A pewter inlaid amaranth, rosewood, ebonised and contre-partie boulle bureau brisé, probably Flemish late 17th century

with a rectangular folding hinged top inset with a leather writing surface, opening to reveal three short drawers and a fall-front inlaid with panels of rinceaux in fruitwood and amaranth, the kneehole with two drawers flanked by two drawers, on later gadrooned parcel-gilt baluster and square tapering legs, joined by a shaped stretcher, on later gadrooned toupie feet, the whole inlaid with scrolling rinceaux; restorations

The Trustee's of Major-General E.H. Goulbourn's Settlement Christie's, London, 4th December 1980, lot 91
Christie's, London, 24th November 1988, lot 84
Christie's, Monaco, 2nd July 1993, Lot 215A.

Some pewter inlay and veneer missing. Gilding dirty and worn. Pewter tarnished. Internal lock on top missing. Cracks in inlay across the top. Veneer lifting on left side flanking internal writing surface. Inside drawers of oak lining, other below walnut. Turned handles later. Internal locks removed, i.e. lower drawers. Attractive detail to pewter. Some pewter which is missing and has been replaced with silvered infill. In need of cosmetic restoration.
"In response to your inquiry, we are pleased to provide you with a general report of the condition of the property described above. Since we are not professional conservators or restorers, we urge you to consult with a restorer or conservator of your choice who will be better able to provide a detailed, professional report. Prospective buyers should inspect each lot to satisfy themselves as to condition and must understand that any statement made by Sotheby's is merely a subjective, qualified opinion. Prospective buyers should also refer to any Important Notices regarding this sale, which are printed in the Sale Catalogue.
NOTWITHSTANDING THIS REPORT OR ANY DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING A LOT, ALL LOTS ARE OFFERED AND SOLD AS IS" IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF BUSINESS PRINTED IN THE SALE CATALOGUE."

The style of the marquetry on this piece is more controlled and less fluid than French marquetry of the same period and leads to the conclusion that this piece is probably of Flemish rather than French origin.