Featured Baroque or early 19 century ? or i am again on a wrong track ?

ok so maybe i am again on the wrong track nothing wrong with that... but i must disagree that the table doesnt have patina, because it has a lot of it that why i love it so....here are some unretouched pictures maybe this is why it doesnt show its true glory or i just have a pink glasses on cuz i like it so much i think it is still pretty table that would look nice in some ones kitchen, but i will contact a museum near by because now i am too invested in it...i will keep you posted what i find next about it

 

Not the rich patina of Baroque tables, which have aged longer. I hope you can see the difference, then you know what I mean.

 

oh and i forget to mention that on the bottom edges of the table you can see how many legs have already sat behind the table, as the wood is already well worn... if this is not at least a little patina...

 

I never said it doesn't have patina, please read what I said:

Rich patina, like Baroque tables. I never said it didn't have patina, just that it didn't have the rich patina of Baroque tables. I have seen plenty of them in my life.

I think it strange that at first you wondered if it was possible that the table could be 19th century instead of Baroque, and now it is definitely Baroque.
Then both you and Jaena start twisting my words, or conveniently leaving one out, which is my cue to leave this thread.

 

I am sorry if i did offended you i was just saying that it has patina and i never said it really is baroque... thats why i will take it to expert to see what really is...i am here to discuss, not to make a fight so exuse me.. and english is not my bride side so many is lost in translate what i read and what i wright

 

@Any Jewelry - I never intended to twist any of your words, it was just that after your comment about patina, I went and reviewed the pics, and when I again saw so much wear and tear on the table top (which is also considered "patina" on wood), I had forgotten you had said the word "rich". I had no intention at all to twist your words. But I guess I still would consider the wear and tear pretty "rich". And I had no intention at all to assign it to the baroque period - just that it seemed to me that the table had a good deal of age.

 

Where is @James Conrad ?

 

Probably quietly observing, and not looking to get in the middle!!!!

 

Yes it has a good deal of age, but there is a huge difference between 19th century, which this table is likely to be, and 17th-early 18th century. Stylewise and pricewise.
Patina occurs during wear, and can be visible after a few decades. Rich patina is when the wood looks almost buttery, not the colour, but the luscious sheen. This table doesn't have that.

As has been pointed out before by others and myself, this table has nothing to do with Baroque.
Baroque is opulent, highly decorated, and usually very heavy in look and weight.

Due to the many Italian architects, artists and craftspeople that went to live in neighbouring Slovenia, Slovenian Baroque has roughly the same qualities as Italian Baroque, so rather ornate. There are also some influences from the Habsburg Baroque, which is heavier than the Italian, and very ornate. This table, charming as it is, has zero of those characteristics.

General info on the Baroque style:
https://www.britannica.com/technology/furniture/18th-century-the-Rococo-style

Some links with easy videos to get acquainted with Baroque furniture:
https://study.com/academy/lesson/baroque-furniture-style-characteristics-history.html

 

I think James has left for good this time.
The previous time he left it was because of so many threads where people wanted their furniture to be something it wasn't, and didn't listen to him anyway. (Sound familiar?) He vented his frustration almost weekly in private conversations with me, sometimes daily.
The last time he left, I managed to convince him to come back. This time I won't. Besides, it would just be more of the same for him.

I know what he would have replied here, and it has been said already. He would have been more harsh in his wording, and would have added a few of these:.

 

Obviously the OP is confusing the period of the table with the style. You've given a great explanation of what Baroque means as applied to objects - even if this table was 17th c (and I'd also say it isn't) I'd never apply the word Baroque to it.

Just like, not every table from the 1930s is Art Deco

 

Exactly.

 

No expert on European furniture but will give my thoughts. Nice table with interestting construction and honest ware. The three board top would put this well in to the 19th century in most locations.

 

Thanks everyone for your opinions. I am quite happy if the table is from the 19th century. I don't know at what point I seemed to insist that the table was baroque. I know the style and I mixed the style and the era a bit like KylieS said. Unfortunately, my English is not the best and my vocabulary is also bad... I've been in antiques for a couple of years, which means that unfortunately I haven't seen many really old things live, so I'm very happy if those who are "connoisseurs" are clear in their expression that I can learn something from them. Unfortunately, if someone tells me only a rich patina, I don't know what the difference is - that's why I may have exaggerated a little later in the description of the patina itself and offended anyjewelry - I'm still sorry. But I'm still young, hungry for learning and passionate about antiques, so I hope that when I'm older, I'll be able to serve up answers with such ease...
Thank you all and sorry if i offended anyone...have a great day and rest of the week.

