We're unmatchables, a mix of antiques, hand crafted furniture and a few pieces of store bought pieces.
We like it that way!

I think since you need 2 desks, file cabinet, bookcase etc, that the matched furniture line would take up less visual space and you can personalize it with some really great accessories. Besides it probably would take you forever to find that much furniture to coordinate.

If you are going to do matched, then an office is a good place for it. I prefer unmatched furniture, but our office has matched desks, credenza and large bookshelf. An office is not a place were I need to be eclectic! It is DH's space and not visible from the main rooms.

As I've gotten older, I've switched from the "matched" to the "unmatched" category. But it doesn't have to be all or nothing. In a living room you have have a pair of matched chairs. As long as the chairs don't match the sofa and the side tables don't match the coffee table. Or in a bedroom ,a pair of matched nightstand can look great as long as it doesn't match the bed. As other people have posted, unmatched gives you more flexibility. It was hard enough to find a sofa I liked, if I had to find one that came with a matching loveseat then I'd be really restricted. Plus, I buy things as I find them, so unmatched works better for that.

My family room is going to be completely unmatched- I'm a little scared to see if I can pull it off.

I am unmatched in style, and era, pretty much across the board, but I also don't mind the occasional set in the dining room or bedroom sets in some rooms.

I don't think all "unmatched" is created equal. There's unmatched where the items are all hand-me-downs (and not good ones) and/or cheap items purchased one at a time, and decor using those items often doesn't look great. That described me in my 20s. There's nothing terrible about it, but it's not a look I would strive for.

Then, there's unmatched where the items are interesting antiques or newer items with "good bones". That is what gives the best "collected over time" look, and it's that look that makes me like unmatched stuff. And as a previous poster said, it doesn't ALL have to be unmatched. Sometimes having two matching items, like chairs, can help pull together some of the other unmatched items.

I agree that an office is a good place for matched furniture, if you have the option of purchasing everything for it (rather than using what you already own.) Unmatched antiques look great (you can get a nice rich library/office/den feel) but if you don't have good antiques for the room, having matched stuff can make the room feel cleaner and more organized than just a bunch of random things you pulled in from other rooms in your house.

I think the fact that I grew up in an old house in New England makes me dislike all matched, or even all new unmatched but coordinated items. When I walk into rooms decorated like that, I feel like I'm walking into a newly renovated hotel, and like there's no history.

If you're going to intentionally BUY unmatched items (rather than actually collecting them over time) I would check out antique shops, flea markets, tag sales, etc., so you really get the look of them being collected over time, handed down through the family, etc.. Just going to a furniture store and buying, all at once, a bunch of new but unmatched stuff, is less than optimal to get the look we're all talking about, I think. And new coordinated stuff to me, even if it's not all from the same suite, is as "bad" as all matched stuff! It just gives that look of no history.

I was never able to afford a set and had to purchase items over time. My preferred style was a necessity and is now just fun. I also rearrange fairly often and things move from room to room easily when I'm not concerned about matches. Like Allison, my furniture needs to work with the house as a whole because it will not stay in one place forever. For example, I have 3 tables that rotate through the breakfast area, dining, laundry and living room depending on the season or function.

I like two matched chairs, say on either side of a fireplace...Or......a couch and chair that match. A matching chair and ottoman. Breakfast bar stools should ALL be the same...IMO. Lamps on either side of a bed look better matched, for symetry...IMO.

A matched room only tells me that the owner chose not to shop for each individual furnishing. I attach no judgment to this.

The greater a person's interest in a given field, the more discerning they become about every aspect of it. Advanced gardeners begin to seek unusual plants. Artists shun any item that has been mass produced. Architects cringe at the site of a cookie cutter development. Other people, are absolutely thrilled with the marigolds that line the sidewalk of their cookie cutter home, which is filled with prints from Ikea.

Whether to use matching furniture just comes down to your own interest in decorating. Matching is an easy solution, it will work, and anyone that judges you for it is a snob. If you have become more discerning yourself and you want to take your decorating to the next level, that is great too.

Do you have any favorite shelter magazines? If you do, you'll notice that most decors are not 'matched'. They have a 'collected' look. I have one room in our home-our master bedroom-that is a matched suite of furniture that I purchased 30 years ago. My guest room gets far more compliments with it's accumulated pieces. Nothing wrong with matched 'sets' just less work and, dare I say, less interesting.

cindy, I don't think unmatched is necessarily on a higher level- is a well-done, expensively furnished "matched" room worse than a poorly done cheap room where everything clashes?
To me, no! This is just my opinion, though. I appreciate your recognizing the (sometimes) snob factor.

