See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/272310462

Re-evaluation of French Renaissance furniture at The Frick Collection, New

York, USA

Article  in  Studies in Conservation · August 2012

DOI: 10.1179/2047058412Y.0000000055

CITATION READS

1 150

1 author:

Joseph James Godla

The Frick Collection
7 PUBLICATIONS   11 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Joseph James Godla on 24 August 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Original research or treatment paper
Re-evaluation of French Renaissance furniture
at The Frick Collection, New York, USA
Joseph Godla
The Frick Collection, New York, NY, USA

This paper is based on a comprehensive technical study of the French Renaissance furniture in The Frick
Collection, New York, USA, which includes a remarkable group of 15 pieces – tables, dressoirs, and
chairs – said to be from sixteenth-century France. All came from the celebrated collection of Maurice
Chabrière-Arlès, a well-known French collector of the second half of the nineteenth century. The study of
French Renaissance furniture is complex for multiple reasons including the lack of objects with a secure
provenance, and because alterations, over-restoration, embellishments, and fakes are ubiquitous. At the
Frick a re-evaluation of the collection was undertaken, which examined various construction methods,
evidence from tool marks, and restoration, including analysis of hardware and of remnants of surface
coatings. This close and lengthy scrutiny of selected pieces of furniture permits distinction of authentic
elements from later reproductions and answers questions of authentication. Through the discussion on a
sixteenth-century dressoir this paper also illustrates how the study of provenance allows for a more
informed and nuanced evaluation of material evidence. As a result, this research provides new insights
into sixteenth-century furniture making and nineteenth-century restoration practices.
Keywords: French, Renaissance, Furniture, Chabrière-Arlès, Joinery

Introduction of authenticity. Furthermore, it can make it possible to

The Frick Collection, New York, USA, owns 15 pieces
of heavily carved walnut furniture. Although some
pieces have been published over the past 130 years as
prime examples of French Renaissance furniture, cura-
tors, and conservators have recently begun to re-evalu-
ate the collection. Given the few comparable
documented objects of the period, scepticism is war-
ranted. Exacerbating the problem is the lack of
design sources linked directly to specific objects.
While art historians have studied print sources for nar-
rative scenes used in sixteenth-century decorative arts
(enamels, majolica, and tapestries), sources for furni-
ture forms, and decorative elements are relatively
unexplored, with a few notable exceptions (Erlande-
Brandenburg, 2001; Fuhring, 2010). This dearth of
information makes it difficult to evaluate a piece
through stylistic considerations. Comprehensive tech-
nical studies and scientific analysis are necessary to
understand such furniture (Hinton & Heginbotham,
2006). Conservators’ close and lengthy scrutiny
enables the careful documentation, sampling, and
analysis that are essential in order to answer questions
Correspondence to: Joseph Godla, The Frick Collection, 1 East 70th
Street, New York, NY 10021, USA. Email: Godla@frick.org
differentiate between the work of maker and faker.
This study evaluates the 15 pieces of Renaissance
furniture at The Frick Collection. Little is known
about their provenance before the nineteenth
century, which is perhaps a factor in the increasing
scepticism about their authenticity. This group was
last studied in preparation for the collection catalogue,
which, however, included little technical information
beyond wood identification and condition notes
(Dubon & Dell, 1992, pp. 81–183).
For the present study, the technical evaluation relies
heavily on careful physical examination and documen-
tation of construction methods, restorations, and tool
marks. Furthermore, wood type was verified and
efforts were made to analyse remnants of early
surface coatings. Iron hardware was also analysed.
The primary wood on all the furniture is walnut, a
species with limited cross-dating data, eliminating den-
drochronology from the list of useful analytical tech-
niques (International Tree-Ring Data Bank, 2012).
The Chabrière-Arlès collection
Maurice Chabrière-Arlès (1829–1897) was a native of
Lyon, France, who also spent time in Paris, meeting
with artists and art lovers including architect Sir

