anyone recognize this table ???  

It is teak. The legs and edge banding are solid teak. The top is teak veneer. I don't recognize the design, but the faux double legs are pretty distinctive. Never seen that before.

hi leif,
thanks for your comments as always. the top is actually also made of solid teak and yes the legs are pretty unique. as i mentioned in the other post (that i accidentally added) the banding and style of the table remind me of ib kofod larsen tables of the period but i guess that there was a lot of similar styles being used by furniture makers of that period.
in any case, many thanks for your comment !
cheers,
jon

The top really is veneer. I know this because, if the top were solid, then wood movement would have broken the glue joints holding the edge banding on within a year or so of its manufacture. That wide an expanse of solid teak would expand and contract about 1 inch (2.5 cm) measured from the center to the head of the table. The glue joints would break at probably 1/32 inch of movement.
Scandinavian wood workers tended to know how to use solid wood, and it is rare to see them make a mistake when executing a piece in solid wood. They also did NOT use solid wood for many of the sorts of construction where it causes the most challenges. Tables and case pieces are examples of the sorts of furniture where solid wood construction is most difficult (and were done with plywood/particle board substrates). Chairs rarely cause problems with solid wood construction.
Most of us look at a board of wood and see an inert, inanimate object. If you want to see it as a cabinetmaker might, you have to imagine it as a living, moving creature that expands and contracts very slowly, but with immense force, so that you can try to imagine a way to glue a bunch of board together so that you can coax them to expand and contract in sync with each other.

hi leif,
great reply and i of course bow to your greater knowledge. i only briefly looked at the underside of the table and had assumed it was solid because, well, it kinda looked solid ... i know, i know, sort of stupid.
thanks for taking the time to give this explanation and apologies for my ill-informed comment earlier !
cheers and best,
jon