Maybe people have a different idea of what matching is. I like coordinated, and it wasn't easy, and I put a lot of love and time into it. I think that's what's important--?

Nancybee the "level" I referred to was the level of artistry. I think it takes one level of ability (or perhaps effort) to put together a room with matched furniture and it takes another level of skill or effort to put together unmatched furniture properly.

I don't mean to offend anyone by the "snob" comment. But anyone that would look down on someone else because they chose to go with matching, would fit the definition, which is:

"a person who believes himself or herself an expert or connoisseur in a given field and is condescending toward or disdainful of those who hold other opinions or have different tastes regarding this field"

Really a snob is just someone who does not respect the choices of others. Avesmore's friend, hates matching but can't explain why? Probably because she's heard it is passe'. But matching was never "wrong" and it still isn't. It's just that some people are striving to be more creative and that is fine, for those that want to do that.

IMHO Matchy is not a swear word or a word that conveys lack of style or interest or creativity. You can create an interesting room with matching furniture and creative artwork. You can create a jarring room with unmatched furniture. It's a balancing act either way.

Yeah, I'm getting a little nervous about our LR which will be unmatched by the time I'm finished with it. However, I have to trust myself that normally things work out OK.

BTW, check out this MCM home. Some rooms are more matched than others, but, wow, incredibly coordinated. It's timeless.

Here is a link that might be useful: MCM matched/coordinated/unmatched

gscience, I love those! Maybe I got my love for coordinatedness (?) from poring over my mom's decorating books as a child in the 60's.

cindy, I absolutely see what you're saying, very good points.

rosesstink, you said what I feel much better than I did!

avesmore, you came up with a very good topic.

I'm pretty sure no one is really looking down on someone who goes the matched route. Personally I do not like a look which seems to have no history. And, it makes me feel like the person is extraordinarily conventional, probably with an extraordinarily conventional cookie cutter middle-class background, which to ME is a bit boring. (And quite frankly describes my own husband.) But it's not about casting judgment. And I'm still wrestling with doing the "eclectic" look properly since right now I have a mix of new cheap stuff, new good stuff, and some old stuff, all in a NEW (albeit traditional) house. But regardless, I just don't get a "homey" or "interesting" vibe from a bunch of matched new stuff. It's just about personal preference, my own background, and my own interests.

If someone hates matching but can't explain why, it may be that they actually get a strong visceral reaction to it and can't quite articulate it. It doesn't mean that they were fed someone else's opinion.

Interesting discussion here. First, let me say that I have a matching bedroom set (bed, nightstands, and a dresser). I find a cohesive room to be soothing. A matched set can make it easier to achieve that, and usually, it's simpler and faster than collecting a variety of pieces that work well together. It also feels safer for novice decorators, like me.

Over time, though, I have really come to appreciate unique furniture pieces collected over time, and I've stepped outside of my comfort zone. I'm in the process of swapping out the nightstands that match our bed with some vintage French Provincial bedside tables that I'm painting in a contrasting color.

So, what's the difference for me? I love the furniture pieces I find through all different sources and at different times in my life. Each is special to me and makes me smile. I am slowly surrounding myself with things I love.

All of this said, there is nothing wrong with matching furniture pieces. An office can look great with matching pieces. In fact, I would probably prefer it in such a space.

If you're interested in decorating, then you may want to search the Web for images of office spaces for inspiration. Note the characteristics you love and work with them. Your office is your space, so make it a place that makes you feel great.

I'm sorry your friend caused you to doubt your choices. Truth be told, there are a lot of great ways to decorate any space. It's not always "right" vs. "wrong" or "black" vs. "white". That's what interests so many of us here.

If you want advice and ideas and the support to carry them out, you won't find a better free place than this forum.

Good luck with your office space!

I like two matched chairs, say on either side of a fireplace...Or......a couch and chair that match. A matching chair and ottoman. Breakfast bar stools should ALL be the same...IMO. Lamps on either side of a bed look better matched, for symetry...IMO.

Nicole, I don't think anyone is saying a pair of chairs by a FP or a chair and ottoman shouldn't match. It's more the LR side tables, coffee tables and sofa table shouldn't match. And not even so much as "shouldn't" - maybe "don't want (mine) to match."

A pair of lamps here and there are fine. Do I want every room to have a pair of lamps? No. fwiw, I have mismatched lamps on our bedside tables (that don't match either) and they look symmetrical to my eye since they are the same height and the shades are almost the same size.

OP, if new furniture is what you want in the office, maybe a pair of desk that match, but not desk chairs. Let each person pick their chair. Lamps also. If you love the set you have picked out, go for the same bookcase, etc too. Add personality to the room with fabric, artwork and accessories the eye will go toward instead of the furniture itself.

My bedroom set is matched - purchased many years ago. When I redid my living room recently (still in progress), I decided I wanted a more eclectic unmatched look. Wow, that was hard!!! I don't think I got it right - in particular, the end tables & lamps are way out of whack with each other. But I do kind of like it overall. :-)

Yet when I had to buy new bedroom lamps recently, I went with a matched pair. Much easier than what I went through with the living room, and I thought it suited the more traditional look of my bedroom better.

It really depends on what you like personally. Ain't nuthin' wrong with matched.

I think your friend is rude for saying that to you after you said what your preference was and the fact is she most probably can't afford all matched furniture so she's dissing yours. In either case, don't worry about what she likes, it's your house and your office.

An office is the one place where I expect to see pieces of furniture matched. You can always mix it up by adding a guest chair in a lovely fabric, nice window treatments, wall decor, etc. Just because the furniture matches in the office doesn't mean it can't be stunning. A fine example of this is the new office put together by that lovely lady at Between Napes on the Porch. She has put together a gorgeous office space using Pottery Barn furniture for the desks and cabinets and intergrated a chair and other beautiful accessories to compliment the gorgeous "matched" desks and cabinets.

This lady who put this office together is my hero. She's so talented and with every job she tackles, she's so very patient and thorough and oh gee she has matched furniture. If you follow her journey from start to finish on this office, you'll be really inspired for your own. Good luck, I can't wait to see your finished office.

Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with the link I posted here. Just a blog I enjoy visiting and sharing with others because it's full of beautiful things.

Here is a link that might be useful: Between naps on the porch

I'm a mixed-and-matched person. Twin couches, twin antique chairs, two lamps that match and two that don't, four end tables each completely different, a random chair...artwork that's 90 years old and some from last semester in my kid's art class....

I guess for me it just looks less commercial and more homey that way--my least favorite rooms in magazines or blogs or anywhere are those that look like hotels, restaurants or catalogs. I guess I associate a mixture of time periods, finishes, etc. with "hominess".

At the same time, I think people should have furniture THEY love, not furniture their friends love; if you like things to match you shouldn't let your friend's comment deter you. It's about making the room reflect *you*, not some external standard of what is "best".

Then again, if you're buying a matching set because you think that is "best" without having considered what you might actually prefer, then by all means consider your alternatives :)

Several people already nailed down most of my thinking on the subject. Allison's comments were especially to the point.
You know, sometimes you see someone with a very classic looking outfit; black pencil skirt, white blouse, black pumps, pearls. I look at that and think it looks great. But someone else might want to throw out the pumps and bring in wedge sandals and maybe a funky belt. She adds a few bangles and some ethnic looking beaded necklace to the mix. I like what she did with a plain outfit but can't quite figure out how to do it myself. That's kind of how it works with throwing together unmatched pieces and making a room work. A little rattan table here, a painted piece there. Maybe matching lamps on both tables. Throw pillows on the sofa in various ikat patterns. Matching candlesticks on the fireplace mantle with an array of silver bowls between them. It may not all match but the pieces have to have similar "weight" or "work well together". It takes a good eye to make this work. And while I don't even think twice about mixing patterns on fabrics or wood or tossing an antique chair next to a modern sofa, I quail at the thought of trying anything but pearls with that white shirt. Salespeople that try to show me how this necklace would be "fun with that outfit" are barking up the wrong fashion tree.

Some of us just have different comfort levels when it comes to fashion or when it comes to decorating.

Red

"Just curious - what is it about the unmatchedness (love being able to coin my own words!) that speaks to you? And contrarily, what is it about the matched that doesn't?"

Something I've not thought about before. Our house is almost 100% filled with unmatchedness so it is obviously something we like. If I had to articulate why it's the way it is I'd say it's because we are collectors by nature. (Or too impulsive!) What is it I like about the unmatchedness? To my eyes, there's movement and life in the rooms. Things and colors and textures for the eye to notice and enjoy. The enjoyment of variety.

Conversely, matchedness looks static to me. And, I'm sorry to say, seems to lack personality. My home office furniture is completely matched -- went to Ikea one day and bought the desk, the printer/small table, and the cabinet/filing cabinet. This stuff is functional, but I realized almost as soon as I'd put it together that it was a mistake. I am completely bored by this stuff and should just get rid of it.

There are exceptions to everything, right? My parents have a complete bedroom set, matched bed with headboard, two side tables, long dresser and bureau-type dresser. I don't know what kind of wood, but it is a beautiful French provincial style, probably from the 1950s or early 1960s. Their bedroom is quite small, and having every piece of furniture the same warm chestnut color with blue-green walls makes for a very serene space.

