Originally, this posted twice, then it disappeared, and then it came back as one post. Not sure what is going on here. Also, the threads do not show up in order of most recent comment on top - they are a somewhat random order for the first ten threads - at least for me.

My dining room table is 120 inches and has two leaves. We leave them in all the time as our dining room is large enough to do so comfortably. Our table is wood. I like what you are designing. I like when the chairs fit perfectly into the table when pushed in, I have only seen this in magazines, but always have loved it. We need a large dining table as we only have one eating area and enjoy entertaining.

I have a small DR...12X10. My table is 41X64 with two 14" leaves which we only use when having company.

Our dining table is an old oak claw foot pedestal table. At its smallest, it's 54" around. We have 3 leaves (leafs?) for it, which brings it to 6.5' long. The pedestal splits in half and pulls apart to help support the longer length. There is room for one more leaf, but I'm guessing it was lost long ago.

We added laminate to the top since the veneer on top was in horrible shape. It took a good amount of body filler to make it flat and smooth enough to add the laminate. It's not the most stylish top around, but boy is is it durable for the 20 or so meals a week that our family eats on it.

We leave it expanded all the time, and we can just barely squeeze 11 people around it when we have guests. I like that it's wide enough and curved enough for a large group to all easily see and interact with each other. Even though it's grain is beautiful, the apron is too deep to cross one's legs comfortably, and some of our guests that are larger have difficulty fitting their legs under it even if they aren't crossed. Since the ends are quite far from the pedestal supports and it's been leaned on for many years, it's rather squawky when it's pressed down by even a light touch.

Our ideal table would be even larger, perhaps 12-13' long. It's legs would not interfere with pushing the chairs underneath it, and the chairs would tuck in tightly. The apron would not have any sharp edges (many have an abrupt corner that is painful you bump it with your leg), and it would be shallow enough to not interfere with crossing legs. I would love a table that has self storing leaves, and that glided open and closed effortlessly, yet locked tight to hold the leaves in securely with no gaps. It would not squawk!

DH and I haven't come to a consensus on leg configuration. Double pedestal, or 5 legs. We want to be able to seat 2 people on the end, which presents some challenges. Thus, we keep using the old one.

OMG you have my table!!

or I have your table:)

In any case our table is a twin(maybe fraternal)) of what you have now

But I think mine is longer..don't remember the exact measurements, will try to take them tomorrow.

Chairs are pretty similar too btw, different design of the back...they were black leather(or vinyl?) too when we bought them but I reupholstered them.

So..we bought the table with chairs on Craigslist and originally it was supposed to have two leaves but lost one somewhere during the years.

I'd love to have it, for parties etc, because you can still fit tightly 8-9 people somehow but then becomes a problem. but it is what it is.

Taking a leaf out and making the table round would work for our space but would be probably too small. But nice to know we have this option.

Just to add it-I love the table madly and I love it being oval..the only problem, since it's wider than a rectangle most tablecloths look a bit skimpy

And many people asked me where I got it because they love it too.

I definitely prefer wood. Ours is teak.

(I do have glass on the coffee table though)

Our table is 6' long without leaf and 8' long with leaf. We use the leaf often when entertaining. If you don't entertain often, if you're informal, or if you tolerate other eating arrangements (we often eat informally in the living room) then I wouldn't bother with the leaf or I would arrange to have a card table or something.

I think a table without leaves looks more elegant (unbroken surface).

I prefer a wood surface as being more friendly and warm with a bonus of less noise. Wood + table pad + table cloth is beyond my elegance range but certainly is more warm and less noisy.

Ours is a narrow French country style pine/painted refectory table - 7' long, no leaves. It was bought as a kitchen table for our previous house that had much larger rooms. The 'dining' room here - a stair-less hallway that was added when the 1850s house was extended in 1924 - is only tiny! In the current set up we use it as a large hall table, only bringing in chairs when we have guests at special occasions, dinner parties etc. As it's just the two of us most of the time, we eat informally at a 48" diameter circular table (again no leaves), in the snug......or at the kitchen island :)

Previously we had a 6' regency style table with two 12" leaves. Putting them in/removing them was such a faff, we left them out permanently, added a large piece of MDF and hung a heavy, fringed chenille cloth over to disguise it, lol!

Raphaella x

Extra leaves are a PITA to store, but nice if you only entertain occasionally and want the extra space without them. My table is 44 x 68 oval without the leaf and seats 6. Seats 8 with the leaf, but a bit tightly.

Laughable, have you considered adding casters to the legs of your table to raise the height a little? Maybe the base already has them, if it pulls apart?

