Eighteenth-century Philadelphia case furniture at Stenton

Magazine Antiques, May, 2002 by Philip D. Zimmerman

The triangular pediment of the Logan-Coles chest-on-chest was much less popular in Philadelphia than the scrolled alternative. (26) This and many other pediments lift off the upper case, the seam between the two parts being underneath the blind fret carving below the cornice molding. The blind fret carving on the chest-on-chest illustrated here forms an interlaced pattern of alternating quatrefoils and diamonds (Pl. Vb). Linking this chest-on-chest to other examples based on the pattern of the blind fret carving is tempting, but the pattern is probably too generic to establish any useful specific shop or worker relationships. For example, similar patterns occur on Philadelphia case pieces documented to Thomas Affleck (1740-1795) and Tufft, who had no known working relationship with one another. (27)

The feet are made of mahogany facings (which are replacements on this chest-on-chest) glued to heavy, weight-bearing blocks of wood. The contoured sides of the leg block, visible in Plate Va, document the smaller size of the original facings. The block and facings were then attached to a quadrant-shaped board nailed to the underside of the carcass. This construction allowed the cabinetmaker to assemble each foot on the bench, as opposed to building it step-by-step directly onto the case bottom without a board. Both techniques were common in Philadelphia furniture. Further research into these practices may one day contribute to identifying shops and makers. (28) Unlike most Philadelphia high chests and chests-on-chests, the original brass handles of the long drawers do not align under the centered handles of the side-by-side drawers in the second tier. Although modern connoisseurs might fault the chest-on-chest in this regard, other grand examples also exhibit this irregularity. (29)

The Sally Coles paper label of 1906 (cited above) records that when pieces of the cartouche were "put together again in l899--only one flower was missing" (see Pl. Vb). Indeed, the side flowers of this original ornament have been reglued. The C-scroll handles at each side of the urn are replacements, and the uppermost section--perhaps originally a fourth flower or a small foliate spray--is missing. However, the body of the urn, displaying elegant, elongated C-scrolls in the center and most of the floral composition, testifies to the talents of the anonymous carver.

Because the major case pieces at Stenton bear little relationship to each other in design or construction, their value to furniture history lies in their individual merits. As a group, however, they better our understanding of Stenton. Whether specifically documented to the house, or representative of what is known to have been there, these large pieces of furniture create stylistically mixed settings, in contrast to the uniformity expressed in so many museum period rooms and historic houses. Even a house so architecturally grand as Stenton never seems to have had a unified body of furniture expressing a single fashion or taste. Instead, the furnishings were as varied as James Logan's interests and Stenton's several occupants.