So it depends, doesn't it?

Oh please. It's much more rude to suggest that someone who doesn't like matching furniture can't think for themself, or is too poor to buy matching furniture, as it is to say you hate matching furniture.

If I had all the money in the world, I would buy all unique pieces, NOT matched sets. While I do not have all the money in the world, I have enough to go out and buy a new matched furniture suite, and I have not done so. It's also not rude to express one's opinion about a decorating matter. My friends are my FRIENDS and we can talk candidly without it being viewed as casting judgment. I don't think her friend was necessarily being rude. She expressed her opinion about what avesmor might purchase, and now avesmor is wondering just what it is which makes people prefer unmatched furniture.

The comment above sort of drives home my point about imagining that people with all matched furniture are very conventional people from conventional middle class backgrounds. (Which is not a bad thing but it does describe a lot of people.) I've read a lot about class issues, even as they relate to consumerism, and while there are obviously plenty of exceptions to this, the solidly middle class tend to strive for "respectability" and the appearance of affluence they may or may not have. This results in purchasing mass-produced matched sets of things which to some people is the ultimate "I've arrived" sort of status symbol. The true lower class and the true upper class actually have more in common with each other than one would think, and a lot in common with each other which they don't have in common with the solid middle class. One of the common traits is a lack of caring what other people think and trying to impress other people.

I am speaking in generalities here and like I said, there are exceptions, and I am not placing myself in either the lower class or the upper class (which, by the way, is different from upper middle class.) I'm also not saying that there are no middle class people who think differently from what I have described. And, some people may simply have a real love of symmetry or a monochromatic look, etc.. But, the comment that someone who doesn't like matched stuff must not be able to afford it and thus be dissing it suggests that the commenter believes a matched set to be something everyone strives for, which is not the case.

Interesting thread. In earlier centuries, royalty often commissioned complete sets of hand-crafted furnishings for their palaces. At some point after the Age of Industrialization, I would guess that the reduced cost of machine-crafted furniture made the acquisition of sets of furniture possible to the middle class. The Arts and Crafts Movement lauded the desirability of hand-crafted furniture over that made by machine, but still was designed in sets in many cases.

For those of you more learned in the history of design, just when did the idea of matching sets of furniture become less aesthetically desirable?

BTW, I admit that I love mixing and matching and never have even considered buying a set of furniture, but I don't know what influenced me to feel this way.

I bought a matched set for our bedroom simply because it was easy. I liked the bed and the wardrobe and went ahead and also got the dresser and one bedside table. The bench and other bedside table are different. But it took me three years to get them :-(
I know it's looked down upon, but I don't care and I'm pretty much middle class. But sometimes indifference comes into play too. I am not as obsessed with how things appear as some people. I'm obsessed in how it looks to me, don't care what anyone else much thinks.

Class differences all boil down to a lack of personal authenticity and low self esteem or pride.

Bumblebeez... I don't want to get into a whole discussion about class, but I disagree with your statement that class differences all boil down to a lack of personal authenticity and low self esteem or pride. There are very real distinct classes in the United States, as much as people like to think that we live in a classless society, and as taboo as the subject of class is. One's background can very strongly ingrain certain views and ideas, such that those views and ideas become an integral part of the person. It's not about being fed an idea, it's about that truly being part of you because of your background... therefore, you're "authentic" while still holding the views of the generations before you. I think it's probably most true of the "extremes" - lowest and highest classes. (And by upper class I don't mean the nouveau riche who are flashy... there's the class Paul Fussell would call the "top out of sight" class.)

Royalty commissioning matched sets of finely crafted furniture is different from buying a matched set from PB.

I have a matched bedroom set, too (have mentioned this on another thread.) My husband bought it before we were married. There's really nothing wrong with it, and it provides an easy, basic backdrop to which I can add more interesting stuff. The thing is, if someone didn't like it, I would never say, as the poster above did, "you're dissing it because you can't afford to buy a set like this all at once." That's where I think the issue of class comes in and it no longer seems to be about personal preference.

And bumblebeez, if I'm remembering, you are an artist, and your home is beautiful and creative, "despite" having something matched!

I have a matched bedroom set AND dining room set (shudder!). I got them ten years ago and I don't think matched was so looked down upon at that time.

I am also creative, and I'm not an artist, but I do like to take art classes. I have different colors and textures. People tell me my house is pretty. I certainly don't look down on people who don't have anything matched.

I grew up in a home where nothing matched or coordinated, and that feels visually "noisy" to me.

So, avesmore, I think your friend's comment was a little rude. IMO, people do look down their noses a bit at matched.

Lizzie, you are right and I wrote my post rather hastily. Those born into various classes do have distinct thought patterns and behaviors.

Nancybee, you are so kind to me!

Lizzie nh said, "Royalty commissioning matched sets of finely crafted furniture is different from buying a matched set from PB."

Of course, it's different, but the idea that a matched set is desirable isn't different, just the mode of acquisition. I guess what I'm saying is that, historically, those most visible, whether they were royalty or the very wealthy, set the trends that others followed. Historically, the trend was to have matched sets of furniture. My question is when that trend changed.

I still have to disagree... expressing your dislike of something may mean that you are looking down your nose at that something, but not necessarily at the person who owns that something. It's not necessarily rude to express a dislike of something, especially when it is a friend commenting to a friend. And I may be misreading the OP's initial post, but it sounded like the friend was commenting on the office stuff the OP was looking at online, and giving her honest opinion about it.

On this forum, I try to avoid, when I see something I don't like, saying "Ugh! Hideous! Why would you choose that!?" I don't know any of you and so I might say, "it's not for me... but if you like it, that's what counts." But with a friend... especially if the purchase is not a done deal... I would be very candid if I didn't like something. I'd be especially candid if I got the sense that the friend didn't love it herself but just wasn't sure of how else to proceed. It's really hard to know whether the friend was being rude, since we don't know the nature of their relationship or the exact context.

And not everyone's negative response is rooted in jealousy or lack of means to attain the thing they are criticizing.

Check the pictures below, all of which are from The Daily Prep blog (and some of which I posted on the "next hot color" thread, which is probably a couple pages in now.) This is the woman's house, and her blog is about New England preppy lifestyle (in the true sense of the word preppy, not in the pink and green popped collar sense) - it's NOT a home or design blog but sometimes she includes pictures of her house. This decor is the sort of thing I think of when I think of "unmatched." SOME of the stuff matches (perhaps through the addition of tailored slip covers.) It all coordinates because of similar dark woods, or similar black frames around black and white photographs, etc.. Like I wrote above, unmatched is not always good... it definitely can result in visual noise. I think the pictures below are a good instance of where it does work. I don't think anyone is saying to be unmatched just for the sake of being unmatched. It's just that when it's done well, it can have a warm, homey, collected over time look.

{{gwi:1810544}}

What could be wrong with a matched set of things well made, nicely designed, proportioned to the space, used as part of the *whole* design of a room ? If it works for you and pleases your eye, then you have less hunting to do find all the necessary pieces you need!

Not everyone takes pleasure in the process of mixing and matching - it does take patience and effort to track things down over time. It's kind of like cooking - some people like to cook everything from scratch and other prefer to use some *convenience* items in their cooking, but they still are able to produce a meal worth eating.

forhgtv - I think decorating trends have merely evolved, rather than matching falling completely out of favor. There is no hard and fast rule that says that "matching is bad." This thread was posted to ask "unmatched furniture lovers" what they love about unmatched furniture, so of course most of the people posting are those who like unmatched stuff, and find it preferable to all matched. Plenty of people still love matched sets, and I'm not sure anyone who naturally gravitates towards matched sets would not have questioned it much before a few years ago when "matchy matchy" became a popular term. Now they say, "I love this, but is it too matchy matchy?"

But, to better make the point I was trying to make - royalty would have had high-quality items individually handcrafted, and the chance that someone else had the exact same thing would be low. People buying sets after the dawn of the industrial age would have been buying somewhat lower-quality items, and the industrial revolution somewhat democratized decor, so that lots of people could have the same thing. Now, most mass-produced furniture is even lower quality, and produced on a huge scale. So, with the matching also goes absolute lack of uniqueness across homes. I think that is one reason why it may be more frowned upon, though like I said, it's not like it's totally fallen out of favor.

Regarding the move to unmatched decors... there's also the fact that over time, more and more styles have developed. And, lots of original sets have been broken up, going to later generations. People have, originally somewhat of necessity, decorated with these unmatched pieces from sets which were originally matched. Also originally of necessity, people also had certain items which were purely functional and built to withstand use. Over time, this hodgepodge of stuff (which when compared with today's furniture is extremely well-built) has come to be associated with a "classic American" decor, and is actually a prized look. Now, I am definitely coming from the "old New England" mindset, and while one of my majors in college was art, my reading about the decorative arts has largely been limited to early American homes, and that is what I am most used to seeing, too. So, when I talk about unmatched items, I am thinking of a look like in the photos I posted above. I'm thinking of OLD unmatched items. Old meaning 1800s, 1700s, maybe early 1900s... not stuff from the 1970s. New England style has stemmed from frugality and practicality, but I know that there is also a whole element of history of modern design which I am ignoring here.

