Antique Mahogany Tripod Table - Tripod Tea Table - Regency Rosewood Library  Table

The principle role of tripod tables has been as wine or occasional tables for social use. As a piece of furniture a tripod table of small size is decorative and useful in this respect but easilyknocked over and liable to damage. Many of the tripod tables for sale in shops nowadays are marriages of top and base from different origins for this reason. The tripod legs, keyed into the central column, are also easily damaged and the joint split due to an excessive weight being placed on the table. A metal spider is often screwed under the base to reinforce the legs against this.
The original method of securing the top was by two parallel bearers hinged to fit on to the squared top of the stem. Sometimes a gallery or ‘bird cage’ was used and this, being regarded as a mark of quality, tends to
add to price. By placing a weight too near the edge of the table it is possible to damage the top fixingalso and many of these have had to be repaired.
To detect a ‘marriage’ examine the underside of the top for old screw holes or marks of previous bearers. Although successful unions do take place there is usually a loss of proportion and relationship between top and base. Do not be misled, in country versions, by talk of country craftsmen using one wood for the top, another for the stem and another for the legs. Although this may have happened it was not nearly so widespread as the subsequent repairers would have us think.
Value in tripod tables is dictated by the same considerations as those of other furniture; quality of craftsmanship, proportion, colour and choice of wood, polish and patination. Above all , originality is to be prized as much as structural condition.
Regency rosewood library or rent table with octagonal revolving top inset with tooled leather. The inlaid stringing lines are of brass.
Large Regency period dining table of extendable type with leaves which are inserted in the centre section to provide greater seating capacity. A type of table now somewhat reserved for board rooms and public
banqueting halls but which nevertheless follows the development of the earlier Georgian type with two ‘D’ ends between which leaves could be inserted. This table would seat approximately 20 people.
N. B. It is interesting to note that ten years ago such tables were hard to sell and often cut up for the good quality wood of which they were made.
The tripod table is not strictly speaking derived from the candle stand in our illustration above but it is possible to trace the influences derived from it. This stand is of walnut and was made originally for holding a light.
The octagonal top has a moulding round it which is typical of the late 17th and early 18th century walnut period and the twist turned stem represents a high degree of technical accomplishment.
A mahogany tripod of mid-18th century. The top is dished to give the rim around it and the plain column is of pleasing simplicity. The mahogany used is of the heavy Cuban variety, very dark in colour. Note the
development of the height of the legs, becoming bolder.
A mahogany tripod supper-table of c. 1750. The scalloped top is decorated in the centre with leaf carving. This illustration is in fact a reproduction and the centre column turning is not perhaps of as beautiful a design as the top should be supported on.
A walnut stand of the early 18th century. The octagonal top again has the moulded edge of the period and is veneered in figured walnut. The base of the stand is now lifted off the floor by the three curved feet of square section.
A tripod mahogany tea table of c. 1760 with fluted column and scalloped edge carved with shell patterns.
A Chippendale style mahogany tripod table. The top shows the .’pie-crust’ edging which requires a high degree of craftsmanship, since the whole top is made in one piece. The stem is fluted down to the carved bulbous vase and the legs, with shell and pendant decoration on the knee, end in ball and claw feet. Note the scroll on the inside of the knee of the leg. One of the most ornate and decorated examples of this type.
Typical 18th century tripod table in mahogany, probably dating from 1760-80. The legs have now become almost aggressively higher and bolder in curve. The tapering column has the bulbous vase at the base.
Late 18th century tripod table with baluster turned stem and chamfered legs.
Fruitwood tripod table 27″ in diameter. Note the rather abbreviated feet and the.fact that it has been necessary to use several planks to make the top due to the lack of width in fruit-wood trees.
Another tripod mahogany table of 1770-90 date with similar stem, but the legs now flattening in curve slightly. The rounded curves are modified by the chamfered edges and more pointed design.
18th century tripod mahogany table of larger dimensions - the top approx. 2ft. 9in. in diameter. Note the spirally fluted vase at the base of the tapering column stem. Until recently these were more difficult to sell, being too large for occasional or wine table use. Now they are rising in price and being used as tea tables or small dining tables.