© The International Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works 2012
DOI 10.1179/2047058412Y.0000000055 Studies in Conservation 2012 VOL. 0 NO. 0 1
Godla Re-evaluation of French Renaissance furniture
Richard Wallace, architect and restorer Eugène-
Emmanuel Viollet le Duc, and William Henry Riggs,
then a young expatriate New Yorker, whose collection
of arms and armor can now be seen at The
Metropolitan Museum of Art (Dean, 1916).
Chabrière-Arlès’s collection of medieval and
Renaissance art included fifteenth-century paintings,
many small objects in bronze and ivory, some majolica
and enamel works, and tapestries. The most valuable
part of the collections, however, was the sixteenth-
century furniture, the best pieces of which are today
at The Frick Collection (Vignon, 2010). Chabrière-
Arlès’s collection of Renaissance furniture was well
known, widely published, and internationally
admired in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-
century France. Most pieces had been on display at
major exhibitions, notably in Lyon in 1877 (Giraud,
1878) and at the Paris World Exposition of 1900. A
few pieces were illustrated by the great nineteenth-
century furniture historian Henri Havard (1882) in
his L’Art à travers les moeurs. In 1887, the much-
esteemed French art historian Edmond Bonnaffé illus-
trated six pieces in Le Meuble en France au XVIe
siècle, at the time the only scholarly book on French
Renaissance furniture (Bonnaffé, 1887, p. 154). In
1903, Gaston Migeon, curator at the Musée du
Louvre, published three illustrated articles about the
Chabrière-Arlès collection in the widely read art
magazine Les Arts (Migeon, 1903a, pp. 7–17;
Migeon, 1903b, pp. 8–15; Migeon, 1905, pp. 8–18).
When the most famous international art dealer of
the twentieth century, Joseph Duveen (1869–1939),
acquired the collection in early May 1916 for an aston-
ishing $1 500 000, major newspapers announced the
purchase (New York Times, 1916, p. 6; Le Cousin
Pons, 1916, p. 60). The entire collection of 276
objects was shipped, and the most important pieces
of furniture were sent immediately to 1 East 70th
Street, New York, for Frick’s consideration. He
bought 15 of them in June 1916 (Fowles, 1976,
pp. 91–92; Vignon, 2010, pp. 494–502).
Restoration of Renaissance furniture
Recent studies of French Renaissance furniture have
concluded that most pieces have been heavily restored,
if not completely fabricated from old parts, particu-
larly those that passed through the market in Paris
(Erlande-Brandenburg, 2001; Brilliant, 2010).
Duveen himself noted in 20 December 1923 in a
letter to John D Rockefeller (now on microfilm in
the Duveen Archives, Metropolitan Museum of Art:
Box 505, Folder 1) that Renaissance furniture has
almost always been restored: ‘With regard to the
table … , as you are aware, most of these
Renaissance Tables are restored – indeed, it would
be practically impossible to find one otherwise, and
2 Studies in Conservation 2012 VOL. 0 NO. 0
this is especially the case in regard to furniture of
that period’. Identifying and documenting this restor-
ation work are essential steps in understanding an
object. In the case of sixteenth -century furniture,
this challenge is further complicated by an abundance
of pastiches, copies, and fakes. A dressoir at The Frick
Collection will serve as an example of the approach
taken to study the 14 other pieces in the museum.
The Sennagon dressoir
Henry Clay Frick acquired the Sennagon dressoir
(1916.5.86), considered the key piece from the
Chabrière-Arlès collection, for $110 000, as is shown
in an invoice dated 21 July 1916 (now in the Helen
Clay Frick Foundation Archives, Frick Art
Reference Library, New York), almost twice the
price he paid for Gerard David’s Deposition a year
earlier (Fig. 1). This piece is also crucial to our study
because a restorer, Frédéric Aupetitalot, left a note
inside the drawer compartment of the dressoir in
1855, which serves as a brief condition report and
documents a mid-nineteenth-century restoration:
Ce meuble antique
A été réparer par moi Aupetitalot (Frédéric)
Rue des 3 mages No 3 à Marseille
Ce meuble était dans un état complet de
dégradation
et pouvais avoir au dire des connoisseur – 350
ans
1855 (Aupetitalot 1855)
‘This antique furniture was restored by myself
(Frédéric) Aupetitalot, Rue des 3 mages, No. 3 –
Marseille. This furniture was found in a state of com-
plete degradation and according to connoisseurs could
be 350 years – 1855’ (translation by the author).
The dressoir has been published at least a dozen
times as a key example of French Renaissance furni-
ture, made in or around Lyon in 1580, although its
authenticity has been questioned in recent years
(Koeppe, 1993). It has long been tied to the designs
of Jacques Androuet du Cerceau (1510–1584), the
celebrated architect and designer of sixteenth-century
France (Bonnaffé, 1886, p. 324) and, indeed, some of
the carved elements are closely related to his published
work. Associations have also been made with the work
of Hughes Sambin (c. 1520–1601), the Burgundian
architect/cabinetmaker (Verlet, 1956, p. 23). These
two attributions are not surprising as this dressoir is
a virtual dictionary of French Renaissance design,
including harpies, terminal pilasters topped with
female figures, architectural perspectives, satyrs,
masks, and strapwork. Little of the surface is left
unadorned.
It is not known as to when the dressoir first appeared
in Marseille. Bonaffé wrote that the owner Sennagon

Figure 1 Dressoir (The Frick Collection, New York, 1916.5.86), c. 1570–1580. Walnut, 160 × 176.8 × 56.5 cm.
paid 45 000 francs for the piece, though the author
does not mention the source of his information, nor
does he provide the seller’s name or date of sale
1 (Bonnaffé, 1887, p. 154). Sennagon, who lived in
Marseille, had a varied art collection that included
paintings by Boucher and Corot, an important
carved mirror frame by Toro, a suite of eighteenth-
century French seating furniture, and a wide variety
of objets d’art. The dressoir was his only piece
thought to be of the sixteenth century, and it was his
most valuable possession, selling after his death in
1886 for a price three times that of anything else in
the collection, according to the probate inventory
after his death, dated 15 April 1886 (now Register
353, E 402, in the Archives Départmentales,
Departement des Bouches-du-Rhône, France).
The price of 45 000 francs paid by Sennagon was a
considerable sum of money at the time, which suggests
that the dressoir had already been restored by
Godla Re-evaluation of French Renaissance furniture
Aupetitalot. The restoration was therefore undertaken
when the piece was in the hands of the previous owner,
a dealer, or perhaps even Aupetitalot himself, as his
trade card states that he also sold furniture.
A key to understanding this dressoir is its structure.
Perhaps it is the unusual form of the piece, supported
by two harpies, and the relentless carving that make it
difficult to grasp in a single viewing. A substantial
layer of restoration further clouds the picture. The
visual complexity of the piece is deceiving, as its con-
struction is actually quite straightforward: the upper
case is an extremely well-planned frame and panel
construction; the decorative moldings adorning each
of the exterior faces of the front stiles (vertical struc-
tural element), for instance, are integral to the stile
itself and carved from the same piece of wood.
Where the horizontal structural rails, with their elabor-
ate carved profiles, join the corner stiles, the profile
does not butt into the upright, but overlaps it,
Studies in Conservation 2012 VOL. 0 NO. 0 3
Godla Re-evaluation of French Renaissance furniture
Figure 2 Detail of carved transitional leaf at termination of
horizontal molding.
continuing to the corner. This technique, which effec-
tively hides the underlying joinery (the combination of
mortise and tenon and bridle joints), is seen in other
documented pieces of the French Renaissance. All
the repeating decorative patterns on the moldings are
carefully laid out, terminating with a transitional leaf
where they turn 90 degrees and return into the
cabinet (Fig. 2).
The hidden joinery and termination of these mold-
ings are signs of the thorough design process and
careful planning that seem to be hallmarks of six-
teenth-century case construction. Joinery and mold-
ings such as these are not usually found on
eighteenth- or nineteenth-century casework. There
are other construction details that differentiate this
piece from later work, including: the manner in
Figure 3 Detail of upper case with elements removed.
4 Studies in Conservation 2012 VOL. 0 NO. 0
which a raised fillet on the rear stile matches the
complex profile of the adjoining rail molding; the
single plank used for the entire center portion of the
upper case spanning from door to door – this piece
of wood was of adequate thickness to allow the
carving of the door moldings and central architectural
façade (Fig. 3); the half-blind dovetails on the front
corners of drawers on which the hidden face of the
tail is canted at the same angle as the cheeks of the
tail; the impressions from the teeth of iron bench
dogs, the sort usually associated with early work,
seen on many of the elements of the piece (Fig. 4);
and the unusual form of iron pivot hinges, on which
the stud is mounted on an L-bracket that is recessed
into the top and side of the door.
Microscopic examination of the wood confirmed
that the piece is made entirely of walnut (Juglans
regia) with the exception of remnants of two broken
tenons from the now missing drawer guides, which
were made of beech (Fagus sylvatica). This wood has
been found as a secondary material on other pieces
in the group and appears to have been commonly
used in the sixteenth century. Evidence in the form
of vacant mortises suggests that the back was orig-
inally a frame and panel construction, later replaced
with wide horizontal walnut boards.
The surface of the dressoir had been thoroughly
stripped, leaving little evidence of any earlier treat-
ment. Fifteen samples of extant coating remnants
were taken from recesses for cross-section microscopy
analysis. As many as five coating layers were identified
 Godla Re-evaluation of French Renaissance furniture

