After Rob’s last editorial about the September/October print issue’s cover project and its Mid-Century Modern style, we heard from readers who had opinions about that style – and its maker. – Editor
“While I didn’t care much about the little nightstand because of the painted face, I enjoyed learning something new about how to construct it. Chris Marshall’s video gave me some great pointers on how to construct with plywood projects like the nightstand. Keep up the good work.” – Ed Amsbury, Gainesville, FL
“Please tell you wife she has excellent taste. I fully agree with her: it is ugly. Unfortunately, some folks only have taste in their mouths, nothing personal. I won’t even consider making something like that. Better luck next time.” – Bob Hoyle
“As a biological product of the ‘40s I don’t like the nightstand at all. But as a craftsman, and having a strong attraction to anyone that knows their way around the wood chips I look at the piece differently. The design does nothing for me, but the craftsman that built the piece is AAAA+ plus in my book.” – Wayne Mailhiot
“Like you, I, too, am a biological product on the ‘50s. ‘56 to be exact. I am not repulsed by Mid-Century Modern but rather prefer Shaker. I think my lack of admiration of Mid-Century comes from the financial level that my siblings and I were raised, possibly somewhat envious of others that could afford furniture of the times. Somehow I find the Shaker style has a coming home appeal, not because we had Shaker style in our house but possibly because were raised simply and were made to appreciate what we had.
“I have sat and looked at the nightstand and do truly appreciate the craftsmanship that goes into making it and agree that it is truly a handsome piece of furniture.
“That is the reason I enjoy your magazine. You come up with projects for everybody and every taste.” – Laurence Pylinski
