I agree that is a rather high price although it is a really nice chair. The first thing I noticed is that the stretchers seem very close to the ground. To me, that means it either used to be a rocker (although it doesn't lean funny as you might expect without its rockers) and was cut down or it was always like that and the design was a little off - I think it makes it look clunky.
The rest of the chair is great including the arched side and front boards, pinned joints, cushions, etc. but I think it is a 500-1000 chair, not 1600. But again I don't know much about the Quaint Art company either - shoot, I sure wish I had that database! totally kidding!
Originally posted by Steve06: The first thing I noticed is that the stretchers seem very close to the ground. To me, that means it either used to be a rocker (although it doesn't lean funny as you might expect without its rockers) and was cut down or it was always like that and the design was a little off - I think it makes it look clunky.
I think you are right and that it used to be a rocker that was cutdown into an armchair. The back feet look just slightly shorter to the rail than the front ones. Plus as you mentioned, the rails are indeed really close to the ground already.
I agree that it may be a bit over priced. But it's still a $1,000-$1,200 chair in my opinion. It's a tall back, slat sided arm chair. Fully pegged, arched front and side rails. Thru tenons, corbels. Original finish and spring seat.Oh, and it's signed. Honestly, what more could you ask for in a chair? The only thing keeping this from being a $2,500 chair is some veneer and a little red ink stamp.
Oh, and as far as the stretchers sitting on the floor almost...take a look at some Limbert and A couple gus chair designs, they were the same way. Actually alot of limbert's chairs had low stretchers. It's hard to say from those photos, but I don't feel the chair is cut. But then again, if it had nice bevels on the bottom of the feet, why didn't he photograph that? If it is cut, it's probably only the normal inch or so from water or general wear.
Ah, well, I guess you're right. But it still looks a little odd to me... It seems like the legs need about another inch to them. But back to the original question - I still don't think it is a 1600 chair!
Good discussion on one of the enigmatic companies. There's little to no info out there about this firm except we know they were in Syracuse and they seem to have decent quality. So do we call them first tier, second tier, or what? Too good for generic I think. Jayk makes good points about all the features but certainly you can still find arm chairs from other better known companies for less money - my Limbert in the above pic was only 225 on eBay (no cushion however); not the same details (no corbels, no arch, no slats), but you get the point. If not mistaken there's an old Style1900 mag that may cover them a bit in an article by the Clarks.
It does look like a generic kind of chair without the frills of the heavier period pieces of the SB's.
Was Quaint set up as a alternative to those items? The same quality maker but not as massive or not as ornate as the pieces of that time. Seems those days were ripe for change and styles came and went as fast as they made them.
Just the name alone suggests a lesser mass of wood and more dainty styles were offered. Or just a lower grade of manufacture but still by a name brand house.
They may have been the ultimate copy-cat or 'jump on the bandwagon' company by borrowing both the Quaint name (Stickley Bros) and by locating in Syracuse (Gus Stickley).
From Rago's first price guidebook: active 1909-16
"General line of Mission oak chairs, rockers, tables, and settles; considered of higher quality than the majority of lesser-known furniture firms; utilized spline joints on table tops and settle posts"
totally kidding!
