SKU: 6855171111
antique dresser drawer

antique dresser drawer Antique Vintage Old Reclaimed Salvaged Victorian Eastlake Oak Wood Woo – PennAntique

$23.92 $26.58
Save 10%
No.2 Bestseller on piotrzbierski.com >

Pay in installments of $6.64 with ShopPay, AfterPay and Klarna

Shipping Estimate
USA
  • USA
  • CAN

Ships within 48 hours · Estimated delivery Aug 4 - Aug 9

Promo Codes Available:

For Your Every Summer RSVP, with Code: SUMMER15

Description

antique dresser drawer Antique Vintage Old Reclaimed Salvaged Victorian Eastlake Oak Wood Woo – PennAntiqueWow, what a rare find! Stunning, antique, dresser and mirror salvaged from Central Connecticut. Except for the drawer linings and slats on the back of the dresser, which are made of old Douglas Fir, the dresser and mirror frame are solid, riftsawn oak. The 3 drawers are equipped with brass pulls, wooden keyhole covers, and working locks we even have the original key! The beveled glass mirror and the finish of the wood is also original the piece has

Wow, what a rare find! Stunning, antique, dresser and mirror salvaged from Central Connecticut. Except for the drawer linings and slats on the back of the dresser, which are made of old Douglas Fir, the dresser and mirror frame are solid, riftsawn oak. The 3 drawers are equipped with brass pulls, wooden keyhole covers, and working locks-we even have the original key! The beveled glass mirror and the finish of the wood is also original--the piece has never been painted!

This is not your father's dresser, nor your grandfather's dresser, this is your great grandfather's! It was built sometime during the late 1800's. Besides the information that I got from the elderly gentleman who sold it to me, I could tell more about it's age by looking it's construction. Not only is the design, carvings, and appliques reflective of the Victorian era, but even the wood itself is very old. The grain of the oak is super tight, meaning that the wood was cut from old-growth oak trees. The wear and uneven finish shows varying degrees of exposure to sunlight and use over a long period of time, not a few decades. The stamped pulls themselves are antique and are secured with nuts rather than setscrews like modern hardware. The hand-carved, wooden keyholes, and the off-center positioning of the locks show they were installed by humans rather than machines. Nails with square heads are used throughout the piece. The drawers are held together by Knapp joints (pin and cove or half-moon joints), which were primarily used 1870 - 1900. The multiple boards used for the backing of both the dresser and mirror instead of a single sheet of plywood are just a few more obvious signs that this is a turn-of-the-century piece.

The mirror secures to the back of the dresser with 2 slats, and the mirror itself swivels back and forth. The bottom drawers have wooden keyhole covers, but the one for the top drawer is missing.

Considering that the piece is well over 100 years, it is in excellent condition. The dresser has the typical nicks, scrapes, scratches, and spots of worn finish here and there that you would expect to find on a piece this old. However, there are no breaks, rot, warp, or any other serious flaws.

Our carpenter thoroughly inspected the piece and didn't need to make any repairs. He did reinforce the bottoms of the drawers and the top with glue and finish nails, but he didn't need to glue or reinforce any other part of the dresser.

The glass is completely intact and is in great shape with only subtle scratches here and there. The silvering has a few worn spots, but that just adds to the distressed charm of the mirror.

The chest is strong and sturdy and is ready for another lifetime of service!

Dimensions

Top:
42" x 19 3/8" x 3/4" thick

Body: 38 1/2" W x 18" D

Total Height:
(w/o mirror) 30 7/8"
(w/ mirror) 74 5/8"

Drawers (interior):
33 1/2"W x 13 1/4"D x 6"H

Mirror:
(glass) 23 3/4" W x 29" H
(frame) 37 3/8" W x 43 3/4" H x 3/4" - 1 1/2" thick

Shipping:

VA, MD, DC, DE, PA, NJ, NY, & New England: We deliver to these states every 2 - 3 weeks . Home delivery would be $125 - $200 depending on your location. Email us with the shipping zip code for an exact price.

* If you need the item sooner  or are located outside of our delivery range; we could crate and ship with a commercial freighter--email us for a quote.

* Pick up in Scranton, PA is also welcome. No "pick up" charges applied

Shipping Notes
  • Free Standard Shipping on $100+ Orders to the USA.
  • Except Preorder products are shipped in 48 hours.
  • Delivery to the USA:
  1. Standard Shipping : 3-10 business days
  • If time is of the essence, please consider selecting expedited delivery for faster service.
Exchange/Return Notes
  • We offer a 30-day return/exchange service after receiving.
  • Final sale items are not eligible for returns or exchanges.
  • To process your return/exchange, please contact us at [email protected]
  • Please click here for more details>>> Return & Exchange Policy
SKU: 6855171111

