Logan Cabinet Shoppe

Well, I was planning on doing another podcast this week but Mother Nature has different ideas. My wife and I went away for our anniversary over the weekend and ever since returning I've been sick. Needless to say, my shop time has been nil and I certainly don't feel up to filming a podcast. So instead, I thought I'd share a few interesting photos from the trip.

We visited Winterthur over the weekend and toured the house and galleries. For anyone with an interest in period furniture, Winterthur is a must see. H.F. Dupont was a collector of all things early Americana and Winterthur was his 1000 acre estate where he displayed them for all of his guests. Everything from silver to fine china, fabric, paintings, and of course, furniture. One could easily spend days just looking at all the pieces in the house (we only got to see the 5th floor). Then of course there is the gallery and a free library open to the public.

In this post I want to focus on one piece in particular. Pictured first is a description of a highboy built by the Dominy shop between 1791 and 1806. Note that this particular piece was one of the most expensive pieces produced by the shop. Based on that fact, I think it is safe to assume that this piece was considered a first class piece at the time.

Today, a new reproduction of a piece like this from a custom cabinetmaker would probably cost you about $7,000. However, as we look at the piece, it becomes very obvious that what was acceptable and expected in a piece of furniture in 1790 may not quite be what our standards are in the present day.

I found it interesting first that a piece with such early features was built so late in the period. The piece is unmistakably Queen Anne Baroque in style, yet most tastes during this part of the period, which was after the revolution, were for furniture in more of what we would today consider the Chippendale or Federal styles. This piece, being very symmetrical and devoid of any excess ornamentation, clearly doesn't fit the Chippendale ideals and certainly is not suggestive of the Roccoco in any way. But it is still a beautiful piece, and in my opinion, it's restraint from being overly ornate is its strong point. For what it's worth, this happens to be my favorite style of early American furniture.
 

Looking a bit closer, we can begin to see some of the construction methods used by the original builder and mentally disassemble the piece. Pegs in the leg block to hold the tenon into it's mortise suggest that clamps weren't likely needed, at least not for assembly of the cases. This is a very different way of thinking than we are accustomed to today. However, looking over the piece, it becomes clear that the maker probably didn't use clamps for any part of the assembly. The joinery used made clamping unnecessary.

I find these two pictures particularly interesting. Note the sliding dovetail used to fix the drawer blade to the case. This is the same drawer blade, just opposite sides of the front of the case. Note how the dovetail on the left has a single angled cheek while the dovetail on the right has two angled cheeks as we would expect. What happend to that left dovetail? Would you have done the same or would you have made a new drawer blade so both dovetails matched? This drawer blade was not unique to this piece. None of the blades had matching dovetails. In my eyes, this is glaring evidence that the masters who made these pieces were much less concerned with perfect joinery than we are today. Go back and look at the picture of the entire piece again. Do you seen the different dovetails now that I have pointed them out? Did you notice them the first time you looked at the piece?

This is another picture that I think is thought provoking. First, note the nails holding the knee block to the leg. This was common practice with cabriole legs. However, also note the fix that was made to the bottom of the side panel. Is this an original repair done by a cabinetmaker who accidentally made a bad cut or a restorer not very good at their job? Also notice the back of the leg block. It's full rough width if you can't tell. The rear of the leg blocks of the back legs weren't cut flush to the case but left straight. Would you have done something like this (I certainly wouldn't).

I always find looking at these old pieces to be very thought provoking. How would the original maker have done this or that? Why did they do this or why didn't they do that? If there was money on the line and I needed to meet a delivery date, would I have done anything differently?

It's interesting to me to try to put myself in their shoes for a short while and try to understand what circumstances made them make the decisions they did. But even more gratifying to me is seeing the work and reassuring myself that my dovetails don't have to be perfect and my surfaces don't have to be 100% tearout free. After all, dovetails are just a way to hold two boards together. There are much more important features that make a piece a masterpiece.

Oh, and in case the furniture isn't real interesting to you, here's a gratuitous tool picture.