Figure 4 Detail of the molding, showing impressions left by

an iron bench dog.

in the samples, the earliest of which demonstrated the

characteristic bright white autofluorescence of a plant
resin under reflected ultraviolet illumination (Buck,
2010). This early layer was ultimately identified as san-
darac, by using Fourier transform infrared microspec- Figure 5 Detail of proper left carved door.
troscopy and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry
(Matsen, 2010). examining the carving where replaced sections abut
It is possible to confidently assign some of the dres- the original, one can get a sense of Aupetitalot’s
soir’s restoration to the 1855 campaign because of the hand and its limitations. For instance, the rearmost
presence of Aupetitalot’s name, signed in pencil in section of the coiled tail on the left harpy is replaced
three locations, in addition to the note already men- (Fig. 6), and while the shaping of the general form is
tioned and a trade card found under a drawer. The adequate, the details are not. The surface is scalloped
interior of the cabinet portion has been lined with by the restorer’s carving gouge, rather than being
thin walnut panels, two of which bear Aupetitalot’s smooth, and the separation grooves between the feath-
signature. Numerous other repairs are also visible on ers are V-shaped rather than the flat-bottomed channel
close examination. The first published image of the used on the original. Recognizing the restorer’s hand
piece appeared 31 years after its restoration in in obvious repairs such as these proved crucial in dis-
the form of an etching. Photographs were displayed cerning his work in more obscure locations.
the following year, on 9–11 May 1887 at the Hôtel Important carving is found on the harpies at the
Drouot. All the restoration, with the exception of a corners of the case and the terms adjacent to the
reduction in the height of the feet, appears unchanged doors. Unfortunately, these figures may have fallen
since these early photographs, suggesting that victim to vandalism, as some faces show signs of slash-
Aupetitalot is most likely responsible for the condition ing and all the noses have been replaced. Like the
of the dressoir as it is today. Archival materials docu-
ment that only a few days passed between Duveen’s
purchase and the shipment of the furniture to
New York, precluding the possibility of restoration
at that point. Furthermore, the generally thorough
object files at The Frick Collection include no
mention of restoration to the piece during its 95
years in the museum.
The doors of the upper cabinet contain the object’s
finest carving, featuring satyrs, and elaborate three-
dimensional strapwork (Fig. 5). They also provide a
good example of the restorer’s approach to compensat-
ing for losses and damaged elements on a purely dec-
orative panel. An earnest attempt was made to
minimize the replacements: three of the four front
legs of the satyrs, which are undercut and therefore
fragile, have been capably replaced, although the Figure 6 Detail of restoration work on carved tail of harpy
carving lacks the confidence of the original. In support.

