in an 18th century shop.
I'm not sure where to send you. Ray? He may be of more help.
Jeff Greene's book is a good place to start. I like Kingshott's videos. Did you read my Plumley article? That had a pretty complete list of tools. Oh... read Moxon's "mechanick's exercises". A trip to Williamsburg is always a good idea. Plenty of answers and inspiration there. For attitudes as manifested in technique, read my 2005 PW column. I've never seen anything quite like that (which is why I wrote it). Actually, I wrote that for people like you. So you may find that helpful.
The others here may have a better answer for you.
Adam
Houston,
For tools:Adam suggested Moxon's "Mechanic Exercises". I'll second that. Also Charles Hummel's book "With Hammer in Hand", is a good examination of an 18th century (and later), woodworking shop, its tools, and products. Mercer's "Ancient Carpenter's Tools", Saloman's "Dictionary of Tools", The Early American Industries Assn (EAIA) publications may also be of help. Back in the '80's, Wmsburg had a seminar on "Tools and Trades", that resulted in two books that are pretty informative.
Techniques: Green's book is good, also Vandal's. The "old standby's", Marlowe, and Gottshaw, are less so, in that the construction may or may not be exactly what you'd find typically. These guys had no problems "improving" on old ways (dowels are an improvement, right?). But, there is some good info there--if you are already aware that paw footed coffee tables were... scarce... in 1760! Also the more recent books on furniture, put out by museums, go into some detail on the construction of the pieces they illustrate. The book on Southern furniture that Wmsburg put out a while back is a good example. Also the Chipstone Foundation's series, the volumns that concentrate on furniture. Dover has some books of furniture measured drawings.
Bealer's "Old Ways of Working Wood" is sort of a cursory look at the subject, not too different in detail from Eric Sloane's treatment, "Museum of Tools", and"Reverence for Wood". Also, Nancy Smith's "Old Furniture: Understanding the Craftsman's Art" and Myrna Kaye's "Fake, Fraud, or Genuine". by way of comparison of new to old gives some insight into what the real thing should look like.
That oughta get you started.
Regards,
Ray Pine
Thank you very much! I look forward to delving into these sources.
Adam, are the pieces pictured on your website pieces you actually built or pictures of pieces that you did not build but will build on order?I was wondering why, of the four pieces pictured, two of them are not pictured in place, or in front of a photographer's backdrop, etc. Did you build the refectory table pictured? Quite a job by the photog. and it looks like you went to some effort to distress the piece.The other pictures seem to float in space. What was your intention in editing out the background or setting completely?
Edited 7/11/2006 3:28 pm ET by BossCrunk
Boss,
I'm not real proud of my website. The pictures really rot. The way I cut out that chest on chest is pretty bad. I took those pictures before I got the digital camera I use for my articles (canon 20d). Some of them are even scans from a film camera. I promise to update my website to reflect my latest work as soon as I get a breather.
I didn't make the windsor chairs, tho I did finish them. I don't distress stuff, at least, I don't look at it that way. Those textures, if that's what you are referring to, are just the natural result of the process. Form follows function is a statement about design. But naturally (obviously?) form follows material, and processes, and tools used. Seems obvious, but some would argue (many, I think) that the tools used are irrelevant. When you look at my work its pretty obvious that the tools I've used are apparent in the finished project. I don't think that's debatable. The only debatable part is whether what I do is attractive or not, desirable or not, etc. And that's in the eye of the beholder, I guess.
adam
But the surface textures visible in the photos aren't just artifacts of the method. There is absolutely nothing that calls for tearout (except in figured maple) or for gouges and scrape marks using only the tools available in the 18th. century. The esthetic didn't mandate what we would call "machine perfection" but neither does it call for sloppiness where it shows, regardless of what might be accepted on unseen interiors or backs. Planes do leave a distinctive texture, but it is barely visible on exterior surfaces, mostly it is tactile. The subtle waves from planes almost disappear by the end of the 18th century as rococo transforms into federal.
Nor do such 18th. c. tools mandate defective joints--dovetails and mortise and tenon joints are quite efficiently cut with hand tools.
