Which Table Design Do You Prefer?

Article - May 28, 2013

Right now in the Wood Whisperer Guild, we’re building a classic Tilt-Top Table. As always, we like to present a couple of options along the way. Hey, we can’t expect everyone to have the same tastes, right?

We provided two options in the plan and if you look at them from afar, they are quite similar. Yet somehow, each version invokes a very different response. To my eye, Option 1 is sleeker and caters to a more modern palette. Option 2 is more traditional and holds true to some of the classic designs.

So I’m curious to see how the TWW readership feels about these two designs. Which do you prefer? And even if you don’t like either of them, you probably have one that you dislike more than the other. Be sure to leave a comment letting me know WHY you like one more than the other.

In the shop today, I made the templates for the legs out of scrap plywood. Here’s a look at the two profiles. Maybe this will give you a better real-life vantage point to aid in your decision.

Discussion

Noob87 May 28, 2013 12:29 pm

I think that a compromise would be better. Mix the upper part of option 1 and the lower part of option 2!

Reply
- Johan May 28, 2013 12:43 pm
  
  I agree.
  
  Reply
  - Aaron Marshall May 28, 2013 2:18 pm
    
    Be sure to check out the forum, where I posted pictures of that suggestion: http://www.woodtalkonline.com/.....e-the-cut/
    
    Reply
AceSJr1 May 28, 2013 12:37 pm

I must say I prefer option 1. For some reason I find the curves more pleasing to the eye. Although I do think I prefer the lower spindle on option 2.

Reply
Mark Loughran May 28, 2013 12:49 pm

Hi Marc

I like both, I do prefer the look of Option 1, like the sleek turning on the upright too, but voted for Option 2 as I think maybe the legs would resist damage from feet better (hey what do I know :-), good luck with the build, whichever you choose it will be really nice.

Reply
Ed May 28, 2013 12:57 pm

Noob beat me to the suggestion! I like the sleek unadorned neck profile of Option 1 with the traditional Shaker legs of Option 2. Sort of like this candle stand. http://www.shakershoppe.com/_i.....lstndm.jpg

Reply
Trevor Angell May 28, 2013 1:06 pm

I prefer the tapering column of the first design, but strongly prefer the arched legs of the second design.

Reply
Marty May 28, 2013 1:11 pm

I like the design of option 1 a whole lot better but it looks like Mateo can breathe on that table and knock it over. Option 2 looks much sturdier and therefore better able to handle the pounding from the boy. BTW, I have 2 boys. No sleek and/or dainty furniture until they move out.

Reply
- Marc Spagnuolo May 28, 2013 1:18 pm
  
  I don’t think either of these tables quality as toddler-proof, lol. I’ll be keeping Mateo away from both. :)
  But your point is an interesting one. I wonder if that’s really just an optical illusion though. Option 2, thanks to a convex curve in the legs appears to be sturdier. The concave curve in Option 1 gives it the appearance of being a little less sturdy, but I don’t think that’s the case in reality. The actual footprint is pretty much the same for both tables, so I don’t think the shape of the legs has much influence over stability in this situation. Interesting to ponder.
  
  Reply
  - Aaron Marshall May 28, 2013 2:17 pm
    
    As Marc said, we made the footprint exactly the same on both versions. The overall weight will be a little different, and I guess you could argue that grain direction might be a factor with the curves of the legs – over many many years.
    
    After staring at these in SketchUp for so long, my sense of scale went crazy. I was amazed to see Marc waving around these tiny little columns in the early videos. I thought he was making them in half scale to test them out, hah!
    
    Reply
Tom Buhl May 28, 2013 1:15 pm

I like the lines of Option 1, but then we get to the top and it does not work for me. Feels like it is trying too hard to be something it isn’t.

I voted for Option 2, but not a fan of the upper collar on lower section. Feels out of place for rest. Maybe bit too masculine. Or looks too much like hydraulic gizmo.

Some have mentioned liking sleek #1 lines but shaker-ish feet of #2. I’d say I agree as components go, but not sure they’d work together. I’ve had some attraction to tilt-top tables over the years, but would have to really spend time to find solution to fit my current taste. Or go totally traditional as an exercise.

Reply
jamesvavra May 28, 2013 1:22 pm

I prefer the legs in Option 2 but dislike its chunky feeling central support. The tapered vertical member looks better to me, but then the legs wouldn’t flow as well. Maybe the tapered vertical member with ogee shaped legs would flow together better?

James

Reply
- Dave May 28, 2013 1:59 pm
  
  Aggreed.
  
  Reply
  - Aaron Marshall May 28, 2013 2:13 pm
    
    We actually looked at that option when we were making the plans. The great news is that the legs and columns are completely interchangeable – they use the same joinery details.
    
