Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Hallingdalen, post: 12260801, member: 93477&quot;]I can absolutely see why several of you lean toward a marriage, especially around the underside construction and the somewhat crude area where the pedestal meets the top. The repair or filler visible there does suggest that the table has been apart or modified at some point in its life, and I agree that the underside is unusually rough compared to the elegance of the base.</p><p><br /></p><p>What makes me hesitate to call it a straightforward later marriage, however, is that the construction still feels internally coherent in several ways. The top is designed to slide off along the wooden rails rather than being permanently fixed, which suggests the removable construction itself may be intentional and old. The proportions between the pedestal, tripod base, and oval top also work surprisingly well together, and the wear, oxidation, and general patina across the components do not feel completely disconnected to me.</p><p><br /></p><p>My impression at the moment is therefore somewhere in the middle rather than fully one-sided. I would not be surprised if the base is original to the table while the top has either been heavily repaired, altered, or possibly replaced quite early in the piece’s life. Equally, I do not yet see enough evidence to confidently say it is a modern or entirely unrelated marriage. Provincial Scandinavian and Northern European tables from the 19th century can also be much more primitive underneath than many collectors expect, especially compared with high-style urban cabinetmaking.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in