While certainly there was poor workmanship in the 18th c., as in any era, it is not the norm on high chests or dressing tables. These were sold to rich people--almost exclusively to families in the 90th percentile or above of the wealth distribution. Such marks may be appropriate to furniture for the "middling sort" almost none of which has survived, because it was so bad and is now hardly worth reproducing, except perhaps as social history exercises.
A couple things:1) Yes I agree that 18th c tools could have been used to produce flawless surfaces. But the question is did they bother? Clearly surface work wasn't their primary concern. In the absence of good design and ornamentation, wood grain has become the primary design goal (perhaps because everything else has been stripped away). So I'm trying to push their design sensibilities to the fore, not mine. You can argue the extent.2) We have virtually no idea what original surfaces looked like since so few survive. The finest pieces that belonged (belong) to the finest families were refinished repeatedly throughout the ages and are absolutely no help. While there may be nothing that called for tearout, I've seen it on pretty fine pieces (around knots).3) It just isn't true that only the wealthy had certain types of furniture. In fact, I think overall it seems quite the opposite. Then as now rich and poor all have the same stuff. The rich have better and more of it. But almost everybody has a car and a tv.The goal for my high chest and dressing table was to suggest what might have been for the "middling sort" you speak of. You see in the account book of John Head (google it) we see Head building essentially the same set and selling it at different prices. While there's no indiciation that he did what I did, (painting tulip to look like mahogany) this was my attempt at explaining what may have accounted for the price difference. In addition to the wood substitution, I built the piece with exposed joinery as if it were to be veneered. I cut every possible corner without sacrificing the basic structure.ALL THAT SAID, for me and maybe for Steve, this is part of the fun of contemporary period furniture making. Its no longer enough to measure a piece and copy it. I'm not unique. The others are also pouring through primary source documents, examining originals, and expressing their sense of the times. I think its fun. John Head had a special way of turning (which I didn't copy) and unique scroll work (which I did). Like Head, I boiled my cockbeading. Like Head, it split when I nailed it in place. Like Head, I used a hachet to remove knots from back-up structure. All good stuff, in my opinion. Its a new world of woodworking open to anyone interested. Its not even difficult to do. The hardest part is probably finding the tools you need.Adam
Probate studies, such as those by Jackson Turner Main and Alice Hanson Jones demonstrated high concentrations of wealth in colonial America. As I recall, Main showed that only 10% of families had even one piece of fine furniture, let alone a full parlor or household. I don't know how you think poor, or even middling familities had high chests, or secretaries or desks. I doubt you can find a handfull in thousands of inventories that don't belong to the wealthiest 10%. (There weren't inheritance taxes so there was no reason to hide anything.) The 18th century poor didn't own enough clothing to fill such a chest, nor a even short shelf of books beyond the bible. T.H. Breen's recent book Market Place of Revolution suggests that a spread in consumer goods in the late 18th. Century was an important contributor to the American Revolution. But he focuses on goods much less expensive than the big ticket items such as furniture, and to my eye at least, uses selective anecdotal evidence to make his points. I was far from convinced.
The cost of the wood was apparently the major cost of producing a piece of furniture. Significant savings could be had by dropping down the wood price scale. But if a cabinet maker also drops down the workmanship scale--beyond moving toward the "neat and plain" end of style, he risks his reputation, and his ability to sell the high end pieces. Its one thing to use cheaper woods and quite another to put out deliberately shoddy work. I doubt many colonial cabinetmakers would make that choice. And if some did, why would anyone care to emulate that work. Its like saying, I'll go into business reproducing Walmart furniture.
A look at carved furniture--the really high end--suggests that quality of surfaces was important, and there is little risk that they were significantly "smoothed up" by subsequent refinishers.
Going down a notch, it really doesn't take much to avoid the surface artifacts--so you don't have to care very much. It is not a matter of long developed skills to plane any mild wood to a virtually defect free surface. Not perfectly flat, but with no defects that would show in a an internet resolution picture. These are skills that can be learned in a matter of a few months of apprenticeship, even if part of the time is spent sweeping floors and being taught to read.