I guess maybe it also all boils down to American history. Virtually everyone here comes from an immigrant background, whether their ancestors came over in the 1600s, whether their ancestors were slaves, whether their ancestors came over 100 years ago, or they are new arrivals. There was a tremendous disruption for most families are one time or another, with people starting from scratch or almost scratch. And, the country is a melting pot and people have become exposed to more and more "exotic" looks. I think maybe those elements came together to create an "eclectic look." There also came into being a "design class" which didn't used to exist, such that the very wealthy do not set the trends anymore. And of course at various times throughout history there has been renewed interest in simpler lifestyles - even among the very wealthy... hence the emergence of cottage style, which is eclectic and based in looks which used to be only be seen in the small abodes of the working class - gardeners, cooks, etc.. Often household help would just get the cast-offs of the wealthy family for which they worked... hence even cottage gardens, which were originally eclectic overstuffed gardens based on clippings they got from the formal gardens of the people for whom they worked.

Eventually of course, with globalization, the looks spread, so this is not strictly an American phenomenon.

I think it really depends, but the genesis of the non-matching, but quality mode comes from people who had family pieces handed down because they stayed in one place as property owners. It was added to over the years and generations as styles changed. I am talking 19th c. here.

(For example my SO's family lived around the same town from the 1650s til about 1920 and until that time had possessions from all eras. There was no money by this time and the furniture finally went during the depression, but this TYPE of situation is where the LOOK came from and that is why it has class associations)

In the latter part of the 19th c. it became very popular to commission whole sets and suites of matching furniture among the new wealthy industrialists to show that you could furnish an entire house new.

Finally when furniture really entered the era of mass production the suite was available to everyone, and since 1)most people not have furniture that was passed down and 2)people started moving around and disposing of furniture instead of dragging it all around, there became a tendency for people to buy new furniture periodically

So I think any class associations are kind of historical and they don't really apply now. Very few people have families that pass down fine furniture ... so the look tends to be created from New furniture whether its eclectic or matched. It's either buying new eclectic, someone Else's antiques, or new matched.

I think it is easier to add and subtract unmatched pieces, but some styles of furniture really lend themselves to matched pieces. Beidermeier, Belter, Stickley, Heywood Wakefield...different periods and styles that all work well as matched sets.

As I said in my earlier post too, I think offices, dining rooms and smaller bedrooms also lend themselves to matched pieces.

Paul Fussell, proud author of a book that said "Guaranteed to offend just about everyone" in one of the reviews on the front. His book was on class distinctions in the United States, the great taboo. It's a bit outmoded, since it was written in the late 70s and almost a new upper-ultra-out-of-sight class has developed since then.

But it's still guaranteed to offend just about everyone. :)

I'm one of those who don;t like things to match but instead prefer things to co-ordinate and have a cohesiveness between them through shape, style, colour, or texture. Do I look down on those who prefer things to match - of course not, do I look at it as a class issue - of course not.
I think those who like to have things that match perhaps like to have a part of their life to be completely without tension.

Rooms that have a sense of unmatched in them tend to have a certain tension in them because your eyes are looking for connections between the pieces and your emotions can come into play if there aren't any connections to be found. Rooms can also have too much tension when there isn't anything holding the pieces together. Some people like the ease of sitting in a room and having it all be the same and match.

I have mostly unmatched stuff because I collect stray pieces when they catch my eye and have inherited some other stuff. We did buy a bedroom set when we were first married, but we did not buy the matching bed to the set. The nightstands and dressers match though, and I like them still. I am also very glad that our bed is not matching to those because it would be one too many things IMHO. We added a stray dresser to our bedroom and it works just fine despite obviously not being from the same set. It has a similar wood tone to the others, so it blends. If I had to start from scratch, I would probably get matching dressers and have the rest be individual pieces (all vintage, if possible).
I have a vintage dining room set from the 30's that has table, chairs, china cabinet and a sideboard. I like that it matches.

I think if one has entirely matched or entirely unmatched, there is a balance missing. If I had to lean one way, it would be to the unmatched side, but there is no need for all or nothing. Over the years we have used different pieces in different rooms as we moved or our needs changed. It is easier to do that with unmatched pieces. I like the flexibility.

I buy stuff that we need or like or I just happen to stumble upon. As a real estate agent, I often find people selling or giving away some cool old stuff. If something catches my eye, I try to find a place to use it. In the next few years, I will be retiring a few things that were never among my faves, but were cheap/functionable at the time, but other pieces will be with us always. I think there are no rules about should match/shouldn't match. I personally do not like when the couch matches the drapes and even worse, when the border matches the other pieces...ugh... but I suppose that if someone wants that in their home, that is fine by me. It may not be my cup of tea, but that is why decorating should work for the person living with it more than others... I'll do what works for our family and others can do what they like. If everyone had the same taste as I do, then it would not feel as special to walk into our house and feel like it is our unique home.

