B Man wrote:

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.

As far as I can tell, the rule goes something like this: If it has
carving, it is Victorian. If it incorporates steel (or other "white"
metal) as part of the aesthetic, it is "Modern" or perhaps "art deco".
Otherwise it is Shaker.

Of course, the whole genus-of-furniture thing borders on silly IMO.

PK