Well said and I think your assessment is spot on.It's hard for me to imagine that the clientele for high chests would tolerate a cursory treatment of primary surfaces. I think that would be a sure path to failure for an 18th century cabinet shop. However, then as now, I'm sure there were people who could afford the piece but may not have been sophisticated enough to form an expectation. Perhaps there were some shops who took advantage of this lack of sophistication, but that's hardly an ideal for us to pursue today.In my own experience, in my own shop, I have become aware how easy it actually is to plane and scrape a surface to a very smooth state and it's not overly time-consuming either. If one applies a not too terribly cambered smoother to the surface then a smooth surface it what results. It's really about as simple as that. It almost seems more difficult to achieve some 'ersatz ideal' of a wildly undulating and toolmarked surface than it is to simply plane with a very mildy cambered smoother or even one with the corners dubbed over a bit. I doubt this elementary conclusion was lost on the 18th century professional cabinetmaking crowd.I've come to the conclusion that the desire to overtly 'leave evidence' of hand tool usage is a silly 21st century notion. Just work the wood with hand tools and let the marks take care of themselves. Our predecessors were not thinking about leaving evidence of any kind. They were just building furniture with the tools at hand. As soon as one intentionally 'leaves a mark' then all genuineness, even as a reproduction, is lost.My reading has left me with the impression that primary surfaces coming out of the better shops and on significant pieces were very smooth, with only very slight undulations matching the gentle camber of the plane iron.I don't doubt that they might occassionally have knocked one together for Mrs. Jones with sub-standard species and/or let somebody with less than master or journeyman status take a crack at it, but surely this was not business as usual for the better cabinetmakers.
Edited 7/12/2006 11:30 am ET by BossCrunk
Steve,
Great post. I remember reading that at the time it was made, a Newport slant top desk with shell carved interior cost about what an average working man earned in a year. At the time I was working at a bench at Va Craftsmen in 1972, a similar piece (which they built) would have been about 6 weeks of my wages.
Regards,
Ray
Speaking of Newport, to add a good book to the list, considerMaster Craftsmen of Newport by Michael Moses. You need to find this at the library, to buy a copy could cost into 4 figures. But it has both full descriptions and photographs of construction details of some of the best furniture designs ever made.
Steve,
That's one that I don't have. Couldn't spring for it when it was first published, still can't afford it.
Ray
Hi Steve,
I don't know how you think poor, or even middling families had high chests, or secretaries or desks.
Well just ask me and I’ll tell you. Before I do let me say this about that. I don’t feel very strongly about these sorts of issues. But I am curious, I have done my homework, and I have data to support my theories. I’m not as intransigent as I may sound. I may be misinterpreting the data I have, but until someone can correct me, I continue with my theories.
We woodworkers we have distinct advantages in the interpretation of this sort of data. You don’t need a master’s degree and a government grant to sort thru these sorts of things.
I never said poor families had secretaries. The fact is John Head made what we assume to be the same piece of furniture (the chest on stand) and sold it for different prices. The Head chest on stand in the Philadelphia Museum of art probably sold in the neighborhood of L10. But he sold similar pieces for as little as 6 or 7 pounds. Was the L10 customer the same as the L6 customer? How do we explain the difference? You tell me. I examined the piece in Philly and built one similar except.
The cost of the wood was apparently the major cost of producing a piece of furniture.
John Head made a 5 drawer chest for L3-0-0. I took a stab at how much lumber might have gone into a piece like this. So imagine a piece maybe 3’ high, 3 or so feet wide, you pick the depth. I came up with 50bdft of primary lumber and 70bdft of secondary assuming full dust boards. I worked out walnut to about 2d/bdft and pine/tulip/cedar to .7d/bdft So that’s 12s of lumber.
Drops (drawer pulls) and nails made up about 3s. Throw in more money for oil, wax, maybe glue and you’ve still got less than L1 in materials. All of these numbers can be corroborated by the Plumley inventory. These aren’t guesses. They are there in the accounts.
Affordability
I’ve seen different numbers for wages from 5s/day or so for day laborers (including journeymen) to 10-12s. At 5s/day, Head would stand to make a pretty profit on his L3 chest. I built a comparable chest in 4 days or so. So figure I burned thru approx L1 in labor (I don’t deserve the 10s/day), that would leave L1 in profit approx (1/3 materials, 1/3 labor, 1/3 profit…hmmm…I think I’ve heard that before). Now was the journeyman one of the 10% wealthiest Main mentioned? Because this chest would cost the laborer who built it 2 weeks wages (they worked 6 days/week).
