A friend of mine recently disagreed on what typically characterized the finishes on true antique furniture pieces. Although definitions vary on what age is needed to qualify as a true “antique” I’m including furniture built up to 1900.
My belief was that craftsmen did not stain the furniture at all in the 1700s and 1800s. They would use various types of finish such as lacquer and wax but they did not substaintally change the color of the wood by staining. I thought the wonderful color that you see in old pieces was mainly due to the aging process (although the finish may have slightly darkened it).
He disagrees and claims that stain was used often – especially on pieces made in the Northeastern US in the 1700s and 1800s.
Anybody know the answer?
Thanks – Allen
Replies
Allen, I hope you didn't bet anything more than a six pack. Seems out colonial ancestors liked bright colors and often used milk paint to decorate furniture. There were also a number of natural stains used, from berry juice to exotic wood extractives like dragon's blood. Common furniture was often made of mixed species and then so buried under milk paint or muddy stains that it didn't matter much. In more expensive furniture, especially that made for the royal houses of Europe in the 17th and 18th centuries, more care was given to selecting only the finest and most figured wood, so the fancier pieces were only finished with hand rubbed natural oils. The French typically used walnut oil.
As for top coat finishes, Shellac was introduced to Europe (probably by the Dutch) in the early 17th century and was readily available in the American colonies throughout the 18th century, referred to as "spirit varnish." Other copal (tree gums and resins) type varnishes were also available. What we now can lacquer (nitro-cellulose type) was not developed until after World War I, when chemists attacked the problem of what to do with all of the leftover gun cotton...Since then, we've steadily regressed into a new Dark Age of polyurethanes and acrylics
In a way you are both right. Many times pieces were dyed/stained, but how light fast those were is open to question. In many cases the original color is visible under the hardware, in fact I’ve heard these colors can be quite jarring, since it seems that bright red was a favorite. As these colors faded they were replaced by the natural aging, resulting in a color that may or may not have been the case, had the piece not been dyed. The stocks of flintlock rifles were treated with nitric acid, so I can’t see why curly maple furniture would not have been treated the same way. Cherry was often stained to imitate mahogany. I am speaking about 18th and early 19th century furniture, the only era I have any knowledge of.
This forum post is now archived. Commenting has been disabled