What are the main differences between these styles of furniture?

Thanks.

http://www.garagewoodworks.com

Stoutman wrote:

What are the main differences between these styles of furniture?

Thanks.

http://www.garagewoodworks.com



See:

Mission Furnitu

http://www.gustavstickley.com/missio...furniture.html

Shaker Furnitu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaker_furniture

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

(Remove -SPAM- to send email)

Not our Stoutman, it seems. Hmmmm. Tom
no(SPAM)vasys wrote:
Stoutman wrote:

What are the main differences between these styles of furniture?

Thanks.

http://www.garagewoodworks.com



See:

Mission Furnitu

http://www.gustavstickley.com/missio...furniture.html

Shaker Furnitu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaker_furniture

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

(Remove -SPAM- to send email)

I could be wrong, though. Tom
tom wrote:
Not our Stoutman, it seems. Hmmmm. Tom
no(SPAM)vasys wrote:
Stoutman wrote:

What are the main differences between these styles of furniture?

Thanks.

http://www.garagewoodworks.com



See:

Mission Furnitu

http://www.gustavstickley.com/missio...furniture.html

Shaker Furnitu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaker_furniture

--
Jack Novak
Buffalo, NY - USA

(Remove -SPAM- to send email)

It's me.

Looking at two pieces of furniture, one Shaker and one Mission, what would
distinguish them?

--
Stoutman
http://www.garagewoodworks.com

Please describe them to me. Tom
Stoutman wrote:
It's me.

Looking at two pieces of furniture, one Shaker and one Mission, what would
distinguish them?

--
Stoutman
http://www.garagewoodworks.com

Please see original post.

--
Stoutman
http://www.garagewoodworks.com

I think the best way to see the difference is to go to Google images
and do searches such as "mission style chair" and "shaker chair" and
compare what you see. The differences will become pretty apparent
pretty quickly.

Mark

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 23:39:07 GMT, "Stoutman" .@. wrote:

What are the main differences between these styles of furniture?

Thanks.

http://www.garagewoodworks.com


It's difficult to pinpoint the main differences because these styles
evolved over time and differed between villages. There are probably
more similarities than differences between these two styles.

Shaker
lighter, fewer members
religious belief influenced design
furniture pieces used for tasks and work
milk paints & hand-rubbed finishes

Mission
stronger pieces
often heavier
somewhat crude design

I'm sorry. I thought you were_ looking_ at them, not just figuratively.
They look pretty similar, don't they? Seems to me the Shaker style is a
little more lithe in the leg. More carved tapers, spindles, etc.
Mission: a little more stout, overall, with wider, more squared
components. Of course, less embellishment in the Shaker would be
expected, but how can you get less embellished (well, within reason)
than Mission? The Mission might sport some bevelled through tenons,
dutchmen and such, I guess. Stoutman wrote:
Please see original post.

--
Stoutman
http://www.garagewoodworks.com

In article , Stoutman .@. wrote:
What are the main differences between these styles of furniture?

Thanks.

http://www.garagewoodworks.com



I'm no furniture critic but Shaker and Mission are very much different
design styles and the differnece is rather dramatic. Just put a
classic, taper-legged shaker end table next to a mission style end
table and the styling difference will be obvious. Pictures are worth
thousands of words here. I suggest checking google or dogpile image
search on the 2 keywords and you'll get a good idea pretty quickly.


--

Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland

"tom" wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm sorry. I thought you were_ looking_ at them, not just figuratively.
They look pretty similar, don't they? Seems to me the Shaker style is a
little more lithe in the leg. More carved tapers, spindles, etc.
Mission: a little more stout, overall, with wider, more squared
components. Of course, less embellishment in the Shaker would be
expected, but how can you get less embellished (well, within reason)
than Mission? The Mission might sport some bevelled through tenons,
dutchmen and such, I guess.

While having a similar discussion with a guy who made a Bombay Chest out of
solid mahogany he cynically summed up Mission as follows: "You can shape
all the pieces with your planner." As Tom points out there are simple curves
and turnings associated with Shaker.

John

In article ,
Hambone Slim wrote:

Typical shaker chair might have clean turned legs, ladder back, cloth taped
seat, a lady can carry it with one hand. Typical mission chair looks like
it was built by a bricklayer, heavy fumed white oak stretchers and splats,
requires two men and a boy to move it.


I'm partial to the Shaker style of design myself. I like your
description of the typical characteristics!


--

Larry Wasserman Baltimore, Maryland

"Stoutman" .@. wrote in message
...
What are the main differences between these styles of furniture?

Thanks.

http://www.garagewoodworks.com


IMHO Shaker is a more simple looking design and tends to look lighter
weight and the chairs tend to have a lot of spindles. Mission looks
heavier, a little more complex visually, and typically built with Oak.

"Leon" wrote in message
.com...

snip

IMHO Shaker is a more simple looking design and tends to look lighter
weight and the chairs tend to have a lot of spindles. Mission looks
heavier, a little more complex visually, and typically built with Oak.
I would like to try something in the Greene and Greene style. I would not
use an abundance of inlays though. It is a compromise between Mission (aka
Craftsman, Stickley, and such) and Shaker. I'm not implying that there is
Shaker influence in G&G. I find Craftsman style to be a little heavy for my
taste, but I have a strong respect for the style and there are pieces I
like. I tend to like the pieces done in cherry.

"John Grossbohlin" wrote in message

While having a similar discussion with a guy who made a Bombay Chest out
of
solid mahogany he cynically summed up Mission as follows: "You can shape
all the pieces with your planner."

.... and that, apparently, was considered one of the pluses of it's near
kin/predecessor, Arts and Crafts:

"Frank Lloyd Wright's lecture, "The Art and Craft of the Machine," delivered
at the Chicago Society of Arts and Crafts in 1901, in which, after invoking
the name of William Morris, he went on to decla "The machine, by its
wonderful cutting, shaping, smoothing, and repetitive capacity, has made it
possible to so use it without waste that the poor as well as the rich may
enjoy today beautiful surface treatments of clean, strong forms""

The essence of A&C, "Mission" being a close cousin of sorts, was to use the
"machine" to relieve the tedium of repetitive, manual tasks which the
artisans of prior ages were slave to.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 6/21/06

"Swingman" wrote in message
...
"John Grossbohlin" wrote in message

While having a similar discussion with a guy who made a Bombay Chest out
of
solid mahogany he cynically summed up Mission as follows: "You can shape
all the pieces with your planner."

... and that, apparently, was considered one of the pluses of it's near
kin/predecessor, Arts and Crafts:

"Frank Lloyd Wright's lecture, "The Art and Craft of the Machine,"
delivered
at the Chicago Society of Arts and Crafts in 1901, in which, after
invoking
the name of William Morris, he went on to decla "The machine, by its
wonderful cutting, shaping, smoothing, and repetitive capacity, has made
it
possible to so use it without waste that the poor as well as the rich may
enjoy today beautiful surface treatments of clean, strong forms""

The essence of A&C, "Mission" being a close cousin of sorts, was to use
the
"machine" to relieve the tedium of repetitive, manual tasks which the
artisans of prior ages were slave to.

Interesting quote from Wright. Though I never thought of Wright as trying to
go mass market he clearly understood what the technology could do. I'd think
today's wonder machine, i.e., the one that brings variety to the masses,
would be the CNC machines. With CNC the masses can afford fancy looking
stuff like Chippendale, Queen Anne, etc...

John

In article . net, John
Grossbohlin wrote:


Interesting quote from Wright. Though I never thought of Wright as trying to
go mass market he clearly understood what the technology could do. I'd think
today's wonder machine, i.e., the one that brings variety to the masses,
would be the CNC machines. With CNC the masses can afford fancy looking
stuff like Chippendale, Queen Anne, etc...

John



1901 is pretty early for Wright, before the Larkin Building and Unity
Temple. He was just developing the Prairie Style and mainly building
private homes.