By the way, I back tracked Head’s lumber costs to see if the men who sawed it could have made a decent living at it and to corroborate my lumber costs. The first trick was figuring out how much lumber they could produce in a day. My first instinct was to ask one of the historians at the museum. Then I wisened up and found people who have actually done the job! According to Roy Underhill and Wmsburg’s current master Garland Wood, the number of feet per day (200’ I think) necessary to generate a 5s wage was entirely doable. So that tells us two things: Our price for lumber is in the ballpark. And Head’s L3 chest was only 2 weeks wages for the lowly pitman.
Its one thing to use cheaper woods and quite another to put out deliberately shoddy work. I doubt many colonial cabinetmakers would make that choice.
Like the great cabinetmakers of Philadelphia then? They very clearly put stuff together that looked good without using the “best practices” of tidewater furniture construction. What I find funny is the boards are all fair inside and out, unlike say, Goddard and Townsend work which have really rough backs and interiors. At least the pieces I saw in the MET were like that. Philly joinery is often a mess of nails, glue blocks- you name it. Not exactly the precision joinery so many of us produce. In many cases they didn’t even bother to match their turnings or carvings. Sloppy you say? Maybe to you. How would you feel for example, about using a used roof shingle for a drawer bottom? Yet such things can be found! (If I’m not mistaken one of Head’s pieces has such a drawer). They probably looked at such things as irrelevant. The performance and function the customer wanted was the glitz, not smooth running drawers. These were items they needed to move in desirable social circles.
...it really doesn't take much to avoid the surface artifacts
(joking) Easy for you to say! How do you sharpen your tools? When you guys give up your SS, waterstones, and tormeks call me! Watch for my article (tale of woe) on Period Sharpening in an upcoming publication. I've had a heck of a time with it.
(seriously) I don’t go out of my way to create tear out. Sometimes when it happens I work it out. Other times I skip it. I agree that you can scrape out stuff. But I think we’ve gone overboard with that. I’m just trying to make a point about values. The original poster asked about business. I think I’ve been more than forthcoming. But let me give you one more hint for those of you who have missed it. Folks like primitive and its less work for the builder who uses hand tools.
Adam
I would be curious as to the data you used. What are the citations to where was it published? Or if not published who extracted or compiled the data. There are lots and lots of subtleties in compiling and interpreting these income and wage data. I don't know any masters degree economist capable of doing it. I used to know most of the economists working in this field, but no longer. My major professor Robert Gallman made some important contributions in the area. Unfortunately, I haven't remained very current with the technical literature in this area. I might be able to be of assistance in the interpretation since my dissertation was in the field of economic history.
A price of 6-7 pounds is probably a month or more of income for the median colonist family in the 1770s. Compared to a median household income now of perhaps $44,000 that suggests a comparison price of roughly $3,650, not the sort of furniture bought by many households earning only at the median level, I shouldn't think. But the colonist's median doesn't mean quite the same as it would does today, when a typical 18th c. family spent 50% of its income on food alone. While this meant that Americans were probably the best fed population in the world at the time, also suggests strongly that the income available for high priced luxury goods is probably a smaller proportion for the median colonial family than for the median modern family. Data such as these that makes me very sceptical of data that say the median family, let alone poor families, owned such furniture.
By the way, I sharpen with oil stones, not too dissimilar to the Turkey (sp?)stones available in the 18th. c.
I still don't understand tearout in poplar. I think it can be totally avoided by observing which way the wood wants to be planed, and by using sharp blades with the curve of the edge appropriate to the rankness of the set. Its not really a factor of using a scraper.
Edited 7/12/2006 10:42 pm ET by SteveSchoene
Adam, the work you've endeavored to complete has brought more than one Ph.D. candidate to his or her knees and caused the filing of more than a few 'changes in dissertation' forms.It would be next to impossible to complete a study like you've embarked upon without being enrolled in a doctoral program, with full support from faculty, whilst committing 30+ hours a week for at least 18 to 24 months to complete the research and summarize conclusions. Nobody doubts your sincerity, but one can't help but question your conclusions and the rigor of your research.
