Picture This CXXXIV

This table is described by its vendor as a “late 18th century Queen Anne walnut lowboy”.

Would the sleuths please set the record straight?


Jack Plane

About Jack Plane

Formerly from the UK, Jack is a retired antiques dealer and self-taught woodworker, now living in Australia.
This entry was posted in Antiques, Picture This and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Picture This CXXXIV

  1. hbm-la says:

    Nice looking ….. WHAT!!???


  2. Joe M says:

    talk about week in the knees!


  3. Joe M says:

    Looks like Oak to me.


  4. potomacker says:

    I suppose anything with cabriole legs can be termed Queen Anne but that doesn’t explain how it is late 18th century. Is this perhaps the lowest of lowboys? The wear patterns on the top of the legs show that the tabletop (which also seems inordintrely too small) is a replacement or at least a relocation from a taller piece. Is the top walnut, enough to justify marketing the piece as walnut? This single photo is a teaser. The legs with padded feet appear to have been cut with a bandsaw so does this detail provide a terminus post quem? I cannot see whether the pads are integral so does this make it American? There is something odd on the side visible as though an appliqué was removed. It’s hard to say from this angle. If I had to guess without examining the interiors, I think the drawer fronts are later replacements, certainly later than the purported late 18th century. The bronzes are likely slapped on merely to help with the sale. They are oversized perhaps to distract from the other flaws.


    • Jack Plane says:

      Indeed, Ann’s reign ended with her death in 1714 – as I like to point out at every opportunity.

      The table is a typical English oak lowboy. There is no walnut. Everything is as it should be, with the possible exception of the brasses. I am somewhat ambivalent about them. If they are replacements, they’re period correct. Apparently oversized backplates are frequent occurrences.


      Liked by 1 person

  5. Matthew Pease says:

    Well, by the late eighteenth century (say 1775?) Queen Anne had been dead for at least sixty years, whereas it looks early eighteenth century, more like George I. The front and drawers are of oak, while the legs (and top?) are of something else, possibly walnut. The brasses have been replaced – the central one hanging over the moulding, but the castors look interesting. The brasses make the fake alarm go off, but the legs are fixed with pegs which look right, and I’d like to see beneath and inside to be sure. It’s possible that it’s basically okay, and interesting.


  6. Michael Alexander Ross Anderson says:

    The angled front corners of the top are not carried through to the design of vertical framing elements in both front corners, which seems bizarre. Moreover, these members show visible dowelling, which strikes me as incorrect and rather vulgar. Connection between the legs and the cabinet appears insubstantial and they appear to be fabricated from different pieces of timber: I would have expected the leg to carry through and form the front corners. And, yes, the medullary rays visible in the woodgrain across the fascia suggest oak rather than walnut. Brasses appear to be wrongly-scaled for the piece, and that of the left-hand drawer isn’t even set straight, so they are probably not original. Perhaps this piece is a confection of parts, a chimera.


  7. Warwick says:


    It sounds like an American description, ie referring to Queen Anne style rather than period, and this seemingly may be based on little more than having cabriole legs and a shaped apron.

    It looks like oak to me too. It can’t be Queen Anne if it were late 18thC, and with ovolo lipped drawer fronts it would probably date it to about 1730-60 if it is an english piece (not QA or late 18C).

    That said, I quite like it, and with a repair to the front leg knee, it would look a little more substantial and quite charming. From what little we can see of it from one photo, it seems to have nice colour and patina.

    Just my 2 cents worth, regards,



  8. Ken Hughes says:

    Queen Ann would be early to middle of the 18th century.


  9. David says:

    Queen Anne d.1714, which is not late 18th century, but drawer pulls are batwing with D-shaped handle, which is in keeping
    Ovolo lipped drawers, 1730-1760, so Geo. II
    Front rail pegged to legs, so earlier rather than later
    Cabriole legs look a bit straight to my eye and of square section, leg profile became round in second half of 1700’s (??)
    I’ve never been any good at identifying wood, but grain doesn’t look like walnut, maybe oak

    So, Geo II (1730-1740) oak lowboy with recycled Queen Anne drawer hardware.
    How was that ?


  10. Cyril Verey says:

    The feet look dodgy to me


  11. Tony_s says:

    Looks photoshopped


  12. CJ says:

    Not American. Oak was not used. This form was never created there in the early 18 century. American “lowboys” were later in the century.


I welcome your comments

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s