My table has interior leaves but is only a six chair table with them and is a square four seater with out. Before kids I kept it square now it is always full. I also have a three part style table that folded that sits against a wall in my dining room if I open that up and place it next to my everyday table it looks almost just like one twelve chair table. This is what we do for entertaining. It was easier than leaves and let me keep my everyday table that I love.

I have the sumner PB dining room table that with bread boards is 120" long. However, I only keep two chairs on each side and keep the extensions in all the time. I like the look and when, needed will seat 10. It doesn't bother me in the least that it is "too much table" for one.

Our table is big. It's rectangular with rounded corners. Without the two 24" leaves, it's 36x96 and easily accommodates the 6 chairs we normally have around it and we can squeeze in a couple more without one leaf (I have 8 matching chairs, 2 normally sit in the corner of the DR). I typically add at least one leaf making it 36x120 for most family dinners and seat all 8 adult family members. We then put the grand kids (ages 10-18) around the table in the breakfast room and at the bar where they like to sit anyway.

If you are considering a table with no leaves, I'd stay at least at the size where 6 chairs is comfortable for the space you've shown.

ok..i tried to measure ours..to the best of my ability..yes, it's bigger..with one leaf that's always there it's approximately 70 inches length, 48 inches width

by the way it doesn't bug me at all..that leaf showing

interesting how some things bug us and others don't

one of my cleaning ladies..I call her, in my head, "the symmetrical girl"..she obviously is very much into symmetry so she tries to "straighten" whatever she can because it's obviously hard for her seeing things that are not put in a straight row like they're parading or something..she also folds every throw I drape and readjusts pillows as for them to be more symmetrical

After she leaves I go and rearrange everything back. I'd be mad but it's so amusing I'm not.

Overall, I would say that your tables are bigger than I expected. I have noticed that table size varies with geographic location somewhat. For example, we have sold very large tables to clients in Dallas and fairly small ones to clients in NYC and Florida. Since all our tables are custom, I think we can show a reasonably small table (such as 66x36) and then people can order a larger size. We did show a huge table in Dallas, however, because there was more space there, and it had a glass top that was the largest we had ever made.

My own personal table (in the photo) is walnut, but I thought it was teak originally. It is an American copy of a Hans Wegner design and therefore cost me a fraction of what the Danish original would have cost - and I got it at an estate sale down the street from my house.

I also prefer wood tables (and tops), and I think we do not sell as many glass tops as we used to, but they were extremely popular in the 1990s. I think the trend even for coffee tables is away from glass as well, although we still show some. I do not like glass tops for coffee tables unless they are round or inset.

The new table I am working on has four legs, and the case goods manager said that it would be difficult to make with leaves, and so I'm considering not offering those. I do prefer the cleaner look of a veneered top that does not have leaves. I personally do not like having to store leaves, but my mother would use them when she had family dinners and then stored them the rest of the year, but she served most meals in the kitchen. When I was growing up, we had a fairly large kitchen table, which I think was more typical of the 1950s, although the house was built around 1934.

Thanks for all of your responses!

I have a two pedestal table that is 60 x 40 with no leaves. I have 3 12 inch leaves and usually I keep one in (it's a more comfortable six) but sometimes I put the second one in (which seats 8 and that's how many chairs I have) -- If I have the leaves in, I usually have a lace tablecloth n it as the leaves don't have the apron that the table does and I think it looks "odd". Whether there is one or two leaves in, when we eat in the dining room we either eat sitting across one another at one or DH sits at the head and I sit to his right. We eat most of our meals, however, in the breakfast room.

I have an antique table inherited from my in-laws -- have no idea where they bought it but it was already an antique then as well. With no leaves in, it's almost square (it's 54" long by 56" wide). It's perfect in my almost square dining room! It has FIVE leaves, each about 20" wide. I do not have a single room in my entire house that would be big enough for this, unless I removed all the LR furniture and it would still be a tight fit. My in-laws used to put it on the diagonal in their DR for large holiday dinners - they could seat 22.

Mine is long and narrow with two 'bread board' style extensions. I prefer that to leaves, because I can add them myself without needing a helper to push the table closed from each end. It's the Arhaus Toulon Extension table, and it's 66" wide, by X 36" Deep X 30" high. It extends up to 102 feet wide.

This is mine with one leaf in. Set for a luncheon last week.

Martha, are those Hepplewhite chairs? They look like the chairs my mother had that she got from her mother. I like the lace tablecloth, although those seem to work best with rectangular tables. I have a hard time with tablecloths for my table because of the racetrack oval.