18th century yew wood tripod table. The legs are better proportioned than the fruitwood example although they show the steep outer curve of the later period. The top again is several planks, but yew is a wood which
is always more highly valued.
Early 19th century tripod table with rectangular top, of a type expanded in size to produce a breakfast table. This smaller size could be used as a supper table and, being of the tip-up type, was useful in smaller rooms.
The wood is generally mahogany and the legs and stem exhibit the same characteristics as dining tables of the period.
A rather delicate tripod table of c. 1800. The top is octagonal and painted - in line with other furniture of the Sheraton period. Note that the legs are now in a reverse curve from previous styles.
Later 19th century version of the tripod table - the tripod legs have actually vanished and all that remains is the triangular shaped flat base with its three turned feet. The stem is now thoroughly over-
turned with far too many bulbs and vases. Early 19th century country tripod table in mahogany. The legs are in the same reverse type of curve as the previous example, but the stem shows the rather bulbous turning
that heralds the Victorian period.

TABLES  smallish tripod and quadripod, 1800-1850
At first antique tripod tables followed the same form as the larger single tables but, with the inventiveness of the Regency period, individual designs emerged. The Victorians produced small Victorian tripod tables with four small legs which strictly speaking do not belong in the same section but which, for the sake of convenience, have been included.
A more decorative treatment of the same basic design Sweeps to the top and bottom of the legs are emphasised with applied brass rosettes. The stem is tapered and ringed, the top has a rim. Value is enhanced by the fact that the height is adjustable. Anything which moves, adjusts or can be fiddled with seems to command a premium. c. 1815
A turn of the century mahogany table, showing plain classical elegance. The legs have a clean simple curve and the stem is decorated with spiral reeding. The top is cross-banded in satinwood. c. 1800
If you look at page  you will notice that many high quality ‘hairy feet’ have wings or spurs at the back and one can see that they provide a good balance by supporting the base over a reasonable area, instead of
looking as though they were screwed on at the end. This is a well-thought-out mahogany design, the sturdiness of which is justified by the heavy marble top. c. 1825
A novel little four-legged table note its quality and the scroll behind the hairy feet. Curious that the carved Chippendale vase is retained on the centre column. The flaps have well-matched veneers which meet when the table is in the erected position, giving a fine effect. One of the best of its sort.
It really is hard to be charitable about this horrible little table. Loudon
(1833) had the same problem about a fairly revolting sofa table of the period. “The justness of this criticism will appear more obvious, by applying it to the table… which has two supports more highly enriched by
carving than those of any of the other pieces and yet has a plain top. This is in bad taste and ought not, in a work like the present, to be passed over without notice.” Quite right. Not only is the top plain but out of
proportion to the base and the decoration seems mindless. c.1830
Loudon would approve this design because both top and bottom have ,enrichments’, but he might, like the present writer, be happier with it if the two sets of beading had been more of a size. c.1830
A conventional papier mache floral and gilt, with mother-of-pearl inlay, tilt-top table. Well decorated and elegant with the shape of the top helping to create an interesting piece. A good compact pedestal. c. 1840
Typical small mahogany tripod table of the period. Commercially not desirable. Not enough decoration for the Continental buyer and too small for a cheap dining table. Same design still offered by Light in 1881. 1830-1850
The use of iron was an obvious method of obtaining the maximum decoration as cheaply as possible. Once the mould was made presumably any number could be cast. Again the quality of painting is important. The
price in this case is helped because the painting is topographical  shipping on the Clyde. c. 1850
A good papier mache table with a delightful hop harvest scene painted on the top. If one can discover the artist or if it is by Jennens and Bettridge then the value will be more than quoted. c. 1850
Made over a considerable period of time, a form of simple table which was produced in huge quantities. The baluster-shaped turning on the pedestal is competent but attempts too much. Basically 1830s

TABLES  tripods and candlestands to 1770
These evolved from candlestands which came to Britain at the Restoration. They were extremely useful and the design was adapted over the years to provide support for a wide range of objects from wine to books.
