Click on images for larger view

A feast for the eyes, this chest with its original painted decoration offers a rare glimpse of the colorful and imaginative interiors of early eighteenth-century American households. The façade practically explodes with an array of decorative details that are all the more remarkable for their survival in virtually intact condition. It is also a pivotal work juxtaposing old and new. The joinery and most of the motifs are derived from the carved “Hadley” chest tradition, which flourished in the upper Connecticut River Valley from the late seventeenth century through the early decades of the eighteenth, while the all-over decorative scheme shows the presence of new ideas such as the influence of urban, veneered furniture made in the emerging William and Mary style.1 Displaying many of the same distinctive details in design and method, three other examples of furniture by the same paint-decorator are known. All are in museum collections, including the famed cupboard made for Hannah Barnard of Hadley, Massachusetts. 

As determined by paint analysis performed by conservator Susan Buck, this chest-with-drawers is an extraordinary display of original paintwork from early eighteenth-century America. Samples taken from eight areas reveal that earliest layers of paint, which have seeped into the wood substrate, are largely intact and have not been removed or over-painted by restorers during its three-hundred year history. Thus, the decorative designs visible today are wholly the creation of the chest’s paint-decorator. Nevertheless, the chest’s appearance has changed over time due to the natural degradation of some pigments and darkening of subsequent layers of varnish. Buck’s analysis of the other three closely related forms indicates that the Hannah Barnard cupboard also survives in a similar, almost pristine state of preservation while the chests at Winterthur Museum and the Pocumtuck Valley Memorial Association have suffered significant losses and/or overpaint.2

In her discussion of the Hannah Barnard cupboard, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich notes its “flamboyance, its unabashed claim for attention,” qualities that were largely achieved through a spectacularly colorful appearance.3 The chest offered here can make a similar claim and as striking as it appears today, it was considerably more vibrant when it was made. As revealed by Buck’s analysis, the façade was covered with a thin, white ground and on which motifs in orange, green, maroon and possibly yellow were painted with pigments bound in oil. In addition, the black borders on the façade were applied on top of the white ground, but the side panels were painted black directly on the wood. While the yellow colored sample was compromised and unavailable for analysis, the other three colors were similar in composition to those found on the three forms with related decoration. The white ground would have been quite dazzling and its original appearance can be seen in the abraded areas on the front panels where the later darkened layers of varnish have been removed. The orange areas consist of vermilion, an expensive pigment not usually part of a house carpenter’s inventory during the era, and red lead. Found on all three of the related forms, this combination yielded a bright red/orange color. Similarly, the composition of the maroon areas, a combination of red lead, red ochre, charcoal black and a scattering of yellow ochre, is comparable to Buck’s findings from the other pieces. A point of departure on the chest offered here, however, is the make-up of the dark green areas. Here, they were made from copper resinate or verdigris, which would have yielded a “brilliant green and highly glossy” color that is somewhat evident in the abraded areas. On the other forms, a blue-green verditer was used for this hue. Despite this variation, Buck concludes that the preponderance of evidence from the composition of the pigments strongly indicates that this chest and the other three forms were painted by the same source. Furthermore, as seen in the recent treatment of the Hannah Barnard cupboard, the chest offered here could be cleaned to more closely reveal its original palette. In Buck’s words, “The relative difference in solubility between the original paints and the later varnishes could be exploited to develop a safe, controllable approach to removing the most recent varnishes, if desired.”4

The hand of a single craftsman in the decoration of these four forms is also evident in the layout of the designs. In addition to the tools required for the grinding, mixing and application of paint, the decorator of this group of furniture made extensive use of a “pair of compasses” or possibly a divider. A standard component of the joiner’s equipage, a compass frequently appears hanging on the wall above the workbench in the few early images of the interiors of joiners’ shops. Compasses provided a variety of functions and as noted in the late seventeenth century by Joseph Moxon, “Their Office is to describe Circles, and set off Distances from their Rule, or any other Measure, to their Work.”5 Moxon’s description is well illustrated by the work of this decorator. While some details such as the leaves, squiggle lines, and curlicue flourishes are painted free-hand, the majority of the motifs are laid out with a compass or a divider. The condition of this chest’s surface is so well preserved that the scribe lines are clearly evident. In some instances, these lines also reveal that the decorator changed his mind; for example, the urn motif consisting of two “S”-shaped lines at the base of the proper right muntin was initially laid out with one “S” line in the flipped position. 

In both overall layout and specific motifs, the paint-decorator was heavily indebted to the carved “Hadley” chest tradition yet may also have been inspired by other contemporaneous forms to create his own inventive designs. Like many of the two-drawer carved “Hadley” chests, the decoration on the two rails above and below the three panels approximates a broad, wavy pattern while the two narrower rails below feature more compressed undulating vines. Furthermore, the lozenges on the stiles, the six-pointed star and lobed floral motifs on the drawers, and the curlicues emanating from the lozenges on the three frontal panels are all details employed by carvers of “Hadley” chests.6 The lobed, floral design repeated on each drawer on the chest offered here is also seen in painted form on a chest thought to have been made for Katron King (b. 1701) of Northampton, Massachusetts soon before her marriage in 1724. As noted by Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, this six-lobed floral motif closely resembles that on English delftware, providing another possible source of inspiration for this decorator. A similarly shaped flower is the central medallion on a set of delftware plates thought to have been a 1715 wedding gift to Esther Williams (1691-1751) of Deerfield, a first cousin of Sarah Williams (1695-1720), one of the possible first owners of the SW chest (see below).7 The “dartboard” designs on the two outer panels, however, do not appear to have been part of the carved “Hadley” chest tradition. Two board chests, the first made in Hadley with the initials SP and the second possibly in Rockingham County, New Hampshire, illustrate a series of six-pointed stars and concentric circles that appear to be the closest parallel to the “dartboard” designs seen on the chest offered here and the painted SW chest.8 Displaying a fondness for juxtaposing light and dark panels of color, the paint-decorator of these chests used similar concentric circles but divided and alternatively filled in the interiors to create a checkerboard effect. 

The chest’s construction falls squarely within the carved “Hadley” chest tradition and displays the joinery methods seen on a large group of chests made from Springfield to Hatfield. These details include side-hung drawers with sides each joined to the drawer front with one dovetail that lies above the channeled groove, drawer bottoms that each abut a rabbet in the drawer front, a framed upper backboard panel and a bevelled lower backboard panel that is nailed over the rear medial rail and lower rear stiles. The Hannah Barnard and SW chest are both noted to feature similar construction and it is likely that all three were made in the same shop. With a fully framed lower backboard panel, the chest-of-drawers at Winterthur varies slightly from these practices and may represent a different joinery shop or given its advanced form, possibly the evolution of practices within the same shop.9 If all made in the same shop, it is possible that the joiner and paint-decorator were the same individual. 

Based on what is known of the first owners of the Hannah Barnard cupboard and the SW chest, it appears that this group of painted furniture was made for the families of the ruling elite of Hadley. With relative certainty, the cupboard can be linked to the young woman named Hannah Barnard (1684-1716) who was born in Hadley, in 1715 married John Marsh (1679-1725) as his second wife and died the following year. John Marsh married thirdly Sarah Williams (1688-1759), and she has been proposed as the first owner of the SW chest. However, Laurel Thatcher Ulrich posits Sarah Williams’ second cousin of the same name as a more likely candidate. This Sarah Williams (1695-1720) married Hannah Barnard’s first cousin, Samuel Barnard (1684-1762) in 1718 and the couple lived in Deerfield prior to her death two years later.10 Furthermore, the board chest in was most likely made by Samuel Porter I (1635-1689) or his son Samuel Porter II (1660-1722), the grandfather and father of Joanna Porter (b. 1687), the first wife of John Marsh, suggesting that these forms and related examples were owned within a group of closely interconnected families. Moreover, these families represented the economic and political elite. In the 1720 valuation of Hadley, the fathers of Joanna Porter, John Marsh and Hannah Barnard—namely Samuel Porter II (1660-1722), Daniel Marsh (1653-1724) and Samuel Barnard (1653-1728)—ranked 1st, 4th and 7th respectively in a list of 117 inhabitants.11 In 1713, around the time these painted forms were made, their stature is further evident in their positions as three of the five committee members entrusted to oversee the construction of the town’s new meetinghouse.12 Such prestigious ownership indicates that these forms were luxury goods. Given the expense of materials and time-consuming nature of the layout and execution of the paintwork, these forms were not less expensive versions of the carved models but items of considerable cost.13

This chest is the property of a family whose ancestors include several members of the Porter, Barnard and Williams families and it is likely that until its inclusion in this sale, this chest has never been out of the family for which it was made. The ownership of the chest can be traced as far back as Edward Spaulding Brewer (1846-1911) and his renown as a collector may indicate that he acquired the chest from a family living in proximity to his homes in Springfield and Longmeadow, Massachusetts.14 However, his mother, née Sarah Porter (1821-1886), was on her father’s side the great granddaughter of Nathaniel Porter (b. 1708), Joanna Porter’s second cousin. On her mother’s side, she was the great great granddaughter of Samuel Barnard (1684-1762), Hannah Barnard’s first cousin and the husband of Sarah Williams (1695-1720), one of the possible owners of the SW chest. Either too young, living far afield from Hadley or already possibly owning one of these painted forms, Brewer’s direct ancestors do not appear to be likely candidates for the first owners of the chest offered here. However, if the chest descended along allied family lines, one of their relatives may very well have first enjoyed this colorful and imaginative form. 


1 Philip Zea, catalogue entry, The Great River: Art and Society of the Connecticut Valley, 1635-1820 (Hartford, 1985), pp. 206-207, cat. 83.

2 Susan L. Buck, “Cross-Section Paint Analysis Report: Polychrome Painted Chest, c. 1715, Hadley, Massachusetts,” 27 November 2015. One of Buck’s samples indicates that there was minor re-touching to the paintwork around the drawer knobs, see ibid., p. 17. For her study of the three related forms, see Susan L. Buck, “Early Polychrome Chests from Hadley, Massachusetts: A Technical Investigation of their Paint and Finish” American Furniture 2009, Luke Beckerdite, ed. (Milwaukee, 2009), pp. 42-61.

3 Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, The Age of Homespun: Objects and Stories in the Creation of an American Myth (New York, 2001), p. 128.

4 Buck 2015 and Buck 2009, op. cit.

5 Joseph Moxon, Mechanick Exercises: or the Doctrine of Handy-Works, Applied to the Arts of Smithing, Joinery, Carpentry, Turning, and Bricklaying (3rd ed., London, 1703), p. 104; cited in Wendy A. Cooper, Patricia Edmonson, and Lisa M. Minardi, “The Compass Artist of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania,” American Furniture 2009, Luke Beckerdite, ed. (Milwaukee, 2009), p. 67. A divider differed from a compass by having a screw that could lock the hinged joint. Both compasses and dividers at this time had two legs with pointed ends and only later compasses had one of the legs fitted with an attachment for a drawing implement. 

6 The two-drawer carved “Hadley” chests with related vine decoration comprise the group associated by Clair Franklin Luther with Hatfield and the Allis family. See Clair Franklin Luther, The Hadley Chest (Hartford, 1935), pp. xv-xvi, 80, nos. 6, 24 and Philip Zea, “The Fruits of Oligarchy: Patronage and Joinery in Western Massachusetts, 1630-1730” (Master’s thesis, University of Delaware, 1984), pp. 87-93, cats. 2-3. In his discussion of the Barnard cupboard, Zea notes that the motifs are drawn from Hampshire County furniture and cites the Hatfield chests and a carved “Hadley” chest with initials “LB” now at Old Sturbridge Village (acc. no. 5.8.83) and attributed by Zea to Hadley area, 1700-1720. The “LB” chest features 6-pointed stars, lozenges and curlicues, all seen on the chest offered here, as well as inverted hearts, which are seen on the Hannah Barnard cupboard and Winterthur chest in figs. 1, 2 (Zea 1984, pp. 116-119, cat. 10). A carved “I P” chest (Luther, p. 105, no. 65) displays some of the same details and is thought to have been first owned by Joanna Porter (b. 1687), the first wife of John Marsh. For a carved “Hadley” chest with similar lobed, floral designs, see the Mary Pease chest at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston (acc. no. 32.216). 

7 Ulrich 2001, op. cit., pp. 121, 134. For more on the King chest, see Philip Zea, catalogue entry, The Great River, op. cit., pp. 206-207, cat. 84.

8 For the SP board chest, see also William N. Hosley and Philip Zea, “Decorated Board Chests of the Connecticut River Valley,” The Magazine Antiques (May 1981), p. 1147, fig. 3 and Philip Zea, catalogue entry, The Great River, op. cit., pp. 196-197, cat. 75. The board chest possibly made in Rockingham County, New Hampshire, is in the collections of Historic Deerfield, acc. no. HD 1910. 

9 For carved “Hadley” chests with similar construction, see Zea 1984, pp. 98-100, 104-115, cats. 5, 7-9. For more on the construction of “Hadley” chests, see Zea 1984, pp. 62-77 and an article based on his master’s thesis, Philip Zea, “The Fruits of Oligarchy: Patronage and the Hadley Chest Tradition in Western Massachusetts,” Old-Time New England: Essays in Memory of Benno M. Forman, vol. 72 (Boston, 1987), pp. 5-7.