Another preference for unmatched furniture here. I grew up with my mother's eclectic traditional decorating and it stuck. To me, having matched pieces shows a certain lack of imagination, the result of seeing a showroom and saying, "I'll take that." As Lizzie mentioned, it is also an indication that it was necessary for someone to purchase all that stuff at one time (no history of ownership before that purchase) and also that the purchaser would rather buy an entire "set" at once rather than buy one fabulous thing and wait to buy the next one when it comes along or can be afforded. So these are also mixed style and class messages.

I attended a party once in a house that had recently been built and furnished all at once, even down to the accessories. There was no sense of personality, no history--- it looked as though the owners sprang to life the day they moved in. Frankly, it was creepy, and beyond tacky, IMO. It was this couple's primary residence, which is what made it unattractive to me. Second homes are often built and furnished in a short time frame, and often are decorated in a manner quite unlike the family home--- and even in those homes I don't care for matched sets of anything.

We are lucky to have inherited and been given good furniture from both sides of our family. None of it matches, but all of it goes, somehow, and most everything has a history or meaning to me that I couldnt have bought. And that is why I prefer individually chosen or acquired pieces.

kswl, people are all different. I think we forget sometimes that not everyone is obsessed with decor! Perhaps the people who live in homes that you consider "creepy" or "beyond tacky" are passionate about something else- sports maybe, or science, or community service.

For example, I have a family member who is a physicist. He is brilliant and imaginative in his field. But I doubt he ever thinks about decorating!

Just because a person has matched decor doesn't mean that person has no history, no personality, or no imagination.

Nancybee, if you would go back and read it again, I think you will see that I described the INTERIORS or the results as unimaginative, creepy and beyond tacky. You're right that not everyone is obsessed with decor :) however, as this is a decorating forum and that's what this discussion is about, I have assumed that we are not debating the relative merits of sports or physics as opposed to interior design.

Avemor evidently has a really good friend who is comfortable enough with her to give an honest opinion. The original post sounded as though she wanted to know why others share that same opinion. I wasn't intending to insult anybody I don't even know---including your physicist relative----by giving the OP the reasons she asked for.

Yes, kswl, of course that's what you said. Sorry! Sometimes I have a tendency to post and then think, rather than the other way around. After I posted, it did occur to me that what I said wasn't entirely fair-

I live in a neighborhood of 1890 homes. Many are occupied by the original families. As pal and lizzie described above the homes are filled with the original furnishings and then each generation added some more. It is eclectic for sure but works due to the history and quality of the furnishings.

My home is a very eclectic mix. I am lucky to have some inherited pieces that each have a story. I have added things over the years and many of them have a story also. The only " matching" that I have is the master bedroom and part of the DR. , again as pal said those rooms lend themselves to matching.

This has been a very interesting thread. c

Nancybee, thank you for that...I would never say anything disparaging about scientists--- physicists in particular--- as my BIL is one :) It is tricky to say exactly what one means on a thread like this and word it in a way that doesn't push anyone else's buttons, but I do want to reiterate that I in no way meant criticism of any individuals , just style impressions of rooms! My best friend struggled with getting her house finished and was never really satisfied with it. When they bought a second home out west she furnished it all at once with all new stuff. It is very comfortable and she loves it--- it is the first house she's ever been truly happy with, so I do know that approach works for some!

Wow, I love how this thread has grown!

I will add one thing quickly - being able to really pull off a mismatched look takes skill. A lot of people don't have that skill, me included. So it could be that when I've tried mismatch, it just hasn't been done well. That may be why I like some looks, but tend to not like it for me (because MY mismatched creations have been improper mismatches).

Not so much the case now, but when I was younger I did associate matched sets to being able to afford matched sets. It's just kind of what I grew up with. I have well off friends, and financially struggling friends, to whom I have given single pieces.

Interesting stuff here. I, like Lizzie, do see some of the aspects of matched vs. unmatched being class based or having history of being class based. Some of these are my perceptions of things I have seen which could or could not be correct just my interpretation of them. I will use examples of my family to explain.

For instance, my mother comes from a working middle-class background where her mother, even in the 50's and 60's, worked as a church secretary and my grandfather was a postman. Both professions-very respectable. They were the type of family who preferred to buy furniture as a set. This is because they saved their money to do so and bought a higher quality furniture. It was something they were proud of. This meant they were moving beyond piecemealing odds and ends together. I do want to make the point though that they saved to do this, NOT credit, and my grandfather being from the depression era was and still is someone who strongly believes in working hard for what you get with no waste.

