# Help design my dining table.



## MikeG. (6 Jan 2019)

Possibly later this year I want to build a big pedestal dining table and 10 chairs, in oak. The ensemble is to be in a Jacobean/ Tudor/ whatever sort-of style. I'm happy with the chairs, but I can't make up my mind on the pedestal design. Here are some of the options I am contemplating:







The criteria I am looking at include not having a single post in the middle so that those sitting at the ends of the table can put their feet on the foot. Before you get too excited, option E is not turned, but cut out with 4 "flat" identical faces. Options F and G have stopped chamfers, possibly aggressive enough that the bulk of the legs are octagonal, and the cross bar could be either pegged or through tenoned into them.

So, whaddya think? Which one should I go for, or what would you change on any of the choices? If you don't like any, I've got approx 20 others to choose from......


----------



## woodbloke66 (6 Jan 2019)

Unless I'm missing something Mike, the end elevations on A,B,C & D all look to be the same? - Rob


----------



## MikeG. (6 Jan 2019)

woodbloke66":3hye2ihj said:


> Unless I'm missing something Mike, the end elevations on A,B,C & D all look to be the same? - Rob



..........yeah, you're missing something Rob..... :lol:


----------



## Droogs (6 Jan 2019)

@ woodbloke66 the top of the leg arcs are different

My choice is B


----------



## Fitzroy (6 Jan 2019)

B from the top row, or F also has a nice balance.


----------



## Grawschbags (6 Jan 2019)

B or D gets my vote, purely on aesthetics.


----------



## Marineboy (7 Jan 2019)

Any of A to D. Perfect mix of traditional look with a modern twist.


----------



## woodbloke66 (7 Jan 2019)

MikeG.":3qcbgj5x said:


> woodbloke66":3qcbgj5x said:
> 
> 
> > Unless I'm missing something Mike, the end elevations on A,B,C & D all look to be the same? - Rob
> ...



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:...need to go to Specsavers :lol: - Rob


----------



## Bm101 (7 Jan 2019)

I like D. I think I might reverse the arc of the smaller curve (the one that is the same in all A - D designs) so that it flatters the curve on the underside of the table top. Either solid or as a curved framing brace type affair to echo the house.


----------



## galleywood (7 Jan 2019)

+1 for D.
When does the 'vote' close?
How much weight will the votes carry when you make your decision?
WIP please.


----------



## MikeG. (7 Jan 2019)

galleywood":2x291suw said:


> +1 for D.
> When does the 'vote' close?
> How much weight will the votes carry when you make your decision?



Vote closes when I start work on the project. I'm actually as interested in the comments as the votes, although it is interesting that most people seem to be favouring the curved stuff in the top row (ie not classic Jacobean/ Tudor).



> WIP please.



You can rely on that.


----------



## MikeG. (7 Jan 2019)

If it helps get the picture of the overall feel I am after, here is the current state of play with the chairs:






The dentil-like design at the top rail is actually likely to be a thumbnail carving as per the seat-support rails, but I got lazy with my drawing.


----------



## lurker (7 Jan 2019)

D for me too.
Dont like the latter three at all.


----------



## custard (7 Jan 2019)

One guideline for chairs is that they're an awful lot easier to use if they're 5kg or less, in particular children, infirm or elderly users find it more difficult to move their chair inboard of the table as the chair's weight increases. Made from Oak I think these chairs will be well over this guideline.

If your diners are all hale and hearty then of course this is a non-issue, but I thought I'd flag it in case they're not. There's a restaurant near me that has this style of chair throughout, it also attracts an older clientele. Not a good combination as the waiters are run ragged helping the diners move their chairs in and out every time they want to get up or sit back down.

Another point. The table designs (apart from maybe E) look like they're solidly in the gothic revival tradition, so mainstream Arts and Crafts. But the chairs are different in that they look like the bastardised "Jacobethan" designs that were popular during the inter war period. Add in some barley twist turning and they'd be spot on!

It's not me who has to live with them so my opinion counts for nil, but I find they don't sit that well together.

And a final point, you can pick up large sets of very well made, 1930's "Jacobethan" Oak chairs, for an absolute song at local auctions or on Ebay. Making chairs always eat up loads more time than you expect, so that could save hundreds of hours of work. Especially as the chair seats should really slope down towards the back, if not the sitter will tend to slide out of them. That one change will add a lot of work and complicate the build quite a lot. This will be especially so in this case as you'll likely end up with cushions on them for comfort, and cushions are even slippier!


----------



## katellwood (7 Jan 2019)

The issue I would have with D is that the A frame that is formed by the legs, at the top there is a likelihood that the top joint would be prone to opening up through shrinkage ( a bit like the internal corner of an architrave mitre can open up if the timber shrinks) and form a tapered gap

The same could be said for G


----------



## Yojevol (7 Jan 2019)

Mike, I'm just wondering what any of the designs will look like from the other elevation. From the end view the legs look massively strong, but from the side they may appear as connected by only the 'thin' tabletop. Visible side rails might enhance the overall apparent strength of the structure. Can you do 3D modelling to play around with this aspect?
Brian


----------



## Sheffield Tony (7 Jan 2019)

With a total disregard for any historical context (as I am largely ignorant in the history department), I would put in a vote for G, purely because I see straight lines and stopped chamfers on the chairs, not sweeping curves.

Edited to add - I see Custard comments on the weight of the chairs. I assume you have a crane standing by for the table, if it is that solid and big enough to seat 10 !


----------



## MikeG. (7 Jan 2019)

Yojevol":3ldg5n80 said:


> Mike, I'm just wondering what any of the designs will look like from the other elevation. From the end view the legs look massively strong, but from the side they may appear as connected by only the 'thin' tabletop. Visible side rails might enhance the overall apparent strength of the structure. Can you do 3D modelling to play around with this aspect?
> Brian



Originally tables were boards mounted on trestles, and were taken apart and cleared away after a meal. The solid rail thing developed after that. There will be visible rails, but they will be "flat" rather than standing on edge. They'll probably show about 50mm, and with the 40mm of the top, 90mm should be enough visual thickness I reckon. Ignore the stretcher and arched brace, which was from a previous trestle design, this is a side view:


----------



## MikeG. (7 Jan 2019)

Sheffield Tony":2vgks1rs said:


> ...... I assume you have a crane standing by for the table, if it is that solid and big enough to seat 10 !



The table will seat 8 ordinarily (2400 x 1050), but there will be an extension leaf for one end for christmas, when seating 10 is necessary, and it will all be knock-down. Remove the wedges and the stretcher will separate from the pedestals. The top will lift off (possibly retained with pegs, and the side rails will either be dovetailed or wedged into the pedestals. The top will be 40mm boards for the edges, but the middle boards will be 25mm ish (no shoulder on the underside of the breadboard ends)......but nonetheless, it is going to take two people to carry it in from the workshop.


----------



## MikeG. (7 Jan 2019)

custard":2i2w5gee said:


> One guideline for chairs is that they're an awful lot easier to use if they're 5kg or less, in particular children, infirm or elderly users find it more difficult to move their chair inboard of the table as the chair's weight increases. Made from Oak I think these chairs will be well over this guideline.
> 
> If your diners are all hale and hearty then of course this is a non-issue, but I thought I'd flag it in case they're not. There's a restaurant near me that has this style of chair throughout, it also attracts an older clientele. Not a good combination as the waiters are run ragged helping the diners move their chairs in and out every time they want to get up or sit back down.



One of the advantages we have at home as compared to a restaurant is that there is lots of space around the chairs. They therefore don't have to move very much, if at all, for someone to get in and out. I am deliberately looking for a heavier than normal chair, but I'll be doing my best to keep the weight down.



