What a table
Of course tastes -- and micro-tastes within those ? -- are expected. And I agree that the forms are insectoid -- a marriage (or at least the offspring) of Carlo Molino and M C Geiger, or something ?
First we hear of an aversion to woodenware, and now its a hardware phobia. What's left -- plastic, sheet metal, and paint ? Masonry material, natural or manmade ? Pleather ? Fastfwd, should I be sending help, or a greeting card ? Flowers ? Candy ?
cant touch this...do doo doo do
Seriously though it just shouts 3d modelling, which is a great tool but can never compensate for a full scale mock up, I wonder if one was done? It so easy to focus 100% of your attention on the screen and the seperate componenets within a design that the real life stepped back view is lost.
I can't see enough
in the photos to judge the table fully. I wonder about the connection of the legs to the spine, for instance. But the gestalt -- the initial image -- reads to me like an updated Baroque design: a strong form, articulated and decorated to a (perhaps) excessive degree ? I love those big "paws," for instance.
Exuberance doesn't necessarily deserve dismissal, it seems to me. This design betters the Burdick high-tech effort, to my eye -- even if the older design might make good sense from an engineering or functionality point of view. Yes, I'm responding to a "look," and I like the overstated hands and feet, the revealed skeleton, of this animal.
What is the purpose of...
What is the purpose of having the adjustable glides (with way too thick of threading..) under the glass top? Perhaps to raise and lower the surface a bit? Certainly the glass would be steadfast sans the glides? But other than that...and the glass top looks "gimpy" in relationship to the base...I don't know what to think about it. Would the space alien legs bruise the user's feet/toes? My initial thought was that it looked as though if a person was to insert a battery (or two)..that the table would/could walk. But I think that I like it.
Perhaps the adjustments under the glass would allow you to alter the height of the top to accommodate your preference or different dining chairs. Sometimes the arms of contemporary chairs are too high for vintage dining tables which are often lower than those made today. I could see where having an inch of height to adjust up or down might be desirable.
Overall, while I am not wild about the design and I do agree that it is derivative of the Nomos table, I don't object to it either. I think it could be refined further and I definitely agree that it needs a larger top (the top to base proportion looks completely out of whack) but I can see it working nicely in the right context.
Yes -- the
threads are too coarse to be believable as a functional feature. I readily admit that this is a piece of scenography -- a styled object. I just like those big spider-framed levelers, I guess -- I hadn't seen those before.
I think the Mars Rovers -- and the upcoming bigger space hot-rod from NASA -- are so close to being cool as design/art objects, with easily imagined tweaks which would make them the equal of any aesthetically-oriented designer's pet. But -- wobetide -- the facts prevail. So it is with any Hi-Tech art object, such as the Pompidou Center or Lloyds of London tower -- there's more than a little sex and glitz in those design decisions. Ditto the DCW-LCW. Didn't the Eameses show their sweetest curves ?
Engineers occasionally make beauty all by themselves, and I'd trust a number of anonymous structural engineers before I'd hire a Rogers or Calatrava, perhaps -- but a bit of artistic editing or nudging never hurt, if the designer's heart is true . . . ?
Why the problem with the coarse threads? When raising or lowering the top height I would welcome the larger thread. I would assume that most would do this the easiest way, lifting the top with one hand and spinning the leveler with the other. If it were finer thread it would take X times as many spins all the while you are holding up a heavy glass top. And, in this instance, no one is going to notice if you are a little off level so no need for the "fine" adjustment that finer threads would make a little easier.
If just for aesthetic reasons I think I would still prefer the coarse thread, it's not like this is dainty.
Adjustable tabletop supports
seem necessary for this design. Without them, it looks to me as though the construction and assembly method would make it impossible to get all six hands exactly co-planar, and a wobbly tabletop is even worse than a wobbly table base.
Norm, I agree that the thread pitch is right -- it looks fine enough to prevent loosening over time and also to allow precise-enough adjustment with low effort -- but the tabletop doesn't need to be lifted with one hand while the support is adjusted with the other. The base of each jackscrew is square (or maybe hexagonal) so a wrench can be placed over it and turned, and it also appears that there's a hole in the side of the support through which a handle can be slid.
If the top supports
are faced with rubber -- as I expect they would be -- the torquing of these against the glass might make an amusing chorus. I would think a pair of rubber or cotton gloves, and a slight lift while the "foot" is turned, might be the way.
Really -- aren't we having fun with this one ? I can smell the burning rubber (I mean, gray matter) from here . . .
The problem some perceive with too coarse a thread would have to do with unintentional misadjustment of the levelers, encouraged by the insidious forces of gravity. Realistically (let's come down to Earth for a moment) the table base should be erected and leveled, top and bottom (as necessary) before the glass is set. 3/8" glass would be slightly flexible, and by eye alone the piece could be prepared quite perfectly. (Light travels in a nice straight line, and eyeballing a straight edge or set of points quickly reveals, and even seems to exaggerate, any deviation from a straight line.)
Those not trusting this approach, and in possession of a four-foot level, should do just fine by the traditional method.