With extensive commercial activity and its position as the young nation’s capital, Philadelphia was eighteenth-century America’s largest, most cosmopolitan center. English and Continental models set the fashion, as evidenced by this lavish armchair, representing one of the most ambitious collaborations by American craftsmen emulating European Neoclassicism.

George Hepplewhite succinctly defined the form: “Chairs with stuffed backs are called cabriole chairs,” while Thomas Sheraton illustrated a similar example described as “Drawing Room Chairs” with double-scooped arms and supports integral with the front legs. Sheraton explains, “These chairs are finished in white and gold or the ornaments may be japanned; but the French finish them in mahogany with gilt mouldings.” In spite of the obvious foreign influences, this armchair is more accurately an expression of American design and craftsmanship.

The brilliant contrast of painted and gilded decoration was introduced during the Rococo period, although in Pennsylvania this taste seems to have been confined to church furniture and looking glasses. In fact, the armchair’s painted, gilt, and composition decoration has some features in common with looking glasses. The substitution of cast composition ornaments for carving, ubiquitous in the English cabinet trade, is highly unusual in America. Robert Adam was the first to patent composition, an amalgam of chalk, rosin, glue, and drying oil. Almost immediately it was employed by architects and housewrights for interior woodwork and, on occasion, by cabinetmakers as well. Matthew Armour, “Carpenter and Builder from London,” related its advantages to Philadelphians in his 1785 advertisement: “Full enriched composition chimney pieces may be had at...50 per cent cheaper than wood carving.” By 1794 a local concern, Annsley & Company established the first manufactory of composition ornaments there. While the source of this armchair’s composition has not been identified, its exquisite ornament, with contrasting gilded and painted surfaces, must have made a lasting impression on Philadelphia’s tastemakers.

Technical notes: Ash with composition applications. The arm supports are integral with the front legs. The moldings flanking the seat rail composition panels are applied. The original upholstery foundations for the seat, back, and arms remain intact. The upholstered back is framed from the rear. The tacking sequence follows the original.

Related examples: Originally this armchair was one of at least eight, purportedly with a matching settee. Others from this set are published in Montgomery 1966a, p. 328; Montgomery 1966b, pp. 142–43, 145, no. 92; Davidson 1968, pp. 22–23, no. 12; Bishop 1972, p. 215, no. 297; Fales 1972, p. 109; Butler 1973, pp. 90–91; Cooper 1980, pp. 130,136; Sotheby’s, New York, sale 4529Y, January 31, 1981, lot 1514; Passeri and Trent 1983b, pp. 1C–3C; Flanigan 1986, pp. 130–31, no. 46; Antiques 140 (October 1991), p. 487; Antiques and the Arts Weekly, November 1, 1991, p. 63; Christie’s, New York, sale 7368, October 19, 1991, lots 210, 212, 213. Sands 1993; Fennimore et al. 1994, p. 69; Christie’s, New York, sale 8494, October 18, 1996, lot 156. Their distinctive arms appear on only two other sets of Philadelphia furniture (Montgomery 1966b, pp. 144–45, no. 93; Fairbanks and Bates 1981, p. 241).

Book excerpt: David B. Warren, Michael K. Brown, Elizabeth Ann Coleman, and Emily Ballew Neff. American Decorative Arts and Paintings in the Bayou Bend Collection. Houston: Princeton Univ. Press, 1998.