Andrew Williams wrote:

In article . net, John
Grossbohlin wrote:


Interesting quote from Wright. Though I never thought of Wright as trying
to go mass market he clearly understood what the technology could do. I'd
think today's wonder machine, i.e., the one that brings variety to the
masses, would be the CNC machines. With CNC the masses can afford fancy
looking stuff like Chippendale, Queen Anne, etc...

John



1901 is pretty early for Wright, before the Larkin Building and Unity
Temple. He was just developing the Prairie Style and mainly building
private homes.

However he was always looking for a way to go mass market--that was the main
point of his "Usonian Automatic" designs in the '50s, something that could
be built with little skilled labor--people have built them by starting out
with a mold and making one concrete block at a time until they had enough
to build the house.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 23:39:07 GMT, "Stoutman" .@. wrote:

What are the main differences between these styles of furniture?

Chalk and cheese. The purposes are different, the philosophies are
different, and there's a century between the manufacturing techniques.

Google knows the rest, as do books by Christian Becksvoort (Shaker) and
Stickley himself or Bavaro & Mossman (Craftsman) or a few others for
general Mission. best of all is Mayer & Gray's "In the Arts & Crafts
Style", but that's hard to find.

Avoid books by Norm or Thomas Moser.

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 00:35:53 GMT, "Stoutman" .@. wrote:

Looking at two pieces of furniture, one Shaker and one Mission, what would
distinguish them?

Shaker is hand work trying to look like machine work, Craftsman is
machine-made trying to look like hand work.

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 21:09:27 -0400, Andrew Williams
wrote:

1901 is pretty early for Wright, before the Larkin Building and Unity
Temple.

It's not early for Wright, it's just early for Wright's Prairie period.
He had a _long_ career, and the early stuff alone would be enough for
most architects.

Have you ever visited his house, if you're in Chicago? That's a fine
example of his early period styles.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 21:22:03 +0100, Andy Dingley
wrote:

On Sun, 23 Jul 2006 00:35:53 GMT, "Stoutman" .@. wrote:

Looking at two pieces of furniture, one Shaker and one Mission, what would
distinguish them?

Shaker is hand work trying to look like machine work, Craftsman is
machine-made trying to look like hand work.

I thought the Shakers did not eschew the use of machinery; they did shun
ostentation in their products. That's why you see wood knobs, lack of
carvings, etc.


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:04:11 -0700, Mark & Juanita
wrote:

Shaker is hand work trying to look like machine work, Craftsman is
machine-made trying to look like hand work.

I thought the Shakers did not eschew the use of machinery; they did shun
ostentation in their products. That's why you see wood knobs, lack of
carvings, etc.

Shakers certainly weren't anti-machinery, it's just that not much of it
had been invented by then. Even Babbitt's famous circular saw was still
only seen as a labour-saver for construction carpentry timber, not a
resaw for cabinetry.

The Shakers used hand tools (with great skill) and they aspired to the
sort of perfection of finish that we usually identify as "machine-made
quality" -- certainly in the early Victorian period when "machine made"
was an accolade found proudly stamped onto goods.

The Arts and Crafts movement is a late Victorian reaction, primarily to
the dehumanising effects of factory life on the workers. Ruskin and
Morris saw it less in terms of products and more in terms of those
involved. The later American A&C theorists attempted to recapture the
golden age of craft labour by the deliberate application of machines. If
you could make an honest product, then the assumption was that it would
generate honest employment and fair treatment of workers. At the same
time, the product was supposed to look as if it were hand-made and to
avoid all the gingerbread that Victorian machinery had been so good at
churning out.

The English A&C movement never took this line, even in the 20th century
(pre-war anyway). Gimson and the Barnsleys were adamant over the use of
hand tools, and the way that artisan craftsmanship was the only right
way for an artisan craftsman to be employed.

"Andy Dingley" wrote in message

The Arts and Crafts movement is a late Victorian reaction, primarily to
the dehumanising effects of factory life on the workers. Ruskin and
Morris saw it less in terms of products and more in terms of those
involved.

snipped only for brevity

Very well stated in its entirety.

--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 6/21/06