    I posted a picture of this (and many more) inthe forum just now: http://www.woodtalkonline.com/.....e-the-cut/
    
    Reply
- Keith May 28, 2013 2:13 pm
  
  Agreed, I like the legs of #2, but the central support of #1.
  
  Reply
- Kurt Thompson May 28, 2013 3:10 pm
  
  While I’m likely in the minority here, I like the center column of #2 far more than that of #1. I like both leg designs about equally. But it’s all aesthetics. Everyone has different tastes, so the most important opinion is the person who adds this piece of furniture to their home.
  
  Reply
Martin R. May 28, 2013 2:00 pm

I prefer option 2. Seems less fragile and sturdier. I dont’t know why but they look like Hers and His versions. Option 1 seems more elongated, more graceful and more fragile. Option 2 looks bulkier, stronger and more stable.

To me, option 2 presents more challenges on the laith. Whichever version you end up building, I’m sure you’ll have fun and it will look great.

Reply
David May 28, 2013 2:08 pm

I like Option One if the grain of the wood followed the curve of the leg. Steam bend some highly visible wood grain to flow all of the way down and out. It would also be less likely to break with downward pressure, no?

Reply
Bob D. May 28, 2013 2:24 pm

Option 1 for me.
It looks more delicate than option 2 which looks more robust.

Reply
Andrew May 28, 2013 3:39 pm

Looks like option 1 would have a lower center of gravity, making it harder to tip. And my guess is that it would fit closer to other pieces of furniture.

Reply
Lamar Bailey May 28, 2013 3:45 pm

Option 2 looks like it needs a larger top to balance out the more stout looking base.

Reply
krtwood May 28, 2013 3:50 pm

This is like everything I list on Etsy. No matter what you make someone comes along and says can you make one just like this but with something from that other one. Never fails. I think I would like option 1.5 too though :)

Reply
Mark Ebert May 28, 2013 4:13 pm

I like the sleek lines of option 1 better, but I’m afraid it wouldn’t hold up to extended use because of the relatively thin legs. If you were to steam bend them to shape instead of cutting to shape, it would be much stronger but that also requires that much more work.
I agree with others that if you could marry the lower portion of the legs from option 2 with the center & top portion of option 1 that would look sweet.

Reply
Richard May 28, 2013 5:12 pm

The option 1 remember me music instruments environement, thas why a vote for it .Great work ant thanks for all you doing on the tww site… merci

Reply
Stan P May 28, 2013 5:57 pm

I like the slender profile and simple (Shaker like) flowing lines of option 1. Even though I’ve been following the build it wasn’t until looking at them side by side tonight that it struck me that the legs of option 2 might look nice on the option 1 body.

Reply
Tyler May 28, 2013 5:58 pm

I like the spindle on option 1 and the legs on option 2

Reply
- Bruce Latimer May 29, 2013 8:44 am
  
  I agree.
  
  Reply
- Aaron Sparrow May 29, 2013 2:54 pm
  
  I agree. Option 2 looks more traditional.
  
  Reply
Dave May 28, 2013 6:03 pm

LOL, looks like you’re going to have to decide Marc, 127 votes for each table at the moment.

Curious, do you show how to make templates for your projects on the Guild? Seems like this would be difficult since everything has to be perfect…
Thanks

Reply
- Marc Spagnuolo May 28, 2013 7:03 pm
  
  Yes, I do show how to make the templates starting with the printout. In fact I’m working on that part of the series right now. It’s a lot easier than you might think.
  
  Reply
Terry Grimes May 28, 2013 6:06 pm

I guess I’m alone with the opinion of option 1 as is. The legs repeat the sweeping lines of the trunk in reverse which I find pleasing and more modernistic. Option 2 is much more traditional and combining the two, looks to me like Norm Abrams reproducing something by James Krenov.

Reply
- Marc Spagnuolo May 28, 2013 7:01 pm
  
  I don’t think you’re alone. Half the votes are going that way. :)
  
  Reply
Rob Horton May 28, 2013 7:58 pm

Option 1 all the way. The adjectives just write themselves: Svelte, feminine, flowing, modern, sensual, etc. Option 2, OTOH, looks like it’s trying to be a period reproduction and failing.

Reply
Eric Schwartz May 28, 2013 11:04 pm

I would go with Option 1. I like the sleek look of it. And, I think it would look really nice if you had a smooth transition from the spindle to the legs (instead of the little molding detail just above the legs). I now this is probably harder, but it would look oh so good.

Reply
J R Rightmire May 29, 2013 6:39 am

Option 2 has a more classical look. I seem to recall similar table feet growing up in the 50’s.

Reply
Will Stokes May 29, 2013 10:07 am

Option 1 looks flimsy, while option 2 appears more sturdy. Then again I tend to overbuild things sometimes. :-)

Reply
Chris Wong May 29, 2013 10:56 am

Hi Marc,

I prefer option 1 because it has lines which are more flowing. To me, option 2 looks too segmented – to broken up in shape (especially the step half way up the column).

Chris

Reply
Cristiana Felgueiras May 29, 2013 11:50 am

Well, I think that I would choose op. 1 because it is more elegant and seems to be in motion. It reminds me some kind of squid pulling it self up in a very elegant way. The other option seems more robust and assumes the sturdiness. I prefer things that don’t seem as sturdy as they may be.
:)

Reply
Brian Jenkins May 29, 2013 1:22 pm

Option 1 looks very feminine. Marc, I know you like to dress up like one from time to time, but come on. You could also hang some streamers or lace from it.

Man up option 2!

Reply
- Marc Spagnuolo May 29, 2013 2:01 pm
  
  What can I say. I’m in touch with my feminine side.
  
  Reply
  - TimWood June 3, 2013 5:40 am
    
    It’s the Bay City Rollers…..If you said who?…..YouTube
    
    Reply
HdG Erik May 29, 2013 2:44 pm

I’m conflicted. I like option 1 when the top is down, but option 2 when the top is vertical.

Reply
Alex May 29, 2013 2:50 pm

I prefer the cleaner look of 1 especially the post. It seems to flow well. This being said, there is something with the legs that doesn’t seem quite right to me but it might just be that I would make them thicker. Maybe I would try to sculpt the bottom where the legs and the post meet and make it look like one piece.

This being said, I don’t like all the extra details of 2 because it appears like they are just there for detail’s sake.

Reply
Jason May 29, 2013 5:05 pm

Option 1 is more elegant. Like Grimes indicated, I’ve seen option 2 about a million times.

Reply
GaryO May 29, 2013 6:45 pm

Option 2, really don’t have a specific reason, other than option 2 draws me in more and like you said, it has the classic look to it.

Reply
Thomas May 30, 2013 6:21 am

I like the first option personally. I believe the way the legs meet with the trunk and seems to gradually accent the curvature in the design is much more appealing. I believe if there was some sort of profile on the underside of the table top that also complemented the look; it would come off very pleasing. Possibly could be as a chamfer or slight cove would play well there.

Reply
robanjo May 30, 2013 10:25 am

Option 1 lifts the eye, sweeps up, looks lighter. Option 2 looks grounded, stable, traditional. While a traditionalist myself the light appearance and newness of option1 garnered my vote.

Reply
Mike May 30, 2013 11:13 am

I voted for 2, but actually like them both about the same. I like option 2 as an end table next to a chair or sofa and like option 1 as a cocktail/breakfast table with some bar stools. The slighter proportions and trim design of option 1 would allow for a bigger overall piece without resulting in some hulking monster in the middle of a room. However, if option 1 were scaled down to an end table size it might just look diminutive next to a sofa. So in this case, form should follow function. I gave the slight edge to option 2 because it “made sense” as a traditional, somewhat colonional looking piece (even though I strongly dislike that style). Option 1 has a bit more of an identity crisis – not truly contemporary, but not traditional.

The wood selection and finish matter too. If I were building option 1, I would think like David Marks and use some birdseye maple or a figured exotic with an oil finish. If I were to build option 2, I would go all Norm Abram with antique pine or cherry and a redish stain.

Reply
Eric May 31, 2013 7:04 am

I chose option one because it reminded me of a rocket ship (with a less than optimally shaped capsule). My only concern is that option 1 looks less stable than option 2. I don’t know if that will be a problem or not.

Reply
Dan Neyens May 31, 2013 7:14 am

I voted for option 2 as it is a more traditional and near colonial look, but I really dislike both of them! This is a piece from the past and it belongs there.

Reply
- Marc Spagnuolo May 31, 2013 9:44 am
  
  That’s the spirit! lol
  
  Reply
- Kris June 8, 2013 12:53 pm
  
  @Dan Neyens – interesting comment from someone who makes a lot of Arts and Crafts furniture!!
  
  Reply
Ralph “Drem” Terreault May 31, 2013 12:46 pm

I prefer Option 2. I’ve had a couple of pieces of furniture and coat racks with legs in Option 1 and they have all split at some time or another. I like the lines of Option 2 and that appearance wise appears sturdier.

Reply
Sethharkins November 27, 2014 9:22 pm

2: looks timeless.
1: trying too hard to be hip.

2: Jedi approved, found in yoda’s hut on Dagobah.
1: belongs somewhere on Naboo…which got the Rebellion exactly nowhere.

Reply

Cookie	Duration	Description
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional	11 months	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy	11 months	The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.

Which Table Design Do You Prefer?

Advertisers