My dad, on the other hand, was from an upper middle class family where my grandmother, for example, had full time help both indoors and out and whose philosophy in decorating was completely different.

However, I do have to step away for now unexpectedly but will be back in a few to continue my point!

Shannon

Okay...I'm back. Sorry for the disruption. On to my dad's family. Like I said, they were upper middle class with full-time help inside and out and my grandmother never worked outside of the home. My grandfather was a southern gentleman in the truest sense. He worked with his hands and wasn't afraid to get dirty but always enjoyed the finer things in life. He was self-employed and was not bound to time restrictions for work. This allowed them time together for antiquing and touring various parts of the country whenever they pleased. This was an activity they both enjoyed.

This meant their house was put together over the years with various types of antiques and furnishings from many places. There were several pieces of handmade furniture as well. She was also an avid collector of many different types of things like Roseville and Sleepy Eye Pottery as well as native american art like handmade baskets. So their "accessories" were also not things that you would find in a JC Penney, etc. of the day. They had some matched pieces of furniture like club chairs or two end tables in the den but that was about it. I am not saying that all of their antiques were the most expensive or the fanciest of all antiques. Most were primitive in fact, but it was an entirely different method of shopping and decorating.

The same goes for their art. They were both avid gardeners, and my grandfather was an ameteur photographer so most of their art around the house were photographs he took of the irises in bloom or the sun setting behind the cypress trees, or an original Clementine Hunter, etc.

What I am trying to say I guess is, their lifestyle provided my dad's parents, in both time and money, to be able to go about furnishing a house differently than that of my mom's parents. My mom's family would have most likely never have had the time or the funds readily available to antiquing on a whim and come home with an antique English linen press.

I do have to say though that once my dad's parents house was furnished that was it. They bought no more furniture and this was all done before I was born. My mom's parents on the other hand still bought things after I was born as they were still working to get their house like they wanted it, again I thing it comes down to time and money.

Do I think one set of grandparents was better than the other? Absolutely not! Each set taught me invaluable truths and instilled in me great morals, and other great qualities, and I loved/love both sets dearly.

My mother though still though has the idea of everything needing to match because this is how she was raised. I have to work really hard to get her to even try the opposite. I have to admit she is getting better. I, on the other hand love unmatched. In fact, most of my furniture is from my dad's parents house.

I tend to think unmatched can be more practical esp. for those who move around a lot because things can be repurposed. I think dianlo said this up top. For example, I have an antique library table that my husband bought me for Christmas not long after we were married. It has been a desk, and occasional table, a catch all for the backdoor, and a nightstand. There is no way I could have done all of that with an intentional nightstand.

I think I am done. Sorry for rambling.

Shannon

I'm almost certain there are people in every class or income level who buy sets or not for a variety of reasons. Some may be like I was decades ago and buy sets because they do not know there are other choices. Even tho at the time I avidly read home decor magazines I still had no concept of the unmatched or collected look especially for bedrooms or dining rooms. My LR has always been more eclectic. Forty+ years ago most people who could afford sets bought them. Most people my age that I know have sets in every room.

I don't think one can generalize and say a preference for sets of furniture says anything about a person, but I expect that many of those who buy sets do it because they believe it's how to have a nice home and are not aware of other choices or don't know how to decorate any other way.

One thing about "well coordinated mismatched rooms" is that even some eclectic rooms done by well-known designers I find to be discordant and unattractive. So IMO the "pleasing unmatched look" may be in the eye of the beholder as we each have different tolerances for unmatched or not-overly-coordinated and this is a very personal way to decorate.

Luckygal's last statement echos my thoughts. My unmatched look is not necessarily pleasing for others to look at. I like it because I can point to almost everything and tell a short (or long!) story about it. The memories of people I've known or loved and the places I've been are alive around me and that makes me happy. I think I've succeeded in creating pleasant surroundings and it's nice if someone feels the same, but I have no illusions about my skill. I don't decorate this way because I think I'm good at it, I do it because of personal attachments and accomodation of my varied tastes. So, I don't think skill is the reason someone prefers this style but it is the reason their room would be considered a good example of eclectic.

My influence is directly related to my family, the women in particular. We all love to decorate and some did it professionally. My extended family have very few sets and my parents none, so this is "normal" to me. To be sure, if my grandma offered me the rest of her 60s era dining set I'd be all over that!

There is a new book from Southern Living called Southern Living Style. Those of you that like unmatched will probably enjoy.

Here is a link that might be useful: Southern Style Decorating