Italienischer Kabinettschrank – ein Möbel mit mehreren Leben

Besonders beeindruckend ist die Gestaltung der Schubladenfronten und Korpusseiten.

Die Felder sind mit Cocobolo-Furnier und Elfenbein dekoriert. Die Marketerie zeigt symmetrische, florale und figürliche Ornamente.
In vielen der Elfenbeineinlagen sind feine Gravuren sichtbar. Während sich die Gravuren an den Korpusseiten weitgehend erhalten haben, sind auf den Schubladenfronten nur noch Reste der ursprünglichen Feinzeichnung zu erkennen. Der Befund legt nahe, dass die Oberflächen der Schubladenfronten später abgeschliffen und anschliessend überlackiert wurden, wodurch Teile der fein gravierten Oberfläche verloren gingen.

Die Materialuntersuchung machte dabei eine besonders interessante Beobachtung: Bei den hellen Einlagen handelt es sich nach den durchgeführten Untersuchungen wahrscheinlich um Mammutelfenbein oder gealtertes Elefantenelfenbein. Eine eindeutige Unterscheidung zwischen Mammut- und gealtertem Elefantenelfenbein war anhand der mikroskopisch erkennbaren Struktur der Schreger-Linien* nicht möglich. Kunststoffe, Knochen, Horn und Taguanuss konnten hingegen als mögliche Materialien ausgeschlossen werden.

Gerade bei einem historischen Möbel ist eine solche Materialbestimmung mehr als eine technische Nebensache. Sie hilft dabei, die Herstellung, die spätere Veränderung und den heutigen Zustand des Objekts besser zu verstehen.

* Die nach dem deutschen Anatom und Chirurgen Bernhard Nathanael Gottlob Schreger (1766–1825) benannten Schreger-Linien wurden 1800 beschrieben. Sie bilden ein charakteristisches Kreuzmuster im Dentin des Elfenbeins. Für die Unterscheidung zwischen Mammut- und Elefantenelfenbein werden insbesondere die Winkel herangezogen, die sich an den Kreuzungen der Linien bilden. Da diese Winkel bei der vorliegenden mikroskopischen Untersuchung nicht zuverlässig bestimmt werden konnten, war eine eindeutige Zuordnung nicht möglich.

Neben Elfenbein und Cocobolo finden sich zahlreiche weitere dekorative Materialien.

In die Marketerie wurden unter anderem rote Achate, Chalcedone und Opercula-Muscheln, die sogenannten „Augen der heiligen Lucia“, eingesetzt. Dabei handelt es sich um die kalkhaltigen Deckelchen bestimmter Meeresschnecken aus der Familie der Turbinidae.

Auffällig ist, dass diese Einlagen die ursprüngliche Marketerie teilweise unterbrechen. Dies deutet darauf hin, dass es sich bei diesen Steineinlagen vermutlich um spätere Ergänzungen handelt.

Auch die Seitenflächen unterscheiden sich von den Schubladenfronten. Dort dominiert eine geometrische, an Beschlagwerk erinnernde Ornamentik, die deutlich weniger organisch wirkt.

Das Möbel zeigt damit nicht nur die handwerkliche Qualität seiner ursprünglichen Herstellung. Es dokumentiert zugleich seine eigene Geschichte: Veränderungen, Ergänzungen und Reparaturen, die über einen langen Zeitraum hinweg hinzugekommen sind.

Auch das Gestell verdient einen genaueren Blick.

Der Korpus sitzt lose auf dem Gestell und wird durch ein umlaufendes Profil in Position gehalten. Vier kräftige, gedrehte Säulenbeine tragen den oberen Rahmen. Sie sind durch einen Y-förmigen Steg miteinander verbunden und stehen auf profilierten Kugelfüssen. Die sichtbare Oberfläche des Gestells ist ebonisiert und mit einem seidig glänzenden Lack versehen.

Gerade der Vergleich von Korpus und Gestell war für die kunsthistorische Einordnung wichtig. Der relativ gute Erhaltungszustand des Gestells spricht dafür, dass es ebenfalls später entstanden sein dürfte.

Aufgrund der ungewöhnlichen Kombination verschiedener Materialien und Stilepochen konnte kein direkt vergleichbares Möbelstück gefunden werden.

Das macht diesen Kabinettschrank besonders spannend: Er ist kein einfaches Beispiel für ein Möbel „aus einer Zeit“, sondern ein Objekt mit mehreren historischen Schichten.

Vertiefung: Eine ausführliche Befunduntersuchung und das daraus entwickelte Restaurierungskonzept habe ich in einem früheren Beitrag dokumentiert:

Vor der Restaurierung zeigte das Möbel zahlreiche Schäden und Spuren früherer Eingriffe.
An Furnier und Marketerie fanden sich unter anderem feine Risse, Fehlstellen sowie unpassende ältere Ergänzungen. Zudem fehlten Teile der Elfenbeineinlagen.

Auch die Oberflächen zeigten unterschiedliche Erhaltungszustände. Während die Schubladenfronten und Korpusseiten insgesamt gut erhalten waren, wiesen die Deckplatte und die Kanten des Gestells deutlichere Abnutzungen und Kratzer auf. An den Profilen der Schubladen und am umlaufenden Korpusprofil hatten sich zudem dickere, teilweise abblätternde Lackschichten erhalten.

Hinzu kamen zahlreiche Spuren früherer Reparaturen und Veränderungen, darunter alter, teilweise kreidender Kitt in den Fugen der Marketerie sowie Lackläufer und Überlackierungen an verschiedenen Bereichen des Möbels.

Auch an Beschlägen und Schlössern zeigten sich Schäden und spätere Eingriffe; einige Schlösser waren schwergängig oder beschädigt, mehrere Schlüssel fehlten, und eine der erhaltenen Glassäulen war gebrochen, während zwei weitere Glassäulen und ihre Kapitelle fehlten.

Ziel der Restaurierung war es, die historische Substanz zu sichern, Fehlstellen zurückhaltend zu ergänzen und die unterschiedlichen Erhaltungszustände wieder zu einem stimmigen Gesamtbild zusammenzuführen – ohne die Spuren seiner Geschichte zu tilgen.

Ein Teil der Restaurierung bestand in der Ergänzung fehlender Profile.

Fehlende Profile an der Deckplatte wurden aus Tanne mit dünnen Ebenholzauflagen rekonstruiert. Die vorhandenen Profile dienten dabei als Vorlage: Masse und Rundungen wurden exakt abgenommen und auf die Ergänzungen übertragen. Für weitere fehlende Profile kam Ebenholz zum Einsatz, das mit Stechbeitel und Geigenhobel ausgearbeitet wurde. 

Gerade Ebenholz stellt dabei eine besondere Herausforderung dar. Wegen seiner hohen Härte und Dichte musste die ursprünglich geplante Arbeitsweise während der Restaurierung angepasst werden. Bei längeren Profilen kam unter anderem Paraffinwachs zum Einsatz, um die Reibung beim Bearbeiten zu reduzieren. Kürzere Profile wurden direkt mit Stechbeitel und Geigenhobel hergestellt. 

Lose Furniere wurden wieder ihrer korrekten Position zugeordnet und verleimt. Fehlstellen in den Furnieren der Schubladenfronten und Seiten wurden mit passenden Furnieren ergänzt.
Da das ursprünglich verwendete Cocobolo nicht verfügbar war, wurde dafür Palisander verwendet. Stellenweise kam auch Nussbaum zum Einsatz, wenn dessen Maserung besser passte. Auch fehlende Elfenbeinbereiche mussten ergänzt werden.

Bei den Ergänzungen ging es nicht darum, die Fehlstellen um jeden Preis unsichtbar zu machen. Vielmehr sollten sie sich harmonisch in das Gesamtbild einfügen und gleichzeitig als Ergänzungen nachvollziehbar bleiben.

Auch die Reinigung wurde sorgfältig auf die unterschiedlichen Materialien und Oberflächen abgestimmt.

Die Schubladenfronten wurden mit erwärmtem destilliertem Wasser und Evolontüchern gereinigt. Das übrige Möbel wurde trocken mit Naturkautschuk- und Akapadschwämmen gereinigt.

Ein später auf die Rahmenprofile der Schubladen aufgebrachter Nitrocelluloselack war inzwischen krepierte und wurde mechanisch entfernt. Anschliessend wurden die Oberflächen vorsichtig nachgereinigt.

Die Untersuchung der Oberflächen zeigte ausserdem einen mehrschichtigen Lackaufbau. An einer untersuchten Stelle konnten drei Lackschichten festgestellt werden. Die mittlere Schicht war schwarz-bräunlich eingefärbt (ein pigmentierter bzw. eingefärbter Lack); sie und die darüberliegende Schicht wurden als spätere Überfassungen interpretiert. Der Befund zeigt, dass die Oberfläche des Möbels im Laufe seiner Geschichte mehrfach verändert wurde.

Heute präsentiert sich der Kabinettschrank wieder als geschlossenes Ensemble.

Die Nachher-Aufnahmen zeigen den restaurierten Korpus mit seinen reichen Marketerien, den Elfenbeineinlagen, den farbigen Steinen und dem charakteristischen ebonisierten Gestell. Auch der Innenraum mit seinen zahlreichen Schubladen und der zentralen Tür wird wieder sichtbar. 

Für mich liegt der besondere Reiz dieses Möbels jedoch nicht nur in seiner dekorativen Wirkung.

Es ist die Tatsache, dass sich an ihm unterschiedliche Zeiten ablesen lassen. Originale Materialien, spätere Ergänzungen, Veränderungen und Restaurierungen sind miteinander verbunden.

Die Aufgabe der Restaurierung bestand deshalb nicht darin, diese Geschichte auszulöschen, sondern sie zu verstehen, die historische Substanz zu bewahren und das Möbel für die Zukunft zu sichern.

Restaurierungsdokumentation: Chaska Schuler und Marina Laschinger,
A. R. Goering Institut München, Objekt-Nr. 114, 2026.

English Version:

Restoration of an exceptional cabinet with marquetry, ivory and stone inlays

At first glance, this cabinet appears to be a cohesive historical ensemble: an elaborately crafted cabinet body with numerous drawers, a centrally positioned door flanked by turned glass columns, and a distinctive stand with four spirally turned legs.

Yet the conservation examination tells a much more complex story.

During the examination and restoration of the cabinet, it became apparent that the piece was probably assembled from components dating from different periods. Older panels featuring elaborate inlay work are thought to date originally from the mid-17th century.

They were probably incorporated at a later date into a 19th-century carcase. The ebonised stand also appears to have been made at a later date. It is therefore not possible to assign the entire piece to a single period of manufacture.

A piece of furniture in ebony, cocobolo and ivory

The decoration of the drawer fronts and carcase sides is particularly impressive.

The panels are decorated with cocobolo veneer and ivory. The marquetry features symmetrical, floral and figural ornament.
Fine engravings are visible in many of the ivory inlays. While the engravings on the cabinet sides have largely survived, only traces of the original fine detailing remain on the drawer fronts. The evidence suggests that the surfaces of the drawer fronts were subsequently sanded and then over-lacquered, resulting in the loss of parts of the finely engraved surface.

The material analysis produced a particularly interesting finding: based on the examinations carried out, the light-coloured inlays are probably mammoth ivory or aged elephant ivory.
A definitive distinction between mammoth ivory and aged elephant ivory was not possible based on the microscopic structure of the Schreger lines*. Plastics, bone, horn, and tagua nut, however, could be ruled out as possible materials.

For a historic piece of furniture, such material identification is far more than a technical detail. It helps us to better understand the object’s manufacture, subsequent alterations and present condition.

* The Schreger lines, named after the German anatomist and surgeon Bernhard Nathanael Gottlob Schreger (1766–1825), were first described in 1800. They form a characteristic cross-hatched pattern in the dentin of ivory. For distinguishing between mammoth and elephant ivory, particular attention is paid to the angles formed where the lines intersect. As these angles could not be reliably determined in the present microscopic examination, a definitive identification was not possible.

Stones, shells and later alterations

In addition to ivory and cocobolo, the marquetry incorporates a number of other decorative materials.

Among these are red agates, chalcedony and operculum shells, known as the “Eyes of Saint Lucy”. It is striking that these inlays partially interrupt the original marquetry. This suggests that these stone inlays were probably added at a later date.

The side panels also differ from the drawer fronts. Here, geometric ornamentation reminiscent of strapwork dominates, creating a distinctly less organic impression.

The cabinet therefore documents not only the craftsmanship of its original production, but also its own history: alterations, additions and repairs accumulated over an extended period of time.

A stand that was probably added later

The stand also deserves closer examination.

The carcase rests loosely on the stand and is held in position by a moulded profile running around its base. Four substantial, twisted column legs support the upper frame. They are connected by a Y-shaped stretcher and terminate in shaped, moulded ball feet. The visible surface of the stand is ebonised and finished with a silky, semi-gloss coating.