I also like the art above your buffet. Is it Japanese or Chinese? It looks like a drawing done with a brush or maybe charcoal. I also like your lace curtains and crystal.

My mother had an oval DR table due to her DR being VERY small. Clothes and even placemats were always a problem. One can still order an oval damask cloth from Thomas Ferguson.

Martha , Pretty table. I use a rectangular cloth on my oval table and it works fine.

Dining tables are one thing that I feel strongly about the design of. In my opinion a pedestal base, be it single, split, or double etc is better than having 4 legs. My logic being that when you need too you can squeeze an extra chair or 2 in with out the legs eating up that space.

I also prefer a dining table no narrower than 38''. Any narrower and it is hard to have 2 place settings across from one another.

One thing you can do to expand your table for entertaining if it does not have leaves or expand large enough is to order or make a table top extender. I have one that I purchased from a table pad manufacturer. The only down side is you have to have the space to store it. Under a bed works if you have a bed to slide it under.

Table leaves are a necessary evil to store if you have a large family or entertain a group of any size. Currently I have an antique Victorian walnut table that has 7 leaves. Several times a year I have all the leaves in to entertain, or work on a large project etc.

Good luck! I am sure what ever you have made will be stunning.

When my SIL and her husband were taking out a wall, making a combination kitchen great room in place of their formal dining room, they offered me his mothers table. I had a much smaller dining room, and resisted for a few days, then thought, why not. I love the table, loved his mother, and this is not my forever home (we'd already been thinking about more space, and on one level). I used it a few years with no leaves, two of the 10 chairs against the wall and two in other rooms.

I have space for it now and don't think I'll ever tire of it. 44" wide by 82" long with one leaf in place and how I usually have it. There are three more 14" leaves - I can fully extend it to its 124" length when I need to. The table came with a wooden divided frame for holding the leaves (leafs?) and the table protector pads - it fits well in a walk in linen closet. In my former house, the leaf holding frame took up precious space in a guest room closet.

Most daily meals though are served in my kitchen. 48" diameter round glass topped table that seats 4, 5 in a pinch, with space for one more seated at the end of the peninsula. And, I don't know that I'd buy glass again. I scratched that table the first week I had it, now am a placemat fanatic, and keep a walnut lazy susan that matches the legs in the center for heavier serving pieces.

I checked our price book, and it appears that we do not offer any tables smaller than 42", and so perhaps I need to revise my drawing - I think 36" is going to be too small. However, I think I may want to compromise and offer a somewhat smaller table, perhaps at 39", just for variety.

Here's a large rectangular table that we offer at no smaller than 48"

I'll come back to this table in a couple of weeks, as I am working on alternate weeks only, now that I am semi-retired.

We have an almost 30 year old danish teak trestle style table with fold-down leaves on the ends and inset tile. It is about 35.5" x 63" with the leaves folded. Expanded, the length is about 95" long. This used to be our everyday table (2 adults, no kids) in previous homes. Our current house has a breakfast area, so we only use the dining room when we have guests (Ignore the awful floor tile, finally ripping out soon). That table worked very well into both larger and smaller rooms. Our kitchen table is oval and 42x58, no leaves. When I was growing up, my parents had a round dining table with a seam down the center that expanded into an oval with retractable leaves that folded up under the table (it was circa 1970 German). I much prefer wood over glass.

Lars -- the art over the buffet is Chinese -- done by the art professor at the University of Taiwan back in the 60s. It is woodblock on fabric. The chairs are 20s/30s/40s reproductions as is the table.

Our dining room table is 42" x 72" rectangle double pedestal with the leaves. Our dining room is big enough that I leave it full size all the time.

Our kitchen eating table is an oval single pedestal quarter-sawn oak table circa 1900. It is 48" wide x 60" with 2 leaves currently in it. It has enough leaves to go to 92" long.

The leaves for this table are stored under the bed in my son's old room. He isn't at home any more.

When we downsize and only need one table, I will keep the oval quarter sawn oak table because it's a lot more versatile in terms of different sizes.

I'm so glad my table is 56" wide! It allows room for a centerpiece, glasses, B& B plate, and dessert spoon and fork above the dinner plate. My daughter's table is 54" and does the same. Newer modern tables simply do not have enough room.

Table..so many memories. From my growing up years in Ireland and the decades I spent in California raising my beautiful (and rather large) family. We always found ways to seat whoever came by. And most days that was at least twelve lol. The dining tables were always BIG. Wood, leaves, bought or inherited.

