Design Opinion:

[George Guadiane]

I am getting ready to make a final decision on this piece.
The tenon is such that I could modify it a bit and use it as a pedistal/fool, but I'm not sure I like it with a foot.
Since you guys convinced me to PROPERLY finish another piece, I thought I might get your opinion on this one too, with the understanding that I might ignore you on this one.

I'm kinda fascinated with the 60s pop art look and was going for a quasi lava lamp look without the base... WITH the base, it's almost a dead ringer, but I'm still not convinced I like it.

[David DeCristoforo]

If you want to say "lava lamp", you gotta go with the foot. It's a very "retro" form either way...

[Dennis Ford]

I like it better without the base.

[Paul Williams]

Without the base it just doesn't say lava lite, but I like it better without the base.

[John Keeton]

George, without regard to the objective of "lava lamp" you still need the foot IMO. The curve you have on the bottom is too steep (cuts in too quick) for the form without the foot - again, IMO. The foot lifts the form and gives it height.

And, it looks more like a "lava lamp" that way!!!:D

[Steve Schlumpf]

George - sure is some pretty wood! If you are going for the lava lamp look, IMO - the version with the foot nails it!

[David E Keller]

I usually don't like feet on pieces, but I think it's a necessity on this one. The form would really benefit from the lift of a foot. Looking forward to seeing what you decide.

[Harvey Ghesser]

I'd have it on a pedestal....of some other contrasting wood.

[Allen Neighbors]

You go, George! Do it your way!
but in my opinion, to be a lava lamp it's gotta have a foot. :D

[Bernie Weishapl]

If a lamp needs a base. I would use a contrasting wood.

[alex carey]

no base....

[Frank Van Atta]

It needs a small foot to get it up off the surface, but the pedestal you show is too large. I'd go with something in about the 1/2" height range.

[Joe Mioux]

The foot makes the top appear lighter.

Stay with the foot, but refine it a bit. I like the larger base, but the stem needs to be smoothed, made more curvy.

my .2 cents. joe

[Cathy Schaewe]

I secondthe suggestions. I think it looks too heavy without the foot. Mind you, I'd be proud of it if I'd turned it, with or without the foot.

[Prashun Patel]

Feels better with a foot to me. But yr current foot feels a little heavy to me. Any way to lighten it? Narrower at the tenon with a more pronounced stem?

[Dennis Puskar]

With the foot definitely.

[Mark Burge]

I agree with Frank, it needs a foot, but I would go with a very short foot to lift it up and make if look like its floating. That's retro too.

[James Combs]

I agree with keeping the foot and I think the one is has is perfect.

[George Guadiane]

Well, I'm going to make some of you unhappy, the feelings are strong and about equal, but mostly with a foot of some kind. I'm not going to do a contrasting foot (don't know why) and my personal first choice was to take it off (SWMBO agrees with that) but I hear the call for the foot and I wouldn't have brought it up if I didn't want input. I'm still thinking :confused:

[David E Keller]

Another thought, George. Why not turn a small ring foot of your liking? You could then display the piece with or without a foot.

[Roland Martin]

I tend to prefer it with a foot, but with a more slender and lighter profile. Very good looking piece of wood.