The comparison between the cabinet and its stand was particularly important for the art-historical assessment. The relatively good state of preservation of the stand suggests that it was also made at a later date.

Because of the unusual combination of materials and stylistic periods, no directly comparable piece of furniture could be identified.

This is what makes the cabinet particularly fascinating: it is not simply an example of furniture “from a single period”, but an object composed of several historical layers.

Restoration also means preserving traces of the past

Part of the restoration involved reconstructing missing mouldings.

Missing profiles on the top were reconstructed in fir with thin ebony facings. The surviving profiles served as templates: their dimensions and curves were carefully taken and transferred to the new additions. Other missing profiles were made from ebony, worked with chisels and a violin-maker’s plane.

Ebony presented a particular challenge. Because of its high hardness and density, the originally planned working method had to be adapted during the restoration. For longer profiles, paraffin wax was used, among other things, to reduce friction during working. Shorter profiles were worked directly with chisels and violin-maker’s planes.

Loose veneer and marquetry were secured

Loose veneers were returned to their correct positions and reattached. Losses in the veneer on the drawer fronts and sides were filled with matching veneers.

As the original cocobolo was not available, rosewood was used instead. In some areas, walnut was also used where its grain provided a better match. Missing areas of the ivory inlay also had to be reconstructed.

The aim of these additions was not to make the losses invisible at all costs. Rather, they were intended to integrate harmoniously into the overall appearance while remaining recognisable as later additions.

Cleaning and surface treatment

The cleaning process was also carefully adapted to the different materials and surfaces.

The drawer fronts were cleaned with warmed distilled water and Evolon cloths. The rest of the cabinet was cleaned dry using natural rubber and Akapad sponges.

A nitrocellulose lacquer that had been applied at a later date to the frame mouldings of the drawers had since become crazed and was mechanically removed. The surfaces were then carefully cleaned.

The examination of the surfaces also revealed a multi-layered coating structure. At one examined location, three layers of coating were identified. The middle layer was coloured a blackish brown (a pigmented or tinted coating); it and the layer above it were interpreted as later overcoatings. This finding shows that the surface of the piece had been altered and refinished several times over the course of its history.

Restoration as a continuation of the object’s story

Today, the cabinet once again presents itself as a coherent ensemble.

The after-restoration photographs show the restored carcase with its rich marquetry, ivory inlays, coloured stones and characteristic ebonised stand. The interior, with its numerous drawers and central door, is once again visible.

For me, however, the particular fascination of this piece lies not only in its decorative richness.

It is the fact that different periods can be read in the object itself. Original materials, later additions, alterations and restorations are all interconnected.

The task of conservation was therefore not to erase this history, but to understand it, preserve the historic material and safeguard the piece for the future.

Restoration documentation: Chaska Schuler and Marina Laschinger, A. R. Goering Institut Munich, Object No. 114, 2026.

Restoration of an exceptional cabinet with marquetry, ivory and stone inlays

At first glance, this cabinet appears to be a coherent historical ensemble: an elaborately decorated carcase, numerous drawers, a central door and a distinctive stand with turned legs.

Yet the conservation examination tells a much more complex story.

During the examination and restoration of the cabinet, it became apparent that the piece was probably assembled from components dating from different periods. Older decorated panels with elaborate marquetry and stone inlays are thought to date from the mid-17th century. They were probably incorporated at a later date into a 19th-century carcase. The ebonised stand also appears to have been made at a later date. It is therefore not possible to assign the entire piece to a single period of manufacture.

A piece of furniture in ebony, cocobolo and ivory

The decoration of the drawer fronts and carcase sides is particularly impressive.

The panels are decorated with cocobolo veneer and ivory. The marquetry features symmetrical floral and figural ornament. Fine engraved decoration is still visible on many of the ivory inlays, although on the drawer fronts it survives only in fragments. The engravings on the carcase sides are considerably better preserved.

The material analysis produced a particularly interesting finding: based on the examinations carried out, the light-coloured inlays are probably mammoth ivory or aged elephant ivory. Plastics, bone, horn and tagua nut could be ruled out as possible materials.

For a historic piece of furniture, such material identification is far more than a technical detail. It helps us to better understand the object’s manufacture, subsequent alterations and present condition.

Stones, shells and later alterations

In addition to ivory and cocobolo, the marquetry incorporates a number of other decorative materials.

Among these are red agates, chalcedony and operculum shells, known as the “Eyes of Saint Lucy”. These are the hard, calcareous shell-like covers, known as opercula, of certain sea snails belonging to the family Turbinidae.