> Another point. The table designs (apart from maybe E) look like they're solidly in the gothic revival tradition, so mainstream Arts and Crafts. But the chairs are different in that they look like the bastardised "Jacobethan" designs that were popular during the inter war period. Add in some barley twist turning and they'd be spot on!



This is a fair critique of the table, but perhaps a little unfair to the chairs. It is true that they are a cleaned-up version of an authentic 17th century chair. Vertical rather than angled backs would be a step too far for most people, but retaining the flat seat and the vertical lower leg, as well as decorating the front but not the rear legs reassures me, (at least!) that this is more Jacobean than the interwar chairs to which you refer. I'd also say that padded tapestry upholstery to the back and seat will soften the look from those early 20th century chairs.



> It's not me who has to live with them so my opinion counts for nil, but I find they don't sit that well together.



I value your opinion, but don't agree with you on this.



> And a final point, you can pick up large sets of very well made, 1930's "Jacobethan" Oak chairs, for an absolute song at local auctions or on Ebay. Making chairs always eat up loads more time than you expect, so that could save hundreds of hours of work. Especially as the chair seats should really slope down towards the back, if not the sitter will tend to slide out of them. That one change will add a lot of work and complicate the build quite a lot. This will be especially so in this case as you'll likely end up with cushions on them for comfort, and cushions are even slippier!



We have flat-seated chairs around the kitchen table, and the cushions simply tie on. The problem is that simple to solve. I will be making a mock up in pine sometime soon, and will experiment with upholstery-nailing the cushion onto the seat, but otherwise a simple tie resolves the matter. And no, I'm going to build them. I've never seen an inter-war piece with a finish I like (and I hate barley twist, and most other turning, which will be very hard to avoid in buying second hand). I want a particular finish, and the chair finish to match the table finish. Besides, I want to sit at a dining suite I made entirely myself.


----------



## MikeG. (7 Jan 2019)

I've just come across this, which is pretty close to what I am proposing, but lacking the upholstery and some of the carving.

I'm just not seeing these as interwar "Jacobethan". This is pretty similar to my design, but where they have a raised panel in the back I would have padded upholstery, and there would of course be a cushion, whether loose (tied) or fixed (nailed).


----------



## custard (7 Jan 2019)

Fair enough; your job, your house, your call!

The one thing I would come back on though is the angle of the chair seat. 

A flat chair seat is an instrument of totrture! As the sitter's back reclines so they're pushed out of the seat, without necessarily being consciously aware of it they'll be bracing their legs throughout the meal to compensate and keep themselves seated. That or they'll slump and spill soup down themselves! 

All it takes is a three to five degree slope to the seat and the experience is transformed. I've seen chairs with flat seats that are made too low in order to compensate. This works in that the sitter no longer has to brace their legs, but they then tend to lean forward slightly so they don't get any lumbar support.


----------



## MikeG. (7 Jan 2019)

I'll have a good think on that, custard. In support of your case, we sit at the kitchen table for half an hour at most, whereas dinner parties can have people seated for 4 or 5 hours at a stretch. Hell, that joint is already a compound angle. It's no more difficult to add in another angle.

Or........I could slope the seat within horizontal side rails. I'm going to have to think that through a bit.......

Or.......I could slope the foam in the cushion.........


----------



## custard (7 Jan 2019)

I said I'd shut after my last post but here I am again, I promise this is the very last comment!

One option for a table is a Gimson/Barnsley hayrack style,











Plenty of these were made during my time at the Barnsley workshop. The chairs they were often mated with were "Clissett" style chairs that are still made today by Lawrence Neal,

http://www.lawrencenealchairs.co.uk/gallery.html

I used to make this style of chair myself (I've even rushed a few although nowadays I'd recommend subbing out the rushing), there's a learning curve but it's really not that steep, and after you've made one or two they're way faster to make than any jointed chair. But more important than expediency is the aesthetics, it's interesting that both Gimson and Barnsley originally paired this style of chair with their hayrake and gothic inspired dining tables. Also the market is pretty clear on what it values, original Clissett chairs are expensive and sell really quickly, anything remotely Jacobethan (barley twist or not!) sticks around in antique shops until it grows roots even at firewood prices!

