Replies

1. 
   IanC | Feb 14, 2004 07:03pm | #1

   Gal,  Leg thickness and apron width in a table is  largely a matter of aesthetics and personal taste.  Some prefer a minimalist approach, no more wood than necessary while others would ask "where's the beef".  More important than mass is the method and craftsmanship you use to join the leg to the apron.  For a dining table of that size, I would use a properly sized mortise and tenon joint and a corner block with a hangar bolt and nut for extra measure.  On a smaller table that is not as likely to be subjected to racking, the m & t joint alone will suffice.

   I just finished a set of nested tables for a dept. store.  The larger table was 6' long and I chose 2 1/2" thick legs with a 4" apron.  I arrived at these sizes by first doing a fairly large scale drawing (3" = 1') and I'd suggest you do the same with your table.  Also in a dining table you are somewhat limited in apron width. Look at dining tables in a furniture store and sneak some dimensions. 

   While I haven't seen it,  Tauton published a book on dining tables by Kim Carlton Graves who used to contribute regularly to this forum.  Wish he still did. 

1. 
   Gal11 | Feb 16, 2004 09:56pm | #2

   Thanks for the help!!

2. 
   pauldowns | Feb 17, 2004 06:35am | #3

   There are a few general rules for 4 legged dining table design:

   1. Top of table no more than 30" from floor.

   2. shoulder between the skirts (rails joining the legs) to be as long as possible, but it doesn't have to exceed 5"

   3. You should try to maximize legroom under the skirts - there should be a minimum of 25", but more is better.

   4. But at the same time you don't want the rails to be too narrow - I wouldn't go less than 2 1/2".

   5. A narrow skirt piece can be strengthened by using thicker stock: 8/4 is stronger than 5/4 for a given thickness

   6. Leg stock should be at least 2 1/2" square in order to allow sufficient room for the mortises.

   7. USE CORNER BLOCKS WITH PLENTY OF GLUE AND SCREWS.

   So what does a table using these rules look like? Here are a few:

   Rosemont Tables.

   These are all made using the above rules. They have a refectory mechanism, so the top is relatively thick. Note the detail where the skirt joins the leg - a small block is added to increase the width of the shoulder at that point. For your table, you should start with the over all height, subtract the thickness of the top, and then you can work on the skirt thickness.
   Good Luck

   Paul

1. 
   Gal11 | Feb 18, 2004 05:06pm | #5

   Thanks,

   These are REALY beautiful tables, very elegant!

2. 
   ASK | Feb 18, 2004 10:13pm | #6

   Paul,

   Nice tables!!!

   What do you use for the substrata for the top?

   I am planning a 48" X 78" with 3 leaves to 48" X 124" table with a rosewood top.

   ASK

3. 
   robkelly1 | Feb 17, 2004 06:56am | #4

   I just did a table 80" x  40".  The top was gum, 7/8" thick. The top of the table was 32.5" off the ground.( People are bigger these days than 100 yrs. ago.) The legs were 2.6" square, which I started tapering 5" from the top to 1.5" square at the bottom, tapering only the 2 inside faces. The aprons were 2.75" bloodwood, 13/16" thick. The top overhung the sides by about 4" and the ends by 5". The aprons were dovetailed into the legs with 3/4" dovetails, and there were 3 dovetailed (1/2" sliding dovetails) stringers between the side aprons. The top is held on with wood buttons, with slots in the apron and in the stringers. The legs are yellowheart.

   Other than the wood used (this was made from what I had hanging around, and used up all of my gum, bloodwood and yellowheart) this is pretty much the standard table I've been building for years, with sometimes 4" aprons if the customer wants drawers in it.  The base is glued with Titebond II, as is the top. In this case, I finished the base with Minwax, and the top with three coats of Deft.

   I built my own dining room table this way, and after 20 yrs it"s still solid as a rock.

   
   

   ---

   Edited 2/17/2004 12:21:30 AM ET by rob