A walnut spiral turned example with baluster form at the top. The rectangular sectioned S scroll legs meet on an octagonal platform which echoes the shape of the top which is quartered and cross-banded in walnut.
c. 1680
Although a countrified version of the above with flatter feet and a burr elm top which has warped, the turning is excellent quality and has the thick snake-like coils at just the pitch which one associates with the best late seventeenth century work.
There does not seem to have been an identifiable ‘Queen Anne’ tripod style (for that matter there is not a ‘Queen Anne’ dining table), so one moves on from the rare turned base supported by three buns, c.1690, to the elegant walnut column stem table with a dished yew top. Note the remains of the platform still discernible where the legs meet. c. 1725
The low feet and heavy barrel turned stem suggest an early date for this fine heavy, slightly squat, Cuban mahogany tripod table. It has the desirable ‘birdcage’ method of fixing top to stem. Notice that the pillars of the birdcage have the same barrel turning as the stem  this suggests originality. c. 1735
Not a flattering photograph of a top quality Chippendale example. A fine piecrust edge to the top and baluster shaped knop at the base of the column. The legs are heavily decorated. Note that the carving stands out from the knee as opposed to being sunk into it as it would were it fake. A beautiful crisply carved example. c.1750
An example of a wine table with a turned spindle gallery around the top. Again good quality but plainer. The knop has spirally turned reeding and the only carving is on the knee. c. 1760
A good comparison with example 892. Conceptually it is the same design and indeed it is a fine table, but not of the same quality the carving is less deep and the top rim is weak. c.1750
Perfectly plain standard tripod shown in the stowaway position. Notice the good quality mahogany with a grain showing. No birdcage, which would help the price slightly. c. 1770
A Victorian attempt to copy the style of pieces in this section. The shapings of the legs and columns are an indication, but the vertical grooves in the upper part of the column and the finial under the base are the
giveaways; Victorians loved these finials. A pretty table maybe, but not Georgian by any stretch of the imagination. c. 1870

TABLES  reading, writing and artists
Architects’ tables were large and solid; others were of lighter construction and designed to fit in with furnishings in the fine reception rooms. The best are to be counted among the most elegant furniture. Even the inelegant are loved  collectors love pieces that do things.
A much more simple reading table with adjustment by a series of notches, but none the less an elegant piece in the same rococo style as the first example. It has a good deep patination and one should not underestimate the desirability of metal fittings even when as simple as the band round the top of an elegant dark tripod. The band is, of course, part of the vertical adjustment fittings. c. 1760
A superb Chippendale example of a mahogany reading table with elegant curved supports and well carved tripod legs. The small repetitive decorative design sets off the bottom edge of the table. It is almost identical to, if not the pair of, one in the Victoria and Albert Museum and as provenance or comparability are important, especially in high quality pieces, the price is substantial. c. 1760
The well-shaped feet and solid gun barrel turning suggest the date. Two slides either side provide space for glasses, spectacles, etc. The adjustable top, controlled from beneath for height, folds down to make a rectangular leather topped tripod table. c. 1770
Again, elegance is the keynote of this superb piece which has two facing adjustable stands and folds down into a tripod table. The square box-like projection has two drawers, inlaid at the edges, which held rosin and hence the piece must have been a double music stand. The candlesticks are adjustable at three points. It is made in satinwood and cross-banded in a darker wood and again in rosewood at the edges. It has a lovely mellow colour and original patination. c. 1790
A good design for a table which can be made into a reading table. The front drawer is, of course, false, as are the ones on the opposite sides, hence the piece qualifies for a centre table. The flexibility enhances the value. The fact that it is in partridge wood adds considerably to the interest, since, although the little piece is solid and heavy, it has specks of brown and dark red which, being mellowed, will give it a good tone.
A well-made artist’s table (perhaps strictly not quite big or solid enough for an architect’s) with drawer under. The top comes down to make a not inelegant quatrepod. The ivory keyholes and reeded top to the legs suggest the date.