Studies in Conservation 2012 VOL. 0 NO. 0 5

Godla Re-evaluation of French Renaissance furniture

carving replacements on the doors, these repairs have harpies is crudely rendered here. It is difficult to
been kept to a minimum, although the blending of know what prompted the new wings, but the alteration
the new sections into the surrounding area caused led to a series of changes. The outer two drawer fronts,
some deformation around the eyes. which are a continuation of the carved molding profile
The harpies on the upper case have been criticized as on the sides of the case, had to be shortened. This
being ‘unorganically’ placed, probably a reference to the reduction was probably done to accommodate the
crude fashion in which they are set into the moldings larger wing. The outer drawer fronts were originally
above and below the drawers. This observation has led about 20 mm longer, judging from the truncated
to the assumption that the harpies were a nineteenth- design on the outer end. The adjacent moldings were
century addition (Koeppe, 1993, p. 92). Upon remov- more crudely chopped away in situ judging by the
ing the harpies, however, one finds that the manner gouge indentation in the stiles.
in which they are attached to the case is quite The combined evidence of construction methods,
elegant in its simplicity. Two large wrought iron related period designs, and documented restoration
nails, the heads of which are hidden behind carved strongly suggest that the dressoir dates back to the six-
florets, pass through each of the harpies and into the teenth century. This conclusion is substantiated by an
corners of the case. The iron was analysed (Scott, inscription that can be interpreted as ‘Mathieu 1574’,
2010), and the structure suggested an early date: ‘In which was discovered behind the harpy on the
some areas the iron grades into a low carbon steel proper right front stile. Referring perhaps to a cabinet-
with a Widmanstätten aspect to the blocky ferrite maker or an apprentice, this name has not yet been
grains. The top nail is similarly heterogeneous and connected to a known craftsman.
has variable carbon content. Some areas show a
Widmanstätten ferrite structure and others grade Other findings
into a good carbon steel, with a few ferrite films Understanding previous restorations continues to be a
between the pearlite showing a carbon content in key factor in the evaluation of the French Renaissance
this area close to 0.8%. The overall variability of the
structure of the two components and the slag
inclusions in the bottom nail, are in support of both
of these components being from the time of manufac-
ture of the furniture and are not later alterations’.
A rabbet in the back of the carved harpy figures fits
over the corner of the cabinet. There is no evidence to
suggest that there was ever another means of attach-
ment of the harpies or earlier adornment on the under-
lying corner of the case. When the harpies are removed
from the case, it is possible to see a series of U-shaped
indentations on the corners, created when the adjacent
moldings were carved, indicating that it was never
intended to be a finished surface.
The quality of the carving of the harpies is compar-
able to that of the rest of the upper case, and they have
been similarly repaired. The strapwork adorning the
breasts of the harpies has a delicate step along its
edge similar to the scrollwork found at the central
portion of each of the moldings surrounding the
doors. The hairstyles of the harpies, like those of the
female terms, are finely rendered in a sixteenth-
century manner, with braids looping to the top of
the head.
The harpies were not added, but modified in the
nineteenth century. A careful examination shows that
the wings have been enlarged. Viewed from below,
they reveal the laminations of the additional pieces
of wood. It is also possible to see Aupetitalot’s tell-
tale scalloping in the carving of the new wings. The Figure 7 Plate XLIX, J.B. Giraud, Exposition Rétrospective
delicate step in the edge of some of the elements and de Lyon, 1877. Lyon 1878. Cabinet now in the The Frick
present on the much thinner wings of the rear Collection, New York (1916.5.148).

