Featured Unknown Antique Chair

I'm trying to learn about this chair and haven't been able to find anything like it anywhere. It is an oak armchair with no upholstery except for a suspended leather insert that makes up most of the seat. The leather is quite thick and looks like it was pre-contoured to fit a bum, suspended in the oak seat frame by domed tacks. The arms have claw features but no ball. The back has a fan-like feature in the center, and an applied feature closer to the top. Mixture of joinery including large slotted screws in pockets. A couple of exposed screws have flush-cut plugs and are almost invisible. No manufacturer markings that I can find. Size is 42h x 25w x 21d. Any info, even what this type of chair is called, would be appreciated. I live in Canada, chair came from my grand parents. Presume this originated here but could have been US or UK.

 

Welcome PeeeWee !

 

Early 20th century ..... Edwardian. Probably part of a dining set.

 

TY Bosko

 

Thanks verybrad. I did eventually find this exact chair on a site called artefacts Canada, but it had a flat cushioned leather seat rather than the sunken leather 'bowl' that is in mine. To me, mine looks original vs. the flat version looking like a repair or replacement. I still haven't found another single example of this type of seat. (I realize my pic doesn't really do justice to the bowl shape of the seat, but it probably sags a couple inches into the hole in the frame. And to me it looks pre-formed, not just stretched by use.)

 

These seats are not uncommon. You are right about them being pre-formed and often original to the chair. You may not be finding a lot due to lack of survival. Though reproduction replacements are available, many just slap on an upholstered seat when replacing.

 

OK, thanks, that makes sense. I'm not inclined to undertake a repair...I think the original leather has an appeal. Any idea of the value?

 

Very minimal. I can pick up similar chairs for less than $10.00 regularly. A bit more in a retail setting and more in sets of at least four.

 

OK, thanks again. I suspected as much, but wanted some confirmation. Much appreciated!