Currently, small, wood, bar height. And I put it together by myself. Overstock, well worth the hassle. It was a bitch to get it upright after putting it together. I love it.

Anglophilia - my DR table is just 40 inches but there is room for all of that.

Lars - re your surprise at how big our tables are - don't forget you are asking people who probably own single family dwellings and so have the space for a nice-sized table.

If this forum was visited by those in their 20's and who are living in apt/condos you would probably get different answers.

Anglophilia and Marta Scott, do you both put all of the serving dishes on the table in addition to the table decorations? I remember my dad's wife lamenting the narrow width of their table (38"?) because it was difficult to put all the serving dishes on there when feeding a large group without the table feeling cluttered and congested.

laughable moments -- it depends on what the company is -- sometimes no for I plate in the kitchen and serve plates but other times we do serve family style -- sometimes we'll serve buffet style with the food in the breakfast room and everyone helps themselves -- here is an Easter dinner for 7 where we serve the food family style -- and it includes a centerpiece.

What a beautiful setting. And look, you have a butter lamb; those are so cute! I just learned of them about 5 years ago and was totally smitten at the time. Thanks for explaining. Thanks too for the suggestion of casters for rating our table, saypoint.

It is interesting to consider whether people serve family style with serving dishes on the table or have a side table or buffet for serving. Personally, I serve all the food onto the plates in the kitchen and only have bread, butter, and condiments on the table. I generally do have a centerpiece on the table, but I often remove it during meals and replace it with a tray that has pairs of salt and pepper grinders for when I serve baked potatoes. Otherwise they are not necessary. Of course I never have more than four people at my table at a time, although I would like to have more.

Lars -- we only do family style for holidays because there is never courses -- it is just a meal. Occasionally, when we have guests we will put the food in the breakfast room and guests can serve themselves. We prefer to plate in the kitchen and serve plates.

Lol our family was nine. Usually two or three more would show up. The neighborhood knew if the McCarthy's were coming, a party would happen. Dinner time was a party every day

Martha Scott, I think we have the same dining room chairs! ❤️ them!

Our table is wide but I always serve everything on my kitchen island and keep condiments on the table.

My table is 46"w x 76"l, with 2 20" leaves for a max length of 116". Comfortably fits 10 chairs and 12 with a bit of squeeze. It may be wider than typical, because many standard size table cloths only have a couple inches of overhang along the sides. (That's something to keep in mind when sizing a table.) I buy banquet sized cloths for when I have both leaves in.

I much prefer wood to glass tops. First, I like the ability to expand a table using leaves. In addition, I don't want to see everyone's legs when I eat, so I would end up covering a glass top anyway. (And that's the unfortunate thing about my table: it has a beautiful inlaid wood top that I love, but to protect it when we have dinner guests I use table pads and a table cloth, so no one sees the top anyway. Maybe I need to invest in some fancy placemats.)

I'm not a fan of trestle or pedestal tables. We're a tall family and we need leg room under the table. It would bug me if a pedestal or trestle got in the way.

We have a Heywood-Wakefield vintage drop-leaf table. Here are the dimensions. We have never needed the extra leaves. We'd have to turn it to use the leaves.

Fully open (no extra leaves): 63.5" w x 42.5" d x 29.5" h

Fully open (w/ 2 leaves): 84" w x 42.5" d x 29.5" h

Drop Leaves down: 26.5" w x 42.5" d x 29.5" h

chicagoans -- we are tall too and we prefer the pedestal -- we're always hitting our legs on corner legs and making something spill!

I have revised my table design to 72" x 39", with curved ends. I was going to make it 42" instead of 39", but the shape looks better at 39". I am making a full scale template of the top now to see how it will look, and I may revise it after that. Still, I think it might be good to keep it at 39", so that it may fit in smaller spaces. It looks like it has plenty of depth for the chairs.

All of these responses have been very helpful!

I completed drawing the template for the top at 72"x39", and it did not look right to me, and so, after consulting Case Goods, I have decided to revise the size to 78" x 39". I thought about changing the depth to 42", but I think it looks more interesting at 39", but I do need to add some extra space, and making the length 78" will now be exactly double the depth, and so that sort of makes sense to me. I also wanted to achieve a different look, but of course clients can order the table whatever size they want, if we do put it in the showroom. I think it will appeal to clients in New York at the new size I have drawn, but I expect clients in L.A. to increase the depth. I'm not always the best at predicting markets, but I do seem to be somewhat in sync with NY for some reason even though I am in Los Angeles.

BTW, the case goods manager is 6'9" tall!