Hancock & Moore Chesterfield vs. Kent Chesterfield
I'm looking for a Chesterfield sofa for my den, and based on Duane's praise for the quality of Hancock & Moore's tufting, am considering both the Chesterfield and Kent Chesterfield (the Harper also looks nice, but I am trying to stick to the most "classic" Chesterfield silhouette). If anyone has any experience, I'd love to hear feedback on either of these models or the questions below.
1. What are the functional differences between these two models? The Kent appears to be a bit deeper, while the Chesterfield's arms seem to taper a bit more towards the front. The Kent also seems to be only one available in the 88" length (unless the Chesterfield 88" isn't listed on the H&M site). Is one more comfortable, better-looking, or more expensive than the other?
2. Are either of these styles good for TV watching? This would the primary use of mine, and since my prior sofas have been closer to 36" tall, I have no personal experience with such a low-backed style.
3. Both of these sofas have quite low listed seat heights (16-18"), but most ottomans I've looked at are substantially taller (18-20"). Are these simply not ordered to go with ottomans, or does H&M make a specific style for this pairing?
4. Both styles appear to be available with attached or loose cushions. Visually, I prefer the look of attached cushions, but I assume that the loose cushions are better for maintenance/foam replacement? Is there a difference in comfort and/or cost?
Thanks!
Re: Hancock & Moore Chesterfield vs. Kent Chesterfield
Differences in the Chesterfields are mostly what you can see on the photos. Sizes, depths, number of tufts, that sort of thing. All are shown on the website, there are none available that are not shown unless they would be custom. I have both the 9876-88 Kent Sofa and 6389-3 Churchill Sofa in my store if you are close to the Wash DC area to try them out. That model Kent is a bit more luxurious than some of the others and has a removable seat cushion so a bit more "cush" without giving up on the design of a tufted seat. I find them surprisingly comfortable to relax in as long as you are not looking for a napping sofa that you can lay your head back on, and they don't make the best sleeping sofa. I'd want to have a small ottoman to go with one for TV watching that you can put your feet up on, but not so large as to be an obstacle. One similar to this:
http://www.hancockandmoore.com/Produ...ore-Boot-Stool
The cushion models have more plushness, but never have the cool look of a tufted seat. As if someone put the loose cushions in as an afterthought - I much prefer the tufted seat variants and the - 88 Kent is the best of both worlds.
Re: Hancock & Moore Chesterfield vs. Kent Chesterfield
Quote:
Originally Posted by
apcc1
1. What are the functional differences between these two models? The Kent appears to be a bit deeper, while the Chesterfield's arms seem to taper a bit more towards the front. The Kent also seems to be only one available in the 88" length (unless the Chesterfield 88" isn't listed on the H&M site). Is one more comfortable, better-looking, or more expensive than the other?
I went for a Kent 88 attached cushion (#8876-88) with two Chesterfield chairs to complement (#8170). The chairs have more tufting and definitely feel firmer because of this and chairs are obviously narrower so that likely plays into it a bit as well. The arms, as you mentioned, do taper down in front compared to the Kent, but it's not noticeable to me. I considered the Chesterfield sofa in 87 inches (8173) over the Kent, but liked the look of the Kent with fewer buttons and felt it would be a little more cush than the Chesterfield for this reason. I also considered the Tavern sofa (83 inches wide) but felt it was not "Chesterfield" enough for what I wanted due to the arms dropping down in front. One other item to note is that it feels like the Chesterfield chair has a slightly different angle on the seat back, making the Kent more comfortable.
Pricing between the 87" Chesterfield and the Kent 88 was $400 when quoted, with the Kent having the premium on it. This was for L3 leather pricing tier.
I also bought an ottoman which I believe is a little too big for my space. I agree with Duane that the footstool he mentions would likely be a better choice.
The Kent with removable cushion was briefly considered by me, but it just didn't seem, again, "Chesterfield" enough and I could not see the point in the premium price for it either.
Chesterfields are not for everyone, but I am buying a loveseat for my library next because I just love the look and feel of the pieces I have now in my living room.
For what it's worth, my oldest daughter falls asleep on the Kent pretty quickly when she lays out on it. If it were me, I think the Kent would be my first choice over the regular Chesterfield for TV viewing.
Hope this helps!