Incidentally Clissett sloped his seats with two simple mechanisms, firstly the sag of a rushed seat holds you in, and secondly he shortened the back legs a whisker to tip the whole chair ever so slightly backwards.

Okay, now I really have said my piece, good luck!


----------



## MikeG. (7 Jan 2019)

Yeah, I love the hayrake stretcher. I've not seen one that chunky before, and it looks great.

Don't go, custard. I don't take any offense at all about people not liking my design choices. I'm an architect. I get designs wrong all the time!! You only learn from conversations like this.

I had considered just chopping 5 or 10mm off the back legs, but wondered about A/ that showing in the outward lean of the lower half of the leg, and B/ slightly less stability (albeit these heavy chairs should be safe from even the most errant and enthusiastic youngster).


----------



## OscarG (7 Jan 2019)

As someone who knows sweet FA, diddly squat about furniture.... I like B) 

Can I ask what software you use to design these?

When it comes to building these, hope you do a WIP :wink:


----------



## MikeG. (7 Jan 2019)

I now use Draftsight, after finally tiring of Autocad's ridiculous price. It's a freebie, and every bit as good as Autocad in 2D.


----------



## flying haggis (7 Jan 2019)

to add my tuppence worth, I like C from the top row and I think that the difference in height twixt carvers and ordinary chairs looks wrong.

but I do like that hayfork stretcher style


----------



## MikeG. (7 Jan 2019)

flying haggis":27pv1t4v said:


> ......I think that the difference in height twixt carvers and ordinary chairs looks wrong.....



I think you're right. I want a difference in height, but that's too much as shown.


----------



## MikeG. (8 Jan 2019)

Really interesting that no-one (on either forum) has gone for E. D is winning by miles.

Let me chuck another couple into the mix. They are very subtly different:






These legs are derived from the crown post in a classic English roof from the 17th century and earlier.


----------



## Sawdust=manglitter (8 Jan 2019)

I have no idea when it comes to historical styles, but taking the chairs out of the equation I prefer option B or D for aesthetics. However based on the style of chairs you're going for I'd go with option J with the slight taper to the legs over options F, G and H, but it would maybe match even better if the chairs had a similar taper incorporated somehow.


----------



## thetyreman (8 Jan 2019)

Aesthetically I like D the most, but A is the best design. I'm probably on my own here but A is the one I'd go for 

p.s looking forward to this WIP


----------



## AES (8 Jan 2019)

I know absolutely nothing whatever about furniture design and history, so I'm not going to comment about any of the design issues at all Mike - EXCEPT that having had an accident in 1966 (or 7, can't remember exactly) resulting in a back problem which has slowly but surely worsened I DO consider myself an expert on back ache and chair back angles.

So to echo custards comment a page or two back, do PLEASE reconsider the question of chair seat to back rest angle. I do appreciate enough to know that adding such angle is a real PITA, and adds a lot of work, but I promise you that for me (and I suspect many others) to sit at that dinner table on the chairs you show would be real torture, I promise.

HTH, and I'm NOT trying to upset your applecart!

But SO often I find chairs where the look of the thing has taken first place, rather than sitter's comfort/posture (e.g. the new chairs in my GP's Waiting Room. She was NOT impressed when I told her, and IMO anyway, they DO look nice. But they're torture to sit on for longer than about 10 mins)!


----------



## woodbloke66 (9 Jan 2019)

custard":2jzbs5l1 said:


> I said I'd shut after my last post but here I am again, I promise this is the very last comment!
> 
> One option for a table is a Gimson/Barnsley hayrack style



Classic piece, stunning in fact - Rob


----------



## AndyT (9 Jan 2019)

Hi Mike

Sorry I'm a bit late on this one, but I'd favour design F. 