A mahogany adjustable reading table with feet and turned stretchers that seem to be anticipating a stack of folio ledgers or the weight of a collapsed bibliophile. Note the two fine tulip-shaped candleholders with elegant curved supports. c. 1820
A good, honest, Georgian mahogany reading table. It has tapering legs and slide and the usual adjustable top. From the point of view of design the small drawer bolted on the side seems an afterthought and detracts from the line of the piece. c. 1790
Shows a very good early form in oak, with cross-stretcher between the legs and ogee curves under the frieze edged by a small lip moulding. The simple drawers have a double-D moulding on the carcase around them and the legs show turned inverted cup or ‘bell’ forms which is a Dutch influence. The handles are period. Note the thinness of the top and compare with chests of the period and slightly earlier. c.1700
The classical Queen Anne walnut type  in fact of George I period  with veneered surfaces and solid cabriole legs ending in pad feet. The drawers are edged with herring-bone crossbanding and the top is quartered, inlaid with herring-bone and cross-banded. The  handles may well be original. c. 1720

TABLES  dining, mahogany multi-pedestal
A two pedestal table with column supports and curving legs having a dark inlaid stringing line. The centre leaf is supported by strong metal catches. Note that the tripods are not evenly spaced so that when the flap is taken out they can come together without clashing. c.1790
Similar to the first example but more the type traditionally found with quatrepod bases. Reeding on the feet and the edges of the table suggests the date. An elegant table in a fine dark mahogany, vastly reproduced often with aestheti-cally disastrous results. c. 1790
The limitations of both gateleg and D-end tables are overcome to a large extent by the multi-pedestal dining table which made its appearance in the later Georgian period. The result is that one rarely sees a fake double D-end table but plenty of wrong pedestal tables. What else does one do with heavy tripod tables or broken breakfast tables The only real snag is the favourable leverage which a heavy leaner can exert on the edge when determined to spring the join of pedestal and table top centrally; but then, in one’s own polite circle, no one puts his elbows on the table, do they
Extra leaves may not have been used a great deal, so their colour may be darker. Check that the side moulding matches and that there are no new square pieces let in below near the edges where the hinges used to be when it was a gateleg table, or indeed any other unaccountable screw holes or glue blocks.
An interesting cross-breed between a pedestal type table and a D-end using a gateleg central section for extension. The overall effect is not very coherent. c. 1780
A table which succeeds leaves between its ends. Three high of the period, in which the ‘knee’ at is starting to appear.
c. 1800-1810, in supporting three curving legs typical the top of the curve
The legs have been curled into scrolls that are almost Victorian, but the effect is light and elegant. c.1830
This table is solidly William IV, showing the heavy influence of ‘classical’ design promoted by Thomas Hope and with gadrooned edges as well as leaf carving. It has been fitted with modern multi-directional ball castors for ease of transit.
An example with Regency ‘knee’ developing that is almost a spur on the legs and spirally reeded columns. The table edges are also reeded. c. 1820

Tripod table

1. Made of heavy, dense mahogany.
2. Carving, dishing, piecrust or scalloping integral with table top, standing proud of the surface.
3. Grain of stem running from top to bottom without a break.
4. Proportions correct: when tilt top is vertical the sweep of the curve should not cut into the baluster, carving or decoration, or leave too much showing.
5. Measurements of top should not be precisely circular - timber shrinks along the grain and circle will be slightly flattened.
6. Never veneered - always in the same solid wood, for the top, stem and feet.
Likely restoration and repair
7. Metal brackets pinning underside of tripod or knees where wood has split and been repaired.
8. Wrong proportions - tops too large or small. The eye can judge better when the top is vertical not horizontal.
9. Line of joined timber at collar at base of stem: block added, into which legs have been fitted.
10. Dishing on top surface without corresponding tapering of outer edge of undersurface suggests later copy or dished out from undecorated table.
11. Grain not running in unbroken line up the shaft indicates stem from another piece of furniture with
additional piece to give extra height.
12. Tripods of dumb waiters, fire-screens, torcheres, teapot’s, suitable posts from four-poster beds, inverted legs of dining tables - all these give an idea of suitable beginnings and replacements for stems and tripods. Many period trays are used for tops.
13. bullish, reddish-coloured walnut, not mahogany -nineteenth-century copy.
