Card Table

Date1795-1810

OriginAmerica, Maryland or Virginia or West Virginia (upper Potomac Valley)

MediumMahogany, cherry (by microanalysis), yellow pine (by microanalysis), poplar, sumac (by microanalysis), purpleheart (by microanalysis), and probably maple.

DimensionsOH: 29 1/2"; OW: 42"; OD closed: 21 1/2" OD open: 42"

Credit LineMuseum Purchase

Object number1930-115

DescriptionAppearance: Card table, half round, with plain interior leaf surfaces that were probably originally covered with textile or leather; top of upper leaf veneered with twelve-rayed half patera in maple, mahogany, and purpleheart with sumac cross-banding; edge of upper leaf cross-banded in mahogany; half round front rail divided into three veneer panels, each with central mahogany hollow-cornered rectangular panel edged with three-part stringing and enclosed within conforming mitered and cross-banded sumac frame; pilasters at top of two central legs each have a sumac oval inlay; pilasters on rear legs undercoated; four straight tape red legs with simple stringing on their expos ed faces, three-part cuff inlays, and ebonizing below the cuff.

Construction: The upper leaf consists of two lateral butt-joined boards that in turn are joined by tongue and groove to a diagonal batten on either side. The lower leaf consists of two full-width butt-joined boards. The core of the front rail is shaped on both faces and is made up of rough-sawn horizontal laminations of varying thickness and depth. It is dovetailed to the inner rear rail; a single large vertical quarter-round glue block reinforces each of the joints. The front legs are fixed to the front rail with modified bridle joints that were originally reinforced with screws. A full-length spacer block separates the fixed hinge rail from the inner rear rail, and the unit is assembled with ten cut and wrought nails driven from the inside. There is a gap the same thickness as the spacer block between the swing hinge rail and the inner rear rail. The swing leg abuts the back of the inner rear rail and its thickness compensates for the gap. A knuckle hinge connects the two halves of the hinge rail. The top is attached to the frame with eleven screws driven from below. A rear leaf-edge tenon protrudes from the fixed leaf.

Materials: Mahogany legs; mahogany veneer on front rail and upper leaf; cherry upper leaf, lower leaf, and hinge rails (by microanalysis); yellow pine front rail laminations, inner rear rail, and glue blocks (by microanalysis); poplar spacer between inner rear rail and fixed hinge rail; sumac cross-banding on upper leaf and front rail (by microanalysis); purpleheart inlay on upper leaf (by microanalysis); probably maple inlay on upper leaf.
Label TextThe influence of coastal cabinet centers on backcountry furniture is evident in this large neoclassical card table. Although its scale is unusual, much of the object's ornamentation is strongly associated with card tables from post-Revolutionary Baltimore. The half-round form was the most common shape for card tables in that city, and the extensive use of inlay and contrasting veneers was popular there as well. The rayed pattern of veneers and inlays on the upper surface of this table appears on many Baltimore examples, and the hollow-cornered panels within mitered frames on the front rail compare well with those on a Baltimore table at the Maryland Historical Society.

Most striking of all is the similarity between several of the inlays and colorations on the present table and those on tables associated with Baltimore cabinetmaker Levin Tarr (1772-1821). Tarr's card, breakfast, and sideboard tables usually exhibit simple oval inlays on the pilasters above the legs, double-swagged string inlays at the tops of the legs, and ebonizing below the cuffs, all elements used here. Although their execution differs from that on the Tarr models, the relatively uncommon combination of these details suggests the artisan's awareness of Baltimore cabinetmaking traditions.

In spite of these external imitations of Baltimore design, an examination of the table's structural details leaves little doubt that it was made in a more provincial setting. The core of the front rail is composed of four laminations that vary dramatically in thickness and depth on their inner surfaces and are covered with large coarse saw marks. The upper leaf consists of two lateral boards enframed by opposing diagonal battens, a somewhat unsophisticated approach whose incompatible grain directions led to shrinkage problems that were partly responsible for damage to the top veneers and the edge banding at an early date. Further deviating from practices in coastal urban centers, the maker of this table used a host of metal fasteners in its construction. At least ten large nails secure the fixed hinge rail to the inner rear rail, and nearly a dozen dome-head screws originally attached the frame to the top. Still more screws were used in the joints between the legs and the front rail.

Some of the cabinetmaker's wood choices also point toward a backcountry origin for the table. The leaves and rear rail are of cherry, one of the hardwoods most frequently employed by inland southern furniture makers. The artisan did go to the expense of bringing in tropical mahogany and even a small amount of Central or South American purpleheart for the veneers, but he relied primarily on species that were readily at hand for the contrasting inlays. He chose local maple in place of expensive imported satinwood, and, possibly in an attempt to imitate an exotic species like zebrawood, he veneered parts of the upper leaf and the front rail in cross-banded sumac, a light-colored but strongly figured North American wood rarely used in cabinetmaking.

Despite the nontraditional scale, relatively coarse construction, and unusual wood content, the ambitious and fully realized neoclassical design of this backcountry table argue for production in a small urban center rather than an isolated rural setting. The logical candidates are the small market towns of the upper Potomac River basin in Piedmon Maryland, northeastern West Virignia, and northwestern Virginia. Because of their extensive participation in the grain trade at the end of the eighteenth century, they enjoyed profitable business relationships and regular contact with the seaport of Baltimore, an important design source for the smaller city's artisan community. Further supporting this attribution is the use of sumac cross banding, an ornamental detail found on many objects from the upper Potomac Valley. One is a large corner cupboard that descended in the Ramsburg family of Frederick County, Maryland, (MESDA research file 9248), the other, a tall clock with a movement by John Fessler, Sr. (ca. 1758-1820) of "Frederick Town" (MESDA research file 9599). Both objects exhibit conspicuous amounts of strongly figured lightwood cross banding that also appears to be sumac.

InscribedSeveral modern illegible numbers in white grease pencil or crayon on rear surface of fixed hinge rail.
MarkingsNone
ProvenanceThe table was purchased from Boston antiques dealer Israel Sack in 1930. No prior history is known.

Exhibition(s)