Here are my reasons:

It's the best match for the chairs. 

A table with a leg at each corner is the fundamental, proper type of table. It's stable and strong. You can eat off it, you can dance on it, there's no risk of it tipping over. It's even stronger if the legs are braced lower down, as they would be, and made of hefty oak.

Although your first row of designs are attractive, and a bit like roof construction, they are less table like. And I don't mean this as a slight at all, but I suspect you might want to make them just because you can do the more complicated angles and curves. (Hell, if I had your skills, I'd want to make them, just for the satisfaction of being able to.) But they may be even heavier than a big heavy oak table needs to be, and so a bit less practical in the end. 

Casting around to add a few more options into the mix, I found these two, from the book "Furniture in England, The Age of the Joiner" by Wolsey and Luff. 

This one is described as mid sixteenth century and has legs which are chamfered rather than turned, like you mentioned for your design E (though oddly, the centre back leg is different). It shows that boldly chamfered legs can look rather good; I suspect that you would enjoy making them.






I noticed that it has no overhang at the end, so would only suit people sitting at either side - I think this is because it was made for use with a pair of long benches rather than individual chairs. 

This one does overhang, and leaves the floor clear for chairs, in a way which will probably be ok if you don't need the long stretchers at floor level to keep the rushes under control.






It's described as late sixteenth century and comes from Wardour Castle in Wiltshire.

I hope this helps; I'm sure the results will be impressive.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (9 Jan 2019)

AndyT":10843y03 said:


> This one is described as mid sixteenth century and has legs which are chamfered rather than turned, like you mentioned for your design E (though oddly, the centre back leg is different)...



Possibly designed to sit against a wall? :?


----------



## AndyT (9 Jan 2019)

phil.p":csisv2rz said:


> AndyT":csisv2rz said:
> 
> 
> > This one is described as mid sixteenth century and has legs which are chamfered rather than turned, like you mentioned for your design E (though oddly, the centre back leg is different)...
> ...



I don't think so - there's visible wear (from people's feet) on the back stretcher. It's a bit odd to modern eyes to have one leg not match, but I think it's a rather nice feature now!


----------



## rafezetter (10 Jan 2019)

MikeG.":160vn9u7 said:


> woodbloke66":160vn9u7 said:
> 
> 
> > Unless I'm missing something Mike, the end elevations on A,B,C & D all look to be the same? - Rob
> ...



Well to be fair to Rob, I only saw the top row to start with and thought the same for a good full minute at least and uttered "is this a trick question?"

Based on the other designs you have in your house I'd go for D - if you build E with turned legs I'm coming round and setting fire to it, just saying - I'll remove it from the house of course and possibly dance around it naked while it burns, but that depends largely on the weather.

G is also a possibility with the arch to echo sections of the house but F seems entirely too austere.

But that's just my tastes of course.


----------



## rafezetter (10 Jan 2019)

MikeG.":1yaiadul said:


> If it helps get the picture of the overall feel I am after, here is the current state of play with the chairs:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Oh, well with those chairs I'd say G - the mid arch might not be to other peoples tastes but will blend the table to the house and show the table was done with the house as a whole in mind - nice synergy (ooooh get him!)


----------



## rafezetter (10 Jan 2019)

custard":ex2h5fyy said:


> One guideline for chairs is that they're an awful lot easier to use if they're 5kg or less, in particular children, infirm or elderly users find it more difficult to move their chair inboard of the table as the chair's weight increases. Made from Oak I think these chairs will be well over this guideline.
> 
> If your diners are all hale and hearty then of course this is a non-issue, but I thought I'd flag it in case they're not. There's a restaurant near me that has this style of chair throughout, it also attracts an older clientele. Not a good combination as the waiters are run ragged helping the diners move their chairs in and out every time they want to get up or sit back down.
> 
> ...



