I have just about finished a pair of Philadelphia Chippendale style arm chairs with carved shells on the knees of the legs (integral), one on the front seat rail and one applied to the crest rail. The one applied on the crest rail seems thin, since half of it protrudes up above the crest rail, and there is an obvious difference in the thickness of the material compared to the crest rail itself. I think this is the way it was originally made, although all of the photos I have seen of similar chairs are from the front, and I can’t find a side view photo. On one of my two chairs (so far) I have made a backing of mahogany which is the same thickness as the crest rail itself, and this makes the carved shell look much more integral, although a little thick. Any comments or adivce regarding these applied shells? I carved one based on an article by Lonnnie Bird published by the American Society of Period Furniture Makers, but he does not address the details of how it should be applied to the chair. Thanks a lot. When I get home today I will post a few photos to this discussion to make it clearer.
Jay
Replies
Photos would definitely help.
Jay,
I certainly could be wrong, but I thought all crest rail carvings were integral to the crests. Some books such as the Yale book on seating furniture and countless others including auction catalogs would have detailed photos. You can also go to chipstone.org and follow the links to the collection and digital database, there are some great photos in that collection, although there may not be an exact one that you are building. Cal
Philadelphia chippendale? Never seen an applied carving. Doesn't mean they don't exist. Sounds suspicious.
I recently looked at many of these chairs and was struck by the difference between what folks have written about them versus how they really are. Maybe guys looked over these and didn't realize how they were made. Or maybe they examined them and thought "no way, I'm not doing that". My fear is that guys have seen centennial chairs or pictures of chairs and based their observations on that. Clearly that's not good enough.
One of the things that's funny about Philly chair is how similar the joinery is between makers. It appears there was a standard way to build a chair. I've not seen that method detailed anywhere.
In other threads we've talked about what is means to be a "style". In Philadelphia, it's fairly clear. Different builders made similar products which had features or construction unique to the region.
Adam
Adam
Adam,
Thank you and the others for your reply. I have not been striving for historical accuracy, but adopted the term used by Mr Bird, when he refers to this style of armchair. I drafted the plans myself from various photos since I could not seem to obtain any measured drawings of this style. I'd be curious about your thoughts on that article from Lonnie Bird published in the SAPFM journal, which unequivocally relates to applied shells. (September 2004, volume IV, pages 6-11) The chair shown on the cover and on page 6 of that journal is just about what I am building. I'm going downstairs right now to take a couple of pictures which I will post. I do appreciate the input.
Thanks again,
Jay
Jay
Jay,
I have not seen a Chippendale chair with an applied shell on the crest. There may be some out there, but I'd say that is not the standard practice.
It is frustrating that the books only show details of the interesting parts of the furniture; the front side, the carving, the feet. One of the articles I've read on Virginia chairs showed a few examples that were obviously cut out with the intention (or certainly the option) that they be carved, but for whatever reason- economics, customer preference- were finished with the spaces for the carved elements left blank.
The backs of these pieces are generally thinned towards the top, rounding over to meet the carved edge of the front.
Ray
Jay,
Three chair backs.
One of the problems I have with these chairs is that their basic shape is so tremendously complex. Ray's picture isn't the clearest but its a good angle to refer to what I want to mention.The top of the splat on these (Philly chippendale) chairs is straight. (this isn't always the case with other styles). And it's often (but not always) the case that the crest rail is perfectly straight across the back legs at this joint. Some guys appeared to have carved the center out a little. Keep in mind the splat's upper tenon has a shoulder in front, so there's a little room to dish it out. But for our purposes, let's just say it's flat. Starting from the splat tenon working up, the crest rails are typically dished out pretty good. Sometimes more than a 1/2". The crest rail doesn't remain flat all the way up. You can't see this in a front view. It's not easy to see in a side view either.Regarding the glue blocks behind your shell, you absolutely need one. But there are also glue blocks (often missed by reproduction furniture makers, and missing from period chairs) under the crest rail behind the splat. These are shaped into a quarter round-ish shape and fared in with the back of the crest rail after they are glued in place. They were always present in Philadelphia Chippendale chairs (but, as I said, often missing). They were always oriented parallel to the crest rail. This is a little detail that strengthens the splat tenons (especially important on ribbon back chairs) and softens the otherwise abrupt transition between the thick crest rail and thin splat.Lastly, when shaping these chairs, you've got to be aggressive. These chairs are very delicate. Reproductions can get blocky looking. Even an extra 1/8" can do it. I promise not to make a habit of linking KNOTS readers to my blog site, but I just wrote about this phenomenon. I'm building one of these chairs right now.http://www.popularwoodworking.com/blog3/The+Wood+Stretcher.aspxAdam
Adam,
I aappreciate your comments. Just for the record, the crest rail is dished out 1/4 inch, although it may appear flat in the photos. I bandsawed the curve so the piece is 1 1/8 thick out of a 1/1/2 inch thick blank. I must admit I didn't know about the glue block behind the splat, but it does make sense to ease the transition to the crest, and I will add it. When you commented about some chairs appearing too block like or thick, is it your opinion that these are that way? I'm trying to always improve, so let me have it if you believe so. Just try to be specific about exactly where on the chair you think the shape shold be more delicate. I would say I was very aggressive with a spokeshave, rasp and scrapers and tried to fair the curves in a flowing manner. Here is a picture of my legs/ankles. (of course they are not fully sanded and finished.)