I never said poor families had secretaries. The fact is John Head made what we assume to be the same piece of furniture (the chest on stand) and sold it for different prices. The Head chest on stand in the Philadelphia Museum of art probably sold in the neighborhood of L10. But he sold similar pieces for as little as 6 or 7 pounds. Was the L10 customer the same as the L6 customer? How do we explain the difference? You tell me. I examined the piece in Philly and built one similar except.
1. He built the lower priced piece(s) for someone he knew, or an extended family member.
2. He gave a discount, in the form of a lower price, to a supplier of his.
3. He passed along the savings implicit in a fortuitous purchase of raw materials.
4. He made an error in pricing or other clerical error.
5. Somebody who prepared the customer invoice or made the price-book entry made a clerical error.
6. Somebody walked in off the street with cash in hand and made an offer on a piece that was speculatively built (are you sure every piece he built was on commission?)
7. The shop wasn't busy and he needed to book a job and offered a discount to somebody wanting to commission a piece.
8. He let a hitherto unknown journeyman or apprentice do most of the work and charged his customer less.
9. He simply forgot what he had charged on other similar pieces and was too lazy to look up that information in his bookkeeping records, or just plain didn't care at that moment.
10. He misspoke or misquoted and had to make good on his promise.
11. It wasn't really the same piece, as you said you assumed it to be.
Need more?
Edited 7/13/2006 3:23 pm ET by BossCrunk
I don't really doubt that using a cheaper wood, without as much decoration, could result in a lower price.
I just don't think that the craftsman would reduce his basic quality level to shave a few hours off of the labor content.
And, I don't think the lower price came close to making it affordable to a lower or even "middling sort" class of customer.
You are right about the dangers of using inventory data. A historian, who had previously won a Pulitzer prize for other work, published a book arguing that such data showed very low ownership of guns in the colonial households. The academic response (I don't care about the NRA response.) took his research apart in detail, occasionally without the good graces usually found in academic disputes. Research done in the academy has the benefit of faculty seminars (not just at the parent institution) and the peer review process before articles are published. And, comment and rebuttal afterwards.
I agree with all your points.
There is a virtual laundry list of reasons a particular cabinetmaker's pricing scheme might change - a new competitor whose name is forever lost to history came to town, general inflationary or deflationary pressure, a nagging customer, a nagging wife, a nagging partner, nagging employees, bad hires, good hires. My goodness, I have built many of the same pieces over the years and I certainly don't charge what I used to. And this is so for a number of reasons, not all of them purely economic; and my prices are not higher across the board either. I've built spec pieces that sold for more than they would have if commissioned and vice-versa.
Practically anything that we can imagine affecting the economics of running a cabinet shop today would have affected a cabinet shop in the 18th century.
Somebody in Adam's position need not feel compelled to draw conclusions that a paucity of data plainly will not support. I have not figured out what's to be gained from an exercise such as this.
Edited 7/13/2006 7:10 pm ET by BossCrunk
Done right, it is a significant element of understanding material culture, and the social history of the American colonial era.
Interesting, even though not much significance for woodworking.
Done right, it is a significant element of understanding material culture, and the social history of the American colonial era.
Interesting, even though not much significance for woodworking.
I agree...and lightly disagree. More a quibble, really. Articles, papers and books on earlier periods can have an impact on one's views on a number of areas of their woodworking journey. Even if they use more powered tools than handtools or reproduce period methods or not.
Even billing schema--or lack thereof--and its interpretation can have parallels drawn and application made.
*If* an impact is made, it may well be significant to that person.
As well, sometimes what makes an impact--a significant event--in one's woodworking journey may be something that is not even woodworking related per se. Art is an example. Old machinery does it for me too: the manner in which parts are made or relate in operation can instill a love of things which interconnect. I would like to hope those seemingly unrelated things have had impact.
Mostly, my muse is struck from older woodworking texts or accounts of life in periods gone by. Older periods even than the furniture I like to create, which is early 20 century modern.
So while I agree there may not be direct correlation of significance, there is still a relationship of these musings for me.
