[Editor’s note: This blog post originally appeared in Vita Brevis on 23 January 2017.]
The Research Services team at NEHGS is occasionally approached with questions relating to the history of ownership (i.e. provenance) of a particular family heirloom. These questions are usually supplemented with stories about the heirloom’s first owner and how the object was acquired. Genealogists are uniquely qualified to carry out provenance research due to their familiarity with and frequent use of two sources commonly used in provenance research: wills and estate inventories. However, before consulting any of these sources, a serious study of an heirloom’s provenance should begin by studying the object itself.
To illustrate how the study of an object is crucial to provenance research, consider the following hypothetical scenario: An individual is interested in documenting the ownership of a piece of heirloom furniture (a side chair) that has been in the family for multiple generations. For the purpose of this exercise, let’s say that the chair is similar in form to the image at left, and that the chair is not a reproduction. According to family tradition, the chair was purchased by a distant ancestor (John Brown) from a Boston furniture maker. John Brown died in the Boston area in 1720.
The ball-and-claw feet, the decorative pierced splat (or back) of the chair, along with the carving on the legs, seat edge, and top of the chair back are characteristic of the opulent Chippendale style.
Before jumping to probate records, two questions should be asked. First, can we know when the side chair was constructed and when the style of the chair was common? Second, does the date of construction and the style of the chair correspond with the period when John Brown was living? Answering these questions will be greatly aided by consulting reference works that address early American furniture forms and styles. Two useful reference works are listed below. While the first volume discusses furniture exclusively, the second provides a broad overview of the major stylistic changes in American decorative arts using examples of furniture, silver, ceramics, textiles, and paintings:
- Jonathan L. Fairbanks and Elizabeth Bidwell Bates, American Furniture: 1620 to the Present (New York: Richard Marek Publishers, 1981)
- Pauline K. Eversmann, The Winterthur Guide to Recognizing Styles: American Decorative Arts from the 17th through 19th Centuries (Winterthur, Delaware: Henry Francis du Pont Winterthur Museum, 2001)
Utilizing the above works will help one to learn that the side chair under consideration is of the Chippendale style. The ball-and-claw feet, the decorative pierced splat (or back) of the chair, along with the carving on the legs, seat edge, and top of the chair back are characteristic of the opulent Chippendale style. The form was common in American between the years 1755 and 1790 – several decades after John Brown’s death in 1720. Several different styles preceded the Chippendale style in America, including the Seventeenth-Century style (1620–1680), the William and Mary style (1680–1720), and the Queen Anne style (1720–1755), each of which possessed its own unique characteristics.
[Based] on the Chippendale style of the chair, it is more likely that it was acquired by one of John Brown’s children or grandchildren.
Given this information, it seems unlikely that the side chair was acquired by the individual’s ancestor, John Brown. If the chair was acquired by John Brown, we would expect the chair to exhibit characteristics of the Seventeenth-Century style or William and Mary style. However, based on the Chippendale style of the chair, it is more likely that it was acquired by one of John Brown’s children or grandchildren. More research time might therefore be allocated towards researching the descendants of John Brown and locating their respective probate inventories. Additional research might also be dedicated to researching if the chair was in fact made in Boston.
Overall, when researching a family heirloom, consider setting aside some initial time to research the object itself. Doing so will allow you – in some instances – to partly verify or question the history of ownership of a particular object. As in the above example, researching an object first might prevent you from performing fruitless searches and allow you to direct your research in a new direction.
 For additional information on American Chippendale furniture and the Chippendale style, see Fairbanks and Bates, American Furniture: 1620 to the Present, 139–94, and Eversmann, The Winterthur Guide to Recognizing Styles, 53–64.
 Eversmann, The Winterthur Guide to Recognizing Styles, 53.
 Ibid., 17–51.
4 thoughts on “ICYMI: Researching family heirlooms”
I was fortunate to inherit — together bits and pieces of the households of parents and grandparents — a journal bound in read leather that contains information about pieces my maternal grandparents purchased in the 1940s and beyond. Thanks to this, I know that the gilt mirror that hangs in my front hallway was purchased from “Mrs. Cahoon” in Osterville, and came from the Parker Leonard family. And that a silhouette purchased Mrs. Hammell for $0.75 was “sold back for $1.” The carved Black Forest mirror now in my daughter’s home was purchased in 1941 for $15 at the “Refugee Gala on Boylston Street.” A candy stripe vase bought August 11, 1943, in Maine from “Johnnsen” was later sold $8.75. The pages of the journal, with their notations and annotations, tell the story of collectors who appreciated things of lasting charm, and sought to preserve items with special meaning — for example, “Fred Tenney’s grandfather’s chair” in November 1943 was reupholstered at a cost of $10 for material (red velvet) and $40 for labor. (Fred Tenney was my great-grandfather.) I love browsing through these pages and imagining my grandmother (born 1899) and grandfather (born 1898) visiting shops in Boston (The Artisans on Newbury Street; Trefrey and Partridge; Gebelein; R. H. Stearns) and beyond (Framingham, Marblehead, Hopkinton, Rockland, Brookfield, Natick, Orleans, Wakefield, Worcester, Harvard) and driving through the New England countryside to Maine, New Hampshire, Connecticut. The leaves of the book are interspersed with bills of sale, receipts, sales tags, correspondence, clippings…all traces of lives lived well and long, and collections treasured and shared.
Dan, I found an old pocket watch made by Jacot & Son in LeLocle, Switzerland which belonged to my parents. When I took a trip to Switzerland, which did not include LeLocle, I stopped at a watch store. As luck would have it, the salesperson was from LeLocle. She told me there were many Jacot’s in Lelocle and, since the watch was sterling silver, it was very old. My parents never mentioned the watch so I am trying to trace how the this watch relates to our family. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Pat Coffey
The Antiques Roadshow visited my city some years ago. Happily, I waited for my turn to have the pewter set (tea/coffee) my mother had owned, appraised. Besides learning its value, I was amazed to hear how old it was. I thought it was my grandmother’s but the date went back to a little before 1836! Based on that information and figuring it may have been a wedding present, I have two good possibilities for original owners of the set – 2nd great-grandmothers!
I found a very old Windsor style chair at a thrift store. It must have been part of a set at one time. An owner wrote on the bottom of the chair that it was received as a wedding gift in 1931 or so. The original manufacturer’s label, Bent Brothers, MA, is still on the underside of the seat. This is an exciting find in Texas. I’ve been researching the company and I cannot find any pictures online of this chair, which is exceptionally reinforced with two dowels at the bottom, left to right, instead of just one dowel which was common in later years.