Thanks again,
Jay
I wasn't really commenting on your chair specifically. And for the same reason it's hard to really understand how the originals are shaped from photos, it's hard to see how your chair is shaped from photos. My "blocky" comment was about chairs I've seen in the flesh. Off the top of my head, your top knuckle looks a little funny. Like it's sticking out too much. BTW, Is the center of your ball in the center of the stock?I apologize; I need to back away from this thread. I'm working on this subject as we speak and I don't want to step on anybody's toes. Send me an email offline if you wish to discuss this further.Adam
Edited 8/23/2008 10:37 am ET by AdamCherubini
Adam,
I do this from my basement as a hobby. I am open to anyone's suggestions as long as they are constructive, and preferably based on some experience. I get to work a couple of hours here and there on the weekend and this set of chairs probably will have taken me a year and a half to complete. Don't worry about stepping on toes. The center of the ball was layed out on the center of the stock (end grain) but the center of the ball from top to bottom is done by eye, by drawing a horizontal line across the ball and carving downhill from there. The closeup photos I posted were shot at an earlier stage of shaping and some of that prominence has been filed off.
I guess it's too late for the knobs on the ends of the crest rail. They are basically in line with the volutes, but to me it is visually pleasing, so if there is a next time, I'll take that into consideration.
These are my 3rd and 4th Chippendale chairs. (first attempt at armchair) I shaped the ball and claw using methods from an article in FWW from a few years ago on the Chippendale stool, and also Lonnie Bird's book on shaping wood. I also referred to Ron Clarkson's book on the Chippendale chair. Here is a photo of an older one I made a few years ago.
Thanks,
Jay
Jay - One comment I neglected is in regards to the B&C feet on your chairs. There's a lot of variation in these from period examples, both between colonial furniture making centers and between artists in one city. That said, I have not seen any of these on a period example with that much of an arris between the flesh of the toe and claw. In general, I would guess that the difference is no more than 1/16", with some examples being just suggested by a carved line.
Adam has probably seen a lot more of these original examples than I have - most of my "in the flesh" examinations have been the ones carved in tidewater Virginia, Charleston, and coastal North Carolina at MESDA.
I've a set of B&C legs carved in the philadelphia style underway in my shop at the moment. If you're interested, I can send you a picture.
I am not sure I understand exactly what the arris is. If you could clarify and send that phot, I would be appreciative. Thanks.
Jay
Jay - what I mean is the "step" transistion from the flesh of the toe to the claw. I'll send you a photo of the set I'm working on.
Got it. I can shave/file/sand this down if needed, although I have matched the appearance in several instructional articles (mentioned in the thread earlier). I have not studied original period pieces however. Thanks very much.
Jay
Here are a few photos. Since I carved the shells as applied, do you prefer with or without a backing block and should the block if used, be left square on it's rear edge or rounded over? Thanks.
Jay
Hi Jay,
I'll try to attach another picture of a different chair.
Regarding the shape of your crest rail as a whole: It appears to me that the ears are a little on the short side. Philly ears are generally longer, some of them to the point of looking like caricatures. This changes the proportions of the crest rail, and also allows for more flowing curves in the area of the ears and the carving of the flutes. More often than not the "bulb" in the center of the ear protrudes past, or extends farther than, the edges where the volutes are carved, rather than being in line with them.
Ray
Hi, From the view on this polished chair top rail, it looks as its carved from the solid wood, not applied. You state you are open to anyone's suggestions; well my view is completely constructive. I’m sorry but its incorrect if your copying the polished chair attached, the shell is carved from the solid, and not applied.
Joinerswork put that photo up as an example. Obviously that particular shell is integral. It is not one I was trying to copy. If you follow the thread carefully you will see that I stated I was not going for historical accuracy, nor was I copying any one chair. So, there cannot be any "correct" or "incorrect", it's just a matter of what you like. As I stated earlier also, I was following the guidance of a particular article by a reputable author in a reputable journal, and did not make up the concept of the applied shell out of thin air. It seems from the discussion that this may not have been the post popular method used at that period, but that's what I did.
Jay
I'm not disturbed about stating the obvious, you did state constructive, and informative info will be consider. Also now its nether, “Correct or Incorrect”, what ####, what happened to Art we pass on? Someone not aware of correct design could be influenced, for those reason its Very “Incorrect”.
Jay -
A couple of comments. It's hard to tell from your photos, but it looks like your crest-rail shell has the grain oriented vertically, and it's glued to a horizontal grain crest rail. That may give you some problems in the future. Even at this small scale, cross-grain construction doesn't hold up too well without some sort of mechanical reinforcement. The glue block will help a little, but not much. While it's not "period correct", you might choose to drill a couple of stopped holes through the back of the crest rail into the shell, and glue in wooden pins.
From the standpoint of the front rail, I've seen quite a few of similar chairs in the collection of the Museum of Early Southern Decorative Arts in Salem, NC that were applied. In fact, all of them that I've examined were applied. However, none of the crest rail carvings were. Keep in mind that what I viewed is a fairly small sample, so it's not impossible that there are some shops in the colonial era that chose to apply carvings to the rest rail of rococco chairs rather than carve the ornaments from the solid.
I too was interested in the shapes of the backs of the chairs, since they're seldom (if ever) photographed in books. The ones in the MESDA collection are almost uniformly rounded on the bottom and back top of the crest rail (but not the front top edge), while the back of the splats were chamfered (probably with a chisel). The splats were suprisingly thick - MESDA will not allow photographs nor measurements, but by using my index finger as a gauge, I was able to determine that many of the splats are about 3/8" - 1/2" thick. Considering that these splats were sawn from a solid plank with a "turning saw" (the period term for a bowsaw), that makes sense. Bowsaws are wonderful tools, but it isn't easy to use them to saw to a line across a broad width (unlike a frame, or veneer, saw).
Considering that these splats were sawn from a solid plank with a "turning saw" (the period term for a bowsaw), that makes sense. Bowsaws are wonderful tools, but it isn't easy to use them to saw to a line across a broad width (unlike a frame, or veneer, saw).Do you have evidence of this? I tried this and found it next to impossible to do adequately. The splat is simply too wide to scroll. I found it was faster and more accurate to simply hog out the shape with a 7/8" #7 gouge.I'm wondering if you've seen saw marks on the backs or not. (I have not)thanks,Adam
Edited 8/23/2008 10:55 am ET by AdamCherubini
Because the width of the splatt is greater than my bandsaw's cutting capacity, I shaped the splat from a single piece by using a dado cutter and miter guage to cross cut across it, approximating to the line of curvature (while leaving a support block at each end), then cleaning to the line with a spokeshave. I have tried the bowsaw by hand and it does have a tendency to wander.
Jay Stallman
Adam - I've not seen direct evidence for sawing out splats from a board. What I mentioned is repeated from books (and I acknowledge that there's a lot of mis-information in books on antiques, particularly older ones). On the splats I've examined, all of them are completely "finished" (i.e., planed and scraped) both front and back. I presume that was necessary because both the front an back of a chair would be very visible in use. In fact, the antiques I've examined generally only had highly conspicuous tool marks inside the seat rails and stiles, and the insides of knee blocks.
However, I'm not ready to discount the idea that splats would've been re-sawn out of a plank with a large bow saw. While it's considerably easier to shape the curves with a rounding plane (or a gouge, as you mentioned), sets of colonial chairs exist where the figure in the splat closely matches. That would seem to suggest that they were sawn out, rather than shaped from individual 8/4 boards.
I'll admit that my skills (and probably my bowsaw) are not up to that task, but I'm also not capable of re-sawing 1/16" veneers from a log with a frame saw. Historical references would suggest that was common practice in the 18th century.
I just don't want to give anybody the impression that they can grab their Disston D8 or ECE 700mm frame saw and simply saw out a veneer or back splat. It's just not that easy. In fact, it's so difficult, I wonder if it's possible/practical. The French had machines to cut veneers. English and american veneers were probably quite a bit thicker. Extant veneers are little help since many were scraped smooth. They easily could have started out at 1/8". When we talk about stuff like this on the internet, there's an impression that people are currently doing such work and that it's no big deal. On the contrary, this is a very big deal. I have Roubo's frame saw and it's no picnic. I may need a new blade. Adam
I am a few weeks from starting a couple of back splats myself. My plan to shape them was to rough out the concave side with a large round and the convex with a bench plane. The curve isn't so drastic, a scrub should even be able to get you close. I'll finish with a gouge or scraper. I haven't tried this yet, but it's the plan... I never seriously considered sawing them.
I tried this using the blade on my bowsaw and it was impossible, however, when I took a 3/8 wide 3 tooth skip bandsaw blade and drilled holes in the ends to mount it on the bowsaw. This still wandered but much less so. It also helps to make cross grain relief cuts to re-start the resaw cut if you drift.
Jay
You are correct that cross grain construction could be a problem here, but although you may not be able to tell from the photos, the grain of the shells runs horizontally, parallel to the crest rail and front seat rail. Thanks for the observations.
Jay
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled