Of carved and veneered mahogany

A mahogany side-table, now with a marble top, supported on four scrolled female term-figures, each decorated with a floral swag and ending with scrolling feet, which are carved with a cartouche and rocailles, and raised on plinths. the frieze is carved with vitruvian scroll, capped by an egg-and-dart ovolo moulding, and with a husk-, ball-and-block moulding below. Overlaid on the front frieze is a pierced apron cartouche, with acanthus foliage spreading at either side, to meet the paired, leafy C-scrolls that rise from the shoulders of the female terms. At the sides of the table are similar paired C-scrolls rising from each term, the back one twisted to bridge the gap between the frieze and the term's shoulder (which, because the term is placed sideways on, is positioned inside the frieze).

The mahogany legs are pieced out at either side of the core section to which the rails of the frame are joined, and carved from the pieced-out blocks. The wave-scroll moulding is applied to the mahogany veneer which is applied to the oak front and side rails, but the husk-, ball-and-block moulding below appears to be applied direct to the rails. The same probably goes for the egg-and-dart moulding above, but this is harder to discern, as a small section of this moulding (not carved) is applied to the back face at each corner.

The four oak rails appear to be dovetailed together -- the front and back rails dovetailed to the side rails (this can be seen at the back, but at the front is concealed by the mahogany veneer). The core block of each leg sits within the angle thus formed, and the legs are each secured by two screws driven in from each of the adjacent rails. (This can be seen clearly at both ends of the back rail; at the back of the right rail the countersunk hole for the lower screw is also visible, where the veneer does not quite cover it; and the response of the metal detector confirms that there are similar screws at the back of the left rail, and at each front leg in both adjacent rails.) The front legs have been chamfered at the top inside corner, and a countersunk hole drilled horizontally, at 45 degrees, into the chamfered surface; this too may have been intended to be a means of joining the legs to the frame, but no fittings are evident in the holes now. The veneer and frieze carving could have been applied at any point after the fixing of the legs.

Also at each corner, on the inside of the frame, are two oak blocks, one glued to each rail, in which countersunk screw-holes have been formed, evidently to support an original wooden top. The four front blocks were once screwed in place, but the screw-holes are now empty. At both back legs the angle between each oak block and the back leg was filled with a pine glue-block; those aligned with the back rail are still in place, but those aligned with the side rails are missing.

The carved front apron -- the pierced cartouche and the spreading foliage either side -- is carved from a single piece of mahogany, rebated at the bottom level of the frieze rail; below the rail the mahogany is the same thickness as the rail itself. It is secured by two screws driven from the back of the rail into the reduced upper section of the carving, and now also by two iron plates screwed to the back; these were doubtless introduced primarily to secure a break in the apron itself, about 2½ inches from the bottom.

The two pierced scrolls either side of the apron, and the two similar pieces at each side, are all of horizontally-grained mahogany. They are reinforced with shaped mahogany plates at the back, in the unpierced areas. On the four scrolls at the front corners this plate extends above the scroll and is screwed to the rail. At the back it appears that a similar device was planned, but in the end not used, if the oak blocks with countersunk screw-holes -- which occupy the position where the plates would have extended -- are original. These back scrolls, however, appear to be dowelled into the legs, at the flower-head, whereas at the front legs the angle of the juncture is such that they can only be glued in place. It may have been decided, during manufacture, that the back scrolls were adequately secured by this means, and that the upper screws could therefore be dispensed with. Alternatively, this may constitute evidence that the oak blocks are not in fact original; if so, then possibly this table did originally have a marble top, which was then changed for a wooden one, which in turn was displaced by the present marble top. So many changes seem somewhat unlikely, however, for a table that was probably only about 100 years old when it came to the Museum.

Bequeathed by C. D. Rotch

Bequeathed by Claude Rotch (1962)

A table of similar design, possibly from the same workshop is W.12-1952. Both tables show the same feature that the scroll bracket on the back leg is fixed at an angle in order to reach the inward-turned shoulder of the bust.
The design is based on plate 23 of William Jones' "Gentleman's or Builders Companion" London 1739
This table was owned by Trice and Christie, 93 Wigmore street. W1.
See departmental photographs.

Above information taken from Registered description catalogue and has not been verified.

Various features of this piece suggest that it is 19th-century: the fact that the front legs are fully carved on their back face, and the back legs on their inner face; the very awkward aspect of the sides, where the front pierced scroll under the frieze is correctly aligned with the side to join the front leg, but the back scroll, in order to join the leg at the equivalent flower-head, is twisted backwards (because the back leg faces sideways); and the very unorthodox construction, with a dovetailed frame screwed to the legs from outside, instead of being tenoned to the legs. The use of added blocks to accommodate the countersunk screws for fixing the original(?) wooden top (now replaced with a marble top) is also very unorthodox; normally the screws would be countersunk directly into the rails. It is, however, possible that these blocks are later additions (see Physical description). Consistent with this conclusion is the rather poor quality of the carving, which though very busy is rather shallow. The treatment of the feet in particular has a distinctly 19th-century aspect.

At first sight this appears to be a characteristic English side table of the 1740s, combining Palladian architectural ornament in the frieze with more lively Rococo decoration in the legs and pierced apron. It is related to French designs by Nicolas Pineau, which were copied in England by Thomas and Batty Langley; but the direct inspiration was probably a design by William Jones, published in 1739 as plate 32 in his The Gentleman or Builder's Companion.

Closer inspection, however, suggests that the table was made over a hundred years later. The detailed carving of the back of the front legs, and the inside of the back legs, would not be normal in an 18th-century table. The carving throughout, though 'busy' on the surface, is shallow and rather perfunctory. Above all, the construction is very unorthodox. Where an 18th-century table would be made with the frieze rails beneath the top joined into the legs, here the rails are first joined (dovetailed) to each other and then screwed to the legs. This table would therefore appear to be an accomplished rococo-revival creation of the mid-19th century or later.

W.49:1,2-1962