Take care, Mike
Boss,Regarding your list, I think you've got the right idea. I like your cash discount idea. Cash was a big deal then. Aside from that, it wouldn't be difficult to narrow your list by just looking at the account book. I mean, we know to whom the pieces were sold. We also know who his suppliers were. John Head's account book is a complete register of all of the transactions of his 35+ years in business.I would throw out the clerical errors. And the entire book is in the same hand, so we can assume its either the master himself or a family member. He didn't have different people making entries. Before he died the writing got kinda shaky so it seems like it was probably Head who made the entries.What we know is that he (like Plumley) produced a range of items for a range of prices. And if the wages I used are to be believed (and that's debatable) the prices are affordable for working people. At least they weren't one years pay for example or some such. But you have the right idea. You can speculate about it. That's fun to do. And part of the fun of period woodworking!Adam
P.S. Just reading your other post, its interesting to note that for other pieces, like Head's L3-0-0 chest there was no price change over a couple decades in which he made and sold 118 such chests, 22 in sets of 2. So while you're right there's no way to tell for sure whether my piece reflects the "cheap" chest on chest, it does seem that for some pieces there were price options, for others there weren't (Not sure where that takes us).
Edited 7/13/2006 7:50 pm ET by AdamCherubini
Get about 20 more years under your belt of building furniture for a clientele and then report back all the different qualitative factors that affected your pricing scheme over that period of time.Then, you might have some intuition about Mr. Head's shop practices.
I'm fascinated by this exchange of ideas on 18th century furniture and I hope you all will continue the discussion. Adam, I'm in the process of re-reading all of your Arts & Mysteries columns. As I'm learning to appreciate the design excellence of pieces from this period, a question that comes to mind is why build 18th century reproduction furniture? What is it that appeals to you to build these pieces as opposed to, for example, Arts & Crafts period items? What drew you into this initially? And how did you get started? Since there's probably no limit to a discussion like this, I appreciate anything you're willing to share.Bob
Adam,
I like your site, and your articles. I also, like your prices, as they are what I think are reasonable; some woodworkers charge( or say they charge) so much I wonder how they ever sell anything.
As, for the surface defects, I've seen some pretty hacked together "pilgrim" furniture, and I don't see a few surface defects as indicative of poor workmanship, its just the nature of the incredible demands placed of craftsman in that era ,who probably wore many other hats, in addition to that of cabinetmaker and of course the market. In the end all that matters is the market, and that you have found a market for your work is impressive, as this is a tough business.
I've been demonstrating "period" ( that ill-defined term) woodworking techniques, at a living history farm, and I'm encouraged by the response from people. There seems to be a genuine interest in things made by hand.
I make what you call fakes, of Federal period pieces, and as you well know, surface defects were nonexistenton these pieces, but the interiors were often hacked together. My thinking is that by this time, the labor market had progressed to the point that specialization was the rule in urban areas, and there was a demand for more refined furniture, but that the simple act of getting a board dimensioned was such a chore that only the visible surfaces were given the utmost attention.
Rob Millard
http://www.americanfederalperiod.com
Steve,
Discussion of the aesthetics of a long ago time is like discussing politics- everyone has an opinion, and you are unlikly to change their mind!
I've seen a lot of old furniture in the 30 some years I've been doing this. Some of it had what I'd call an old surface, maybe original, maybe not. It's near impossible to prove that an exterior surface was NOT scraped 100 yrs ago. But you can compare interior surfaces to the exposed ones, and sometimes there is little difference between the two. Now, if you find a near-flawless, oxidised surface on the underside of a top, it's hard to argue: 1 that it has been scraped after the fact, or 2 that the outside was worked to a lesser degree of perfection.
With woodworking machines nowadays so easily approaching perfection, there are some who feel a compulsion to "show it was done by hand", by deliberately leaving evidence of their handwork behind. Sometimes the result is "subtle" enough that it is like a caricature of what was intended. I've seen reproductions from the '40's with ball and claw feet that had tool marks all over them. "Dang couldn't that fellow carve any smoother than that?" But the workmanship on the rest of the piece is of a high enough level to suggest, at least, that the marks were left there deliberately, so to say "This was not done in Grand Rapids!" Some folks now, feel the same way.
Whether a surface was "good enough" with fore plane marks left behind, or if it might have been scraped a bit before the varnish was slapped on, can only be answered by the maker. Now, as was likely then, there is a continuum of craftsmen whose abilities and perfectionism, is matched by the clientele they reach.
Regards,
Ray Pine
I like the graphics of the site but I have to tell you that the pictures devoid of background or in some sort of context look like they were grabbed off another site or scanned from a book or magazine. Not accusing, just alerting you. If those pieces are still available to you a shot of them in a room, even if it's with an average digital camera, would be better than the ones posted on your site.
I've made some early Holiday Inn stuff a few years ago.
Lately, I made an 18th Century Pennsylvania secretary, but I could not consider myself as qualified to help. I simply followed the plan, with some modifications the wife wanted, by Lonnie Bird in FWW #154,55,& 56.
I always find the qualification that one build something without a plan a bit trvial. What qualifies as a plan do you think? Step by step instructions or a measured drawing? Or even just a photo?
If you have FWW 154,55, & 56 you will know what kind of plan I used. I could use less. I changed the plan and made Chippendale doors for the upper cabinet. Those doors had individual pane glass and, in all, there are 128 individual pieces of wood in the two doors(64 each). The bottom case is much the same as the plan except that, for the fold-down writing surface, I used plywith a frame of solid straight grain walnut. Over that is a bookmatch veneer of walnut crothcwood. I just did not want to do breadboard ends. For my taste, they do not add to the look.
hdgis,
I build reproductions of period furniture. Adam and I recently had a discussion about period furniture makers. I say they are all dead, since the furniture they made was built prior to 1840 or so....Adam , I believe, disagrees.
I'm not a big fan of F Gottshaw, or A. Marlowe's books. Perhaps they are members of the prior generation that Adam referred to in his post. To me they seem feel a little too free to take liberties with the proportions and construction of the old work. One of them, I can't remember which, was an employee in Nutting's shop. Nutting made good reproductions, but was known to "improve" upon the old designs where he felt they were deficient. Of course these guys were writing when "colonial" was a style all of its own, not necessarily related to the furniture made and used by the colonists.
To the list of books others have mentioned, I'll add Joseph Downs' "American Furniture: Queen anne and Chippendale", and Charles Montgomery's "American Furniture: The Federal Period" both from the collection at Winterthur. Also, Charles Hummel's "With Hammer in Hand" gives an interesting insight into the lives and workshop of 3 generations a of Long Island family of furniture and clock makers, with in depth examination of their tools and furniure. They are out of print, but worth the effort of finding them at a library. Also John Kirk's "American Chairs", and Patricia Kane's " 300 Years of American Seating Furniture" (Garvan coll). Also, Flanigan's book on the furniture from the Kauffman collection is a beautiful piece of work, all high style stuff. For Southern furniture, Hurst and Prown's "Southern Furniture" from Col. Wmsburg, and Gusler's "Furniture of Williamsburg and Eastern Va. Primitives, try to find Russell Kettell's "Pine Furniture of Early New England", which even provides scaled drawings of some of the pieces shown therein.
Dover has a number of books of drawings of antique furniture: Osborn &Osborn's "Measured Drawings of Early American Furniture", Margon's "Construction of American Furniture Treasures", and Salomonsky's "Masterpieces of Furniture" are all good. Shea's "Making Colonial Furniture Reproductions" is not good.
There are any number of small shops making custom reproductions. As Adam says, some are more interested in approaching the style than in recreating it. As time passes, it seems to be getting harder and harder to make a go of it. Here locally, there seems to be a waning of interest in the period styles. My feeling is that this may be a national trend, as evidenced by the hard times museums are having keeping their attendance numbers consistant, as well as by conversations with museum employees, and other traditional craftsmen. Locally, the foundry that makes the brass candlesticks, etc for Williamsburg, just closed its doors, citing lack of orders for its products, and pressure from overseas competition. They'd been in operation since the late 1800's.
Regards,
Ray Pine
http://www.davidraypine.com
Yes, thank you for that wonderful list of books. Looks like I have a bit of summer reading to take care of! Im trying to gather my thoughts to make a statement here but the brain seems to be stuck. To much hide glue!!!
