I have a round dining table in my dining room which is huge. It is 64" in diameter and I have 10 chairs. I also have a lazy susan. If I give a dinner party, 10 people is all I can handle. However, in the rare occasion that we have more than 10, I bring my dining table by the kitchen in (seats 6 or 8 snugly) and they all fit in my dining room.
Even when we have 6 people for dinner, I don’t feel the table is too big for conversations.
I buy 90" round table cloths.
I have round table in kitchen, which easily sits 4-5. There is a counter nearby, where I can put platters. This table is a pedestal, at least 100 years old. I replaced chairs with Pottery Barn ones.
Years later, I like my dining room table. It is narrower than most. The leaves are built in, so I can pull out one side, which adds two people, or both sides. The sidebar to that is quite pretty, with Carrera marble top.
I wouldn’t change a thing.
Grew up with a round table in the kitchen and one in the dining room. Don’t see the problem either with the shape or with an oval. My observation is that if you have a lot of food/plates/glasses, etc., you need more room no matter what shape the table is.
Our dining table is round and has leaves that make it a roomy oval for seating six with one leaf or eight with two, although we have squeezed 10 around the table using two leaves when the occasion called for it. Five can fit comfortably when it’s in its round configuration, but I usually have one leaf in just because it fills out the room better.
The 63" table was custom-made. We had the base made by a local furniture maker and the top is a slab of granite. I love the ease and indestructibility of granite (“you can take it for granite”). With a previous granite table, we bought a cheap table and just put a slab of granite on it–it looked fine, but this time we wanted something a bit more luxe. The base and legs of this table are cherry to match the cherry chairs we already had. Beautiful.
That sounds lovely, dmd!
This made me laugh. When I was a kid and we had a lot of company, my parents would take the plywood they used as a bedboard to support their old saggy mattress out and downstairs and put it on top of the smallish dining room table. Voila! Seating for many, shoulder to shoulder of course.
I really like the perfect sized round table. When the get bigger than a certain size, however, reaching the center of the table and talking across the table become issues. The answer, IMO is the oval for the times an extension is needed.
I have a nice sized dining room that is square, and a need to seat a large number of people for special occasions and my solutions was a Pottery Barn table that compresses into a square seating two at each side which means seating for 8. . Add an extension and you get two more for seating for 10 and the second extension makes the table able to seat 12. Having two at the head and foot of that table gives it that extra seating. Also gives just enough space in the middle of the table for placing the food for all to easily reach, and the table still is not too wide to eliminate conversation across the table, though length is stretching it, but not as much as a table seating that many without two at the head and two at the foot of the table since, there are only four seated at each side.
I grew up in a family of 9. We had a round table that seated everyone + a lazy susan in the middle. Don’t recall any difficulties conversing with anyone. We have a rectangular table and my SisIL has a round one made for 4-5 chairs but it does have leaves stored in that pop up and can seat 10+. It was perfect for her home and everyone could talk with everyone. She lived alone, so didn’t expand it too often.
We have a round table that we have had 10 sit very cozily but is for 6. I love them…I hate going to restaurants if we are more than 4 and get a rectangle which is most restaurants…the people at one end or the other always miss out on conversation. Round tables just make is so much easier to speak with everyone. I might go for a square table if I had to change but nothing else.
I have a Maitland-Smith round dining room table that was very expensive but I love and is heirloom quality. It’s unique in that it has separate leaves that can be added to make it a larger circle. As is, it fits 6 very comfortably and 7-8 a bit snugger. Very easy conversationally. With the leaves added, it is quite large and can easily fit 12 people. We have it set up as the smaller size but add leaves when we have a larger gathering at holidays. The only drawbacks are storage space for the chest of leaves (not an issue for us with a large, dry basement) and finding large enough tablecloths for the extended round size of the table. We get a lot of compliments due to the beauty and uniqueness of the table.
I have had both the square and round approach. Round seems more friendly and less pointy. I currently have a 100 year old round table with 2 leaves in at the current time. It seats 6 , and 8 if you try but the legs are in the way.
Saloom furniture in NE makes fantastic granite-top tables, both round and square (our kitchen table is from them). Also, places like Dania and Scandesign occasionally sell stone top dining tables (our beautiful blue-grey granite formal dining table is from Dania).
I could not find a photo of the table we have, but here is an example of what our table looks like (with a speckled granite top instead of wood):
If I were regularly seating 10, I would like to have a table that is designed to accommodate the full group without needing to put in a leaf and take it out again frequently. I also just like something smaller for two, perhaps a round table situated in a nook or counter stools for an island. What look would you like if you feel it’s a toss up on functionality?
deleted – duplicate post
It’s late and my post may not have been clear. I’m envisioning utilizing two spaces, one being more intimate or casual and seating two, the other intended for a group of 10.
OP here. We have our kitchen island, which has three bar stools and that’s where DH and I eat on a normal night. Then I have the DR, with my very old rectangular table with the broken leg and many, many leaves – I think there are either six or eight, each of them about 14 inches. The table is actually very functional because of the many many leaves – I can leave it small and it will work for four, or add all the leaves and it will work for 12. The issue for me is that the DR itself is more square than rectangular, so when the table has more than one or two leaves in it, it’s really tight in there.
Maybe I should just get the leg repaired and call it a day. That would certainly save me lots of money!!
I had a round table in my dining and didn’t love it, but my dining room in on the narrow side. If I had a larger dining room I would get a square table. I love those.
I have a boat shaped table now and I love it. With two leaves I can comfortably seat 12 but for everyday I don’t have any leaves in.
I have one of those round to round to round tables. Smallest size is 60" in diameter, which seats 4 or 5 very comfortably. Medium size is 72", which seats 6 to 8, depending on how elegant the serving set up is. The large size is 82" in diameter which seats an elegant 8, a comfortable 10, or a family 12. We belong to a wine and dine group and have hosted quite a few dinner parties. People have told me they love coming to my house, as the dinner conversation tends to include everyone at the table, so they get to mingle with all.
I would like to get a lazy susan, for those less formal dinners. You really can’t reach the center of any of the sizes. But I haven’t found one that would complement the bird’s eye maple wood. Has anyone found a nice 36" glass lazy susan?