Every project eventually comes back to the table. Not because clients prioritise it — most don’t, at least not at the start — but because the table is where the room’s contradictions become visible.

It has to be large enough to seat ten and still feel right for two. It has to feel substantial without making the room feel heavy. It has to hold candles, wine glasses, flowers, and laptops without feeling provisional.

It is, by most measures, an impossible object.

We have been thinking about dining tables more deliberately than usual. Partly because of a modular dining set we have been developing for the past several months — and partly because we keep finding ourselves drawn back to the same question: what makes one table feel inevitable and another merely competent?

The difference is rarely what people assume.

THE TOP

Start with the surface. This is where most people make their first mistake, choosing material before dimension. The two decisions cannot be separated. A 3cm travertine top behaves differently at 90cm wide than at 120cm. Stone at that thickness needs mass beneath it to read correctly — not to support the weight, but because a thick top on a light base looks nervous. The material implies a logic. You have to follow it.

Timber is the opposite problem. A 4cm solid oak top has warmth that can tip into heaviness depending on what the base does. The grain becomes directional — you start feeling the length of the board rather than the breadth of the table. This is not inherently wrong, but it is a decision, and we have seen too many projects where it was not made consciously.

We tend to specify surfaces at the thicker end — 3.5 to 4cm for stone, 4cm for solid timber — not because we favour bulk but because there is an honesty to material at full depth. A veneer knows it is a veneer. There is a reason the edge is usually the first thing a person runs their hand along when they sit down.

THE BASE

The base is doing the most structural work and, if it is doing its job properly, the least visual work. This is a difficult thing to brief. Clients want the base to be interesting. Fabricators want to build something that presents well in the workshop. The room wants something that disappears when the chairs are pushed in and the table is in use.

What we find works: bases that respond to the top rather than compete with it. A trestle in blackened steel under a travertine top reads as two different temperatures — warm stone, cold metal — and the contrast does the work that ornament might otherwise try to do. A turned timber leg under a timber top collapses those temperatures into one material register, which requires the form of the leg to carry the differentiation alone. The tolerances are tighter. There is less room for imprecision.

Bases that try to be sculptural — that introduce a shape intended to be seen from across the room — almost always lose when chairs arrive. The chair is the table’s context. You cannot design the object without designing the relationship.

THE PROPORTION

The question we are asked most is about dimensions. How wide should it be? How high? The standard 75cm table height was set for a body shape and a chair height that no longer dominate contemporary production. We typically specify 73cm, occasionally 72cm, depending on the chair. This sounds minor. It is not minor. At 75cm, most people sit slightly too low relative to the surface. The table looms. At 73cm, the body settles.

Width is where more goes wrong. The received wisdom is 90cm minimum for a formal dining table. We think this is a floor, not a target. At 90cm, two people can sit opposite one another and make conversation without raising their voices, but the objects between them — the plates, the glasses, the flowers — are crowded. At 100cm, there is a middle zone. The table begins to have a centre. That centre becomes somewhere for light to land.

WHAT THE TABLE HOLDS

There is a version of this conversation that stays technical — dimensions, materials, joinery — and there is a version that asks what a dining table is for. We think the latter is more useful.

The dining table used to anchor domestic time. Meals were the structure. The table was where the day cohered. That function has changed and splintered — breakfast at a counter, lunch at a desk, dinner on the sofa. What a formal dining table holds now is not daily life but curated time. The occasions where people decide, in advance, that gathering matters. The table has become an argument for that kind of intentionality.

This is why the object needs to feel serious. Not heavy or formal — serious in the sense of being made with an understanding of what it is being asked to carry. A table that was designed quickly, specified cheaply, or specified before anyone asked what it would need to hold will communicate exactly that. Guests feel it without being able to name it. The room slackens.

The tables we are drawn to have all been made by someone who understood this. Not always expensive, not always by a known maker. But always an object where a decision was made about every dimension, every joint, every edge profile. Nothing arrived by default.

In Mediterranean culture, this was never in question. The table did not need to be justified. It was the room. Everything else arranged itself around it. The kitchen fed it. The light fell on it. The afternoon was measured by how long people stayed after the meal had finished.

A generational shift is reshaping the collector’s market. Younger collectors, many in their twenties and thirties (including us), are entering the field with different values and buying patterns than their predecessors. This isn’t just about taste shifting. It’s about who decides what matters, and how.

Subscribe now

Across our conversations at Collect, we’ve noticed galleries are moving away from purely market-driven presentations. They’re curating differently now. Rather than chasing the biggest names at the highest prices, booths are setting stages for

Conversation, context and access.

What struck us most: galleries offering work at accessible price points, starting at £400, allowing young collectors to enter and build methodically. Not as spectators. As participants.

This week, we’re uncovering what young collectors are actually acquiring, where they’re shopping, at what price points, and why this moment is reshaping the entire ecosystem.

Read more

Not because it’s productive.
But because it tells you the truth.

Making has a way of clarifying things.

Not in theory, not on paper, but in the moment something has to exist, hold, and stay.

We were reminded of this while working on a collaboration with N9CRA.

We were making hand-made displays for silver pieces. Nothing complex. Nothing loud. Just forms meant to support, not compete.

On paper, it all felt resolved.
Simple geometries. Neutral surfaces. Everything behaved.

Then we started making them.

Once the objects existed, the questions shifted.
How the jewellery rested.
How it caught the light.
How much weight the display needed, and how much it didn’t.

What looked right in drawings only made sense once it was in the hand.

That’s usually the moment to pay attention.

Because you don’t really understand an idea until you try to make it
when it resists, when it pushes back, when it starts telling you what it wants to be.

Inside our studio, that’s where the work really begins.
It’s where ideas stop performing and start telling the truth.

Subscribe now

THICKNESS VS WEIGHT

Thickness is measurable.
Weight is felt.

You can draw thickness. You can specify it. You can justify it on paper.

But weight only reveals itself when something is made.

That difference shapes how we work.

In the studio, weight becomes a filter.
It decides what survives and what doesn’t.

Ideas that feel convincing on screen often dissolve the moment they’re built.
Edges soften. Proportions shift. What felt resolved becomes uncertain.
Making forces the conversation to move from appearance to consequence.

This is why we return to physical studies early.
Not to test aesthetics, but to test conviction.

Weight tells us when something has presence: when it no longer needs explanation.
and can stand quietly without being defended.

It affects how we choose materials,
size details and remove rather than add.

If something relies on thickness to feel important, it doesn’t last.
However, if it carries weight, it holds.

That distinction influences every decision we make: from structure to finish.
We’re less interested in how much something occupies space, and more in how it inhabits it.

In practice, this means fewer gestures and stronger decisions.
Less visual noise.
More clarity.

Weight teaches restraint.
And restraint, in our studio, is what gives work its authority.

SPEED VS QUALITY

Speed feels good at first.
It gives the illusion of control.

You move quickly. You decide quickly. Things come together fast.
On paper, everything aligns.

But the moment something is made, speed shows its limits.

Edges feel rushed.
Proportions feel unresolved.
Details ask questions you didn’t want to answer yet.

In the studio, we’ve learned that quality announces itself differently.
It doesn’t arrive all at once.
It appears slowly, through repetition, hesitation, correction.

Quality shows up when something is adjusted instead of accepted.
When a detail is remade.
When a decision is delayed because it hasn’t earned its place yet.

Share Alame Pedrosa

Speed wants closure.
While quality wants accuracy.

This is another aspect that affects how we work every day.
We allow things to stay open longer than is comfortable.
To revisit models.
To remake pieces that were “good enough”.

Maybe it’s Mediterranean instinct, but we’ve learned that rushing always leaves traces.

Quality isn’t slower by choice.
It’s slower because it’s precise.

And precision takes time.

FINISH VS PATINA

In the studio, this distinction guides many of our decisions.

Some materials are designed to stay the same.
They resist marks. They reject wear.
They ask to be preserved.

Others are different.
They soften.
They deepen.
They record use instead of hiding it.

Patina isn’t damage.
It’s evidence.

It shows where hands rested.
Where light passed repeatedly.
Where time was allowed to leave a trace.

This is why we’re drawn to materials that don’t fear change — timber, fibre, clay, paper.
They don’t insist on perfection.
They allow life to participate.

Designing for patina means accepting that the work won’t look the same forever.
And that’s not a loss.

It’s a form of trust.

Making reveals whether a material can age with grace.
Whether it improves through contact or collapses under it.

In the studio, we choose patina over finish because it keeps the work alive.
It allows the object or space to continue its story beyond us.

And that, ultimately, is where making becomes powerful.

Over time, making teaches you what to listen for.

Not what looks finished, but what feels right in the hand.
Not what comes together quickly, but what holds up after a second look.
Not what stays perfect, but what becomes better through use.

Inside our studio, these cues guide us quietly.
They shape how we choose materials, how long we sit with a decision, how much we’re willing to remove.

The power of making isn’t in control or certainty.
It’s in trust — in letting materials, time, and use do some of the work with you.

When something carries weight, earns its precision, and accepts change, it no longer asks for attention.

It simply stays.

Design trends come and go, but certain rooms, objects, and spatial instincts refuse to disappear.

Share

From Granada to Casablanca, from mid-century interiors to Japanese refinement, Decoding Decades explores why old architecture and craftsmanship continue to return not as nostalgia, but as design logic.

Today, we’re sharing a reflection on atmosphere, proportion, and the quiet intelligence that survives time.

Some spaces feel older than their walls.
Not aged — informed.

They carry a composure that doesn’t belong to a decade or a movement, but to repetition.
To gestures practiced long enough to lose urgency and gain clarity.

These rooms don’t announce themselves or explain their references.
They offer atmosphere first, trusting that attention will eventually arrive.

What we call old is often just patient.
What we call new is often just unfinished.

HOW ROOMS BEHAVE

You feel the difference immediately, at a sensory level.

• Light doesn’t bounce aggressively.
  It settles.

• Plaster absorbs shadow instead of denying it.

• Wood keeps its grain — uneven, materially honest.

There is temperature in these spaces:
cool where stone meets skin,
warmer where air has learned to linger.

Edges are softened not by design intent, but by use.
Corners don’t sharpen the eye.
They rest it.

The room doesn’t perform.
It behaves.

STRUCTURE REMEMBERS

This is where old architecture quietly outpaces contemporary spectacle.

It understood behaviour before it considered appearance.
Walls were thick because climate demanded it.
Courtyards existed to choreograph air, not views.
Thresholds mattered because movement mattered.

Share

These weren’t stylistic choices.
They were structural agreements between body, material, and place.

When these logics resurface today, it isn’t nostalgia.
It’s alignment being recognised again.

Design doesn’t disappear with time.
It waits.

CRAFT AS INFRASTRUCTURE

Craftsmanship sits at the centre of this continuity.

In places like Granada and Casablanca, craft was never an added layer or a decorative flourish.
It was infrastructure.

Stonecutters, tile makers, woodworkers operated not as artists, but as carriers of rhythm. Their work was shaped by repetition, discipline, and correction, a long process of editing where what didn’t resolve behaviour simply fell away.

Zellige was never about pattern alone.
It regulated light, cooled interiors, and introduced cadence into walls that would otherwise flatten atmosphere.

Carved plaster didn’t exist to impress.
It taught shadow how to move.

Craft in these cultures wasn’t expressive in the contemporary sense.
It was precise.
Quiet.
Demanding.

What endured was not the motif.
It was the logic beneath it.

This is why craftsmanship keeps returning.
It knows how to survive use.

OBJECTS THAT STAY

The same intelligence governs the interiors we trust.

Certain objects refuse to leave the room not because they are iconic, but because they remain accurate.

Eames chairs persist because they understand posture, weight, and pause.
Le Corbusier’s seating continues to reappear because it negotiates structure honestly — frame, skin, gravity held in agreement.

These pieces don’t dominate a space.
They stabilise it.

They leave room for air.
They respect negative space.

Good interiors aren’t collections of statements.
They are alignments.

Taste doesn’t emerge from what you add.
It gathers in what you allow to remain.

RETURN WITHOUT NOSTALGIA

Across cultures, what returns is rarely image.
It is behaviour.

In southern Spain and North Africa, architecture evolved around heat, privacy, and patience.

• Light was filtered rather than displayed.

• Movement unfolded through layers and transitions.

• Silence was treated as a spatial quality.

These environments weren’t designed to impress quickly.
They were designed to be lived in slowly.

That intelligence reads as contemporary now because it never depended on novelty.

REFINEMENT AS PROGRESS

Japan offers a parallel clarity.

There, design doesn’t move forward by replacement, but by refinement.
Ancient joinery informs modern detailing.
Tatami proportions quietly structure contemporary plans.

Imperfection isn’t erased.
It’s calibrated.

Design becomes a long conversation rather than a declaration.

The object never outweighs the atmosphere.
The gesture never outshouts the structure.

This is not restraint as aesthetic.
It is restraint as discipline.

Share

EDITING WHAT COMES NEXT

Strong design cultures don’t chase newness.
They cultivate continuity.

They understand seasonality
when to cut,
when to layer,
when to leave space untouched.

They treat space the way fashion treats tailoring:
construction first,
drape second,
editing always.

What survives decades is not what once impressed.
It’s what continues to behave well.

In the studio, this changes how we work.

We begin by looking longer.
Recognising patterns instead of references.
Extracting proportion instead of copying form.

Sketching becomes less about invention
and more about translation.

Taste reveals itself slowly.
As memory, not aspiration.

Designing the future is not predicting it.
It’s refining what already knows how to work.