Adam and I recently had a discussion about period furniture makers. I say they are all dead, ....Adam , I believe, disagrees.
I appreciate your sentiments doubly so because the line between us and them (18th c woodworkers) is so very thick. My hand tools don't really make me like them or even comparable. Its not even an issue of skill, although there is that.
I think we need new and more descriptive terms for who we are and what we do. What is a "reproduction"? Does it look the same as the original? Or is it made the same way? Both?
And what "period" are we talking about when we say "period" woodworking. From what I can tell it's no single period by any definition. My best stab at it is that it is the "pre-industrial" period. But of course, not all trades were pre-industrial in the 18th c, and some industries in some locations are still preindustrialized.
Lastly, my customers have no idea what period woodworking is. They seem to respond more to 18th century woodworking, which of course is inaccurate. I'm not an "18th century" woodworker, and my furniture is not "18th century" furniture. I guess you could slip the word "style" in there as a qualifier.
I appreciate the impatience woodworkers have for this sort of word choice nonsense. But I think it IS important, especially between us here on the internet, to try to more accurately define where our interest lies, how we prefer to work, etc etc. Clearly "period woodworking" or "period furnituremaking" isn't sufficient as Mel pointed out.
So I guess on whole, and regardless of what I posted earlier (which was just to discuss forgeries and fraud in the art world), I agree with Ray's sentiments.
Adam
hgdis1,
You asked about making period furniture, and you got feedback from some very capable people. If you are interested in seeing what they can do, go to their websites. Ray Pine (joinerswork) is at
http://www.davidraypine.com/index.html
and Adam Cherubini is at
http://www.adamcherubini.com
(I wasn't trying to be complete with this short list, and I preemptively ask forgiveness from all those who were left off of it.) Someone suggested web searches. That will do it. (My daugher-in-law works for Google, so let me shamelessly and unbiasedly recommend Google.)
I would make a "Portrait of Dorian Gray" deal to acquire the skills of some of woodworkers who responded to your message. My current approach to acquiring their skill levels is progressing much too slowly.
I think that your brief message didn't really say enough about what you are intending, or what your background is. Do you have a Ph.D. in joinery from Cambridge? Are you in the woodworking business, or looking for a niche and trying to get into the custom furniture business? Or do you have a serious woodworking "hobby"? Or have you decided to skip making a box and just get started in woodworking by copying some early masterpieces? Are you descended from the Seymours of Boston? If you are a Seymour, you have some good woodworking genes. Tom made some really nice pieces. :-)
If you provide a little more background, I believe the responses will be more tailored to your specific needs?
Enjoy,
Mel
Wow. When this thread started I was underwhelmed by the topic, read the first couple days reponses--which is all there was--and moved on making fake period saws.
I just came back to it and read through it a couple times. Wonderful resource of books and the discussion is intriguing, bright and wonderfully engaging.
So I just wanted to say thank you to each of the people who have taken the time to write such wonderful responses to what I had assumed was going to be a nonstarter.
Take care, Mike
I don't know if any of the other posters have mentioned "Colonial Furniture" from Lee Valley Classic Reprints, item # 49L80.05, $12.50.
i have used several for reference, ideas,"how did they do that,etc."
Pete
Hi All,
I'm sitting back here with a bottle of red on a Saturday night and will freely admit that I'd given up on Knots as a forum.
This thread restored its credibility in my eyes; an intellectual thread far 'exceeding' the others.
Thanks to all participants, I've picked up a fair bit.
Cheers,
eddie
(& thanks!) - linked below was my last period reproduction, a Hepplewhite hall table.
Hi Eddie,
Thanks for sharing the picture. I like the 4-way match and the fans. Never have done fans, but probably will one day.
Take care, Mike
eddie,
Pretty work. Next time though, making your drawer sides a little shorter will allow them to close all the way. Ha haHH.
Regards,
Ray
Thanks Mike & Ray,
Cheers,
eddie
(who used to be able to cut 4 half blind pins and a matching set of tails in about 1 hour, but is a little slower now as I haven't had to cut a set of half-blind dovetails in over a year.)
Edited 7/17/2006 5:24 am by eddiefromAustralia
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled