Degrees of Perfection
One of the most important things that I think needs to be taken into consideration in reproducing old furniture is the fact that all furniture is not created alike in the aspect of its technical perfection. To take all work, regardless of period, to the same standard, be it high or low, is to take the piece out of the context in which it was created and to be guilty of what I think is the most dangerous of shortcomings in the reproduction biz, and that is lack of observation.
Two extreme examples:
A house had been restored by a local guy and he was giving me a tour of his work. We came to a door, a four or six raised panel type, and he proudly showed me how he had hand planed the panels "just like the old ones". The panels were planed with a very coarse curved blade, leaving pronounced high and low areas with ridges between them. This door might have passed muster in a barn, but no doormaker of the 18th century would have kept his job long if he'd installed that in a house. A quick look at the doors of practically any local house of the period would have clued the guy in to the fact that this was not authentic or acceptable work. The moral of this story is that you're not trying to make your work look handmade, you're trying to make it look perfect with the tools available that are appropriate to the period. If it's made this way, it will look as it's supposed to, with the slight and sometimes almost imperceptible evidences of hand tools. In 1780 the carpenters were trying to get those doors as smooth as possible.
On the other extreme, I was looking at some furniture in an exhibit of reproductions and came upon a QA highboy. From a distance it looked really good- nice proportions and color, with great hardware. As I got close, however, something seemed to be wrong. The piece had been taken to such a level of inappropriate perfection that it had no soul left. The finish was like a mirror, and when I put my hand on it there was no feel that there was even wood underneath. All edges were sharp, as if the material was metal instead of wood. Technically, this was a perfect piece, and extremely well done, but done to a fault if it was trying to be like a period piece. It looked as if it had been made by a machine, and I suppose it had, but it had become something much more perfect than it had to be, and in the process lost what I believe a reproduction should have: a short history lesson of the time and techniques that produced it. You could argue that the piece did have this, and that the time that produced it was the present, and so it was as perfect as the present could make it. This might be the difference between a photograph of someone and a portrait of them by a painter. I'll take the portrait.
To this end I'll make a plane to create the molding for a piece or cut down a black ash tree and rive out stock for a 17th c. chair. Taking shortcuts is fine if the details are not important to you or the customer, but you'll be moving farther away from the soul of the piece you want to create. Lots of early work is nailed together and it was admittedly cheap work in the period. To dovetail it together is an improvement technologically, but historically it's a step back. Can you tell I've got a history degree?
When I make a piece from the 17th century, there are certain things I observe that get incorporated into the attitude as well as the tool kit that's used to make the copy. Some general examples might be a limited number of tools available to the maker, leaving layout lines visible in the finished piece, lack of symmetry in some of the decorative elements, patching veneer to make imperfect sheets useable and use of nails on finished surfaces. Observation of this type of detail can get us into the attitude of the original maker and help to make a more authentic copy.
Illustrated is my copy of a 17th century chest, illustrating some of these points. 
To "clean up" the original would be to yank it out of context and modernize the personality out of it. They took care in making the original, but it was relevant to a world in which everything was imperfect due to the nature of it all being made by hand.
Illustrated is my copy of a 17th century chest, illustrating some of these points. To "clean up" the original would be to yank it out of context and modernize the personality out of it. They took care in making the original, but it was relevant to a world in which everything was imperfect due to the nature of it all being made by hand.On the other hand, speaking of hands, we need to appreciate the very precise and thought out nature of other pieces where specialists such as carvers were creating work that required a great deal of skill and care to make. These guys were carving as a full time job for decades, and you've got to sprint pretty hard to keep up if you want to duplicate their work. This is a world where eighths, sixteenths and thirty-seconds of an inch make the difference between excellence and mediocrity. An applied Newport shell that's an eighth too thick is a horror to behold, but only if you've looked at some originals first. You won't see facets and tool marks on work done by good carvers: the right tool was used so as to not leave any. Observation of originals at close range is essential, and eventually looking becomes seeing and that will hopefully lead to understanding. On a lot of copies I see, the early work isn't left alone enough and the later Rococo stuff isn't quite good enough. Illustrated is a leg from a highboy we just finished. 
This carving, for example, has to be a lot more refined than work from the early part of the century. Degrees of perfection in action.
This carving, for example, has to be a lot more refined than work from the early part of the century. Degrees of perfection in action.Sometimes in copying a piece, seeing what they did will even lead to understanding why they did it that way, and figuring that out can make me happy for days, because I've figured out the process, and what was important to the maker. It seems that over and over the motivating factor was speed, and therefore, economics.
I think the bottom line is sensitivity to the period or style that you're attempting to work in. There are turning gouge marks on the front stretchers of a bannister back chair, but not on the quarter column of a mahogany high chest.
Observe closely- one style does not fit all.-Al
Views: 166
Comment
-
Comment by al breed on June 16, 2010 at 1:25pm -
Hey John- I think the tops of chests were taken to a pretty good level of smoothness,as imperfections here are visible in raking light.
A mirror finish just doesn't seem appropriate, although they may have striven for it, and achieved it, but it's not apparent after a couple of centuries of use.
