Popular Woodworking 2009-11 № 179, страница 13

Furniture of the 18th Century" (Taunton) for a list and description of period finishes. The Internet is replete with web sites detailing the process for brewing your own versions of all of these. Most that I found were associated with luthier work, so you might want to start there.

So we know period furniture makers had access to a wide range of finishes. What did they actually use? And how do we know? Well, the quick answer is: We don't know.

Extant period furniture has all manner of "stuff" on it, some of it intentionally applied, some of it, let's call it "patina," was unintentionally applied. Theoretically, we should be able to analytically determine what the "original" finish was. But of course that's a difficult proposition. The bottom layer might be linseed oil, for example. Then a varnish may have been applied over that. Was the varnish the original finish? Or was it applied after delivery? Famed New York antique dealer Israel Sack popularized "patina" and the value for "original" finishes. Before his time, "patina" was "dirt" and furniture restorers removed it. He wrote in the forward of his son Albert's book, "Fine Points of Furniture: Early American," about his time in the trade:

"The finest pieces had to be taken apart, scraped and finished inside and out before they could be sold (to most customers). Innumerable choice pieces were absolutely ruined by poor restoration. There is nothing which hurts (the value of) an early oak piece so much as planing, scraping, and finishing."

Here, Israel Sack discussed his value for original finishes and his disdain for refin-ished furniture. Keep in mind that he was a furniture restorer before becoming an antiques dealer, so he knew more than a bit about the subject. But Sack, who established the value for original finishes, also included this gem:

"Mahogany and walnut, when properly restored, are not necessarily spoiled."

I suspect that just about everything we see has been refinished. And just because the finish looks old now, it doesn't mean it was original then.

Original Finish

So what was the original finish? Using state-of-the-art equipment, and leveraging a variety of historical resources including paintings of period interiors, the museum

conservators I know suggest original finishes were spartan. Linseed oil and a bit of beeswax probably comprised the original finish on carved chairs like mine, for example. A film finishes couldn't practically be rubbed out when laid over intricately carved surfaces. It would also fill up the nooks and crannies, dulling the detail.

The baroque sensibility (some believe rococo is a form of baroque both aesthetically and linguistically) of light and dark, near and far, would also be harmed by a film finish. Philadelphia furniture makers seemed to intentionally use surface texture to enhance the contrast between carved areas and "bright" smooth areas made reflective with wax. Oil and wax offered period craftsmen the artistic control that a film finish over a carving would not.

I hasten to add that not all fine pieces were finished as simply. They had varnishes and we can assume they used them. There were

"Original" finish. Note the color and texture on this chair from the 1760s. Despite its age and wear, the beauty of this work still shines through.

people in the 18th century who could do this sort of work. Musical instrument makers applied film finishes to their products to affect tonal quality. And I believe there were specialty finishers in London and Colonial Philadelphia at the least.

What I'd like to leave you with on the subject of original finishes is doubt. I'm skeptical, and I think you should be too. I mean, there's still significant debate about the restoration of the Sistine Chapel's ceiling. Did the Vatican do the right thing? They removed varnish that Michelangelo may or may not have applied.

What about Patina?

Perhaps the biggest problem I have with original finishes is that they very well may not have been the finishes that people of the period recognized. They certainly aren't the finishes that people who love antiques fell in love with. And this issue goes to the very heart of what reproduction furniture making is all about. Is the goal to represent how furniture looked when new? I don't know the answer.

Whatever the condition when new, period furniture almost certainly changed rapidly once it was delivered. Homes were heated with smoky fireplaces then. Folks cooked meals in their living rooms, and they lit their homes with candles made of animal fat or lamps filled with whale oil. There were no screens on their windows to filter any of the dust from a bustling street or a farmer's plow.

In very short order, furniture would have been coated with dirt and grime. The cleaning process pushed filth into recesses (and pores) where it would collect (often further punctuating the design). And dirt in Philadelphia is made of the same sort of stuff that's on your sandpaper. So just the process of weekly wipe-downs would have changed surfaces fairly quickly.

A Sympathetic Finish

My goal is to create a finish that is sympathetic to the originals. The end product won't look like it's 200 years old. But it shouldn't look perfect and new either. The goal is to produce an item that fits people's expectations of Chippendale furniture.

Period furniture exhibits identifiable surface characteristics that we can approximate. The key is understanding the goal.

PHOTO ON THIS RACE COURTESY OF THE PHILADELPHIA MUSEUM OF ART, GIFT OF FRANCES DRINKER BANES RENTSCHLER, 1985.

popularwoodworking.com ■ 21