 

Are there museums, churches or castles near you? That is a great place to start. Antiques fairs, the expensive ones, are also great, as long as you don't buy anything. Then start looking for similar items in charity or second hand shops. It may take time, but you could find treasures for a really nice price.

And books, a lot of them. Preferably second hand so you don't have to spend a fortune. Every time you see an item that really interests you, buy a book on it. Or several books by different authors. Books will give you more in depth information than an article on the internet.

 

yes, there are quite a few of them and I've been to all of them.. I saw most of the really old things there too... but the problem with us is that most of those really old things were destroyed during World War II or are owned by private individuals, in the main museum every now and then has exhibitions of old furniture and also objects that I regularly attend... I read a lot of books about antiques, now I'm currently reading an Italian book by Enrico Colla, I'm a little better in Italian which actually talks about Italian furniture but transfer a lot to our country as well..
anyway, the opinion of those who have more experience than me means a lot to me. In fact, most of the time we buy really ruined furniture, which we then restore, so it's hard to look at things in a museum that are completely restored and transfer that to what we end up getting... if you know what I mean. We are currently refurbishing an art deco desk - or not it's funny because the art deco desk was just mentioned before. If you still have the nerve for me, I'll be happy to show it to you when it's restored.

AJ thanks for your help I really appreciate any advice I can get

 

I really like the table by the way! I have a few large French farmhouse tables and, though the details are different, the rustic construction reminds me of those. Good, honest working furniture beats baroque any day in my opinion (though according to prices I'm wrong on that!)

 

Sounds like our town, the centre was almost completely bombed, the old buildings replaced by 1950s concrete blocks. People had to have a roof over their heads, and fast. But we do have a few nice castles in the vicinity.

Yes, there has always been a strong cultural link between the two countries, so that must be of use to you.

I'm looking forward.

 

I repeat: I never in this thread tried to attribute this table to the baroque period (I am familiar with what baroque style is) or any particular period, as I am well aware that I am not qualified to do that with regard to an old table from Slovenia. The only thing I said about time period was that it appeared to be quite old. I am seriously offended by your aggressive remarks about "twisting words" etc. (as if I deliberately acted to subvert your opinion, which I did not), and now this post, again implying that I was trying to assign this table to the baroque period, and others who read already and will read your post, will be under the impression that I did just that. Go through my comments, and tell me where you saw that I was attempting to attribute this table to the baroque period. You will not find any such thing.

 

Jaena, not everything in that post was a reply to your post, as indicated by the different paragraphs. The first paragraph was a reply to your post, after that I made general observations. Those were separate from my reply to you, as indicated by the separate paragraphs, as I said before. Also, I didn't assume you had a specific interest in Slovenian Baroque, so that wasn't directed at you either. Others may be interested.
If you want to take everything I say personally, it is up to you and beyond my control or responsibility.
Nowhere did I say anything about you regarding the Baroque period. In fact, I called it Baroque style, not period, and didn't mention your name or say "you".

"Twisting words" was not an aggressive remark, but a to the point observation of what happened. Others have agreed, privately.
I was the one who felt jumped upon as a result of wrong assumptions, one after the other, even though I was very clear and precise in my wording.
I intended to remove myself from the situation because I don't feel I have to cope with negativity, I have enough on my plate.
When Irenka apologized and you explained that you hadn't read my post properly, I felt it safe to return again.

Actually, I am fine with what happened before, water under the bridge, no need to dwell on it. Life is too short. English is not Irenka's first, or even second, language, so a misunderstanding can happen, and you simply misread it.
As you may have noticed, I have had a civil conversation with Irenka. You may remember this is her thread, not yours. So most of what I write is for her benefit, not yours.
I also added general information and links, as I usually do. If you read my posts in other threads, you will find this is something I indeed do regularly.
None of the general information I ever posted was specifically for your benefit. Just like in this thread, it is for the benefit of anyone who comes across it and finds it useful. Simple advice: If you don't like specific information, don't read it.

Now, after everyone else has moved on, and after so many other posts, you re-hash it all. Really Jaena?

I think we can safely establish that you either don't understand my posts, or you misread them.
You already knew that you had misread my post about the rich patina. Consequently you could have considered that because you didn't understand me before, you may not have understood my post #29. Or you misread it again.
If you simply would have asked me what I meant (just like you could have done before your patina reply), I would have been happy to explain it to you to the best of my ability.
But again you jump to conclusions, and now you choose attack as the best way to communicate (thereby lowering the tone of this thread).
I really don't need your aggression, so I will put you on ignore.