Moderators: Random Orbital Bob, nev, CHJ, Noel, Charley

 Reply
User avatar
By Sawdust=manglitter
#1260874
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.
User avatar
By thetyreman
#1260878
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 :D

p.s looking forward to this WIP
By AES
#1260917
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)!
User avatar
By woodbloke66
#1261120
custard wrote: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
User avatar
By AndyT
#1261131
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.

tables1.jpg


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.

tables2.jpg


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.
By phil.p
#1261133
AndyT wrote:
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)...
tables1.jpg



Possibly designed to sit against a wall? :?
User avatar
By AndyT
#1261136
phil.p wrote:
AndyT wrote:
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)...
tables1.jpg



Possibly designed to sit against a wall? :?


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!
By rafezetter
#1261251
MikeG. wrote:
woodbloke66 wrote: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:


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.
By rafezetter
#1261255
MikeG. wrote:If it helps get the picture of the overall feel I am after, here is the current state of play with the chairs:

Image

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.


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!)
By rafezetter
#1261256
custard wrote: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!


Next time you go in there Custard, you could suggest they put casters on them? That could be an interesting solution.
User avatar
By MikeG.
#1261258
rafezetter wrote:...... 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.
User avatar
By MikeG.
#1261260
Just bumping these later additions, because J is starting to tickle my fancy (with or without the arched braces):

Image
User avatar
By woodbloke66
#1261264
rafezetter wrote:
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
By rafezetter
#1261265
phil.p wrote:
AndyT wrote:
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)...
tables1.jpg



Possibly designed to sit against a wall? :?


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.
User avatar
By Sheffield Tony
#1261267
rafezetter wrote: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.