14. Lighter-weight mahogany, shallow carving - also nineteenth-century copy.
Historical background
The antecedent of this small table is the candlestand of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, standing on three splayed feet. Small tables on central stems and three scrolled feet were made in ‘black’ Virginia walnut from the late seventeenth century onwards, and in the first two decades of the eighteenth century. But the tripod table did not really come into its own until mahogany had become readily available. Its construction demanded a strong, close-grained timber which would not easily split, and which could be cut in a single piece for the table top.
Of all tripod tables the piecrust’ is the best known and has been ceaselessly copied in a recognizable, although emasculated form. Genuine piecrust’ tripod tables are far more massive: the tripod legs are a version of the cabriole leg, with acanthus, scallop or lions mask carving on the knee, which has a pronounced spring. The stem is carved with foliage or cupped leaves around the bulb of the base which rises in a slender, fluted stem. The piecrust’ itself is carved from the solid timber, and the thickness reduced to a minimum beneath the carving so that in outline the top itself is slightly dished.
Construction and materials
These are important little tables in terms of construction, so apparently simple that a great deal of detail must be absorbed to be sure that the piece in question really is genuine.
The base is made in four pieces: the central stem, cut from a single piece of wood, and three separate legs, secured to the base of the stem with a wedge dovetail, the tops of the joints concealed by the swell of the bulb, or by a circular ring-turned boss below the collar of the baluster.
The top is cut in a single piece with the grain running across it from side to side, and the carving of the rim is integral with the original thickness of the top. On the underside of the rim the wood is tapered so that from the side the shape is slightly dished. The tilt-top construction consists of two parallel cross bearers attached to the underside of the table top, which fit on either side of a small square block mounted on top of the stem, with a pivot running through it into the cross bearers on either
side. The top is secured by a brass spring catch to hold it firmly in place when horizontal. On very early, rare tripod tables, the tops were fixed to the stems with a central threaded wooden collar secured to the underside of the top into which the stem was screwed. Revolving tilt tops were mounted on a ‘bird cage’ gallery, rare to find intact. The top of the stem was enclosed in an open box with wooden columns to all four sides, which revolved, and which fitted neatly into the two parallel cross bearers mounted on the underside of the table, and locked into position.
Detail
Plain-topped or dished tops were mounted on plain baluster stems, sometimes with spiral decoration, with pad feet, or scrolled feet on flat ’shoes’ to give stability. The knees of the legs should be high to give the tripod base a good grip. From c.1780 the legs are flattened into soft S-curves, more spread-eagled and sprawling.
Variations
Period country versions were made in fruitwood, yew wood and in mixed woods with oak tops. The construction of the base demanded a close-grained wood which would not split on the dovetail joints of stem and feet, and oak was not suitable.
Sometimes walnut was used, but rarely.
If fruitwood and yew wood were used the tops were often of more than one piece owing to the lack of girth of the trees. Simple column turning and baluster turning to stems were characteristic as are plain pad feet on a small rectangular ’shoe’. Rims were undecorated, with no carving on knees of tripod legs. Tops were larger than mahogany versions -tilt tops were used for more practical purposes in the country and small tops were less useful.
Right: mahogany syllabub or supper table, a Chippendale design which was revived in the nineteenth century.
Right: nineteenth-century reproduction with typical sprawling cabriole legs and weak ball-and-claw feet.
Reproductions
Nineteenth century
Although the tripod is often called ‘pillar-and-claw’ this is a variation, with flattened curve and flowing unbroken line from tripod base to stem, and denotes a characteristic Regency design of the ‘Sheraton’ peri
legs were often reed later, curved above the central boss of the stem. Inlaid brass decoration and stringing exaggerated the form of these upward-curving legs, which were joined to a square plinth base from which the stem rose. The tops of these tables were often square or octagonal.
The monopodium pedestal also traces its origins from the tripod base and characterizes a wide variety of Victorian tilt-top tables, usually larger than the eighteenth century tripod table. It is to be hoped that the foregoing points of construction, authenticity, restoration and faking will guide the buyer quickly away from any of the countless reproduction ‘piecrust’ tables to be found in any department store or general furnishing store. Apart from anything else, the lightest push will tip them over.
