Chippendale Carved Mahogany Marble-Top Slab Table

Object Details

Related Objects

Figured and Carved Mahogany Base to a Chippendale High Chest of Drawers

Unknown
ca. 1760-1770

wood; mahogany; marble

Object Essay

This small table was called a frame for a marble slab by its makers. Its many carved details, including an elaborate appliqué of rococo leaves on the front rail, distinguish it from plainer tables of the time.^{1_{A pair of side tables at Winterthur (acc. no. G69.3402) have the same degree of ornament and are about the same size (see Hummel 1976, fig. 112).}} In the list of prices for Philadelphia furniture published in 1772, a few furniture forms are unavailable in walnut; they are listed only in the more expensive mahogany.^{2_{For a reprint of the price book, see Weil, 180–92.}} Presumably, mahogany was thought to be the only appropriate material for such obviously luxurious objects as card tables with round corners (turret card tables); commode dressing tables; china tables; dumbwaiters with four tops; square tea tables with claw feet, carved knees, and carved rails; and the more ornamented frames for marble slabs, as seen here. Such furniture forms demonstrated the prosperity of their owners and were not items of basic utility. The listed prices for the slab table frames included £3.10 for Marlborough legs and brackets, £4 for plain knees and claw feet, and £5 for leaves on the knees with carved moldings, as on the example in the Collection. The additional carved appliqué of the Collection’s table would have raised the price by £1 to £2, the difference between a turret card table with carved molding (presumably gadrooning) and a similar table with fully carved rails. Thus, this table would have cost about £6.10 before the purchase of the marble top.

The high price of marble in Philadelphia in 1770 is demonstrated by a surviving invoice to John Cadwalader from the stonecutters David and William Chambers, who billed him 12s. a foot for new marble and 5s. 6d. a foot for old marble.^{3_{Reprinted in Wainwright, 27.}} This table’s original top was about two by three feet, or six square feet, which would have made the marble worth £3.12 without molded edges, assuming the same grade of stone as that in Cadwalader’s fireplace trim and hearths. Therefore, the total cost of this slab table would have been £10 to £11—as much as the most expensive sofa frame, such as that of the Chew family sofa at Cliveden.^{4_{Hornor 1935, pl. 258.}}

The original finish of the Collection’s table, a layer of spirit resin varnish, lies under two layers of shellac; the original marble top has been lost. 

The table displays an odd mixture of carving styles identified with different decades. The knees and feet belong to a carving and style tradition that originated in the late 1740s and continued through the 1750s; the skirt appliqué and carved molding are by one of the important Philadelphia carvers of the 1760s and early 1770s. The basic acanthus design and carving technique employed on this table’s legs, and the layout, the roughing out of basic shape, and the detail work on the ball and claw feet can all be observed in the legs and feet of Queen Anne-style side chairs generally believed to be from the 1740s.^{5_{A chair from this set is illustrated in Downs 1952, no. 115.}} This style became one of the dominant Philadelphia formats of the 1750s for carved cabriole legs.^{6_{Ibid., nos. 35, 127, and 128; and a high chest at Colonial Williamsburg signed “Henry Ciffton & Thomas Carteret November 14th, 1753,” illustrated in Sack 1988, 1125.}} Some of the carvers who learned to carve legs like this no doubt continued to use the same pattern and approach after more modern and fashionable styles and patterns were introduced.

The work of the unnamed carver of the rail moldings and rail appliqué has been identified recently by observing consistencies in the layout, tool techniques, and design preferences in the carving of several pieces of Philadelphia furniture from the 1760s and early 1770s.^{7_{Among these are the Wistar-Sharples secretary (Hornor 1935 pl. 195); the Palmer-Lawrence high chest and dressing table (Nutting 1928, pls. 361 and 423, and Heckscher 1985, nos. 166 and 167); a high chest at the Smithsonian (Comstock 1962, no. 313); and many other pieces, including the base of the high chest in the Department of State’s collection (Acc. No. 1971.133). Unpublished files and notes, Luke Beckerdite and Allen Miller.}} The same combination of carving styles also occurs in the two Hollingsworth-McCoy high chests and dressing tables, which have the same early knees and feet as those seen on the Collection’s table, combined with shell drawers, cartouches, rosettes, and finials current in the mid- or later 1760s.^{8_{Hornor 1935, pls. 136, 137, and 218; for the high chest, see Christie’s, New York, Sale 5890, May 23, 1985, Lot 202; for the dressing table, see Sotheby’s, New York, Sale 5622, October 24, 1987, Lot 527.}} These decorative elements display designs also used by the carver of this table’s appliqué. Moreover, the same design and tool technique used to produce the ribbon and flower molding on this table can be seen on the carved waist molding of a high-chest base (Acc. No. 71.133) in the Collection. It is likely that a cabinet shop in the mid- or late–1760s employing the older carver who did the legs decided to use a carver who employed more current techniques for the most conspicuous ornament of the table.

Alan T. Miller

Excerpted from Clement E. Conger, et al. Treasures of State: Fine and Decorative Arts in the Diplomatic Reception Rooms of the U.S. Department of State. New York: H.N. Abrams, 1991.