Oh I completely agree - in later years, some Shaker designs flew right in the face of the millenium laws - quite fancy. Some of the structures took on a highly decorative Victorian look. While it was indeed contructed by Shakers, it is not in the true "Shaker Style".
I suppose what gets me, is it seems everywhere you look today, magazine publishers and woodworking book authors throw the term "Shaker" around when it is for the most part quite unfounded. The logic seems to be "prove that they didn't have / use this" as apposed to the design being based on something on display at Hancock or Pleasant Hill, etc.
Brian
>
>>#1 - definitely ugly. I've seen much better lap desks in Fine
>>Woodworking,
>>etc.
>>
>>#2 - Nothing is "Shaker" about this version of the item. The term >>"Shaker"
>>is used today in ways that would make Mother Ann Lee roll over in her >>grave. >>
>>#3 - While Shakers would have used lap desks (when on the road selling
>>seeds, rockers, etc.), they certainly didn't invent the item. In reality,
>>as far as furniture goes, the Shakers "invented" very little. As most of
>>the carpeters (male and female) joined the community and were not born >>into
>>it, they also brought with them the skills and influences of the "world".
>>The style of the day was influenced by the Shaker rule of simplicity in
>>construction became the Shaker style. Unfortunately, anything that >>appears
>>to be of a simple design is labeled "Shaker" in hopes it will generate
>>additional interest in the item.
>>
>>
>>Brian
>>
>
> Brian,
>
> I have many Shaker books, and unless they are wrong, the Shakers had
> an amazing amount of inventions. I know there's been some discussion
> about the circular saw invented by a sister. But certainly, the
> Shakers invented many aspects of furniture building, including the
> tilting feet on chairs. Not all "Shaker" furniture was plain and > simple.