Discover Niche Categories That Outsell antique dresser drawer

Top-Converting Item to Boost Your Average Order

4.1 ★★★★★
Based on 21 reviews
Sort
Highest Rating
Newest First
Oldest First
Product Reviews
L
Verified Purchase
Lyndon Unger
Massapequa, US
★★★★★ 4
Great Introduction to the Various Schools of Apologetics
Format: Paperback
In reading "Five Views on Apologetics", I first had to wonder why the book was called "Five Views" and not "Three Views", since the first three authors admittedly had so much in common with each other that it seemed that their positions were subcategories of a singular system of apologetics. In fact, Habermas claimed Craig as an evidentialist on multiple occasions and admitted they had relatively minor disagreements. Feinberg was also an evidentialist, but he differed from Habermas and Craig in supposing that any one argument could possibly be persuasive to a skeptic. All three individuals definitely agreed on so much though that their three essays proved to be slightly disappointing as in the end, I figured that any one of them practically utilized a combination of all three approaches (I've heard Craig make cumulative case presentations...). I wondered exactly why they were representing different apologetic camps. Don't get me wrong: I like Craig and Hambermas and Feinberg; they're brothers in the Lord. I just find that evidentialism's off-shoots are so similar to each other that taking three chapters for the various forms of evidentialism didn't seem that worthwhile. Ironically, it seemed that the other two views of were related by what seemed like a mutual distaste for the other, Frame wrote that he "was rather disappointed at Clark's treatment of the role of the Bible in determining apologetic principles" (310) and the suggestion that Clark might not have "tried hard enough to find out what the Bible says" (310) also seemed like a needless jab, but Frame still commended Clark on plenty and suggested that "presuppositionalists too are Reformed epistemologists" (312). On the other hand, Clark wrote that Frame's essay is "the best version of presuppositionalism I have ever read" but then went on to suggest that presuppositionalism (at least as presented by Van Til) was either too confusing for him or was "obviously false" (255). Clark parroted the often repeated gross misunderstanding of presuppositionalism that "non-christians cannot know anything" (256), suggested that Frame implied this concept (257) and then spent several paragraphs refuting an obviously silly postulate; it's strange how Clark would insinuate that Frame would be so plainly stupid and I got the idea that Clark thought that all presuppositional apologists were somehow mentally lacking. Even in my early reading of Van Til, I understood that he was writing about how unbelievers cannot account for how they know anything, not whether or not they can know anything. What was even more alarming was Clarks' confession that "anyone can find some support for his or her position in Scripture" (275), as if scripture lacks a clear meaning and is somehow malleable enough to consistently conform to anyone's presuppositions. I was left dissatisfied by how Clark didn't seem to exhibit reformed theology and I was also puzzled why Frame didn't present the Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (the main positive argument of presuppositionalism). What was even more humerous was how Craig presented a fairly solid version of the transcendental argument and gave Frame a slight poke for not presenting the "main course" of presuppositionalism. On the whole, I found "Five Views" to be reflective of much of my general feelings of the current state of apologetics; too distracted, too unscriptural, and too confusing. It was a difficult read at times; William Lane Craig's constant scampering into symbolic logic was frustrating and made me wonder whether the publisher clearly communicated the target audience to the authors. I was disappointed that none of the authors attempted to establish any component of their case from scriptural exegesis but instead presented philosophical constructs aided by proof texts (i.e. Habermas referenced Romans 8:16 on page 97 as `proof' that the Holy Spirit may work through apologetics to bring "full assurance to believers", arguably not the meaning of Romans 8:16). I also found myself wondering if the authors were agreeing on theological points due to lack of clarity (i.e. Craig's writing about the inner witness of the Holy Spirit was general enough that it sounded Mormon...). The book was good, and it DID expose me to five (arguably) different apologetic systems, but I hesitate to give it 5 stars due to some of the weak/unclear presentations of the systems and the thought that this isn't the best that evangelicalism has to offer. It's still a worthwhile buy and I'm likely being too hard on it. I'd recommend it as an intro book for a college level Apologetics class, or for someone who's already familiar with theology and the concept of apologetics but isn't familiar with it in depth.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on November 4, 2009
J
Verified Purchase
J. E. Lindsey
Omaha, US
★★★★★ 5
Great Contrasts
Format: Paperback
Cowan tells us, "This is a book about apologetics methodology, not a book of apologetics per se. That is, it is not a book that seeks to do apologetics as much as a book that discusses how one ought to do apologetics" (8). Cowan has achieved the stated purposes of this book in many ways, but due to limited space I will stay focused on three examples; Glossary of Key Terms and Concepts, format, and conclusion by Cowan. Glossary of Key Terms and Concepts (21-24) in this initial section of the book provide a clear and useful starting place for persons who are not academically familiar or comfortable with many terms used in the book. The fact that the key terms section included and defined conceptual terms supports the stated purpose of the book being a methodological rather than an apologetic book with multiple views from various writers' specific understandings and preferred styles of apologetics. As a new person to formal apologetics, this section helped launch me smoothly into the methodological discussions. I returned to these pages a few times to reacquaint myself with meaningful concepts. The format of the discussion with proponents making a methodological case for their form of apologetic followed