# Proportions



## n0legs (23 Jan 2015)

I think this is the right place.
I'm currently working on this table, see below, I want to know from you good folk if you think the proportions are good or bad.
The legs and spindle are oak and from the top of the spindle up is temporary, just to get some idea of size.
The finished top will also be in oak, not sure of construction yet and the "apron" (???) will be a lamination of oak. There will be an octagonal to round "boss" at the top of the spindle attaching the top.
Comments please.


----------



## RogerP (24 Jan 2015)

To me the top looks a bit "heavy" as is but with some shape and decoration to visually the lighten the real top it the will probably be just fine at that sort of thickness.

Of course traditionally the tops of this style of table are quite thin but then, to my eye, they do always look _too_ thin - so I'd probably prefer your finished thicker design.


----------



## Glynne (24 Jan 2015)

I agree with Roger about the top on a purely design basis, but on a practicality basis (noting the toys for toddlers, babies about to walk etc) you want to have the table as stable as possible and little hands will grab the top as they pull themselves up so maybe heavier is better?
It's a bit of compromise really as I made a really nice console table with Roger Berwick a couple of years ago and now have a Grandson who likes to unscrew the handles off the drawers and poke out the decorative inserts on the stretchers!


----------



## n0legs (24 Jan 2015)

RogerP":2ysralk2 said:


> To me the top looks a bit "heavy" as is but with some shape and decoration to visually the lighten the real top it the will probably be just fine at that sort of thickness.
> 
> Of course traditionally the tops of this style of table are quite thin but then, to my eye, they do always look _too_ thin - so I'd probably prefer your finished thicker design.



Thanks Roger, I agree it looks a bit heavy. 
The mock up top is 3" thick and it was a toss up between that and my prefered 2.5", I think I'll cut it down and have another look.
The dimensions are currently 30" high with a diameter of 28", across the base from 'toe to toe' is 24". I'm very mindful of the balance between the base and the top.
I think I could still loose an inch in height.
Thanks for the comments.


----------



## n0legs (24 Jan 2015)

Glynne":2z8zf2eu said:


> I agree with Roger about the top on a purely design basis, but on a practicality basis (noting the toys for toddlers, babies about to walk etc) you want to have the table as stable as possible and little hands will grab the top as they pull themselves up so maybe heavier is better?
> It's a bit of compromise really as I made a really nice console table with Roger Berwick a couple of years ago and now have a Grandson who likes to unscrew the handles off the drawers and poke out the decorative inserts on the stretchers!




Hi Glynne thanks for the comments.
I do want a chunky look to it and stability is a must, but to be honest it's not for me it's just another of my projects. I like to make stuff then find a home for them. 
The granddaughters toys are a bit misleading and from your own experience you've got me thinking, wherever this ends up it needs to be childproof :lol: 
As I said to Roger, I'll alter it a bit then post up some more pics for some more input from you guys.
Thanks again.


----------

