Est. 1998 — 27 years of woodworking knowledge
call to Adam.....
bill tindal, E.TN
>You mentioned briefly the results of an examination of a Townsend piece in April PW which I got in February (I think the publication would be improved if Ellis sent each author a hat). I will likely never get to peek into a Townsend piece. I think it would be of general interest to elaborate on this Forum your observations of this piece regarding degree of refinement of surfaces and any other observations of interest.
Bill
Jim Shaver Oakville, Ont.
>Hi Bill,
Was that the work he described as rough on the inside, not as finished as was the outside of the piece?
Take care,
Jim
Re: Bill
Mark Harrison - Brisbane, Australia
>You will find this in many antiques.
I have an antique bookcase (c1880) that has a frame and panel back. The back of the bookcase is decidedly rough (rough sawn panels for instance) yet the visible exterior is of a very high standard.
yes
bill tindal, E.TN
>
Re: call to Adam.....
Adam Cherubini
>There was an exhibit at the Met. Joel and I went together. They had a few pieces upside down. And there is a John Townsend book with pictures. Also Philly has some Townsend stuff I got to look into. And I always look when I can because its Townsend- he is so well regarded and there IS this dichotomy that you frankly don't see everywhere else.
Anyway, the inner surfaces of a tea table I saw appeared to be unplaned, and very irregular dimensionally. Backs were also very poorly done. Like I said in the article, every imaginable surface was present in those pieces, from fine figured primary surfaces to jack planed guts to unplaned saw marks.
Extant finishes on primary surfaces can't really be relied upon to indicate the exact original surface treatment. We should always assume extant surfaces to reflect one to one hundred refinishings. Especially when secondary surfaces are so rough.
The other thing I thought was a bit odd was that the aprons of a few small tea tables were tied together underneath with sticks with single (vertical) dovetails at either end. Never seen that before and not sure why he felt that was neccessary.
In general, I think 18th c American furniture is no where nearly as nice as people think it is. The later stuff from England got nicer. And furniture from places where those Englishmen settled- some southern colonies, certainly Philadelphia, exhibits more uniformity in almost every regard.
Adam