Shaker vs Mission style

[Mark J Bachler]

I have to do a mission style kitchen & was wondering the difference between these two styles.

[Cody Colston]

IMHO, Shaker is a much more delicate look than Mission. While Shaker furniture is plain, it is also somewhat refined in it's appearance while Mission style is more massive with square legs, square table edges, etc.

Mission also accentuates the joinery (a result of the Arts & Crafts movement) while Shaker does not.

[Chris Friesen]

Originally Posted by Cody Colston

IMHO, Shaker is a much more delicate look than Mission. While Shaker furniture is plain, it is also somewhat refined in it's appearance while Mission style is more massive with square legs, square table edges, etc.

Mission also accentuates the joinery (a result of the Arts & Crafts movement) while Shaker does not.

I'd tend to agree.

Shaker often has bevelled undesides for tabletops to "lighten" the look, and legs are often fairly thin and tapered. Their members were expected to take care of the furniture and not abuse it.

As for the joinery, while it may not be quite as blatent as A&C (ebony plugs, rosewood pegs, protruding through tenons, etc.) there are still lots of pegged or wedged tenons, exposed dovetails, sliding dovetails, and other exposed joinery in Shaker furniture.

[glenn bradley]

Examples of Mission:

mission end table.jpg

And Shaker:

shaker end table.jpg

There are of course many variations but these two examples are pretty distinct.

[Mitchell Andrus]

My mission style kitchen:

http://www.crown-point.com/styles/ac...ndCrafts1.html

I know... I make cabinets but I just couldn't take a few month off to make my own. They have other examples of mission and some shaker styles also on their site. You might take a look for inspiration.
.

[Don Dorn]

That's a beautiful kitchen - you say Mission, but I see Shaker in it too. It's personal preference but I prefer Shaker. I like the simplicity but yet lightness. In my opinion, it never goes out of style and can certianly be used heavily. Shakers didn't belive in flash and adornment was fairly rare. They even covered up movements of clocks. Above all else, they felt that beauty lied in functionality, but some did stretch their legs and show their "stuff" on many pieces.

[David DeCristoforo]

I would like to add that there is a distinct difference between "mission style" and Arts and Crafts style. Both are based on simple, unadorned features. But mission style tends to be much more rustic than A&C. There is generally more "bulk" to things like table legs and edges. Surfaces are often "distressed" to have a hand hewn appearance. Edges are "broken" to a much greater degree than is typical of A&C style work. And wood is generally stained much darker. A&C style focuses more on using the grain as a decorative element. The wood is colored but in a way that allows the grain to show prominently. Mission style pieces are often colored to the point where the grain is almost obscured.

[Joe Leigh]

The biggest difference to me is the variety of woods used. When I think "Mission" I think of quartersawn white oak. Shaker brings to mind woods like cherry and maple used with simple natural finishes. Nothing ornate, just well built and functional.

[Mac McQuinn]

Let's not forget Greene & Greene, a bit of a spin-off of Craftsman, Mission, Arts & Crafts & McIntosh styles with heavy Asian influences. My personal favorite.

Mac

[John Harden]

Originally Posted by Mac McQuinn

Let's not forget Greene & Greene, a bit of a spin-off of Craftsman, Mission, Arts & Crafts & McIntosh styles with heavy Asian influences. My personal favorite.

Mac

IMHO, Greene & Greene is the epitomy of the A&C/Bungalow movement. I just love the stuff.

My dining room table is a hybrid with a Robison house expanding base and a Gamble house top. Base is done, top is not. The seating will be Blacker house chairs. Made one, need eleven more.

I made a Cal King version of the Gamble house master bedroom bed, omitting the solid panel in the center as I preferred the look of the slats.

Perhaps one of the best parts about G&G is using mahogany, which is a joy to work.

Regards,

John

[Pat Germain]

I think it's important to remember that Shaker wasn't just a style. It was quite literally a way of life. The Shakers were a religious sect who emphasized functionality, simplicity and plain appearance. (Similar to the Amish.) "Do your work as though you had a thousand years to live and as if you were to die tomorrow."

Thus, Mission furniture might feature heavy iron hinges and metal knobs. Not so for a true Shaker piece which would feature small hinges and wooden knobs.

I'm certainly no expert. And opinions about what is Mission and what is Shaker are infinite.

IMO, a Shaker kitchen might feature something like natural maple (or a similar wood) cabinets with flat panels and wooden pulls. The kitchen would have free standing pieces, like a hutch, spice cupboard and a buffet; also in natural maple with wooden pulls.

A Mission kitchen might feature darker woods, possibly fumed, and have many built-ins. Again, the hinges and pulls would be something like hammered iron.

But again, the opinions are infinite.

[David DeCristoforo]

"a Shaker kitchen might feature something like natural maple (or a similar wood)..."

This is the one area in which the Shakers allowed themselves a bit of slack. While their religious beliefs obligated them to forgo "embellishments", the beautiful figure of wood was considered to be the work of the hand of god, not of man. Therefore it is not uncommon to see highly figured cherry, maple, etc. in the otherwise austere Shaker pieces.