Next time you go in there Custard, you could suggest they put casters on them? That could be an interesting solution.


----------



## MikeG. (10 Jan 2019)

rafezetter":1tnm8dsq said:


> ...... if you build E with turned legs I'm coming round and setting fire to it, just saying - I'll remove it from the house of course and possibly dance around it naked while it burns, but that depends largely on the weather.........



:lol: :lol: 

E doesn't have turned legs. They're 4 bandsaw- cut faces.


----------



## MikeG. (10 Jan 2019)

Just bumping these later additions, because J is starting to tickle my fancy (with or without the arched braces):


----------



## woodbloke66 (10 Jan 2019)

rafezetter":3g19u3uc said:


> Well to be fair to Rob, I only saw the top row to start with and thought the same for a good full minute at least and uttered "is this a trick question?"



Glad I wasn't the only one! :lol: :lol: :lol: - Rob


----------



## rafezetter (10 Jan 2019)

phil.p":2odvqv1s said:


> AndyT":2odvqv1s said:
> 
> 
> > This one is described as mid sixteenth century and has legs which are chamfered rather than turned, like you mentioned for your design E (though oddly, the centre back leg is different)...
> ...



I was going to say the same thing - the 6 leg is a wall server not a mid room sitter - the rails would be far too annoying, and the mid back leg is a givaway.


----------



## Sheffield Tony (10 Jan 2019)

rafezetter":66vipckn said:


> Oh, well with those chairs I'd say G - the mid arch might not be to other peoples tastes but will blend the table to the house and show the table was done with the house as a whole in mind - nice synergy (ooooh get him!)



That was my initial thinking, but I have to say the more I look back at the pictures, the more I find myself agreeing with AndyT's sentiments, and being drawn to the simplicity of F over the fussiness of the other designs.


----------



## rafezetter (10 Jan 2019)

MikeG.":30jre968 said:


> rafezetter":30jre968 said:
> 
> 
> > ...... if you build E with turned legs I'm coming round and setting fire to it, just saying - I'll remove it from the house of course and possibly dance around it naked while it burns, but that depends largely on the weather.........
> ...



Shame, it would have given me a chance to learn what "oak smoked" marshmallows tasted like...

Well done spotting the taper for H & J, Manglitter - I was scratching my head again - and I think the tapered version would add just that touch of elegance that it was indeed made by a superb craftsman (and give those in the know that nice warm smugness feeling).

With luck I might have finished wading through Mike's house WIP in time to read the table WIP


----------



## rafezetter (10 Jan 2019)

I've just remembered something about that second design from Andy's post (it won't show up as a quote) and it has an inherant weakness - as I learned when I was asked to go back and do a repair F.O.C. for a couple who had bought a table shaped like that from a reclamation place I was involved with.

The top is prone to see-saw along the mid line as the wedges used in the construction dry out and shrink - load it up both sides with 5 people, food, leaning elbows and whatnot and you're just going to accelerate that no end.

Now - the table I had to fix was pretty old, but I assume Mikes house is well insulated compared to a cooler draftier house pre 1980's.


----------



## MikeG. (10 Jan 2019)

rafezetter":y68vw0m3 said:


> ......With luck I might have finished wading through Mike's house WIP in time to read the table WIP



:shock: Wow, that's some effort. Good luck! I think a Dutchman holds the record: it took him 8 days to read the lot, if I remember correctly.


----------



## AndyT (10 Jan 2019)

Well, I'd just like to pipe up again and say what an interesting thread this is. 
Mike gives us some interesting food for thought (and a spot the difference puzzle!) and the conversation immediately livens up. 
We can all say what we really think, secure in the knowledge that 
a) Mike is thick skinned enough to take all our comments in the right spirit
b) Although he'll read what we offer, he'll still produce something better than any of the suggestions, and 
c) He'll show us in detail how he does it. 