by critiques from supporters of other apologetic systems brought clarity to the five methods addressed in this book. This format help to highlight both strengths and weaknesses in methods. Cowan as the general editor achieved the goal of keeping the writers away from apologetics and on the goal of providing defense and critiques of these five methods. Each supporter had a unique "tee-up" to their sections. Craig starts by stating, "...methodology in Christian apologetics...raising the age-old issue of the relationship between faith and reason." He goes on further in his introduction to tell a story about his struggle at Wheaton College and why his methodology was helpful to his faith (26). Habermas clarifies that his form of evidential apologetics is, "...characterized as the one-step approach..." (92).This initial piece of information was insightful to me and a helpful clarification between classical and evidential methods. Feinberg on Cumulative Apologetics points out, "A good place to begin the discussion of apologetic methodology is to ask about the nature of the case for theism and Christianity" (148). Frame was probably the most direct in his initial statement by saying, "In apologetics, as in every aspect of the Christian life, the most important thing is to glorify God. Therefore, it is important for us to look in God's Word, the Bible, to see if our Lord gives us any directives relevant to the apologetic task" (208). In principle agree, but I will admit, I find his form of apologetics to be too circular in nature to be convincing to an unbelieving skeptic - as a standalone method. Christians I think would all say, well of course. Clark's section begins with stories meant to set the stage that it is reasonable have faith. Clark writes, "My suppose-this and suppose-that stories are intended to raise the problem of the relationship of our important beliefs to evidence" (267). Each of the five supporters of their method successfully introduced their unique method of apologetics. Cowan regarding to his conclusions says, "Hopefully, this will not only help you, the reader, make your own decisions regarding apologetic methodology, but will also provide a basis for further discussion of the topic among scholars. Cowan's conclusions assured that main points of agreement and disagreement were clear. Here as with the other sections, the textual comments were method focused. My criticism is pointed at the spirit of the debate. The writers did not draw enough contrasting between apologetic methods to clearly show that their individual method should be favored. I think the tone was a little too stilted in the direction of "playing" nice. In a book that purports to have five methods, there were times it seemed like only three or four methods. I guess this is inescapable give that each apologetic style can share some parts in common with another. Yet Craig shares my feeling here, I believe, based on his statement, "Pity our poor editor! Ideally he would like to find a wild-eyed fideist on one end of the spectrum and a hard-nosed theological rationalist on the other. Instead he winds up with a presuppositionalist who argues like an evidentialist..." (122). Overall Five Views on Apologetics provides a good compare and contrast resource for anyone interested in these five common methods of apologetics.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on March 18, 2011
M
Verified Purchase
Mimi
Birmingham, US
★★★★★ 5
Condense Analysis of 5 of the most notable Apologist
Format: Paperback
Looking for a quick reference guide to the major theorist of Apologic study, this book is a great resource.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on October 12, 2024
W
Verified Purchase
Will L.
Alexandria, US
★★★★★ 5
Not an Intro to Apologetics
Format: Paperback
This book is not for the first-time student of apologetics. It's deep and, at times, difficult. However, for anyone with a serious interest in apologetics, this is a great way to find out which method suits your apologetic style and why. It was eye-opening for me. I am confident that God can use most (if not all) of the five distinct methods covered in the book. But it was very helpful to me to consider pros and cons of each and decide which approach seemed appropriate for me. Great book, if you feel ready for it!
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on July 25, 2006
R
Verified Purchase
rkveale
Pawtucket, US
★★★★★ 4
Good overview of apologetic methods but ....
Format: Paperback
I very much enjoy the counterpoint series by Zondervan. It can help me quickly come up to speed in a variety of theological topics. This book has 5 contributors and each one presents, each one comments on each other's essay and finally each one has some concluding remarks which allows the reader to readily judge the competing opinions. However after reading the various approaches it appears to me that the apologetical approach one uses is not as important as learning the various theistic arguments (both positive and negative) and then putting them into practice. I'm not convinced that studying apologetic methods will be that helpful. This is because the various approaches overlap and also because when actually talking with people one must be very flexible and move deftly with the flow of conversation. Yet still I give this book 4 stars as there are 5 top Christian thinkers contributing to this subject. On a personal note, one reason I read this book is because I was puzzled by presuppositional apologetics. I stand firmly in the reformed camp and I audited iTunesU courses in apologetics from Reformed Theological Seminary and Westminster Theological Seminary and was still confused on how presuppositional apologetics works in actual practice. I must sat that after reading this book I still don't see how this approach is useful in defending the faith. I have respect for John Frame but this apologetical approach seems more like a non-approach. I'll be moving on to more fruitful endeavors such as actually learning specific defenses for the Christian faith.
WAS THIS REVIEW HELPFUL?YesReportShare
Reviewed in the United States on November 23, 2011

recommand products

Light Blue Long Prom Dress with Sheer Bodice Dusty Blue / 16
27.61
Light Blue Satin Long Sleeve Maxi Dress Large
26.82
Ladivine 7485 soft satin bridesmaids dress 16 / Champagne Gold
22.07
Donna Silk dress
24.16
Yumi Kim | Rush Hour Silk Maxi Dress | M
24.46