10 Ulrich 2001, pp. 133-135. 

11 Laurel Thatcher Ulrich, “Hannah Barnard’s Cupboard: Family Property and Identity in Eighteenth-Century New England,” in Through a Glass Darkly: Reflections on Personal Identity in Early America, Ronald Hoffman, Mechal Sobel, Fredrika J. Teute, eds. (Chapel Hill, 1997), p. 256, fn. 21. 

12 Sylvester Judd, History of Hadley (Springfield, 1905), p. 310.

13 The expense and prominence of the Hannah Barnard cupboard is discussed in Zea 1984, p. 125. For more on the Barnard family and this cupboard as an expression of their “upstart” behavior, see Ulrich 2001, pp. 123-129. 

14 Brewer’s collection was described in 1893 as “one of the largest and most perfect of existing collections of furniture, household belongings, china, literature, documents, and other curious pertaining to the colonial period and the earlier years of the United States. Almost every piece has a history and credentials, and nothing has been thought too homely or primitive for admission to the collection, if only it illustrates the familiar, every-day life of early days” (“Personal Gossip,” The New York Times, 2 November 1893, accessed online).

Provenance: Possibly a member of the Porter, Barnard or Williams families, Hadley and Deerfield, Massachusetts

Edward Spaulding Brewer (1846-1911), Springfield and Longmeadow, Massachusetts, possibly by descent

Thence by descent in the family

Sold at Christie's Auction January 22, 2016.

Price Realized: $1,025,000


PHILADELPHIA, 1700-1730, 28 in. high, 32.25 in. wide, 20.75 in. deep.

Highly elaborate and almost frenetically energized, the stretchers on this dressing table make it one of the most exciting Baroque furniture forms to survive from early America. The same unusual stretcher design is seen on two other dressing tables in the collections of the Chipstone Foundation and the Philadelphia Museum of Art and despite differences between the three forms, all were most likely made in the same shop. As described by Alan Miller, the arcs on the stretchers have uneven widths, a design that he notes “[creates] a sense of tension and momentum” and makes the negative spaces “more charged and taut” (Alan Miller, “Flux in Design and Method in Early Eighteenth-Century Philadelphia Furniture,” American Furniture 2014, Luke Beckerdite, ed. (Milwaukee, 2014), p. 40). Like the Chipstone example, the dressing table offered here is made of mahogany with turnings made from a local wood; here, the legs and feet are made of maple whereas the feet of the Chipstone example are made of red cedar. Such variation in primary woods may have been a cost-saving practice or indicate that the maker did not have mahogany boards of sufficient width on hand for the turned components. The use of mahogany during the first quarter of the eighteenth century in Pennsylvania is rare, but in addition to surviving forms, its presence is documented in cabinetmakers’ inventories dating soon after 1700 (Gerald W. R. Ward, American Case Furniture in the Mabel Brady Garvan and Other Collections at Yale University (New Haven, 1988), p. 295; Ward cites Cathryn J. McElroy, “Furniture in Philadelphia: The First Fifty Years,” American Furniture and Its Makers: Winterthur Portfolio, vol. 13 (Chicago, 1979), p. 72). Another contemporaneous dressing table shows a similar combination of mahogany and cherrywood, which like maple and red cedar, could have been readily treated to obscure any color differences with the mahogany case and stretchers (Jack L. Lindsey, Worldly Goods: The Arts of Early Pennsylvania 1680-1758 (Philadelphia, 1999), pp. 144-145, no. 51). The same dressing table features leg turnings closely related to those on the form offered here and contrast with those seen on the tables, both of which feature a severe undercut between the inverted cups and tapering columnar turnings. 

This dressing table varies from all the above cited with its single long drawer, a rare feature that may indicate an early date of production. The same format appears on dressing tables with box or H-stretchers dated closer to 1700, but the vast majority of surviving American dressing tables with cross stretchers are fitted with three small drawers (for examples with box or H-stretchers, see Lindsey, p. 144, nos. 48-49). Only two other Pennsylvania examples of the form with single drawers have been found. Dated 1710-1730 and 1700-1730, these comprise tables at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and Yale University Art Gallery respectively. Because of the single-drawer format, these tables and that offered here feature atypical skirt designs and differ from the tripartite designs that echo the drawer divisions on forms with three short drawers. On the MMA table, the skirt is a single, flattened arch, while the Yale table and the table offered here feature bipartite designs (Frances Gruber Safford, American Furniture in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Early Colonial Period (New Haven, 2007), pp. 339-341, cat. 131; Ward, pp. 203-204, cat. 98; for other dressing tables with single drawers and cross stretchers but of unknown origins, see Wallace Nutting, Furniture Treasury, vols. I and II (New York, 1928), nos. 388, 396). The table offered here also displays nail holes and a distinct shadow indicating that it was previously and most likely originally fitted with an applied molding running below the drawer and continuing on the case sides. Another possible indicator of an early date of production, this detail appears on desk forms, including a mahogany example dated as early as 1705 (Lindsey, pp. 118, 147, no. 68, fig. 186). 

As cited by Nutting, this dressing table was owned in the early twentieth century by Edward Corydon Wheeler, Jr. (1877-1954), a stock broker and antiques dealer living in Boston and later Weston, Massachusetts. The son of Edward Corydon Wheeler, Sr. (1845-1922), a successful manufacturer of garments and buttons, and Clara Bell Huntoon (1852-1932), the younger Edward graduated from Harvard and married Mary B. Adams in 1909. After her death, he married in 1921 Anne Swann Hubbard (b. 1896), whose father Charles Wells Hubbard owned a large estate in Weston, Massachusetts. In the early 1920s, the couple purchased an eighteenth-century Georgian house from Israel Sack, moved it from Newmarket, New Hampshire to its present site at 100 Orchard Street in Weston and re-named their new home, "Glen Acres." This dressing table stood in this house or the couple’s Boston residence at 54 Chestnut Street alongside other treasures from his personal collection. These included a number of other William and Mary pieces such as a painted New England chest and three Rhode Island forms also with vigorous turnings (Albert Gallatin Wheeler, The Genealogical and Encyclopedic History of the Wheeler Family in America (Boston, 1914), p. 614;, accessed 9 December 2015; “Engagements,” The New York Times, 7 April 1921, available online; the painted New England chest is in the collection of the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, acc. no. 63.1049; for the Rhode Island forms, see the Rhode Island Furniture Archive at the Yale University Art Gallery, RIF4014, RIF4015 and RIF4167).

Provenance: Edward Corydon Wheeler, Jr. (1877-1954), Boston and "Glen Acres," Weston, Massachusetts

Literature: Wallace Nutting, Furniture of the Pilgrim Century 1620-1720 (New York, 1921), p. 427. 

Wallace Nutting, Furniture Treasury, vols. I and II (New York, 1928), no. 394. 

Gerald W. R. Ward, American Case Furniture in the Mabel Brady Garvan and Other Collections at Yale University (New Haven, 1988), p. 204, fn. 2 (referenced). 

Sold at Christie's Auction January 22, 2016.

