Many of the earliest bedsteads of which the records speak were doubtless merely frames on which to place the mattresses or beds; judging from the valuations, such frames may be referred to at Plymouth, in 1633, "1 old bedstead and form 2s"; at Yorktown, in 1667, "2 bedsteads, 2s"; one at 5s., and "one bedstead & buckrum teaster 6s"; at New York, in 1669, "2 bedsteads 16s"; at Philadelphia, in 1682, "1 bed bolster and bedstead £1"; at Providence, in 1670, "two bedsteads £1"; and in the inventory of John Sharp, taken at New York in 1680, the following somewhat minute descriptions of the furnishings of the sleeping-rooms occur: "In the small room, a bedstead with a feather bed, bolster, a couple of blanketts, a rugg and an old pair of curtains and valins £5 3s"; in the middle room, "a bedstead with a feather bed and bolster, a rugg, a blankett, a little square table and a form £5 5s"; in the great room, "a bedstead with a feather bed, a bolster, 2 pillows, a blankett, a rugg, old hangings about the bed and old green hangings about the room and a carpett £6," while "a feather bed, bolster, blankett and coverlid" are inventoried separately as worth £3 10s., thus intimating that rather a small part of the total values can belong to the bedstead. We may also conclude that these simple bedsteads, whatever they were, were furnished with curtains and valances, which are mentioned with them almost without exception. In fact, throughout the inventories, with the exception of those of a few of the wealthier settlers, the values of bedsteads when given by themselves are surprisingly low. Again, we find throughout the Philadelphia records the expression "ordinary bedsteads," and these placed at valuations not exceeding 15s., and more often below 10s.; and, further, the bedsteads, in a large majority of inventories both North and South, are included with the beds and furnishings, usually mentioned last, as of least importance.

On the other hand, we find occasional mention in wills of bedsteads in particular rooms left specifically, as property having special value, and, as in the case of Mrs. Lake before mentioned, some at least of the finer sort must have reached this country.

At Plymouth, in 1639, "a framed bedstead" is spoken of, and at Salem, in 1647, "a joyned bedstead." As "framed" and "joyned" are terms used to describe the wainscot chests and chairs, the bedsteads described in this way were probably something more than simply frames for drapery. Their valuations in these cases, however, 14s. and 16s., respectively, do not allow us to think that they were carved or ornamented in any pretentious way.

In 1643 a bedstead with tester, and in the same year a half-headed bedstead, are among the items. The word tester is derived from the old French word testiere, a kind of head-piece, or helmet, and came to mean in English the frame for holding the canopy about a high-post bedstead. A tester, or headed bedstead, would therefore imply a high one, while a half-headed bedstead doubtless was one without the tester, or head-piece, and with low posts.

That some of the bedtteads were built bunk fashion into the walls is implied by the use of the term "standing bedstead," as though to distinguish them from those built in this way.

"Close bedsteads," "cupboard bedsteads," and "presse bedsteads" are also mentioned and must have been arranged so that when not in use they could be folded into a cupboard in the wall and probably hidden by doors. These are valued somewhat higher than the kinds already mentioned, averaging about 30s. A "presse bed" we find defined in Johnson's dictionary as "a bed so constructed that it may be folded and shut up in a case."

In the South the bedsteads during this period are more highly valued, as might be expected, for nearly all the furniture of Virginia and Maryland was imported from England and was doubtless of the carved wainscot variety then prevalent in that country. At Yorktown, in 1647, is a record of "2 old bedsteads," which would indicate that they were imported, and, in 1657, another of "1 bedstead £3."

Although many of the bedsteads of the South were imported, yet we occasionally find in the inventories some which were made here, as, for instance, in 1659, "a Virginia-made bedstead" is mentioned.

After about 1660 the values of the bedsteads and furnishings are much higher, and those in the North and South became more nearly alike. At Boston, in 1660, one is valued at £24; at Richmond, Virginia, in 1678, one is valued at £24 5s.; at Plymouth, in 1682, the "best bedstead and furnishings" was £9; at New York, in 1691, "bed and furniture in the great room £24"; "one in the dinning room £18"; "one in the lodging room £15"; and "four others £36"; at Boston, in 1696, two very handsome bedsteads and furnishings were valued at £70 and £100 respectively; but, of course, it is impossible to tell what was the value of the bedstead and what that of the furnishings, which were often extremely valuable.

Such bedsteads as these might easily have been of the handsome carved oak kind shown in Figure 798, for when we consider the fact that the prevailing style for all other kinds of furniture during this time was the wainscot carved or the panelled style, and that the bedsteads in England during this time were of that same type, there is every reason to believe that the finer bedsteads in this country were of this same variety.

It has never been the writer's good fortune to find an example of a bedstead which, with any certainty, could be assigned to the seventeenth century, and such pieces seem totally to have disappeared. There are probably two reasons for this. First, as we have before suggested, the large portion of bedsteads were simple frames for holding drapery, and not in themselves worth preserving; and, second, in the South, where there must have been some of the handsomely carved oak bedsteads, there seems to be a complete dearth of seventeenth-century pieces, due to the devastation of two wars and the wealth of many of the people enabling them to replace the old-fashioned with the new, thus relegating the heavy oak furniture, which, in the light of the radically different fashion which replaced it, was probably considered very unsightly, to the cabins of the slaves, where it was broken up or otherwise destroyed.