.jpg?w=1)
Lot Essay
The dressing glass form, a small box fitted with a mirror, appeared in England throughout the eighteenth century, but in America, became more commonplace during the Federal period (for a detailed discussion on the history of dressing glasses, see Percy Macquoid and Ralph Edwards, The Dictionary of English Furniture (London, 1954), vol. 2, pp. 352-357). Research indicates that the similarities between dressing boxes and large pieces of case furniture were intentional as some surviving examples were made en suite with the chest or dressing table they were meant to stand on; instances of this can be seen in a serpentine box attributed to Jonathan Gostelowe of Philadelphia that descended in his family along with a serpentine-front chest-of-drawers, both now in the collection at Yale University Art Gallery and illustrated in David L. Barquist, American Tables and Looking Glasses in the Mabel Brady Garvan and Other Collections at Yale University (New Haven, 1992), pp. 358-362, cat. no. 207.
Examples such as this, which combines a Chippendale-style base with a Federal-era vasiform or shield-shaped mirror are extremely rare. The shield-shaped glass first appeared in The Cabinet-Maker's London Book of Prices (London, 1788; 1962 reprint, plate 13). Dressing glasses such as this example were costly items. The 1793 edition of London Cabinet Book of Prices lists a price of 6 shillings for a basic box of similar dimensions with a beaded drawer, plain feet, a square, veneered looking glass and straight posts. The additional labor required to make the dressing glass offered here, with its shaped posts, a second undulating reverse-serpentine lower drawer, ogee-bracket feet and ball-and-claw feet, would have more than doubled that figure. For a more extensive discussion of the related costs of such an item, see Nancy E. Richards and Nancy Goyne Evans, New England Furniture at Winterthur: Queen Anne and Chippendale Periods (Delaware, 1997), pp. 469-470.
The closest mate to this dressing glass is in the collection at Winterthur (fig. 2), and is illustrated in Richards and Evans, pp. 469-470, cat. no. 216 as well as in Charles F. Montgomery, American Furniture, The Federal Period (New York, 1966), pp. 286, cat. no. 251. The two are virtually identical in nearly every aspect, including the construction of the case and drawers, the same graphite inscriptions on the backs of the drawers, and dovetails and case sides of equal thickness. The construction of the feet are the same, with only slight variation in the finishing: In this example, the rear feet are completely carved and finished on all sides except the interior sides; on the Winterthur example, the rear feet are only partially carved. The Winterthur example exhibits acorn, rather than urn, finials, and features a finial at the top of the arched crest, which was never present on this example.
Related examples can also be seen in an advertisement for Craig and Tarlton, Inc. of Raleigh, North Carolina, pictured in The Magazine Antiques (March 1970), p. 339; Bondome, "The Home Market: The Box Toilet Mirror," The Magazine Antiques (March 1923), pp. 133-134; Wallace Nutting, Furniture Treasury (New York, 1928), vol. 2, nos. 3206 and 3210; Gilbert T. Vincent, "The Bombe Furniture of Boston," Boston Furniture of the Eighteenth Century, Walter Muir Whitehill, ed. (Boston, 1972), fig. 97, fig. 122, fig. 123
Examples such as this, which combines a Chippendale-style base with a Federal-era vasiform or shield-shaped mirror are extremely rare. The shield-shaped glass first appeared in The Cabinet-Maker's London Book of Prices (London, 1788; 1962 reprint, plate 13). Dressing glasses such as this example were costly items. The 1793 edition of London Cabinet Book of Prices lists a price of 6 shillings for a basic box of similar dimensions with a beaded drawer, plain feet, a square, veneered looking glass and straight posts. The additional labor required to make the dressing glass offered here, with its shaped posts, a second undulating reverse-serpentine lower drawer, ogee-bracket feet and ball-and-claw feet, would have more than doubled that figure. For a more extensive discussion of the related costs of such an item, see Nancy E. Richards and Nancy Goyne Evans, New England Furniture at Winterthur: Queen Anne and Chippendale Periods (Delaware, 1997), pp. 469-470.
The closest mate to this dressing glass is in the collection at Winterthur (fig. 2), and is illustrated in Richards and Evans, pp. 469-470, cat. no. 216 as well as in Charles F. Montgomery, American Furniture, The Federal Period (New York, 1966), pp. 286, cat. no. 251. The two are virtually identical in nearly every aspect, including the construction of the case and drawers, the same graphite inscriptions on the backs of the drawers, and dovetails and case sides of equal thickness. The construction of the feet are the same, with only slight variation in the finishing: In this example, the rear feet are completely carved and finished on all sides except the interior sides; on the Winterthur example, the rear feet are only partially carved. The Winterthur example exhibits acorn, rather than urn, finials, and features a finial at the top of the arched crest, which was never present on this example.
Related examples can also be seen in an advertisement for Craig and Tarlton, Inc. of Raleigh, North Carolina, pictured in The Magazine Antiques (March 1970), p. 339; Bondome, "The Home Market: The Box Toilet Mirror," The Magazine Antiques (March 1923), pp. 133-134; Wallace Nutting, Furniture Treasury (New York, 1928), vol. 2, nos. 3206 and 3210; Gilbert T. Vincent, "The Bombe Furniture of Boston," Boston Furniture of the Eighteenth Century, Walter Muir Whitehill, ed. (Boston, 1972), fig. 97, fig. 122, fig. 123