Lot 1155
  • 1155

Very Fine and Rare Pair of Classical Giltwood and Verte Antique Brass-Inlaid, Carved and Figured Mahogany Games Tables, attributed to Deming and Bulkley, New York, Circa 1825

Estimate
50,000 - 100,000 USD
Log in to view results
bidding is closed

Description

  • mahogany
  • Height 29 1/2 in. by Width 37 in. by Depth 18 1/2 in.

Provenance

Carswell Rush Berlin, Inc., New York.

Condition

Fine condition. Shrinkage cracks to the top of each. Secondary wood: poplar and white pine
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.
NOTWITHSTANDING THIS REPORT OR ANY DISCUSSIONS CONCERNING CONDITION OF A LOT, ALL LOTS ARE OFFERED AND SOLD "AS IS" IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITIONS OF SALE PRINTED IN THE CATALOGUE.

Catalogue Note

With their dolphin supports and feet, this pair of card tables offers a distinctive and sophisticated design associated with the work of Deming and Bulkley, the cabinetmaking partnership of Brazilia Deming (1781-1854) and Erastus Bulkley (1798-1872). These cabinetmakers manufactured furniture in New York, which they supplied to a clientele that extended to Charleston, where they operated a retail storefront on King Street from 1818 into the 1840s. Bulkley resided in Charleston and supplied local elite patrons with expensive domestic goods in the height of fashion ranging from custom furniture to silk draperies, cornices, and Brussels carpets.  These card tables relate stylistically to a group of tables attributed to Deming and Bulkley with dolphin supports and Charleston histories. These tables are identified and discussed by Maurie D. McInnis and Robert A. Leath in “Beautiful Specimens, Elegant Patterns: New York Furniture for the Charleston Market, 1810-1840,” published in American Furniture 1996, edited by Luke Beckerdite (Hanover and London: the Chipstone Foundation): 137-174. One of these tables made of rosewood with satinwood veneers descended in the Alston-Pringle family of Charleston.1 Two others of rosewood with magnificent spread eagle supports and dolphin feet were acquired in the early twentieth century by the Roebling family of Charleston.2 With mahogany veneers, simple carved dolphins, no freehand gilded decoration, and rope-twist balusters, one with a history in the Huger family was considerably less expensive than the aforementioned examples.3

This pair of tables was likely commissioned by a wealthy client. The canted corner top ornamented with mahogany veneers sits atop elaborately carved dolphin front supports and acanthus carved balusters at the rear. The concave four-sided plinth below with canted corners is supported by carved and gilded dolphin feet with acanthus leaves and vert antique decoration.  Commonly associated with the goddess Venus in antiquity, the dolphin motif was fashionable during the Classical period and appears in English design books such as Thomas Sheraton’s Cabinet Dictionary (1803) and Rudolph Ackermann’s Repository of Arts, Literature, Commerce, Manufactures, Fashions and Politics (1825).  This group of tables attributed to Deming and Bulkley suggest that the motif was especially popular in Charleston. Several other examples of seating furniture with dolphin supports made for the Charleston market include a recamier that belonged to Colonel William Washington (1785-1830) and a sofa that descended in the Ravenel family.4

1 See Maurie D. McInnis and Robert A. Leath “Beautiful Specimens, Elegant Patterns: New York Furniture for the Charleston Market, 1810-1840,” American Furniture 1996, edited by Luke Beckerdite (Hanover and London: the Chipstone Foundation), p.138, fig. 1.
2 See ibid, p. 158, fig. 19.
3 See ibid, p. 161, fig. 24.
4 See ibid, p. 162, fig. 26 and p. 163, fig. 29.