This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
9. Conclusions


Despite the appeal of the Regency period Metamorphic Library Chair, there is limited information available on the development of the design or the firms that made them. Most contemporary design references are based on two outline sketches. The first, by Rudolph Ackermann in 1811, illustrates a Morgan & Sanders chair and the second shows a chair made by Gillows in 1834. The lack of detail in these sketches and the scarcity of research relating to mechanical furniture design of this period, have led to many inaccurate claims. The objective of the dissertation was to separate the facts from the assumptions by comparing the chairs of Morgan & Sanders against those of Gillows. The results could then be used to improve the attribution and cataloguing of Metamorphic Library Chairs being handled by the trade. From the documented, physical and circumstantial evidence collected it has been possible to draw the following conclusions:


1. Nineteenth century sketches of the Metamorphic Library Chairs made by Morgan & Sanders and Gillows suggest a number of design differences but the evidence is unreliable and attribution will continue to be difficult.


2. Although the differences between Morgan & Sanders and Gillows Metamorphic Library Chairs remain elusive, there are some design and manufacturing characteristics that can be used to improve attribution and cataloguing.


3. Frequently referenced sources relating to the Regency period Metamorphic Library Chair appear to be inaccurate and the material must now be verified and modified where necessary to prevent further misleading claims.


The following information is presented to support these conclusions:


1. The dissertation has exposed several problems relating to the identification of unique design and manufacturing features that are specific to Morgan & Sanders or Gillows Metamorphic Library Chairs. Despite the claims of some antique dealers and auction houses, the nineteenth century sketches and descriptions provided by Ackermann and Gillows provide insufficient detail for reliable attribution. The similarities between the designs of each maker are such that


- 91 -


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136