What is the "typical" design criteria: matching table to the sofa

I'm making a coffee table to match the "Mission Style" sofa, love seat and recliner that we purchased. I'm wondering about the issuse of scale: should I make the table legs exactly the same as the sofa, etc (2" square legs), or should I scale it down a bit, say 1 3/4" since the table is a smaller piece? It's a matter of visual appeal: will the smaller legs appear obviously small in contrast to the sofa, or will they look just right. Too big if I make them 2" square?
The arms on the chairs are 7/8" planks, and the table will have this same top thickness. The end slats will also be the same size as on the sofa, etc. I'm worried I'll say a year from now, "Gee, everything else matches, why didn't you make the legs match exactly?
Thanks once again for your insights,
Scott
"Experience is something you get just after you needed it." -Steven Wright
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 20 Jan 2004 21:01:40 -0800, snipped-for-privacy@att.net (Scott) wrote:

Go get some books, catalogues, pictures. The Dover reprints of the old Stickley catalogues are cheap and handy.
Now take a look at the variety that's out there. Although your general "thin the legs to match the overall proportions" is a good idea, you're dealing with Mission here. Gustav's original Craftsman, and some of the poorer Mission spin-offs, had some extremely odd ideas about leg proportions. Some of the small pieces had legs that could support an elephant, and this became a deliberate design feature.
Some, particularly for Gustav's designs (G. Stickley Craftsman, but not the Harvey Ellis designs) had a stylistic theme of keeping the same leg size throughout the room, for all pieces. This looks in keeping between the pieces, although it does give an air of "solidity" to them. You may either like or dislike this.
Another issue is that Stickley didn't make low coffee tables. Edwardians didn't grovel on the floor for their beverages, they sat up straight because Miss Gibson just didn't bend in the middle. Where he did design low pieces, they sometimes used slab legs across the end (the chidren's pieces and the music stands) or they had short square legs (the #300 series stools) that were relatively thin, yet their shortness still made them look relatively thick and squat. If you look at the web and some home-drawn designs, there are some very ugly low stools out there with grotesque legs. The combination of following the table leg dimensions, but much shorter, gives a tree-stump.
In your case, then I'd say you could do it either way. Think about it though - which style do you prefer ? How have the other pieces of seating you already have, treated their legs ? How would your table fit in with them ?
-- Die Gotterspammerung - Junkmail of the Gods
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
A 20 X 40 table looks fine with a 1 3/4" leg, a 20 X 48 needs a 2" leg.
--
Rumpty

Radial Arm Saw Forum: http://forums.delphiforums.com/woodbutcher/start
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.