1. Benno M. Forman, “Urban Aspects of Massachusetts Furniture in the Late Seventeenth Century,” in Country Cabinetwork and Simple City Furniture, edited by Ian M. G. Quimby (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia for the Winterthur Museum, 1969), pp. 1–33. Robert F. Trent, “Furniture in the New World: The Seventeenth Century,” in American Furniture With Related Decorative Arts, 1660–1830 (New York: Hudson Hills Press, 1991), pp. 25–26. Doubts about the early date of this object were raised in Gerald W. R. Ward, American Case Furniture in the Mabel Brady Garvan and Other Collections at Yale University (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Art Gallery, 1988), pp. 125–28. 2. Robert F. Trent, “The Joiners and Joinery of Middlesex County, Massachusetts, 1630– 1670,” in Arts of the Anglo-American Community in the Seventeenth Century, edited by Ian M. G. Quimby (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia for the Winterthur Museum, 1969), pp. 126–33. Peter Follansbee and John D. Alexander, Jr., “Seventeenth-Century Joinery from Braintree, Massachusetts: The Savell Shop Tradition,” in American Furniture, edited by Luke Beckerdite (Hanover, N.H.: University Press of New England for the Chipstone Foundation, 1996), pp. 81–104. 3. Trent, “The Joiners and Joinery of Middlesex County,” pp. 40, 65. Abbott Lowell Cummings, Massachusetts and Its First Period Houses (Boston, Mass.: Colonial Society of Massachusetts, 1979), pp. 184–86. 4. Trent, “The Joiners and Joinery of Middlesex County,” pp. 40–41. 5. Ibid., pp. 127–30. 6. The Concord Museum—Decorative Arts from a New England Collection, edited by David Wood (Concord, Mass.: Concord Museum, 1996), pp. 1–2. 7. Robert F. Trent, “The Lawton Cupboard: A Unique Masterpiece of Early Boston Turning and Joinery,” Maine Antique Digest 16, no. 3 (March 1986): 1c–4c. 8. For more on the cupboard illustrated in fig. 13, see David B. Warren, Michael K. Brown, Elizabeth Ann Coleman, and Emily Ballew Neff, American Decorative Arts and Paintings in the Bayou Bend Collection (Houston, Tx.: Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, 1998), p. 19. 9. Peter Kenny, Francis Safford, and Gilbert T. Vincent, American Kasten (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1991), p. 43. Follansbee and Alexander, “Seventeenth-Century Joinery from Braintree,” pp. 81–104. 10. For more on Connecticut River Valley joinery, see The Great River: Art and Society of the Connecticut River Valley, edited by Gerald W. R. Ward and William N. Hosley (Hartford, Conn.: Wadsworth Atheneum, 1985), pp. 192–206; and Philip Zea and Susan Flynt, Hadley Chests (Deerfield, Mass.: Pocumtuck Valley Memorial Association, 1992). 11. For a convenient summary of chamfering, scratch-stock moldings, and intersecting framing members, see Victor Chinnery, Oak Furniture: The British Tradition (Woodbridge, Suffolk, Eng.: Antique Collectors’ Club, 1984), pp. 112–14, 183. When used in combination with more elaborate scratch-stock or planed moldings, chamfers on framing members can intersect in mason’s miters, in true miters, or with biased tenon shoulders. When chamfers are supplanted by combinations of edge moldings, the ends of framing members can have run-out moldings that butt against unmolded sections of complementary framing members achieved by run-outs of scratch-stock moldings that are the equivalent of stopped chamfers. 12. A cupboard formerly in the collection of Elizabeth and Miodrag Blagojevich and now owned by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation also has doors framed and hung like those of the fragment and examples shown in figs. 3 and 25. It is conceivable that the joiner was concerned about the structural integrity of the door stiles, which are 1ž÷¢ inches thicker than the upper and lower rails (see fig. 21). He may have been reluctant to rabbet the back edges of the hinge stiles due to the large pin holes and mortises in those framing members. He may also have intended to chop a lock mortise in the jamb stile. Nevertheless, the layout and hanging of the doors in the earlier cupboards is unusual by period standards. Most joiners used a plow plane to cut grooves for panels. The grooves generally run the entire length of the framing members and are visible as voids on the ends of the stiles. Later cabinetmakers often plugged the voids for cosmetic purposes, but most seventeenth-century workmen left them open. Most grooving planes were used in a plow with an adjustable fence. Although this makes it impossible to prove that the workman used two grooving planes with dedicated depths to cut the rabbets, the uniformity of the two shoulder depths throughout the piece suggests that he did. 13. Trent, “The Joiners and Joinery of Middlesex County,” pp. 127–28. Michael Podmaniczky conserved the fragment and made the pillars and base.