Put plates and glassware on each side and serving platters and bowls in the middle - now what do you think?

I think it should be fine. Plates are 10" - 11" in diameter plus about 3" for glasses and an inch from the edge, so that's 28" - 30" wide. Serving bowls and platters wouldn't fit comfortably if the table were full of diners, but would if not every place were occupied. I usually serve large groups buffet-style or plated-in-the-kitchen style so that wouldn't be a concern for me.

DLM is correct. Lay it out. My table is 42" wide and with plates. etc. at each setting it is still a tight fit if you are serving family style. You'll need to have large gaps between place settings to get serving dishes on a table that narrow. For buffet serving or if servants are serving (not happening in my house) a narrower table is fine.

Yes, lay it out. If you're one for table centers (as I am) there won't be enough room for anything large but you could do simple single bud vases or single unique candle holders spread down the middle of the table. That look can be gorgeous.

Also have a couple of people sit across from one another and check knee/footsie room.

If it works space wise that is going to be one gorgeous table. Post pics when in place please.

My main concern would be the room underneath for leg room. If it is a pedestal or trestle table is there room to scoot your chair under without banging your knees?

My table is 35 1/2". I don't put chairs at the ends--I think of it as a picnic table style. There's plenty of room for dining and knees. There's not room for centerpieces.

Thank you all for your comments! Definitely will check foot/knees room, tucking chairs in(didn't think of that), Not big on big center pieces, but center space still important and will layout plating as family style dining is big in our household.

Many thanks!

Our dining table is 33.5" wide. When we've crammed in a bunch of people and thanksgiving dinner, it is a tight squeeze -- there's basically enough room for one plate down each side and a single row of serving pieces in the middle. The centerpiece has to get banished and even with that, we've had to resort to putting some of the serving dishes on a sideboard because they wouldn't all fit on down the center of the table. That said, I like the proportions of it on a day to day basis -- it fits the room much better than a wider table would. And prior to bringing out all the food (when the table is just set with plates, glasses, and a long narrow centerpiece -- I usually use some kind of runner and some greenery or grapevine with candles down the length of the table) it looks super pretty. So basically, depending on how many serving dishes you normally have, you can definitely make it work -- you just might need a sideboard table to put some of the extras on. Oh fyi - foot room is not a problem - no one kicks each other across the table or anything. It's mainly just having room for all the platters, etc.

I personally think it's a little too narrow. You'll constantly feel you're fighting with the width of the table. But you have to decide if it works for you.

Our din table is similar width, not as long. No problem with knee/foot room. I have fit 6-7 comfortably with serving pieces in the center at times. Usually I plate. When we had the table made I started collecting oval serving pieces.

I want an antique one that width or narrower. Saw one years ago, but didn't get it. Have been kicking myself ever since.

Nothing to add on your width question, but wanted to say that's going to be a beautiful table!

Beautiful table, but for me much too narrow for comfort and serving space. Our rectangular reclaimed table is 42" wide. While house hunting we saw one dining room with a similar table 38" wide set for a dinner for 8 with dinner plates, silver/napkins, glassware, salad bowls, and a very narrow centerpiece and it was extremely crowded. You can't just practice set for one or two and get the full effect of 6-8 at a narrow table. I'd set a table for a full family dinner before deciding on width. Then imagine 8 or more bodies there too.

Considering that mine is 56" wide, yes, I think that 34" is WAY too narrow.

We are looking for a dining table, too, and 42" is the minimum for us. And pay attention to the base. If you have legs on four corners, you cannot put 2 people on the ends, at least comfortably. But then, it is unobstructed for the middle diners. Some pedestals can be in the way of legs. Your length is excellent and the wood is beautiful. It could work but serving pieces will be tight--as well as decor. Looks like you are pretty much done with the project, except for the finishing and assembly. If you serve buffet, it will work better. Good luck.

It looks like lovely wood!

I think 34 or 36 inches isn't significant different. But tables that narrow are usually built for narrow dining rooms. You stated your dining room is sufficiently big. Therefore, my concern would be if the narrow table looks out of place in the room.

Gorgeous wood and it's going to be a gorgeous table. It can work I have seen them that size. I personally would prefer the narrow size. Will you come build me one for my house the flood was not nice to my table and chairs. I seriously have been looking online at plans for them.

I have had three houses and all seemed to work better with narrower tables. I have never had an actual formal dining room but my kitchen eating area has bayed walls and looks nice for dining and I just use a very narroow pop-up table with a tablecloth for the seving pieces or use the island.

If it really is too narrow, is there any way to add an inch trim all around it?

As for chairs going under the table, it won't be an issue as we have a bench on one side of the table, chairs on the other. Table base is a cross beam X, so nicely out of the way.

Looking forward to this weekend where hopefully I can finish all the sanding and seal the table. Thank you very much for the comments!

Please come back and post a picture of your completed project, including your cross beam base, a style I love.

I love it and if I knew where you lived I would be tempted . . . . Lol seriously great job looking forward to the finished product .

That's going to be awesome.

It looks like 8/4" thick, is it?

How are you going to finish it?

We made an 8/4" white oak for a vanity top

in one of our bathrooms. We stained it a medium

dark nutmeg-ish color...

After several years we sanded it down left it natural

and just used water based poly on it. I love it...The

natural color is so beautiful.

The beauty of your table top is oak is very strong,

however, if you get any scratches just sand it won again

and give it more coats of poly.

We made our kitchen table out of walnut and we sanded

it down twice so far, and just used poly. This table takes

a beaten. But, sanding it, and then applying the poly is fast

and easy.

I would also like to see your bench design, if you are making that as well. Will it have the same wood as the table top and the same "X" beam base?

Beautiful, can't wait to see it finished.

Count me in as looking forward to the finished project!

These are the "X" table bases I have in mind. My table top is about 2.75" thick, approx 350 lbs. I plan to finish with a GF clear water based flat poly.

Beautiful table!

As far as size, I think it has more to do with how you use it and the size of the room. If you typically serve buffet style or use a console to hold food after it's been passed around then it really doesn't matter how narrow it is if you have room for the table settings and leg room beneath. But I'd also consider if it will look especially narrow since you mentioned the room is pretty large.

I'm looking forward to seeing it finished, too! But you have to enjoy what little nice weather you have left this fall :)

No 34 by 120 is exactly what I'm looking for I have a very narrow long room to put it in

We measured a booth table at a restaurant and it was 30 inches wide

I am purposely cutting down our solid wood (not MDF or particle board) dining room table from 44” to 34”. Yes that a big difference! But we have found over the years that 44” is just too much space and allows for clutter. Way too many people take advantage of every single inch of that space and end up with gaudy looking table. They'll attempt to turn those wide tables into an art piece, when in reality its just a cluttered, obtrusive, messy looking table. A lot of people may say 36” is the minimum width for a dining table. But a long, narrow table will get a lot of attention because it will look modern, sophisticated and well thought out. I realize this post is 5 years old but it still holds true today.