I'm making a coffee table to match the "Mission Style" sofa, love seat
and recliner that we purchased. I'm wondering about the issuse of
scale: should I make the table legs exactly the same as the sofa, etc
(2" square legs), or should I scale it down a bit, say 1 3/4" since
the table is a smaller piece? It's a matter of visual appeal: will
the smaller legs appear obviously small in contrast to the sofa, or
will they look just right. Too big if I make them 2" square?
The arms on the chairs are 7/8" planks, and the table will have this
same top thickness. The end slats will also be the same size as on the
sofa, etc. I'm worried I'll say a year from now, "Gee, everything else
matches, why didn't you make the legs match exactly?
Thanks once again for your insights,
Scott
"Experience is something you get just after you needed it."
-Steven Wright
On 20 Jan 2004 21:01:40 -0800, [email protected] (Scott) wrote:
>I'm making a coffee table to match the "Mission Style" sofa, love seat
>and recliner that we purchased.
Go get some books, catalogues, pictures. The Dover reprints of the
old Stickley catalogues are cheap and handy.
Now take a look at the variety that's out there. Although your general
"thin the legs to match the overall proportions" is a good idea,
you're dealing with Mission here. Gustav's original Craftsman, and
some of the poorer Mission spin-offs, had some extremely odd ideas
about leg proportions. Some of the small pieces had legs that could
support an elephant, and this became a deliberate design feature.
Some, particularly for Gustav's designs (G. Stickley Craftsman, but
not the Harvey Ellis designs) had a stylistic theme of keeping the
same leg size throughout the room, for all pieces. This looks in
keeping between the pieces, although it does give an air of "solidity"
to them. You may either like or dislike this.
Another issue is that Stickley didn't make low coffee tables.
Edwardians didn't grovel on the floor for their beverages, they sat up
straight because Miss Gibson just didn't bend in the middle. Where he
did design low pieces, they sometimes used slab legs across the end
(the chidren's pieces and the music stands) or they had short square
legs (the #300 series stools) that were relatively thin, yet their
shortness still made them look relatively thick and squat. If you
look at the web and some home-drawn designs, there are some very ugly
low stools out there with grotesque legs. The combination of following
the table leg dimensions, but much shorter, gives a tree-stump.
In your case, then I'd say you could do it either way. Think about it
though - which style do you prefer ? How have the other pieces of
seating you already have, treated their legs ? How would your table
fit in with them ?
--
Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods
A 20 X 40 table looks fine with a 1 3/4" leg, a 20 X 48 needs a 2" leg.
--
Rumpty
Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Scott" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I'm making a coffee table to match the "Mission Style" sofa, love seat
> and recliner that we purchased. I'm wondering about the issuse of
> scale: should I make the table legs exactly the same as the sofa, etc
> (2" square legs), or should I scale it down a bit, say 1 3/4" since
> the table is a smaller piece? It's a matter of visual appeal: will
> the smaller legs appear obviously small in contrast to the sofa, or
> will they look just right. Too big if I make them 2" square?
>
> The arms on the chairs are 7/8" planks, and the table will have this
> same top thickness. The end slats will also be the same size as on the
> sofa, etc. I'm worried I'll say a year from now, "Gee, everything else
> matches, why didn't you make the legs match exactly?
>
> Thanks once again for your insights,
>
> Scott
>
> "Experience is something you get just after you needed it."
> -Steven Wright