Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries

Hello, more photos please see original post for more info.

Hello,
My original post appears to not have made it, so I'll post more pictures here and the original info.
Any informed opinions are appreciated, thanks!

About this pair of meditation stools, which measure
20.5" tall x 27.75" inches square.

1) Update! Don't be fooled by the large reveal! Today I discovered that the stools had the original grass mat hard seats reworked or a new flush panel was installed at some point probably in the 20th C. to create the flush panel floating top with the large reveal. Looking closely on the bottom of the top at the groove where the panel fits in to the frame, I see that a filler piece was added all around to compensate for a new panel thickness without the grass mat and mouldings. The filler is about .180" thick laid in the groove all around to accomodate for the lifted reworked panel, or a new panel. This is found under a dried crumbly fish glue looking stuff you see all around under the panel.

2) When the grass mat hard seat was reworked to make the flush floating panel with larger revea l, the whole piece (or at least the panel, to match existing) was dyed black, probably to resemble zitan.
3) The black dye is fading every where except in some shadows around the backs of the legs and in the joinery and cracks. Any black blotchiness you see I think is from residual dye penetration, it's not the color of the wood grain which, in a concealed spot I sanded to bare wood, the bare wood color is very light tan with brown streaks, not black, it is honey and orange tones.
4) The wood has a sweet faint fragrance, not pungent, not sour.
5) I measured a piece broken off the tenon and the specific gravity is 1.0. I tested the whole apron for buoyancy, and it is neutrally buoyant, and barely floats, but does not sink either.
6)This wood is hard, heavy, and shiny. The sanded area buffed up to a lustre without wax.
7)The joinery is all amazingly tight with a few putty repairs maybe at the time of the top being reworked.

More photos.

mm
Yup - nope,
I don't see evidence of a caned seat. There would be holes through the top frame components below the new panel. I think it's all pretty much what it's trying to be
a Nanmu fangdeng, late Qing or Republic pd.
Huanghuali is not a wood species as such. It is a connoisseurs term for the colour huali wood becomes after significant exposure to the elements. Sun bleeching basically. Huali wood is dark though. Very dark, so we would expect to see dark wood where you have exposed the tenons.

Hi there , hope not disappoint anyone but this item does not look so old at all ! very high quality made and wood not so sure of ! though rosewood . The exposed joints and machine edged lines is dead give away that it is of reproduction maybe 1950's to 1970's ? . But nice all the same.

Hello, Thanks for your response. I agree with Kirk that this pair is older than the 1970's, more like late Qing or Republic period. I have seen many George Zee pieces in person, and this pair is of much higher quality, and was not made with any modern machinery. I have studied the joinery closely and there are no rotary tool marks, it is all straight sawn or chiseled, I have not seen evidence of circular blade cuts, or round tool routing/shaping. Also, a reproduction of what? If you check out the dimensions (width and height), and look for source examples that this might be be a copy of; there are none. Mostly the repros are just regular stool sizes, and if it was a repro we should be able to find more examples matching this pair out there, but there aren't any.

I think the gap in the floating panel top
throws people. But, if you consider an entire city, Tsing Tao, was built in China in the 19th and early 20th century, by Chinese craftsman, who exactly re-created European architecture standards ,with European style woodwork and cabinetry; wood panel doors, and various paneled millwork, I think the Chinese would have been exposed to the European conventions and allowances for expansion/shrinkage, and would be sensitive to Western concerns about expansion/shrinkage of a large panel on export pieces, or the furniture that was commissioned by Westerners who were living in China, but intended to bring the furniture they ordered back home with them eventually.
So, yes there are newer George Zee type pieces with this type of reveal on the floating panel, but these very large meditation bench size stools are of a much higher quality and construction, than the Zee pieces, and are too uncommon of a size to have been a repro (where is the source piece example it was a copy of?). It is certainly possible, and maybe likely, that the pair was refinished in the 80's, but I think Kirk is right that their original construction would pre-date PRC.

Also, I think Kirk is right that it was always a hard seat.

So, from all of my research, it looks like these are simply Ming style large meditation bench size stools of high quality, probably Qing, or Republic period, probably originally for export, or commissioned by a westerner who lived in China , or reworked/refinished in the 1980's from older pre-revolution furniture.

I do appreciate everyone taking the time to chime in on this pair! Thanks.

Also here is a pic that show the darker wood center and probably somewhat bleached/aged near surfaces

Asianart.com | Associations | Articles | Exhibitions | Galleries |