Estimate: $250,000-500,000

Price Realized: $665,000


PHILADELPHIA, CIRCA 1755, with its original yellow pine slip-seat frame

45.5 in. high.

A triumph of the curvilinear form, this armchair illustrates the mastery of movement and harmony achieved by mid-eighteenth century Philadelphia chair makers. From the spooning back and sweeping arms to the compass seat and cabriole legs, every component of this chair curves—several in multiple planes. Here, each has been carefully and deliberately placed to create a coherent whole, a beautiful form of seemingly simple lines that belie the complexity of its design. Such chairs were luxurious items in their day and made in relatively few numbers, are rare today. Even rarer is a set of armchairs. While the example offered here varies in some construction details, it is outwardly identical to the only known set of eighteenth-century American armchairs. It displays the same design and unusual tall height and possibly made slightly out of sequence—either before or after the rest of the set—was nevertheless most likely used and displayed alongside the others. Orders of multiple armchairs for private use are known in period records, but a set of at least eight (as indicated by one marked VIII) may point to their intended use in an institutional rather than domestic setting. As several, including this example, survive with nineteenth-century histories, further research may identify this important commission. The other known chairs from the set comprise two at Winterthur Museum, two in private collections with one of these currently on loan to the Metropolitan Museum of Art and a fifth illustrated in 1983, but whose whereabouts today is unknown. 

Enhancing the clean, sculptural lines of the chair’s form, the carved embellishments are minimal and assuredly executed. The shells on the crests and knees, deeply scrolling volutes on the ears and knee returns and distinctive trifid feet are all seen on other contemporaneous forms with various attributions to specific cabinet shops and master carvers, suggesting that the workmen who executed these details worked for more than one shop. The trifid feet feature center panels that are flush with rest of leg and recessed side panels that are cut into the leg and have cyma shaping at the outer edge. This particular style of trifid feet is seen on chairs attributed to a shop recently identified by Alan Miller as “the Wistar armchair shop,” case pieces attributed to the Cliffton-Carteret shop, chairs made by Solomon Fussell for Benjamin Franklin and forms from other competing cabinet shops (Alan Miller, “Flux in Design and Method in Early Eighteenth-Century Philadelphia Furniture,” American Furniture 2014, Luke Beckerdite, ed. (Milwaukee, 2014), p. 64, fig. 46; Albert Sack, The New Fine Points of Furniture (New York, 1993), p. 28; Christie’s, New York, 24 January 2014, lot 118; Morrison H. Heckscher, American Furniture: The Queen Anne and Chippendale Styles (New York, 1985), pp. 86-87, cat. 42; Jack L. Lindsey, Worldly Goods: The Arts of Early Pennsylvania 1680-1758 (Philadelphia, 1999), pp. 102, 169, fig. 161, no. 132; Skinner, Boston, 5 June 2005, lot 81; a dressing table made for the Wistar family, see; Joseph Downs, American Furniture: Queen Anne and Chippendale Periods (New York, 1952), no. 324; see also Downs, no. 192). Also frequently appearing on other forms of the period are the tapering shells and distinctive volutes that with internal spirals that complete two full rotations are more elaborate than the norm. They adorn chairs with both similar and variant trifid feet, including examples made in the Wistar armchair shop and others associated with the master carvers Nicholas Bernard (d. 1789) and his probable master Samuel Harding (d. 1758) (see Miller, pp. 64, 74, figs. 47 and 61; Christie’s, New York, 24 January 2014, lot 132; Christie’s, New York, Philadelphia Splendor: The Collection of Mr. and Mrs. Max R. Zaitz, 22 January 2016, lot 159).

The chair offered here departs in several details from the others in the set, differences that could indicate it was made slightly out of sequence from the others or illustrate variation in workmanship in a shop with a large workforce. Of the four others whose details are known, all are numbered with thin incisions on the inner face of the rear rail with chairs III and VIII at Winterthur and chairs IV and V in private collections. The chair offered here lacks such numbering, perhaps because it was considered the first of the set; however, a slip-seat framed marked I is currently fitted on the chair marked VIII at Winterthur, suggesting a chair marked I was also part of the original set. This chair’s seat rails, both front and sides, have integral rims, which was a time-consuming method but one that presented a seamless exterior. In contrast, the others from the set have applied seat rims. Such discrepancy could indicate their production in different shops, with one closely following the designs of the other. Alternatively, it could reflect variance within a single shop. It is possible that the chair offered here was a prototype, upon which extra care was taken to enhance its appeal. It may also reflect changing practices over time. In his discussion of the Wistar armchair shop, Miller notes that the shop fashioned seat frames with applied rims, yet a set made slightly later in the same tradition displays integral rims (Miller, p. 74, fig. 61). A direct result of its seat frame construction, this chair has a slip-seat frame made entirely of yellow pine; as the others in the group have seat frame rims and slip-seat frames cut from the same stock as the rails, the front and sides of their slip-seat frames are the walnut primary wood. The other chairs also each have a hole in the seat frame that corresponds to one in the slip-seat frame, a detail not present on the chair offered here. This chair does feature toolmarks on the seat indicating that it was originally upholstered in leather. Further evidence of this chair’s production in close association with the others is the height, which at 45 ½ in. is at least three inches taller than most chairs of this form. Furthermore, all display iron braces in the back, reinforcing the fragile junctures of the crest and rear stiles, a feature that may represent their original construction or, as argued by Miller, an early repair (Miller, p. 66).

Together, these armchairs suggest an important and atypical commission. Period documents suggest that in rare instances sets were made for private use. Hornor cites the “extraordinary illustration” presumably from the estate inventory of Joshua Crosby (d. 1755), the first president of the Philadelphia Hospital. Crosby’s front parlor contained “8 Walnut Elbow Chairs” while his front hallway had a further “6 Elbow chairs.” In 1756, cabinetmaker John Elliott, Sr. (1713-1791) billed Charles Norris for “4 walnut elbow chairs,” which may be those that later furnished his dining room (William MacPherson Hornor, Blue Book Philadelphia Furniture (Washington, DC, 1935), p. 215; Charles Norris Receipt, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Norris Papers, copy in object file for 1971-91-1, American Art, Philadelphia Museum of Art; Jack Lindsey notes that Norris owned eight such chairs, see Lindsey, p. 173, text for cat. no. 159). Interestingly, the same Elliott bill includes “6 large walnut chairs with shells at the top front and knee,” which most likely refers to side chairs but well describes the decorative treatment illustrated by those represented by the chair offered here. Nevertheless, such a large set of unusual height may very well have been made for a non-domestic setting, perhaps a club or other private institution. From fire companies and freemasons to fishing clubs and libraries, eighteenth-century Philadelphia abounded with small gatherings of like-minded individuals and it is conceivable that these chairs were ordered for one of these groups. When chair V sold in 2006, it was argued that the chairs were made for the Loganian Library as one of the chairs at Winterthur Museum was previously owned by John Jay Smith (1798-1881), a later director of the Library and a direct descendant of James Logan (1674-1751) who acquired the chair in 1878, the year the Library was relocated to Ridgeway Library (Sotheby’s, New York, 7 October 2006, lot 318). Other chairs from the set were owned in the nineteenth century by members of the Bacon (fig. 2), Staats-Latourette (fig. 1), Biddle (fig. 3) and Thomson (lot 67, see below) families (the Smith family chair is in the collections of Winterthur Museum, acc. no. 59.2500). Thus far, research has failed to find a common eighteenth-century source for these families; nor can they be linked to the history of the Loganian Library, including the times when it relocated and when its furnishings would have been dispersed. 