6 Studies in Conservation 2012 VOL. 0 NO. 0


furniture in The Frick Collection. More than 80
replaced sections were necessary to restore the dressoir.
Although fakers have been known to simulate repairs
on their newly made work to give the appearance of
age, it is unlikely it could be done in such quantity.
Many of the Frick Chabrière-Arlès pieces seem
to have been similarly restored. Another cabinet
(1916.5.148) in the collection (Fig. 7), now believed
to date from the late sixteenth century, had numerous
wood repairs.
The study of this cabinet shows the use of contem-
porary standards of measurement in the layout of the
case and carved decoration. The toise de l’Écritoire
was the standard for measurement for length in med-
ieval and Renaissance France before the 1688 adop-
tion of the new standard, the slightly smaller toise du
Châtelet. The toise de l’Écritoire consisted of six
pieds of 32.66 cm, which were further divided into 12
pouce of 2.72 cm each (Guilhiermoz, 1913). Many
elements on this cabinet, such as the guilloche
pattern of the pilasters, are based on the pouce
dimension.
Maurice Chabrières-Arlès acquired this cabinet and
two tables now in The Frick Collection from Louis
Carrand, the son of the Lyonnais collector, dealer,
Figure 8 Plates XX & XXI, J.B. Giraud, Exposition
Rétrospective de Lyon, 1877. Lyon, 1878. The illustrated
tables are now at the The Frick Collection, New York (bottom
1916.5.84, top 1916.5.85).
Godla Re-evaluation of French Renaissance furniture
and restorer Jean-Baptiste Carrand (1792–1871), prin-
cipal adviser to the Russian collector Petr Soltykoff,
whose collection is now, in part, at the Victoria and
Albert Museum, London, UK (Brennan, 2003, p. 38).
Jean-Baptiste Carrand also made copies and poss-
ibly fakes (Darcel, 1862): ‘D’autres restaurations
executées avec une réussie parfait pour le prince
Soltykoff par M. Carrand, puis par M. Legost,
prouvèrent que l’on pouvait essayer de fabriquer des
pièces originals’. In Trucs et Truqueurs, Eudel referred
to Jean-Baptiste’s son Louis as a key figure in dealing
in fakes, giving him the thinly disguised pseudonym
‘Randcar’ (Eudel, 1907).
One of Frick’s tables illustrates Carrand’s work as
a restorer and another proves him most certainly as
the dealer involved with fakes. A draw-top table
(1916.5.84) has been heavily restored, but has many
carved and construction details that suggest a six-
teenth-century origin. A similar table (1916.5.85),
free of restoration, was newly made, probably by
Carrand. Aesthetics aside, the carving of this piece is
technically crude and the joinery of the various
components lacks the sophistication seen on six-
teenth-century furniture, and demonstrates the use of
machinery in its execution. Both tables were displayed
at the 1877 Lyon Exposition Rétrospective as auth-
entic Renaissance furniture (Fig. 8; Giraud, 1878).
Conclusion
The study of the French Renaissance furniture at The
Frick Collection has identified a mixed group consist-
ing of some important period pieces, some that appear
to combine different period elements, and some that
were newly made in the nineteenth century. Patterns
in layout and joinery were identified that appear to
be prevalent on furniture of sixteenth-century
France, confirming that the identification and docu-
mentation of construction methods and restoration
are essential in such a study, given the limited infor-
mation obtainable from dendrochronology applied to
European walnut, and the scant evidence to be
gained from analyszng original surface coatings.
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Charlotte Vignon, David Scott,
Julia Day, and Martina D’Amato for their assistance
with this project.
References
Bonnaffé, E. 1886. Études sur le Meuble en France. Gazette des
