1920`s - 1930`s Modern Sideboards

SIDEBOARDS  ‘modern’, 1920-1930
In this section a number of interesting designs which are quite modern in spirit and technique are illustrated. They are mostly by `famous’ designers with perhaps the exception of Percy Wells. In due course it will be possible to produce further illustrations as more research and identification work is carried out  the real detection work is required to identify those pieces made by original designers of international stature.
A solid walnut sideboard by Gordon Russell with yew cross-banding, ebony stringing lines and ebony-and-yew handles. The design, with its latticed back gallery is very akin to one of Gimson’s. The use of square stretchered legs on pedestal desks, dressing tables and other pieces is characteristic of Gordon Russell. c. 1924
A dresser designed by Frank Brangwyn  yes, he did design furniture as well as paint  with a slatted back gallery and panelled doors. A nice piece, more suitable for sideboard respectability than kitchen dresserdom.
c.1925
A mahogany sideboard designed by J. Henry Sellers, rather characteristic of his tendency to place a lower shelf beneath a severely linear, almost Sheraton, upper structure with drawers with black stringing lines at the edges. Designed en suite with the dining table shown as 515.
An oak sideboard designed by Percy Wells c.1920, of a very simple conception. Its origins can be traced to the art nouveau example, 440, and before that to washstands and similar functional pieces. No drawers were
fitted, to reduce cost. The chair next to it shows art nouveau origins as well, but of the English rectilinear version, not the curvaceous Continental model. Indeed the lower half of the chair owes more to country
Sheraton design than anything else. c. 1920
A mahogany sideboard designed by Percy Wells, c.1920, which has wandered across the line from his definition of a dresser. The central cupboard was designed to be able to take bottles (not of alcohol, surely HP sauce, perhaps, or ketchup) and the shelves at the back for books or china. Actually, a very functional piece which fulfils Wells’ desire to keep proportion small for the small rooms involved and to meet a real storage need. It is interesting that he has retained turned front legs on this piece and the original Welsh concept of the pot-board below. He has also embellished the piece with two curved arches to the top but hastens to say that “the article would be just as useful without the little ornamentation which has been introduced” and then, in the same sentence, simply gives into weakness by lamely confessing that “utility, though first, is not the only thing to consider in furnishing a home.” Revisionist tendencies, Wells!

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply