A coat tree I made  

Really wonderful.
Simple and flat pack. Very nice.
Now that I see the 4 legs version vs the 8 legs, I vote for the 4 legs.
Is it really necessary to be symmetrical? (in order to use always the same piece)?
Or the center could be higher than from the middle? (As I think Rockland suggested)
May be it will look better and be more stable.
And as SDR and others said, I wound,t mind about the screws, just find the one that looks better.
But all the versions are very nice. I couldn?t choose only one!

I'd
consider moving the little pegs further from the ends of the "spikes." It lets the spikes make their points without distraction, instead of turning the ends into little "hands."
"allen key mislaid oh about 50-times" No pockets ?
I do like the idea of having the "waistline" up from center a noticeable amount, though it obviously gets into issues of unnecessary complication. I don't think the "extra" (short) lower spikes have any obvious purpose -- other than to carry out complete reversibility of the whole ? Either way, I'd consider intentionally gving the upper and lower halves of this animal different dimensions.
What animal, or tree, that you know of, can be turned upside down and look the same ? It ain't "natural". . .
Nice piece. A strong basic idea always spawns multiple possibilities !

As has happened
more often than not, I agree with SDR on moving the center. I understand that it is both a rational and most obvious choice to put the connections in the "geometrical" middle but consider this. The pyramid seen from the middle down is larger than the volume seen closer to eye height from the middle up. So, in spite of attempting to put it in the middle it is not seen by the eye as being the middle. Choices like that should be made either on a long experience of working with 3D objects or...just by building prototype after prototype.The brain likes easy to understand shapes and by putting it in the middle you are sending a difficult message: I know it is in the middle, but I see it as not being in the middle. If you move it higher the brain will understand that what it knows and what it sees is the same thing.
On the dowel height to, I have to agree with SDR....so why am I writing this....
oh...yes, I wanted to say that it is a nice piece indeed, although with your experience in bending wood, one would not expect the members to be build in two parts.
It might also be a good idea to start the pieces wider on the bottom and make them gradually thinner toward the top. It would take away from that "neo-modern" look inherent on the double tapered shape?although it would have something of the monument in Oscar Niemeyer?s Brazilia?

I'm a fan of the very first
I'm a fan of the very first photo. I very much like the organic random qualities of the varying heights - my choice would be to push that - have three heights instead of two. While the screws in the center dont bother me at all, the additional pegs on the top do. They seem unnecessary, as gravity would hold most items. If you do need an additional hook why not integrate it into the end of each strut - I'm thinking something like the thorn on a rose towards the top- same material, same plane.
Otherwise I think its a beaut!

thanks for the suggestions,...
thanks for the suggestions, most of them have been in the back of my own mind.
The lower spikes were meant to accomodate a ring of some sort for umbrellas, I would never have them there for no purpose at all but I am having a little trouble with that.
The pegs lower down? no problem I will try that and moving the centre up too.
I designed it in two parts for good reason, 25cm x 170 cm of coat rack fits with difficulty into small cars. As it is now 2 branches are cut out of one really quite narrow length of board, (tiny amount of waste) and it can pack into a box 85cm x 18 cm x 12 cm . I did not execute it with curves, laminations or steam bends because any glue good enough is toxic in that quantity, laminations waste more material than this ever would and the timber will not steam bend predictably.
I am now more enthusiastic about a 4 legged version, ditching the umbrella stand idea and if I can do it without wasting too much timber possibly a slight s curve.
Thanks again!
PS The pegs are getting cut out asap, I've sketched a much better solution.

I realize the disadvantage of...
not being as compact. As far as the bending is concerned I agree that laminating is not the most economical solution but bending has come a long way!
http://www.compwood-eng.dana8.dk/

.
I had a close look at compwood a few weeks ago, I agree it is very impressive but definitely without crying 'woe is me' I am one man with a limited budget in a rural part of Australia, I try very hard to only use locally made or grown materials and am very concerned with 'furniture miles' perhaps it's self defeating but those are my criteria and I enjoy working within them.
This is a hypothetical exercise, I very much doubt it will go further than this, even for a run of 50 I doubt compwood would be an economical choice compared to cutting from solid, $24.00 in materials, all purchased retail and in small quantities.

heath
where is this rural part of oz? not Dubbo I hope!

.
Todays changes, very much happier with the 'hooks', I shortened the length of the top branches by cutting off the dowell, they were a bit fiddly to rout out after the fact and there is a little hand filing to take out scorch marks but worth it I think. I also narrowed the waist further, it was really too large.
Tomorrow the legs will be replaced with slightly longer ones to bring the centre up slightly at Koen + SDRs' suggestion and I will put in 8 arcs of timber (like a vintage car stearing wheel) that are held in between the legs with dowell pins for the umbrella ring, I've mocked it up and it doesn't look too bad, I tried steam bending lengths of dowell for the ring but the wood really really doesn't like it.