It is striking that these inlays partially interrupt the original marquetry. This suggests that these stone inlays were probably added at a later date.

The side panels also differ from the drawer fronts. Here, geometric ornamentation reminiscent of strapwork dominates, creating a distinctly less organic impression.

The cabinet therefore documents not only the craftsmanship of its original production, but also its own history: alterations, additions and repairs accumulated over an extended period of time.

A stand that was probably added later

The stand also deserves closer examination.

The carcase rests loosely on the stand and is held in position by a moulded profile running around its base. Four substantial, twisted column legs support the upper frame. They are connected by a Y-shaped stretcher and terminate in shaped, moulded ball feet. The visible surface of the stand is ebonised and finished with a silky, semi-gloss coating.

The comparison between the carcase and the stand was particularly important for the art-historical assessment. Based on its state of preservation, we believe that the stand was also made at a later date.

Because of the unusual combination of materials and stylistic periods, no directly comparable piece of furniture could be identified.

This is what makes the cabinet particularly fascinating: it is not simply an example of furniture “from a single period”, but an object composed of several historical layers.

Restoration also means preserving traces of the past

Before restoration, the cabinet exhibited numerous areas of damage and evidence of earlier interventions.

The veneer and marquetry showed, among other things, fine cracks and detached areas, losses and inappropriate earlier repairs. Parts of the ivory inlays were also missing. On the drawer fronts in particular, the original engravings were in places severely worn or lost.

The surfaces were likewise in varying states of preservation. The drawer fronts and carcase sides were generally well preserved, while the top and parts of the stand showed signs of wear and scratching. The drawer profiles and the moulded profile running around the carcase also retained thicker layers of finish, some of which were lifting and flaking.

The aim of the restoration was to preserve the historic material, reintegrate losses in a restrained manner and bring the different states of preservation together into a coherent overall appearance – without erasing the traces of the object’s history.

Missing profiles were reconstructed

Part of the restoration involved reconstructing missing mouldings.

Missing profiles on the top were reconstructed in fir with thin ebony facings. The surviving profiles served as templates: their dimensions and curves were carefully taken and transferred to the new additions. Other missing profiles were made from ebony, worked with chisels and a violin-maker’s plane.

Ebony presented a particular challenge. Because of its high hardness and density, the originally planned working method had to be adapted during the restoration. For longer profiles, candle wax was used, among other things, to reduce friction during working. Shorter profiles were worked directly with chisels and violin-maker’s planes.

Loose veneer and marquetry were secured

Loose veneers were returned to their correct positions and reattached. Losses in the veneer on the drawer fronts and sides were filled with matching veneers.

As the original cocobolo was not available, rosewood was used instead. In some areas, walnut was also used where its grain provided a better match. Missing areas of the ivory inlay also had to be reconstructed.

The aim of these additions was not to make the losses invisible at all costs. Rather, they were intended to integrate harmoniously into the overall appearance while remaining recognisable as later additions.

Cleaning and surface treatment

The cleaning process was also carefully adapted to the different materials and surfaces.

The drawer fronts were cleaned with warmed distilled water and Evolon cloths. The rest of the cabinet was cleaned dry using natural rubber and Akapad sponges.

A nitrocellulose lacquer that had been applied at a later date to the frame mouldings of the drawers had since become crazed and was mechanically removed. The surfaces were then carefully cleaned.

The examination of the surfaces also revealed a multi-layered coating system.
At one of the areas examined, for example, three layers of finish were identified. The middle layer was tinted blackish-brown. The two more recent layers are likely to be later overcoatings.

Restoration as a continuation of the object’s story

Today, the cabinet once again presents itself as a coherent ensemble.

The after-restoration photographs show the restored carcase with its rich marquetry, ivory inlays, coloured stones and characteristic ebonised stand. The interior, with its numerous drawers and central door, is once again visible.

For me, however, the particular fascination of this piece lies not only in its decorative richness.

It is the fact that different periods can be read in the object itself. Original materials, later additions, alterations and restorations are all interconnected.

The task of conservation was therefore not to erase this history, but to understand it, preserve the historic material and safeguard the piece for the future.

Restoration documentation: Chaska Schuler and Marina Laschinger, A. R. Goering Institut Munich, Object No. 114, 2026.

Further reading: I have documented the detailed condition assessment and the resulting restoration concept in an earlier article: