Replies

1. 
   AdamCherubini | Dec 10, 2008 08:32pm | #1

   I have.  It's a real problem.  Kings seem a lot bigger than queens and the effect can be bloated.  I put the top of the rail at 1/5 the height, just like a column.  I also brought the tester valances down to mimic a capital (which I think was about 2/15H).  Really don't like the look of a box spring with this.  I much prefer a thinner mattress.  My base curtains are inside the lower rails.  It would be possible to hide a box spring inside there if necessary.

   18th c beds are all about textiles.  That beds that have survived, coupled with modern notions of beds, have really conspired to obscure what 18th c beds really looked like.  Beds as large as kings were known.  Mattresses (beds) were all custom, so these things were sized to fit their occupants.  But I've never seen one as big as a king and I think it does look funny.  Of course, these beds are so dominating, it can be difficult to get a true sense for them in a modest sized bedroom.  In Northern climes it looks like beds were oriented so that the fireplace faced one side of the bed.  In Southern bedrooms, beds often seemed to have the foot end toward the fire.  You can try orienting your bed in your room accordingly.  Just to be clear, I'm suggesting orienting a larger bed NOT smack dab in the middle of the room as is so often done today.  Sticking it sideways in a corner may conceal it's huge-mongousness and may be a more accurate interpretation of the sort of bed room that would have such a bed.

   Adam

   P.S.  I don't have any good pictures of my bed.  Frankly, the crop factor on my canon 20d prevented me from getting a good shot of it.     

2. 
   SteveSchoene | Dec 11, 2008 04:17am | #2

   I built one, I'm not convinced the proportions are ideal, but it still looks good and works well.  I think modern sensibilities allow that size bed.  I find that it doesn't really make the room seem smaller, and in a practical sense, finding my way around in the middle of the night is easier with a post to touch with hands, before the toes hit a leg. 

   I made mine with rails that are more like 3" x 4", and set the ledge for bed slats (no box spring) so they are almost flush (under 1/4" lower) than the rails, sized so that the mattress sits on top of the rails, rather than between them.  That also reduces the width of the bed by about 2".  Movement of the mattress is not a problem--the posts holds it in place.  I did, loosely, dovetail in a center bar to provide help for the bed slats.  I had considered a fifth leg on that, but with the English sycamore (really a maple) I was using, there was zilch for deflection, so I didn't do it.  (The posts and headboard are curly, the rails plain.)

   The bed is put together with traditional bed bolts.  The posts are also a little beefier than you might see on period beds--from 3" square posts tapered to 1 1/8" shy at the top, and I did take care not to let the taper get "hollow" since I thought that would make the posts look weak (even though they don't really support anything--since I haven't equipped it with a tester.  The rails and posts meet flush--rails aren't inset. 

   DO NOT get confused about the reference surface when laying out the mortises in the posts.  (I didn't cut any wrong, but did have to change a layout during the double check stage.) By the way, even this bit of extra beef makes the posts and rails VERY heavy--a helper is quite desirable.  And, it pursuaded me to do all the secondary tapers (the ones that turn the square into the octagon) with hand planes.  Wrestling them through the saw, again, just wasn't worth it.   

     

   
   

   ---

   Edited 12/10/2008 8:20 pm ET by SteveSchoene

1. 
   stpatrick | Dec 11, 2008 06:59pm | #3

   Steve, any chance of a photo or two? Thank you. Patrick

3. 
   DaveB | Dec 12, 2008 06:48am | #4

   Aaron,

   I build a queen size pencil post bed some years ago and am very pleased with it. In doing the research for it I remember an article by one of the well known FW author who said he does not build king size pencil post beds because in his opinion, the proportions don't work.

1. 
   WillGeorge | Dec 12, 2008 01:12pm | #5

   he does not build king size pencil post beds because in his opinion, the proportions don't work.

   I sort of agree.. However I would assume when the pencil post beds were first made the rooms were 9 or 12 foot high.. Maybe higher?

   I have the same problem now (as to scale).. I'm in the long process of making two twin sized canopy beds. When finished.. Next summer? They may be in a new house that I have no idea of the size the bedroom will be.

   I gave up worrying about it and have scaled it to somewhat 'normal' dimensions.

   As I see it, a canopy bed never is in proportion to any of the other common furniture found in a bedroom anyway.

   I agree with the other poster that stated that a box spring makes it look clunky' or whatever other term the poster used.

   And then what if you add a Tester of some type to an otherwise perfectly scaled pencil post bed? Then you have real problems with scale.

   I say, for my own reasons, forget scale and make it for the user. As in the ones I am making. The little girls will fell like 'real' princesses when the go to sleep.

   They would be princesses sleeping on a rug!

   This was long ago.. Turin or Torino? Italy. In a very old sort of Castle was a beautiful wooden posted bed with a Tester. It was a huge bed. However, the room it was in what looked like a dungeon with a huge fireplace. No windows except for what looked like several 'arrow shooting slots'?

   Even in that cold and dark dungeon the bed looked like a fitting place to sleep away your problems. 

   Edited 12/12/2008 5:15 am by WillGeorge