Menu
What's new

Table critique (pics)

Kirk Constable

Kirk Constable

Member
Messages
414
Location
Seguin, TX
Comments/criticism solicited on this little 'lamp table'. This is probably the first thing I can remember making where Jean said flat out she didn't like it. Didn't like the top, didn't like the legs sticking up, didn't like the crossed pieces at the bottom. :eek:

This is a prototype, and I'm going to tweak it a bit... but I still think the general 'look' is fine. And I rather like it. :dunno:

What I think is the legs are a bit 'heavy' for the diameter of the top (16-1/2")... but I already had the top notched so it was too late to change. On the next ones I'll make the top 17-1/2 to 18", and cut the legs down from 1-3/4 to 1-5/8". I'm not sure I'm completely happy with the 'no apron' look at the top, but I'm also not willing to fiddle with a round one... so I'm particularly interested in thoughts on this.

For what it's worth, this is mostly South American mesquite (Argentina) that I bought by mistake a while back. I think the cross pieces at the bottom may be honey mesquite (another mistake!).

lamptbl1.JPG


lamptbl2.JPG
 
I wonder how it would look with the tabletop mounted so that the grain is diagonal to the leg lines instead of parallel and perpendicular to as made.

There's too much pretty figure in at least that one leg to chop them down. Somethings some folks just aren't gonna like, that's why there's more than just maple trees used for lumber.

Best of luck if you try it again!
 
i like it kirk:thumb: it has a lot of interesting stickley features. the only thing different that i could see, is that i would agree with you about the legs being a touch slimmer, but the cross members as well. it would give it a lighter look.
 
It is what it is. Just fine.
One could say their preferences might be different but they didn't build it. I would probably...here I go ;)....have made the bottom cross pieces a bit more delicate.
And, how do you buy South American mesquite by mistake?
If you really don't like. Cut up, ship the wood to me and I'll use for some knock-out delicious pen blanks. ;)
 
Kirk, I saw the pictures first and read your post after. I actually like it all. So that proves if you aske many people you will get many different answers. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. :):thumb:

If no one wants it ship it to me. I will put it to good use in my own bedroom. Got just the spot for it. I like the heavy solid set and Mark symetrical is good for me.

What finish did you use. Can you show a piece of the wood in the natural state just so I can compare the color before and after finish?


Oh and I can see it on antique roadshow years from now........Some appraiser saying...."Ahhh that is a Constable I believe...characteristic of the period in the 2009 years":rofl::rofl:
 
Kirk,

What a cool little table! I like the design and the wood. It may be outside the box, for some, but I'm not one of them. It's a little reminiscent of one made by Gary Rogowski at Fine Woodworking, but I think yours stands on it's own.

Good luck,
 
Mark Kosmowski said:
I wonder how it would look with the tabletop mounted so that the grain is diagonal to the leg lines instead of parallel and perpendicular to as made.
Click to expand...

I thought about that, Mark... but I found the easiest way to cut the notches in the top was with a square blank (before cutting the circle). The square would have to be bigger to begin with to cut the same size diagonal out.

And Frank/Dan, my preference would also be a little 'less' in the cross pieces, but the Stickley piece I saw that was very similar was very 'heavy'... so I compromised a bit. I will go a bit smaller on the next one(s).

Sometimes it's hard to tell the varieties of mesquite apart... especially when everthing in the place is from Argentina. Didn't know that at the time... I thought I'd found a Texas mesquite bonanza. :eek: Color if the rough stock is close. Big tipoff was when I got home and saw the chalk writing on several pieces. :eek: There's some pretty figure in there.

Rob, unfinished it looks much like African mahogany. In the picture I have WATCO natural danish oil on it. I may or may not put lacquer over it (might leave it alone since it's a practice piece).

Thanks for the comments!
 
Kirk,

First impression: I like it fine.

But after reading your email in depth I looked a bit closer.
1- it seems to me that the crosspieces are not flush. Is that an artifact of the photo or is one higher than the other where they meet? I'd make them flush.

2- the pegs. I think it might look better if the two pegs were one above each other rather than diagonal where they pin the crosspiece to the legs. I also wonder if the top peg - which pins the legs to the top - would look better if it were the same size as the lower pegs. (or is than another photo trick? It sure looks bigger)

If you make the legs smaller, I would still keep them thicker than the crosspieces.

I might also try out shorter (in the vertical dimension) crosspieces -- or just make the arch more pronounced?

These are all very minor points.

best,
...art
 
Art Mulder said:
Kirk,

First impression: I like it fine.

But after reading your email in depth I looked a bit closer.
1- it seems to me that the crosspieces are not flush. Is that an artifact of the photo or is one higher than the other where they meet? I'd make them flush.

2- the pegs. I think it might look better if the two pegs were one above each other rather than diagonal where they pin the crosspiece to the legs. I also wonder if the top peg - which pins the legs to the top - would look better if it were the same size as the lower pegs. (or is than another photo trick? It sure looks bigger)

If you make the legs smaller, I would still keep them thicker than the crosspieces.

I might also try out shorter (in the vertical dimension) crosspieces -- or just make the arch more pronounced?

These are all very minor points.

best,
...art
Click to expand...

The cross pieces aren't flush on purpose. I like to use a chamfer on every edge of my A&C things... and that little offset is equal to the chamfer. I've done it on a few other pieces, but I'm pretty sure it's not an original idea. That detail also also takes the eye away from any sloppiness of the joint there (bridle joint?).

I made the pegs diagonal at the bottom on a whim. I offset them like that on purpose because there's really a dowel in there to pin the tenon and it lets me get the holes a little farther apart. Didn't think about the top ones until later. The top hole is bigger so I can get a screw in there. I'm not sure a screw is necessary... I may try one with just a dowel instead and use the smaller plug.

Good comments. :thumb:
 
I think the design and craftsmanship is excellent, my only comment is I think it would look better if the wood garin was more consistent, instead if fairly straight and tame on one leg, then wild and figured in another. But I imagine that, like I usually do, you worked with what you had.
 
Kirk,

For what it is, I think you've done a stupendous job and I'm not sure that I'd change a thing. I've always been an admirer of your stuff and think the marriage of Arts-n-Crafts style furniture and Mesquite is absolutely brilliant.
 
Mark Kosmowski said:
I wonder how it would look with the tabletop mounted so that the grain is diagonal to the leg lines instead of parallel and perpendicular to as made.

There's too much pretty figure in at least that one leg to chop them down. Somethings some folks just aren't gonna like, that's why there's more than just maple trees used for lumber.

Best of luck if you try it again!
Click to expand...

You just took the words from my mouth I was thinking the same.
 
IMHO

The inclusion on the legs drew away from the whole asthetics of the project. I like the design and feel it would work better if the simplistic design was not cluttered with the wood grain ruining the flow.

I too agree that the top should be diagonal to the 4 legs, both in structure and in asthetics.

I like the design, just not your choice of wood.

Thanks for the post, keep them coming. :thumb:
 
Kirk Constable said:
I thought about that, Mark... but I found the easiest way to cut the notches in the top was with a square blank (before cutting the circle). The square would have to be bigger to begin with to cut the same size diagonal out.
Click to expand...

You don't need a bigger square. Start with the same usual grain oriented square. Then use a large protractor to inscribe the square with a circle. Then use a speed square to draw line tangent to the inscribed circle and at 45 degrees to the square sides. Then use these marks to cut the corners off with the radial arm saw and you have an octagon - and references for cutting the notches prior to cutting the circle. :thumb:
 
Bill Simpson said:
IMHO

The inclusion on the legs drew away from the whole asthetics of the project. I like the design and feel it would work better if the simplistic design was not cluttered with the wood grain ruining the flow.

I too agree that the top should be diagonal to the 4 legs, both in structure and in asthetics.

I like the design, just not your choice of wood.

Thanks for the post, keep them coming. :thumb:
Click to expand...

Prototype... hence the wild leg(s).

I'm not sure I understand how the diagonal grain on the top would have any structural significance? I agree it might look cooler.

And thanks to Mark for the instructions on cutting the octagon. I've seen similar tables that were octagon, with the legs on the 'corners'. I cut the notches on the tablesaw with the square blank upright. With multiple passes and swapping the workpiece front to back and moving the fence after each pass, you can get the notch dead center in the width of the sides without a lot of bother. And since it's still a large square blank, it feels like a 'safe enough' operation. I'm not sure I could cut the octagon precisely to begin with... and if I could, then I'd be working with much less 'flat' surface on the saw when cutting the nocthes... and I'd have to have some sort of jig made to hold the blank because I couldn't use the fence. I think. :eek: Once I figure out in my head how to do something, even if there's a better way sometimes I can't grasp it. :doh:
 
Kirk Constable said:
I'm not sure I understand how the diagonal grain on the top would have any structural significance? :doh:
Click to expand...

simply a matter of wood "movement" as it exspands and contracts over time (It alway will no matter how much finish) the joints in the End grain part of the circle will become loose from side to side if it shrinks or dries out. while the joints on the Cross grain side will not loosen.

The aspect of the diagional grain would be to apply the same forces on each leg if it shinks or expands.

Without an Under structure to maintain a flat top, (rails) there is always a chance of warpage lifting the two long grain sides and creating a wobble table, the diagional should not as the support would be closer to the center of the grain structure and might help prevent the warpage. Should warpage occure then the lifting would be on both Pair of legs and result in a steady table with a warped top, not a wobble table if only 2 side leges lifted.

Might only need a small difference to prevent failure.


I do like the design, but need a "non-discript" grain.:thumb:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top