Help identify the era of this chair

Hello! I’m a new member and mostly an antique phonograph collector. However, I stumbled upon this chair at a yard sale last year and couldn’t ignore it, especially for $10. I’m stumped on the identifying it’s age age though. I’d like to reupholster it with some fabric that would be appropriate for its era and do a decent restoration on it.

As far as it’s finish, I plan to clean up the wood then touch it up with a couple coats of French polish. It’s also going to need its joints re-glued. Any advice on restoration or it’s history would be much appreciated!

 

It's pretty, please show detail of the worst joints, it matters what glue you use. The foot-wheel connection looks extremely solid and I don't suggest removing it.

For inspiration, here is a recent thread by an antiquers member who recently refinished a wooden chair, albeit it was all wood -

https://www.antiquers.com/threads/question-on-wood-filler.49314/#post-2037159

 

Nice chair.
1890-1900 or thereabouts.
Looks like it has that red stain. I wouldn't try stripping it. That red stain is a deep penetration, I ruined a chair a long ago when I was first refinishing furniture. Couldn't strip it all the way down. Turned out terrible.

Also this area is probably a molded material that might dry out from the stripper and crack.


Are you in the US? You mention French polish, I don't know what that is.

@verybrad @Ghopper1924
may have better ideas.

 

Thanks for mentioning this. I've never tried to strip the red off, it's not common in my area.

 

I've heard that Hell-spawned stain referred to as "turkey red", used in some late 19th c. furniture factories, to simulate mahogany on cheaper woods. I am happy to hear you don't want to try and take it off. The overlay does look like lacquer so french polishing sounds the way to go.

 

Thanks, I've not heard that before.

 

1880s ish. Ypu might get away with something like Fiddes wax if you don't want to do the whole French polish thing.

 

Is that normal the backs are uncarved? Just curious, Thanks.

 

Yes, that's the norm, even among top-end cabinetmakers like Belter. It doesn't mean carving never appeared on the back of any chair, just that it was normal for it not to.

 

Thank you, Don’t think I’ve seen that before.

 

Uncarved? That's not unusual.

The open square area I was questioning. I was looking for holes for caning and didn't see any.

Was hoping one of the guys would have popped in.

 

And now that I've said something. Here is Ghopper

 

Thank you,
I was wondering about the square, too.

 

"The open square area I was questioning. I was looking for holes for caning and didn't see any.:"

Yeah, that too. I've seen those open square (or open shield or open something else) shapes on the back of many chairs. Belter and Meeks usually had uncarved rosewood, beautiful in itself. The assumption always seems to have been that you'd be approaching and/or looking at the chair from the front only, even if that wasn't always the case

 

@Ghopper1924
Can you comment about the back of chair construction?

 

Good heavens are you psychic?

 

I knew you were going to say that! ha ha.

In designing chair frames the back seems almost always to have been an afterthought, the main function of which (if any) was to add strength to the overall frame. I just went into the living room and looked at a couple of Herter Brothers chairs ca. 1870, then a Pottier & Stymus chair from the same time period. All were designed with the orientation towards the front, i.e. marquetry on the wood frame as well as any stitching or fabric modification. The Herter Brothers chairs have a wood stretcher across the top, covered with fabric, which is attached at both sides down to the seat on the back; there is batting under the fabric as well. Leaving the back of the chair frame "hollow," without a fabric "screen," as many did only emphasizes its lack of importance to the structure and longevity of the chair.

The Belter and Meeks treatments I mentioned above are exposed wood chair backs illustrating the construction of the chair itself. Belter developed a patented technique in the 1850s, also used by Meeks and a host of other high-end cabinet makers in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, of processing lamented rosewood in multiple layers at right angles to each other. They were shaped in molds called cauls through steam heat, and were then finely carved. The backs of parlor chairs made in this fashion would appear to be finished rosewood, usually curved in some version of a "c" shape, with a crest of pierced carving at the top and maybe the sides as well. If you examine profiles of various rosewood elements of these chairs, you can see the multiple layers. The purpose of these was to add incredible strength to the frame while maintaining a certain light weight overall. Even here, however, the piecework was meant to be viewed from the front; I don't recall any examples of wood carving that were meant to be specifically seen from the back.

 

The majority of examples I've seen either have a two-sided sleeve constructed on the front pad of the chair back, that can be viewed through the back "window" (as in tpapp's chair above), or a padded or unpadded piece attached over the window in the back, covered with gimp and/or decorative tacks to finish. When my phone charges up I can post examples from home. In the meantime...

 

Good explanation, thank you.

@Darkwing Manor
This type of back I've seen. Doesn't appear the OP's chair had the back cover.
That's what was throwing me.
Thanks for the picture.