Help me date this old burled table please

Piece is located in east tennessee. Would like some help with this table please if even possible. It’s probably 30x48” and made of an extremely hard and dense burled old growth wood and i believe someone got ahold of it with some lacquer at some point.

The legs are probably not original and obviously the hinges and screws are not. Legs may have been cut down and re used when hinges added. note the holes in the corner of the table where a spindle for the old legs would have been. They are in all four corners and heavily worn into burled hardwood, which leads be to believe the entire table top is much older. This wood is incredible hard, some of the hardest I’ve seen. The entire table is basically a tree knot and I believe it’s showing hundreds of years of wear. The table had a repair at some point (I’m assuming) and legs were replaced with hinges and screws. There are probably 10+ types of nails in this piece throughout and multiple types being hand wrought. People on Reddit seem to think it’s fake but i know it’s old, just not sure how old! Tell me what you think! Thanks

 

Furniture experts should be along shortly - but for convenience, please go back to your post, select "edit" and select the button to post all photos full-size rather than thumbnails. This will work much better when the furniture folks see the post.

 

I'd be thinking someone made a new table out of surviving pieces. Old farmers did similar things. Not a fake, but a one-off.

 

Yeah someone definitely replaced the legs and leg supports and added a piece to the underside of it. The holes which are present in each corner for the original doweled legs lead me to believe the entire top slab and four side pieces are original. Maybe i didn’t explain well enough in my original post

 

I think a more modern piece made out of old wood. This could mean it is 50 years old (more or less). Top is not really showing any kind of wear pattern that a true primitive would show.

 

You don’t think the surface would have originally looked like the underside rough cut? The legs are attached by hinges now are not original.

There are holes in each corner for where dowels + old legs would have been and the wear around those could only be possible after serious use. The pieces with dowel holes show the same rough cut saw marks as underside of the top the top slab. Idk. Just my two cents it would be a really good fake with all the different eras of nails im seeing

 

it's a work table.... and those large holes could have been used for a number of different things .... imo

 

Since they are in the exact same spot of all four corners with evidence of serious use I’m going to have to respectfully disagree. Plus the fact that the legs are obviously not matching to the top. This piece really needs to be observed in person.

 

that table .... as much as we can see , is large and heavy and sat in place...

that outside round circle was likely a washer mark.... maybe for a handle , maybe held a ball of twine ..... but it had nothing to do with the table legs...... imo...

so we agree to disagree.....

 

I think I’ve said this about 5 times now but it’s not just one hole. They are in each corner in the same spot, where a spindle could have ran through both sides or a dowel. It’s less than 4 feet long and probably 70 pound and it was a common technique to use a spindle to attach folding legs or a dowel for solid ones. They are worn extremely smooth which leads me to believe folding. Could be wrong but pretty positive I’m not on this.

Thanks for the response! Agree to disagree

 

Easy there....I never said there was only one hole.........

I still don't see how the legs locked in place ?

 

. This piece really needs to be observed in person.

I agree

 

I have no problem with the premise that the legs have been replaced and that the former legs used the holes for attachment. The top just doesn't look right to me for a 200 year old piece. The wood is probably 200 years old. I just don't think it was always a table. Really would like to see a shot of the entire top straight on. Might need a ladder to take it and/or shoot it in a couple segments.

 

It’s really difficult to judge this piece without seeing in person how hard this wood is. I’m counting over 40 rings per inch. The last two photos show remnants of saw marks on the surface that match the underside. This was rough cut at one point and is now worn smooth. It’s almost wavy. Theres also at least 3-4 types of hand wrought nails that i can see. The saw marks are most likely from a 17th-early 18th century water powered mill. They lack the uniformity of later mills and are clearly not hand cut as there wouldn’t be parallel lines. I’m pretty positive it’s at bare minimum 200 years old.

 

Yes, likely had wood workers clamp, maybe a vice. These are kinda crude and rough, but folks seem to like them. Left many behind in my 90's buying era . . . they can be surprisingly heavy. Woods often found usually cheaper hard woods - poplar, ash, birch. If you find a large well constructed one of oak, you've got a winner, you'll just need 2-3 friends to get it home, they're up to 300 lbs. !

 

That red paint looks 1940s-ish.

Debora

 

Holes were for old legs not clamps or vice.