The chair offered here was given to the Philadelphia Museum of Art in 1964 by Mrs. George Fairman Mullen, née Eleanor Thomson (1902-2001). In a letter to the Museum, she noted “the chair was used by Washington and Lafayette when they came to tea in my ancestors’ home in old Philadelphia… where Washington scratched his initials in a window pane” (Letter, Mrs. G. Fairman Mullen, 9 June 1964, object file for 1964-212-1, American Art, Philadelphia Museum of Art). Unfortunately, Mrs. Mullen never further identified her ancestors and genealogical research has only revealed the previous three generations in the male lines: Her parents were Theodore P. Thomson (1875-1934) and Elizabeth Meesner, her grandparents were John L. Thomson (1839-1921) and Jane Pitman (1848-1899) and her great grandparents were John Thomson (1799-1889) and Mary Berryman (Berriman) (1805-1882). John Thomson’s parentage is unknown, but he learned the trade of cooper from his father and later became a successful businessman. He was a prominent Freemason and served as Right Worshipful Grand Master in Philadelphia’s Lodge no. 51 from 1861 to 1862. During his time as cooper, Thomson worked on the docks and was known to have rescued many from drowning; today, an award is presented in his name by the Grand Lodge of Philadelphia to those who have saved another human life (, accessed 5 December 2015 and “The Thomson Cup” at, accessed 5 December 2015).

Sold at Christie's Auction January 22, 2016.

Estimate: $500,000-800,000

Price Realized: $545,000

A CHIPPENDALE MAHOGANY TURRET-TOP TEA TABLE, BOSTON, 1750-1760, moldings replaced, 26.5 in. high, 21.625 in. wide, 31 in. deep.

Eye-catching, designed in America and exceptionally rare, this turret-top tea table illustrates one of the most celebrated furniture forms from colonial America. The repetition of fourteen turrets along and around the rails is an arresting arrangement, one that in its boldness and severity strikes a modernist note in comparison to its contemporaneous forms from mid-eighteenth century Boston. Like the block-and-shell furniture of colonial Newport, the turret-top tea table of Boston displays native ingenuity. English-made forms undoubtedly inspired its colonial innovators and Brock Jobe and Allan Breed in their recent study of the group illustrate a close probably London-made parallel with rims and skirts that follow similar outlines (Brock Jobe and Allan Breed, “Boston Turret-Top Tea Tables,” Boston Furniture, 1700-1900 (Boston: Colonial Society of Massachusetts, forthcoming). However, the use of half-round and three-quarter round turrets to decorate the perimeter of a rectangular form is not known outside the vicinity of Boston. 

A labor-intensive and costly form to make, few turret-top tea tables were made during the era and this table is one of only five eighteenth-century examples known to survive. All of the other four are in public collections, namely Winterthur Museum, Historic Deerfield, Bayou Bend and the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, and the example offered here is the only remaining in private ownership. Due to its frequent appearance in exhibitions, scholarly articles and reproductions, the form is widely recognized today and as noted by Jobe and Breed in their recent study of the group, “the impact of this distinctive form has far outweighed its numbers.” Another table at the MFA, Boston has long been considered part of the group, but as outlined by the above authors, it probably dates to the twentieth century; finally, described by the same as a “distant cousin,” another table with swelled projections on the sides but lacking the corner turrets is known (see Christie’s, New York, 25 January 2013, lot 174). 

As discussed by Jobe and Breed, the five turret-top tea tables were made in Boston from about 1740 to 1770 by at least two different shops. Their recent study stands as the most comprehensive examination of the group and what follows is a summary of their findings regarding the table offered here. The construction of this table is closely related to that at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston and both may have been made in the same shop, one whose practices evolved over time, or possibly in two separate shops. Both originally had tops with applied rims, corner turrets composed of blocks of secondary wood with mahogany veneers, and rails tenoned into the turrets. These details contrast with the evidence from the tables which with integral rims, solid mahogany corner turrets and dovetailed rails, represent the work of a competing shop. However, the MFA, Boston table and that offered here display different methods for joining the legs to the turrets; here, each is affixed by a sliding dovetail, as is seen on turret-top card tables of the period, while the MFA, Boston table has legs with a quarter-round extension that fits within a conforming recess in the turret. The two tables also have ball-and-claw feet of variant design. Those on the table offered here having noticeable webbing and straight side talons, details that relate to the more pronounced renditions of the design seen on Boston forms from the 1740s and 1750s. In contrast, the raking side talons on the feet on the MFA, Boston table suggests a 1760s date of production. Thus, while the differences between the two tables may indicate the work of two different shops, Jobe and Breed raise the possibility that the tables may have been the work of the same shop, one whose practices evolved over an approximate ten year period with the table offered here the earlier of the two.

Provenance: John Walton, Inc., 1953

Dr. William S. Serri (1911-1995), Merchantville and Swedesboro, New Jersey

Literature: Helen Comstock, “The Collection of Dr. William S. Serri,” The Magazine Antiques (March 1957), p. 258, no. 17. 

Johanna McBrien, "A Sense of Place," Antiques and Fine Art (Winter/Spring 2009), p. 209.

Brock Jobe and Allan Breed, “Boston Turret-Top Tea Tables,” Boston Furniture, 1700-1900 (Boston: Colonial Society of Massachusetts, forthcoming).

Sold at Christie's Auction January 22, 2016.

Estimate: $300,000-500,000

Price Realized: $485,000



29.75 in. high, 35.75 in. wide, 21.25 in. deep.