I think Copley's portrait of Paul Revere has a table that reflects the piece of silver he's holding, so that may be a clue as well as a testament to the fugitive nature of finishes-Al
-
Comment by John Cashman on June 16, 2010 at 12:15pm
-
There is a very popular and nationally known antiques and reproduction outfit in southeastern Mass that does a good job for the most part. They seem to be aware that there is such a thing as a too-perfect surface. But the tops of their furniture look like the surface of a pond on a windy day. No period cabinetmaker would have left scallops like those.
It is hard to know when enough is enough. I simply haven't seen enough period pieces up close to know what I should be aiming for. Pictures in books tell you much. I'm certain I overdo surfaces that don't show even more than those that do.
The other problem is that most people look at any irregularities as imperfections, whether they are appropriate "imperfections" or not. They expect to spray on furniture polish and see a mirror finish.
-
Comment by Gary Roberts on June 14, 2010 at 9:40pm
-
Al
Wonderful post. Some years ago I had the pleasure of attending a seminar or two that you taught at what was then SPNEA. Your real-world insight into furniture design and construction was invaluable then and it continues to be. I'll be adding a post at my blog directing people to this discussion of the dangers of modern perfectionism when considering historical, well, anything.
Gary
-
Comment by al breed on June 13, 2010 at 6:25am
-
Freddy-Thanks- glad you enjoyed it.-Al There's another one I did but it's only showing up on my page. I'll get my webmaster to figure it out when he gets back from vacation-AB
-
Comment by Freddy Roman on June 12, 2010 at 8:37pm -
Extremely well put. Wow! That was an awesome article. I am just sitting back and enjoying every word. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
FR
-
Comment by al breed on June 8, 2010 at 10:47pm
-
Howard-
No doubt there have been some pieces that have been smoothed up a bit by refinishing, but sanding carving is an unbelievably difficult thing to do. Many times you'll find that the carving has a lot of old finish in it even though the rest of the piece is pretty clean. Sometimes all the high points have been ground down by sanding, and that's easy to spot.
The way to get rid of the facets is to use a much bigger tool than you might first choose for a particular operation. A leaf, for instance, needs to be cut across its whole width with one cut so that the arc of the tool creates the surface. That's a little simplistic, but try it and see how much cleaner your stuff looks.
Thanks a lot for the comment, Howard.-Al
-
Comment by Howard Steier on June 8, 2010 at 3:18pm
-
Al,
You said that you won't see facets or tool marks left by good carvers. In fact, I've spent hours at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC staring at the huge collection they have in "visible storage" and I'm amazed at how perfect some of the carving is. But then comes the next point. As you have indicated previously almost nothing 200 + years old has not been refinished; certainly most of the pieces at the Met have obviously "new" finishes. So I wonder how much "perfection" was added in the refinishing process. Try as I might, a seem to always leave facets in my carving, so, skeptic that I am I'm suspiscious that facet-less work may have been accomplished in the refinishing procees. What do you think?
Howard Steier
-
Comment by al breed on June 7, 2010 at 9:47pm
-
Michael-
Thanks a lot for your comment. I think the finishes in the period that your desk is from were oils, pigments and waxes. Over time these literally evaporate and so were replaced by late finishes like shellacs an varnishes. Shellac was used in the 17th century- I quizzed a conservator at Winterthur last winter about it, but I don't know how widely available it was. If it were me, I'd leave some ripples from the scraper and not worry too much if there's a little tear out, that will catch some pigment, if you use it, and give a good look, I think.
Let me know how the clock search comes out.
Also, if you can ever get your hands on some black ash, it's great for those early turned chairs.-Al
-
Comment by Michael Corazzelli on June 7, 2010 at 8:18pm
-
Allan, This post is interesting to me because I am working on a reproduction of a 1690 desk on frame. I hope to be working on the finish soon and can not help but wonder if some of the finer finishes are wrong for the piece. I have not done much work like this, however I did make a few copies of a late 1600's chair that is owned by the New Haven Historical Soceity about ten years ago. On those chairs I used some oil stain and then finished up with paste wax thinned to almost a water state. To my eye they appear the way they should (they are made of white ash).
The desk is of tiger maple and I would rather not have it done to a finish that would not be done for the time frame, or for a country builder. I would appreciate your ideas.
PS: Thank you for your reply to my question on SPAFM about early clocks, I have not had time to follow the leads you mentioned however am hopeful it will lead to the next project.
Michael Corazzelli
Norwich, CT
-
Comment by James Timothy Thomas on June 7, 2010 at 8:29am -
Mr Breed , Its Monday morning and I have read your piece again.It is still excellent .I must apologize for my thoughts on this as compared to my painting.I had been painting yesterday morning before reading and my mind was still in the painter mode.The comparisons with Sargent still apply in my mind but my explanation is one of those things that can only be explained as "you would have to be there" sort of things.Sorry about that.suffice to say I get it..........Tim
© 2012 Created by Tom Edwards.
You need to be a member of The Breed School to add comments!
Join The Breed School