PHILIP D. ZIMMERMAN, PH.D.
CONSULTING SERVICES

1425 VALLEY ROAD
LANCASTER,PENNSYLVANIA 17603

REPORT 
–  August 19, 2015

On August 16, 2015, I examined a Boston mahogany blockfront prospect bureau table.
This report summarizes my opinions regarding that piece of furniture.

The chest has rounded blocking that runs continuously from the base moldings, which are
blocked, to the underside of the top, which is shaped to echo the blocking. The case has a
single wide drawer above two stacks of graduated drawers that flank a recessed cupboard
or “prospect,” a term whose usage in here probably derives from perspective. A shallow
drawer at the top of the prospect forms a skirt with a central half-round drop. Another
drop appears in the center below the base molding. The feet are straight brackets with
deep scalloping along the underside of the base molding. The chest is made of a deep
red, finely grained, and dense mahogany. The grain has been selected to produce round
and circular graining on the projecting drawerfronts.

The bureau table is constructed in classic Boston fashion. All of the secondary wood is
white pine. The top is attached with half-dovetail-shaped tongues cut into the tops of the
case sides that slide through complementary grooves cut into the underside of the top.
The dovetailed drawers have white pine bottoms with grain running front-to-back. The
bottoms fit into grooves cut into the backs of the drawerfronts. The backs of the drawer
bottoms are nailed to the undersides of the drawer backs; the sides are nailed into rabbets
cut into the bottoms of the drawer sides. Strips of wood glued into the corner created by
the drawer side and bottom provide wide surfaces on which the drawer runs. Last, the
tops of the drawer sides are decorated with double-arch moldings. Careful inspection of
the two projecting curves in the top reveals that they are laminations, as are the projecting
base molding directly below. Such laminations were made to save materials and are a
period practice. Some drawer bottoms display saw marks from cutting the pine logs into
boards. Because these saw marks are in places that are not normally visible, the marks
were never planed off, a circumstance commonly encountered in 18th century furniture.

The design of the chest is also classic Boston. The prospect door has an arch-headed
fielded panel. The center drop in the base as well as the half-round drop on the shallow
prospect door are characteristic. The scalloped design along the underside of the base
molding relates to several other examples. And the thin, molded-edge top is typical.

The bureau table survives in very good condition. Breaks are visible in the two proper
left front bracket foot facings (which are mitered in the corners), but the wood is original material. On the proper right side, one front cusp has been restored, and a glue block
supporting the other cusp has broken away from the underside. The center drop is
original. The supporting glue block behind the mahogany facing appears to have been a
wood fragment of a shorter dimension than the width of the drop, so that the proper left
side is not supported from the rear. Again, this appears to be original construction. In the
proper left rear foot, the triangular back piece and leg block are replacements. The side
facing has split into three parts, but all three parts are original as reattached, except the
cusp, which is a restoration. In the proper right rear foot, the triangular back piece and
leg block are also replacements. The lower two-thirds of the side facing is a replacement.
The several details of this condition report should not obscure the overall observation that
the feet survive largely intact, including their height.

The shallow prospect drawer has been repaired along the bottoms of both sides where it
runs on the case. The original drawer bottom fits into a groove cut into the back of the
drawer front, as normal, but the drawer front has what appears to be a second, unused
groove running below it. This second groove is likely a cabinetmaker’s error (perhaps
caused by not factoring into his measurements the thickness of the drawer blade on the
case). It is possible, but not likely, that the maker intended the front of the drawer blade
(on the case) to nest into this groove. The fit of this drawer into the case has not been
altered in any way. The exterior drawer front has what appears to be a glue line along the
diameter of the half-round drop, but the drop is not a separate piece of wood. Instead, the
line was probably scribed into the surface to mark the undercutting on each side.

All of the brass hardware has been changed. Faint impressions on drawerfronts indicate
one-time presence of brasses with larger backplates characteristic of mid-18th century
and later. No brasses were removed to try to determine whether the present set is the
second or third.

The drawer fronts appear to have been cleaned more deeply than the surrounding case
edges, prospect door and drawer, and base. This deeper cleaning probably occurred when
the present brasses were installed and the minor repairs made.

Provenance: No history of ownership accompanied this bureau table, but two labels still
attached to the case identify previous ownership. A 20th century “jelly label” pasted to
the inside of the proper right side of the top, long drawer reads “This belonged to / Ruth
A. Mullen [or Muller].” The last letter trails off so that it cannot be discerned with
confidence. Another label attached to proper right top corner of the case back board says
“School St. Storage / Worcester, Mass. / PL 4-6872.” The identity of this owner has not
been established.

Dating: The earliest blockfront piece of furniture is desk and bookcase signed by Job
Coit of Boston and dated 1738.1 Its blocking is flat across the front, rather than rounded
as in this chest. Another early example is a mahogany and inlaid slant-lid desk signed
twice by Boston maker Richard Walker. Walker’s biography and similarity of the desk to another example dated 1739 suggest that it was made about 1740.2 It too has flat
blocking. No accurate dating scheme for rounded blocking has been advanced.
Moreover, the dating of Eastern Massachusetts blockfront furniture is made complex by
recent research into the work of Nathaniel Gould of Boston and Salem. It establishes that
Gould’s most expensive furniture of the 1770s was blockfronts, not the bombé forms that
he had previously been making.3 For the many other Eastern Massachusetts blockfront
survivals, little or no documentation survives. Style analysis is notoriously inaccurate
and seems always to favor the earliest possible dating. All things considered, it seems
reasonable to date this bureau table no earlier than about 1745 until about 1765 or so.

1 Nancy E. Richards and Nancy Goyne Evans, New England Furniture at Winterthur
(Winterthur, Del.: The Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, 1997), cat. no. 205.
2 Philip D. Zimmerman and Frank M. Levy, “An Important Block-front Desk by Richard
Walker of Boston,” Antiques 147, no. 3 (March 1995): 436-41
3 Kemble Widmer and Joyce King, In Plain Sight: Discovering the Furniture of
Nathaniel Gould (Salem, MA: D Giles Ltd. in association with Peabody Essex Museum,
2014), cat. nos. 4, 6, 8.

VOICE/FAX: (717) 390-9818
PHILIP.ZIMMERMAN@FANDM.EDU