Made in one of the leading cabinetmaking shops and decorated by a carver with particular flair, this dressing table is a masterful display of mid-eighteenth century Philadelphia craftsmanship. The case can be firmly ascribed to the shop of Henry Cliffton (d. 1771) and Thomas Carteret, whose work is documented by a high chest signed and dated 1753 at Colonial Williamsburg. Displaying meticulous construction throughout, the signed example has a lower case with vertical drawer dividers that extend fully to the backboards and three case bottoms, one under each drawer, that are secured by finely cut glueblocks on the underside. These details are all seen on the dressing table offered here as well as on other case pieces attributed to the shop, including the high chests made for Benjamin Marshall and Benjamin Hartley. Further supporting the attribution to a common source, the Marshall and Hartley high chests feature distinctive front skirts that are identical in design to that on this table. While the Cliffton-Carteret shop used a variety of designs, their skirt profiles all display a similar liveliness (see Eleanore P. Gadsden, “When Good Cabinetmakers Made Bad Furniture: The Career and Work of David Evans,” American Furniture 2001, Luke Beckerdite, ed. (Milwaukee, 2001), pp. 65-87; Christie’s, New York, 19 May 2005, lot 109; for a slab-table from the same shop with a different but similarly spirited skirt, see fig. 2, lot 159 in this sale). 

The Marshall and Hartley high chests and this dressing table also feature carving by the same hand whose work features asymmetric shells notable for their naturalistic rendering. Though unidentified, this craftsman is known as the “de Young high chest carver” so-named because the Hartley high chest is now in the de Young Museum in San Francisco. As seen on this dressing table and the Marshall and Hartley high chests, the shell carving has lobes that converge in an irregular fashion towards the center with trajectories that do not meet in a single, central point. Other furniture with ornament attributed to the same carver includes a dressing table en suite with the Hartley high chest and also at the de Young Museum, a dressing table formerly in the collection of Eddy Nicholson and its en suite high chest, a high chest in a private New York collection and a pair of tea tables (Christie’s, New York, 17 June 1992, lot 142; Sotheby’s, New York, 2 February 1980, lot 1654; “Town House of Treasures,” Antiques and Fine Art, available at; Sotheby’s, New York, 24-25 January 2014, lot 206). This dressing table is further distinguished by its original brasses of a design that appears in an undated but watermarked 1765 brass catalogue from Birmingham, England. 

Employing similar craft practices and designs, the de Young carver was most likely familiar with the work of Nicholas Bernard (d. 1789), one of the most important Philadelphia carvers of the 1750s. Aside from the asymmetry discussed above, the designs of the de Young carver are remarkably similar to Bernard’s. Both craftsmen executed shells with scalloped edges and stop-fluted lobes and closely related knees in which the acanthus carving on the knee returns flow seamlessly into the large “V”s at the center of the knee. They also used virtually identical incised embellishments. The shell carving on this dressing table has stop-fluted lobes headed by outlined ovals, which also feature on the shell carving attributed to Bernard on the Biddle-Drinker family high chest (fig. 5; see Christie’s, New York, 25 September 2008, lot 31). The latter also illustrates Bernard’s use of a series of elliptical gouge cuts on the upper, looping tendrils flanking the shell that closely resemble the passages on the convex lobes of the shell on the dressing table offered here. Other examples of Bernard’s use of these details include the rocaille passages on the crest shells and upper splats on a set of circa 1750 side chairs and on the central skirt shell on the Cornelius Stevenson card table (Christie’s, New York, 20 January 2012, lot 111; Christie’s, New York, 21 January 2000, lot 133; for more on Bernard, see Luke Beckerdite and Alan Miller, "A Table's Tale: Craft, Art, and Opportunity in Eighteenth-Century Philadelphia," American Furniture 2004, Luke Beckerdite, ed. (Milwaukee, 2004), pp. 4-18; the latter illustrates a high chest and dressing table attributed to Bernard with closely related shell-carved drawers, pp. 17-18, figs. 30-32; see also Christie’s, New York, Property from the Collection of Mrs. J. Insley Blair, 21 January 2006, lot 528). As illustrated by the Biddle-Drinker family high chest and the signed high chest at Colonial Williamsburg, Bernard also provided carved ornament for items made in the Cliffton-Carteret shop and it is perhaps through their associations with these cabinetmakers that Bernard and the de Young carver were familiar with each other’s work.

Provenance: Sold, Christie's, New York, 28 May 1987, lot 198

Sold at Christie's Auction January 22, 2016.

Estimate: $100,000-150,000

Price Realized: $287,000


PROBABLY THE SHOP OF BENJAMIN RANDOLPH (1737-1791/2); THE CARVING ATTRIBUTED TO JOHN POLLARD (1740-1787), PHILADELPHIA, CIRCA 1769-1770, en suite with the following two lots, 28.75 in. high, 33.75 in. wide, 16.5 in. deep

Gem-like in its crisp precision and virtually glistening as it cascades down the knees and across the front rail, the carved ornament on this card table comprises one of the greatest passages of American carving from the eighteenth century. Under the flickering light of a candlelit interior, the sparkling effect of the carver’s handiwork would have been even more evident, a testament to the talents of an undisputed master of his craft. Today, the carving’s survival in remarkable condition allows for the full appreciation of the richness and subtlety of the design and its masterful rendering by London-trained carver John Pollard (1740-1787). Illustrating Pollard’s work at the height of his Philadelphia career, this card table and ten en suite surviving forms made for the Deshler family represent one of the most important commissions of the era, second only in quantity to the large suite made around the same time for General John Cadwalader (1742-1786). 

A re-examination of the design parallels and the history of the suite strongly indicate that it was made for David Deshler’s (1711-1792) daughter Esther (1740-1787) around the time of her marriage in 1769. While the suite has been dated as late as 1775, a number of details of the suite’s ornamental vocabulary were also used by Pollard in his contributions to the renowned Cadwalader commissions of the late 1760s and it is likely that both suites were made within a short time of each other. The related Cadwalader forms include the celebrated slab-top table now at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, most recently dated 1765-1770. Like the Deshler suite, it has knees centered by an opposing C-scroll motif with attendant foliage. Furthermore, the rails bear a series of interplaying C-scrolls embellished across their arcs with a rocaille trim, passages that echo the upper edges of the knees and the central C-scroll design on the skirt of the Deshler card tables (that offered here and its mate at the Philadelphia Museum of Art, fig. 2). Finally, the Cadwalader table makes extensive use of raised cabochons set within leafy clusters, a combination replicated on the ears of the side chairs from the Deshler suite.

Additional parallels are seen in the Cadwalader commode-seat hairy-paw side chairs made in circa 1769 and also carved by Pollard. They too employ an opposing C-scroll design to organize the ornament on the knees (fig. 6) and while this carving was probably executed by another hand, it was undoubtedly overseen by Pollard, who carved the chairs’ backs, crests and stiles. The central leafy cluster on the Cadwalder chairs’ splats is centered by a single, flaring leaf with lobed tip and a virtually identical element runs through the middle of the cluster in the lower splat of the Deshler suite. Furthermore, the same leafy cluster on the Cadwalader suite has a pendant arrangement of two short leaves, placed atop each other and scrolling in opposite directions. This device was also used by Pollard on the Deshler chairs—below the central carving on the crest and as the finishing component of the ornament on each ear.

Many of these carved details appear to have been inspired by the designs of London carver Thomas Johnson (1723-1799). Pollard’s fellow carver, Hercules Courtenay (c. 1744-1784), is known to have trained under Johnson and as both carvers were later employed by cabinetmaker Benjamin Randolph (1737-1791/2) in Philadelphia, it is very possible that Pollard was trained by the same master. He may also have owned a copy of one of Johnson’s published designs. In his decoration of the Deshler suite, Pollard drew heavily from a ceiling design, plate 11 of Johnson’s One Hundred and Fifty New Designs (London, 1761). With opposing C-scrolls, C-scrolls with rocaille trim, a leaf cluster headed by a bellflower, leaves with a single loop and pendant bellflowers, this one plate illustrates the majority of the ornament on the Deshler suite.

Other parallels with work attributed to Pollard support a circa 1769-1770 date for the Deshler suite. As recently noted by Beckerdite, the passage embellishing the ears of the Deshler chairs is closely related to the banner carving in a side plate from a six-plate stove from Batsto Furnace in Burlington County, New Jersey. Pollard was the main carver for the furnace’s commissions and with a date of 1770, the plate was cast from a mold carved at this time. Pollard’s hand is also seen in the casting of a chimney back from the same furnace and as seen along the bottom, it features the opposing C-scrolls and C-scrolls with rocaille trim seen on the knees of the Deshler suite and the front rail of the Deshler card tables (fig. 8) (Luke Beckerdite, “Pattern Carving in Eighteenth-Century Philadelphia,” American Furniture 2014, Luke Beckerdite, ed. (Milwaukee, 2014), pp. 126-129, figs. 86, 88-90).

Recent research into the histories of the known survivals of the suite and this card table in particular indicates that the entire suite was in all likelihood made for Esther Deshler and as she married in 1769, supports the probability that it was made in this year or very soon thereafter. The Deshler suite is known today by eleven examples (listed below) and while a single side chair is noted to have simply descended from David Deshler, the remaining ten pieces can all be linked more specifically to Esther’s descendants or heirs. Previously, the card table offered here was thought to have descended from Esther’s sister Catharine (1752-1837) and as the family chart in fig. 9 illustrates, it was later owned by Edmund Herbert McCullough (1849-1910), Catharine’s great grandson. However, Edmund married his third cousin—his first wife, Hannah Logan Drinker (1850-1900), was a great granddaughter of Esther. As the other card table (fig. 2), seven of the eight side chairs and the easy chair from the suite all definitively passed through Esther’s lines, it is highly likely that the card table offered here did as well. Also, it has been argued that the suite was made to furnish David Deshler’s Germantown house, which was remodeled in 1772-1773. While this is possible, it makes for a more implausible scenario for the dispersal of the suite as Esther pre-deceased her father. If first owned by David Deshler, the entire suite would have had to have somehow passed to Esther before her demise or been acquired by her widower, John Morton (c.1739-1828), from his former father-in-law’s estate. At this time, circa 1792, Morton was about to marry secondly Mary Robinson (1757-1829) of Newport and as a prominent figure of substantial means, it is likely that if making large purchases of furniture at this time, he would have sought more stylish goods in the Federal style. 

The circa 1769-1770 date for the Deshler suite is of particular importance as it makes it highly likely that the suite was made in the cabinet shop of Benjamin Randolph. Previously known in the field as “the Deshler carver,” John Pollard was identified by Luke Beckerdite and Alan Miller who ascertained that numerous forms with carving by the same hand were made in or attributed to the shop of Benjamin Randolph and by the process of elimination, determined that Pollard was their carver. As mentioned above, both he and Hercules Courtenay were employed by Randolph. After Courtenay left Randolph’s shop in the summer of 1769 and before Pollard set up his own business in 1773, Pollard was the principal carver in Randolph’s shop and thus most likely responsible for it's significant commissions during these years. Thus, the Cadwalader commode-seat side chairs and the Cadwalader marble-top table are ascribed to Randolph’s shop and a turret-top card table labelled by Randolph bearing Pollard’s carved ornament (fig. 7) similar to that on the Deshler suite further documents this close working relationship. The same reasoning can be applied to the Deshler suite: If made circa 1769-1770 and carved by Pollard, the suite was most likely produced in Randolph’s shop (for a full discussion of these attributions see Leroy Graves and Luke Beckerdite, “New Insights on John Cadwalader’s Commode-Seat Side Chairs,” American Furniture 2000, Luke Beckerdite, ed. (Milwaukee, 2000), pp. 154-160; Andrew Brunk, “Benjamin Randolph Revisited,” American Furniture 2007, Luke Beckerdite, ed. (Milwaukee, 2007), passim; for more on Pollard and Courtenay, see Beatrice B. Garvan, entries, Philadelphia: Three Centuries of American Art (Philadelphia, 1976), pp. 111-114; Christie’s, New York, 28 September 2011, lot 13 and 24 January 2014, lot 107).

Provenance: The Deshler family of Philadelphia

Probable line of descent: 

Esther (Deshler) Morton (1740-1787), Philadelphia 

John Morton (c.1739-1828), husband

Possibly John Morton (1776-1812), son of above and his wife Margaret Lea Canby (1778-1828)

Frances C. (Morton) Drinker (1812-1879), daughter

Hannah Logan (Drinker) McCullough (1850-1900), daughter

Edmund Herbert McCullough (1849-1910), husband

Ethel (Newbold) McCullough (1876-1953), Ardmore, Pennsylvania, second wife of above

An unidentified niece of the above living on the Philadelphia Main Line

Sold, Sotheby’s, New York, 26 October 1991, lot 409, consigned by the estate of the above.

Sold at Christie's Auction January 22, 2016.

Estimate: $300,000-500,000

Price Realized: $509,000


Provenance: George E. Schoellkopf, New York, December 1974

Frank and Karen Miele

Sold, Sotheby's Parke Bernet, New York, 28 January 1984, lot 5

Exhibited: New York, George E. Schoellkopf, Selected Examples of American Folk Art, January 1975.

Sold at Christie's Auction January 22, 2016.

Estimate: $20,000-40,000

Price Realized: $56,250


Provenance: Bernard M. Barenholtz (1914-1989), Marlborough, New Hampshire

Sold, Sotheby's, New York, 27 January 1990, lot 1692

Literature: Bernard Barenholtz and Inez McClintock, American Antique Toys: 1830-1900 (New York, 1980), p. 45.

Exhibited: Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania, The Brandywine Museum, Christmas Exhibition, 1978.

Manchester, New Hampshire, The Currier Art Gallery, Heirlooms: Historical Art and Decorative Arts from New Hampshire Collections, 6 September - 13 October 1985.

Sold at Christie's Auction January 22, 2016.

Estimate: $5,000-8,000

Price Realized: $35,000

PAINTED PINE FIRKIN, 19th c., retaining its original blue/green surface, 12.25" h. 

Provenance: The collection of Jeanne and Bernard B. Hillmann, Wyckoff, New Jersey.

Sold at Pook and Pook January 15-16, 2016.

Estimate: $400-800

Price Realized: $1,845

PENNSYLVANIA REDWARE JAR, 19th c., possibly Chester County, having a ruffled band on the shoulder, above an incised squiggle band, with a green, orange, and manganese splotched glaze, 8.5" h.

Provenance: The collection of Jeanne and Bernard B. Hillmann, Wyckoff, New Jersey.

Sold at Pook and Pook January 15-16, 2016.

Estimate: $800-1,200

Price Realized: $1,560

PENNSYLVANIA REDWARE CROCK, 19th c., with manganese streaked green glaze, 5.25" h.

Provenance: The collection of Jeanne and Bernard B. Hillmann, Wyckoff, New Jersey.

Sold at Pook and Pook January 15-16, 2016.

Estimate: $200-400

Price Realized: $1,020

BRISTOL, MASSACHUSETTS REDWARE PITCHER AND COVER, EARLY 19th c., with speckled green glaze, 10.5" h.

Provenance: The collection of Jeanne and Bernard B. Hillmann, Wyckoff, New Jersey.

Sold at Pook and Pook January 15-16, 2016.

Estimate: $4,000-6,000

Price Realized: $14,400

CONNECTICUT REDWARE OVAL LOAF DISH, EARLY 19th c., with cream and brown marbled slip decoration, 10.75" w.

Provenance: The collection of Jeanne and Bernard B. Hillmann, Wyckoff, New Jersey.

Sold at Pook and Pook January 15-16, 2016.

Estimate: $2,000-4,000

Price Realized: $6,000

PENNSYLVANIA OR MARYLAND REDWARE BOWL, 19th c., with slip concentric bands and four leaf devices, 2.75" h., 9.5" diameter.

Provenance: The collection of Jeanne and Bernard B. Hillmann, Wyckoff, New Jersey.

Sold at Pook and Pook January 15-16, 2016.

Estimate: $800-1,200

Price Realized: $2,337

NORWICH, CONNECTICUT PEWTER PORRINGER, ca. 1800, bearing the touch of Samuel Danforth, 5.375" diameter.

Provenance: The collection of Jeanne and Bernard B. Hillmann, Wyckoff, New Jersey.

Sold at Pook and Pook January 15-16, 2016.

Estimate: $300-500

Price Realized: $6,600


Provenance: The collection of Jeanne and Bernard B. Hillmann, Wyckoff, New Jersey.

Sold at Pook and Pook January 15-16, 2016.

Estimate: $3,000-5,000

Price Realized: $7,380

NORTHAMPTON, MASSACHUSETTS PEWTER BASIN, ca. 1790, bearing the touch of Nathaniel Frink, 2" h., 7.5" w.

Provenance: The collection of Jeanne and Bernard B. Hillmann, Wyckoff, New Jersey.

Sold at Pook and Pook January 15-16, 2016.

Estimate: $400-700

Price Realized: $6,600

FINE PHILADELPHIA PEWTER TANKARD, ca. 1780, attributed to William Will, with beaded bands and an elaborately engraved cartouche with a monogram, 7.625" h. This is an exceptional example of Philadelphia pewter and one of the finest American tankards extant.

Provenance: The collection of Jeanne and Bernard B. Hillmann, Wyckoff, New Jersey.

Sold at Pook and Pook January 15-16, 2016.

Estimate: $15,000-25,000

Price Realized: $28,800

PHILADELPHIA PEWTER TANKARD, ca. 1780, bearing the touch of William Will, 8" h.

Provenance: The collection of Jeanne and Bernard B. Hillmann, Wyckoff, New Jersey.

Sold at Pook and Pook January 15-16, 2016.

Estimate: $8,000-12,000

Price Realized: $19,200

CHARLESTOWN, MASSACHUSETTS PEWTER MUG, ca. 1780, bearing the touch of Nathaniel Austin, 6" h.

Provenance: The collection of Jeanne and Bernard B. Hillmann, Wyckoff, New Jersey.

Sold at Pook and Pook January 15-16, 2016.

Estimate: $1,000-2,000

Price Realized: $9,840

PENNSYLVANIA PAINTED PINE BLANKET CHEST, 19th c., retaining its original vibrant sponge decoration, 25.25" h., 35.75" w.

Sold at Pook and Pook January 15-16, 2016.

Estimate: $800-1,200

Price Realized: $6,600

RARE SHERATON CHERRY MECHANICAL EASY CHAIR, ca. 1815, with an adjustable back and sliding footstool.

Sold at Pook and Pook January 15-16, 2016.

Estimate: $1,000-2,000

Price Realized: $4,560

IMPORTANT CHESTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA QUEEN ANNE WALNUT "OCTORARA" CHEST ON CHEST, ca. 1760, the upper section with a wall of troy molding, over a linen drawer and three arched drawers, above two short and three long drawers, flanked by raised panel sides, resting on a two-drawer base, supported by ogee bracket feet with closed spurs, 88" h., 43.25" w. Illustrated in Beckerdite, American Furniture 2011, fig. 47.

Provenance: Margaret Berwyn Schiffer.

Sold at Pook and Pook January 15-16, 2016.

Estimate: $8,000-1,200

Price Realized: $43,200

FEDERAL WALNUT SERPENTINE FRONT CHEST OF DRAWERS, ca. 1800, probably Western Pennsylvania, with a dramatically shaped front and chamfered comers, supported by flared French feet with overall line inlay, 37" h., 37" w.

Sold at Pook and Pook January 15-16, 2016.

Estimate: $2,000-4,000

Price Realized: $19,200

ENGLISH GILT TIN PARTRIDGE, 19th c., mounted in a wrought iron inverted heart hanger, 25.5" h., 23" w.

Sold at Pook and Pook January 15-16, 2016.

Estimate: $1,000-2,000

Price Realized: $3,360

SMALL WALLPAPER DRESSER BOX, 19th c., with orange decoration on a blue ground, 2" h., 3" w.

Provenance: The Estate of Mark and Joan Eaby, Brownstown, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.

Sold at Pook and Pook January 15-16, 2016.

Estimate: $300-500

Price Realized: $3,120

WATERCOLOR AND CUTWORK VALENTINE, dated 1762, with central script surrounded by love birds and soldiers holding hearts, 13.5" diameter.

Sold at Pook and Pook January 15-16, 2016.

Estimate: $1,500-2,500

Price Realized: $2,400


Sold at Copake Auctions January 1, 2016.

Estimate: $12,000-14,000

Price Realized: $23,400


Sold at Copake Auctions January 1, 2016.

Estimate: $100-150

Price Realized: $2,574

Colonial Sense is an advocate for global consumer privacy rights, protection and security.
All material on this website © copyright 2009-24 by Colonial Sense, except where otherwise indicated.