Sometimes the forum goes a bit quiet. This reminds me why I am still here!
Nice one Mike =D> =D>


----------



## MikeG. (10 Jan 2019)

rafezetter":3uywwwla said:


> I've just remembered something about that second design from Andy's post (it won't show up as a quote) and it has an inherant weakness -......The top is prone to see-saw along the mid line as the wedges used in the construction dry out and shrink......



Yes, I worried about this a little. Some of my earlier designs had a brace or 2 running longitudinally, but with 2 legs at each end I can't see a neat way of doing that any more. I'll just make the shoulders on the two rails and the stretcher very large, and make sure that the wedges are tapped home every so often. Designs H&J would have a foot over 160mm wide, which will help a little too.


----------



## MikeG. (10 Jan 2019)

AndyT":lhujqbnk said:


> Well, I'd just like to pipe up again and say what an interesting thread this is.
> Mike gives us some interesting food for thought (and a spot the difference puzzle!) and the conversation immediately livens up.
> We can all say what we really think, secure in the knowledge that
> a) Mike is thick skinned enough to take all our comments in the right spirit
> ...



Very kind of you Andy. 

I'm not all that thick skinned, actually, but I absolutely do not take comments on design personally. Design is what I do all day every day (well, you know.....), and that means I get it wrong a lot. Not wrong, really, so much as understanding that people have very different tastes and perspectives, and we can't always get to the bottom of that immediately. I also know better than most that designs that can look pretty dull on paper can come to life in reality, and that details are really important. So all design comments are 100% welcome (I did after all start the thread asking for design suggestions), even if people were to say..."nah, make it out of glass and stainless steel". Another thing to remember is that the chairs are going to be what people see. It will be really difficult to see anything of the table other than its top because of the forest of chairlegs, seats and backs, and therefore the overall impression of the suite is going to be carving, upholstery, and wood colour, and the table legs are only really going to be noticed by me and fellow woodworkers.

This is a project with a long gestation period. The other half of the design team (!) here has dragged a promise out of me that I'll finish the utility, kitchen and lounge before I do any work on the dining furniture. This thread will go quiet, but I'll digest the comments over a period, continue to tweak things and explore alternatives, and maybe even mock a couple of different table ends up in pine. Just to give an idea of how much fiddling about with the design I have done already, here is a screenshot:






One thing you can be certain of is that there will be a detailed WIP.


----------



## Sawdust=manglitter (10 Jan 2019)

MikeG.":1rmndeqn said:


> Design is what I do all day every day (well, you know.....), and that means I get it wrong a lot.



Most of the architects I deal with daily would never admit that they got something wrong, and some often disregard practicality or structural implications with no consideration given to logic or cost, as if they dont care how things get built on site... as long as the completed project looks how they envisioned... which can make my job all the more challenging!

Probably makes you pretty unique among architects, having practical skills and experience 


edit: Forgive the rant, I've had one individual winding me up a treat over the last couple of days!


----------



## Phlebas (13 Apr 2020)

I was wandering through my collection of semi-architectural books yesterday evening, and came across this, and vaguely remembered this thread. You haven't built the dining table yet have you MikeG? If you have then this is academic, but hey, why not. 

It's from Robert Lorimer's house in Edinburgh, published in 1913 Country Life. Arts and Crafts Gothick revival is where I have it mentally logged, but terminology can be disputed for ever. Souldn't be too tricky to make, I'm sure. 






Funnily enough we have some architectural detailing by Lorimer's son Hew in our house in the Borders. But that's another thing.


----------



## MikeG. (13 Apr 2020)

That's an interesting mix of a hay-rake stretcher -type arrangement, and a sort-of semi pedestal thing under the feet/ legs. I think you've got your terminology bang on, BTW, and it's one of my favourite periods of recent architecture and furniture design.


----------



## That would work (13 Apr 2020)

Ive only read the first and last page of this (obviously)
For my my money G is more in keeping with the chairs.


----------