Beaux-Arts, 33: 312–26.
Bonnaffé, E. 1887. Le Meuble en France au XVI Siècle. Paris:
Librarie de L’Art.
Brennan, C. 2003. Prince Petr Soltykoff: an Important Nineteenth-
Century Collector. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Bard
Graduate Center, New York, USA.
Brilliant, V. ed. 2010. Gothic Art in the Gilded Age. Medieval and
Renaissance Treasures in the Gavet-Vanderbilt-Ringling
Collection. Sarasota: Ringling Museum of Art.
Studies in Conservation 2012 VOL. 0 NO. 0 7
Godla Re-evaluation of French Renaissance furniture
Buck, S. 2010. Frick Collection Dressoir Finish Analysis.
Unpublished report, Williamsburg, Virginia.
Darcel, A. 1862. A L’Exposition de Londres, L’Émailerie. Gazette
des Beaux-Arts, 13: 538–55.
Dean, B. 1916. Mr. Riggs as a Collector of Armor. Bulletin of the
Metropolitan Museum of Art, 92: 66–74.
Dubon, D. & Dell, T. 1992. The Frick Collection: An Illustrated
Catalogue: Furniture Italian & French. New York: Frick
Collection, vol. 5
Erlande-Brandenburg, A. 2001. Hugues Sambin: Un créateur au
XVIe siècle. Paris: Éditions de la Réunion des musées
nationaux.
Eudel, P. 1907. Trucs et Truquers. Paris: Librairie Molière.
Fowles, E. 1976. Memories of Duveen Brothers. New York: Times
Books.
Fuhring, P. 2010. L’Œuvre gravé. In: J. Guillaume, ed.
Jacques Androuet du Cerceau. Paris: Éditions A. et J. Picard,
pp. 35–58.
Giraud, J.B. 1878. Exposition Rétrospective, 1877. Lyon: Perrin et
Marinet.
Guilhiermoz, P. 1913. De l’équivalence des anciennes mesures.
Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes, 74: 267–328.
Havard, H. 1882. L’Art à travers les mœurs. Paris: Decaux &
Quantin.
Hinton, J. & Heginbotham, A. 2006. Rediscovering a Sixteenth-
century Burgundian Cabinet at the J. Paul Getty Museum.
The Burlington Magazine, 2006: 390–9.
8 Studies in Conservation 2012 VOL. 0 NO. 0
International Tree-Ring Data Bank. Archived March 2012. IGBP
PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric/National Climatic Data Center
Paleoclimatology Program. Boulder, Colorado, USA.
Koeppe, W. 1993. French Renaissance at the Frick Collection.
Apollo, 1993: 326–7.
Le Cousin Pons. 15 May 1916. La collection Chabrières-Arles part
pour l’Amérique.
Matsen, C. 2010. Unpublished report, Scientific Research and
Analysis Laboratory, Wintherthur Museum. Wilmington,
Delaware, USA. 2
Migeon, G. 1903a. La Collection Chabrière-Arles. Les Arts, 22:
7–17.
Migeon, G. 1903b. La Collection Chabrière-Arles. Les Arts, 23:
8–15.
Migeon, G. 1905. La Collection Chabrière-Arles. Les Arts, 39: 8–18.
New York Times. 2 May 1916. Noted Collection Bought by
Duveens.
Scott, D. ( personal communication 13 April 2010).
Verlet, P. 1956. Renaissance Furniture. In: The Frick Collection, an
Illustrated Catalogue of the Works of Art in the Collection of
Henry Clay Frick, New York: Frick Art Reference Library,
vol. 11, pp. 21–4. 3
Vignon, C. 2010. London – New York – Paris: Duveen Brothers and
the Market for Decorative Arts Between 1880 and 1940.
Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Université de la Sorbonne,
Paris, France.
Authors Queries
Journal: Studies in Conservation
Paper: SIC55
Article title: Re-evaluation of French Renaissance furniture at The Frick Collection, New York, USA

Dear Author
During the preparation of your manuscript for publication, the questions listed below have arisen.
Please attend to these matters and return this form with your proof. Many thanks for your assistance

Query
Reference Query Remarks

Please confirm the change of spelling from

Bonaffé (1887) to Bonnaffé (1887) in text
1 citations as per the reference list.

Please provide the report title in Matsen

3 (2010).

3 Please provide editors name in Verlet (1956).

View publication stats