Price bands
Eighteenth-century piecrust, £2,500-3,500.
Eighteenth century, with bird cage, £3,000-4,000.
Chippendale-style supper table, £500-850.
Nineteenth-century reproductions, £.200–350.

Pillar-and-claw table

1. Matching tops and pillar-andclaw supports – reeded edges to all pieces of table top including leaves, with reeded feet, legs and pillars.
2. Plain edges to table tops and leaves, with plain pillars, sometimes octagonal or polygonal, plain legs and feet.
3. Squared cast-brass shoes, plain swivelling castors with horizontal sockets more common on period tables than lion’s paw, which is often a sign of Victorian Regency revival.
4. Four legs and not three to each pillar for the best examples.
5. No cross-bearers visible near edge of table tops – always chamfered so that they could not be seen.
6. Squared tops to pillars in same timber as the rest.
7. Patination, particularly on leaves, the depth of a hand on undersurface of table top where table and leaves have been handled.
8. Grain of tops and leaves running parallel with rule
joints, not down the length of the table in any part.
9. Ring turning on pillars above leg joints.
10. Height of table, 2 ft 4 in.
Likely restoration and repair
11. Mismatched tops and pillars: reeded with plain, or vice versa, means a marriage of more than one table. Even if correct period, worth considerably less.
12. Replaced pillars from later bulbous Victorian shapes, cut down and reeded. Reeding will be rough, no patination in grooves.
13. Replaced legs and feet: ring turning may be directly above leg joints where wedge dovetail has been recut.
14. Bearers visible too near edge of table: top cut down from
larger size.
15. Bearers not chamfered indicates new top or replacement.
16. Edge moulding rough, no patination indicates Victorian machine-carving cut away.
17. Carved edges to tops and leaves indicates later Victorian table tops. Period tables were undecorated except for reeding or thumb moulding.
Historical background
The method of supporting table tops with one or more central columns on splayed legs was the natural development of the tripod table, combined with the great strength of mahogany. The greatest innovation in the design was that an extra leaf could be supported on the rule-join of the two endpieces, with nothing more than bolt-and-fork fastenings and no supporting pillar beneath it. This had obvious advantages for seating arrangements, as legs and chairs did not have to contend with a forest of uprights below the table.
The best examples of the pillar-and-claw construction are those with pillars terminating in four splayed legs rather than three. The square base of four legs suited the more symmetrical style of the Regency period and the whole appearance of these tables is characteristic of the ‘Sheraton period’ of simple, undecorated,
glossy mahogany, with smooth tapering lines and restrained reeded decoration. Dining tables of this period were designed to set off the quantities of silver, crystal and porcelain reflecting light from chandeliers and table candles –hence the emphasis on richly veneered surfaces.
Brass shoes and castors are an integral part of the design of pillar-and-claw tables –sometimes with lion’s paw feet but more often a simple squared shoe was preferred, with the castor horizontally beneath it.
Pillar-and-claw tables are sometimes known as pedestal tables, but strictly speaking the pedestal was a solid affair without separate splayed feet and belongs to a later period. No pillar-and-claw table measures less than 4 ft across and their height is always 2 ft 4 in. The smallest pillar-andclaw table measures about 9 ft long with the extra leaf inserted.
Construction and materials
The function of the table demanded a massive, heavy mahogany. San Domingo or Cuban mahogany was also used and is nearly always darkened from rich chestnut brown to deep gloss with age and polishing. Each piece of table top was cut from a single piece of timber, planed and rubbed with brick dust or sand until perfectly smooth, and then oiled and polished with beeswax until it shone like silk.
Legs fitted into the pillar on the same principle as the tripod table construction – each curving splayed leg dovetailed into the base of the pillar with a wedge dovetail, glued and clamped for extra strength.
Pillars ended in a square platform of the same piece of timber, and were mounted between chamfered bearers under the table top. There was a hairline join between the two halves, a fixed top
and extra leaves, with rule joint and bolt-and-fork fastenings below the table top on either side. Large spans had additional bolt-and-fork fastenings further towards the centre. With all extensions, the progression of numbers is: two pillars with one extra leaf, three pillars and two extra leaves, four pillars and three extra leaves or five pillars and four extra leaves.
Detail
The tables were always solid –never veneered – because of the potential damage from spillages and hot dishes, which could lift veneer. The edges to tops were plain, as were the circular pillars with their narrow band of ring-turning above the leg joints; legs were also plainly shaped. One sometimes finds reeded edges to table tops with matching reeded pillars and legs. There was no frieze to any section of the top.
Variations
Above: breakfast table, c.1800.
Below: nineteenth-century table with reeded edge and clumsy thick bearers.
The method of construction demanded the use of expensive mahogany which allowed the extra leaves to be inserted without supporting pillars, and therefore these were expensive tables used only in large houses for large numbers of diners.
Country tables of any size at this period were usually of the draw-leaf variety, descendants of the seventeenth-century draw table, with leaves at either end which slid
out from beneath the table top on bearers. By the end of the eighteenth century the two extending leaves joined in the middle under the table top when they were pushed in, and when pulled out the table top dropped into the well between them.
They were constructed with the traditional square or rectangular frame, with stretchers and plain square legs or minimal decoration.
Reproductions
Nineteenth century
Versions came in many forms, often with three-legged pillarand-claw, lion’s paw feet, indicating Victorian Regency revival. Pillars were thicker and more bulbous, with more ring-turning. Legs were curvaceous and cumbersome, with castors set on base of upward-curling feet. Victorian draw-leaf tables sometimes managed a combination of the old solid X-trestle with central stretcher, bulbous in shape and added nothing to construction. Better versions had legs which tapered inward at the top, echoing the old triangular trestle shape.
Whatever the pillar or pedestal, it has to run on castors so that it can be moved about for inserting and removing extra leaves. Thus the triangular, solid-stem of later Victorian `tripod’ based tables were not suitable. The only other period variation during the early nineteenth century was a pillar constructed of three or four pieces, clustered together to form a single support.
Twentieth century
Smaller versions (less than 4 ft wide) are still made today, and are often quite well reproduced, but in poorer-quality woods with machine finishing, sometimes even with rough undersides to the table top.
Price bands
Four-claw, two-pillar table in solid mahogany, George III and Regency, £4,000-6,000.
Three pedestals, two leaves, c.1800, £8,000-10,000.
Four pedestals, three leaves, C.1800, £9,000-11,000.
Single pedestals, rectangular, c.1840, £1,200-1,500.
Circular, c.1840, £850-1,000.
George III style reproduction, £550-750.

Tilt top table

The predecessor of the Victorian tilt-top is the eighteenth-century tripod table and its contemporary cousin, the breakfast or supper table, also known as a ’snap-top’ table. In its original form, like all dining-room furniture, the snap-top was made in solid, well-grained mahogany with little embellishment except for cross-cut veneered bands of contrasting inlay. They were more often rectangular with rounded edges than circular or oval: four to six people could be seated round a rectangular table, but a round one could only seat four in comfort. However, by the turn of the century, the advantages of display had become evident, and from William IV onwards table tops became more and more decorative with intricate designs and inlays, shown to advantage when the table was in an upright position, like a huge firescreen.
By the mid-Victorian period, the table tops were still immensely fine and decorative, but the restrained bases had become bulbous and heavy, or were thick monopodium shapes on squat paw feet. The better designs adapted a plinth base with outreaching feet terminating in scrolls, dolphins, lion’s paws, or flattened claws with round, square or triangular plinths. Tops were oval, round or rectangular, with rounded corners. Some larger tilt-tops dating from the early nineteenth century are known as ‘loo’ tables and were designed to seat eight people to play the card game, ‘loo’.
Signs of authenticity
1. Good-quality veneer and inlay on solid mahogany.
2. Cross-cut veneer edging to borders.
3. Well-made, well-designed base, plinth or monopodium support.
4. No signs of tampering with top and base – screw-holes, marks, signs of cross-bearers being moved, on underside.
5. Correct proportions, both when table is horizontal and vertical.
6. On circular ‘loo’ tables and square supper tables, horizontally fitted castors on cast-brass shoes.
7. Central column in one piece with grain continuing up to the fixing block.
8. Good incised carving base with no chipping or damage.
9. No damage, replaced veneer, chipped or cracked round circumference or any part of table top.
10. Veneered on good quality Honduras mahogany or on oak, not stained white wood.
11. Bases, plinths, monopodium, in solid mahogany, not stained-up cheaper woods, brightly gilded.
Likely restoration and repair
12. Later inlays cut into plain veneers to increase value – grain will run in one direction only.
13. Bases married to better-looking tops, out of proportion, too decorative for base. Signs of
tampering on top undersurface.
14. Bases restored, repaired –metal braces under legs, knees, feet, castors reset where feet have been damaged.
15. Rectangular tops replaced with circular and vice versa. Proportions will be wrong, overall design incorrect. Best seen when table is vertical, not horizontal.
16. Replaced square platform on pillar where it has broken. New catches and snap-top fastening –no immediate disadvantage, but a weakness which will reduce value and may break with use.
Reproductions
Tilt-tops span a period of over 100 years of continuous manufacture, some with quarter veneer framed with decorative, restrained borders, some of simple, plain, good-looking veneer or solid woods, some with machine-stamped ground veneers and showy, poor-quality `inlay’. They were not made much after the beginning of the twentieth century, but such a large quantity had been manufactured that there was little need for reproduction. Labour was cheap and machines could reproduce many of the more difficult processes. Brass inlay and decoration could be inset by hand, painstakingly by craftsmen, or poured in a molten state into grooves in the solid timber and sanded down and polished by machine.
It is a question here of quality an eye for a good design and good materials, not really of authenticity. These tables have recently enjoyed a surge in popularity, and although it is doubtful if any are being made today, it is certain that table tops and bases are being exchanged and replaced to achieve a better-looking table than the original might have been.
Price bands
Rectangular breakfast table, in fine, plain veneer, c.1780,$800-2,500.
`Loo’ table, circular, plain, c.1800, £1,250-1,500.
Victorian, with rich decorative veneer, inlay, $l,740-2,250.
(Mahogany is the most expensive, followed by rosewood, then walnut.)
Variations, left: a circular George III snap-top breakfast or supper table, in well-figured mahogany veneer and broad cross-banding.
Right: flamboyant Victorian decorative inlay and veneer.
Construction and materials
The earliest snap-top tables, rectangular in shape, and circular `loo’ tables, were usually on
castors, so that they could be moved to the centre of the room for breakfast or supper or for playing cards. From c.1840 many tilt-tops were made without castors, on flattened, triangular or circular bases with ornamental feet. Generally they were heavy and not designed to be moved about. They usually had highly decorated table tops and were probably seldom used, since they looked better in the vertical position and were probably designed more for display than for use.
Victorian tilt-tops, for breakfast or supper tables, were made in solid mahogany, well-figured with good graining, in solid rosewood, solid walnut and in lighter-weight South American and African mahoganies, more reddish in colour than eighteenth-century mahoganies.
The snap-top fastening was a
stouter version of the small tilt-top
tripod fastening, with parallel cross-bearers fitting either side of a square platform on the top of the central plinth or pillar, secured with a heavy brass catch.
Detail
Tilt-tops for occasional use or for display were made in many veneers, including rosewood, walnut, burrwood, amboyna, tulipwood, kingwood, bird’s eye maple, with zebrawood, harewood, ebony, Coromandel, satinwood, laburnum and many other exotic and dyed woods for inlays.
There was a wide variety of pillar supports, ranging from flattened pillar-and-claw to triangular plinth with gilt-brass or bronze decorative feet, lion’s paw, dolphin’s head, bear’s paw and many versions of a scrolled foot, as well as reeded columns and decorated monopodium plinths. Later versions were more bulbous, over-ornate and ostentatious.
Variations
Provincial tables were often richly decorated in veneer and inlay for display, but their central supports lacked the finesse of good furniture-makers and were often badly proportioned. Country versions of the tilt-top are much the same as larger versions of the tripod table. They were most often made of plain oak, or in well-grained yew or fruitwood, the tops in more than one piece, but the grain being highly prized.