Cottage Talk: Save or Splurge on Dining Room Lighting?

As I mentioned last week, I’m planning a modern chandelier over my new/old traditional wood dining table.   (Haven’t shared the table picture yet, sorry!)  I’ve really been into geometric shaped lighting recently- hexagons, octagons, anything structural and angular to contrast a traditional setting.  I was planning to splurge on Arteriors’ Edmund brass and glass pendant.  Then I noticed last night Restoration Hardware has a cute polyhedron pendant on sale for $199 (or about 3 times less the other version.)  A little spray paint or gold buff ‘n rub and this chandy could be the perfect cherry on top of my dining room.



Now this version is no doubt NOT as nice in quality as Arteriors version- there is no glass between the triangles and the frame is wood instead of metal.  Pls I love how the Edmund is delicate and sophisticated.  Melissa shared the Edmund pendant last week on instagram.  She used it in one of her gorgeous projects.




On the plus side, RH’s version is larger at 24” diameter, while the Edmund pendant is only 16” diameter.  My table is 42”, so I could certainly go a little bit larger if I wanted, but I don’t need to.



Or the 18″ steel version… with my trade discount it’s almost as cheap as the wood version.



What do you think… real deal, or save some dough?  

  1. I vote to save. I really like the RH version and I think bigger will be better. A little DIY and you’ll be perfectly happy with it. You have a whole house still to spend money on, save it! It’s going to look amazing!

  2. Personally I like the cheaper one better. They are both nice but I vote to save!

  3. gurrl i feel ya on this one. i cant quite shake how flattering the lines are on the arteriors one. i just had a brass RL polyhedron I sold on my site for $100 – that woulda been PERFECT (not place to put it here). I also really like that Turin pendant at Ballard – for the price, its insane! but maybe not quite what you were looking for.

  4. Definitely save!! Especially since the cheaper one is bigger.

  5. Anonymous

    Go cheaper. It’s good looking. I like the larger scale, too. You have plenty of other stuff to spend your money on. Also, glass gets dusty. argghh

  6. @Bethany- the Turin is similar, but something about it is off to me.

  7. I actually like the RH version more….even if it wasn’t cheaper…the shape is beautiful….and I’m sure you could do the gold or any kind of transformation perfectly.

  8. No one thinks about functionality anymore. Normally, the inexpensive Restoration Hardware version only emits a certain amount of wattage so although you like the style, usability comes into question with the amount of light that is actually emitted.

    Be sure to compare the two. I once purchased a RH task light, but the wattage was so ridiculously low, it served no purpose other than me staring at it. I quickly returned it. Therefore, my opinion would be to tell you to splurge! You get what you pay for.

  9. Meghan

    My vote is to save, because I like it better anyway :) also the dust factor thing on the glass…that would drive me crazy! I second the above commenter though–wattage may be the deciding factor!

  10. you could make either one a star. interesting point above about functionality…definitely something to think about!

    if you aren’t too antsy, my method is always to hold out until an affordable option presents itself via thrift/craigers/ebay. of course, that’s coming from someone that hasn’t gotten shit done in almost a year so it might make you crazy.

  11. Hannah

    Definitely save. I agree with everyone that the RH version is better. Even in the thumbnail before I came to the post, I knew I liked that one better, whether it was more expensive or not.

    Champagne Lifestyle on a Beer Budget

  12. Ashley

    I was just about to chime in and mention the potential dustiness of the glass on Arteriors light, but I see someone else has already thought of that!

  13. I actually really like the bigger RH one better! I think that will be gorgeous over your table!!

  14. I guess I’m among the dissenters here, but I say splurge. If lighting is like the jewelry of a home, and this one is going to feature front and center of your entire first floor, I say, get the one that sparkles, and is the most beautiful. It’s going to be hard to miss, and if you aren’t really on board with the RH one, you might end up wishing you’d gone for it. You’re saving in so many other places, and when the time comes to move on, you can take it with you. It’s an investment, and one that you’ll likely love for longer than the RH one. (Plus, I’m biased, and prefer the Arteriors one, like, a lot.) Either way, trust your gut! Good luck!

  15. Hey guys, thanks for all the comments! FYI wattage is 60 for RH and 100 for splurge.

    My last dining chandy was only 1 bulb (either 60 or 75) and it didn’t bother me. I don’t read there at night.

  16. I’m going to have to say splurge (although I do LOVE a good deal). The Arteriors one is just a little more “special” looking (and they will BOTH be dusty, the glass will just be easier to dust!). I guess I just like the shape more and it feels a little more feminine and doesn’t require any extra work like painting…. And really, the price still isn’t bad, even if it is MORE.

  17. I just plain like the RH version better, price difference or no. And bigger to me is ALWAYS better.

    That being said, if the metal version of the RH one were the same size I might be swayed to diy that one over the wood . . .

  18. Just followed the link and realized there IS a 25 inch version of the metal one. That would be my vote. So I guess a “middle of the road” choice :)

  19. By first instinct was that I like the RH one better. But the picture of the Arteriors one lit up is pretty flattering as well. Still though, it doesn’t say “600 dollar fixture” to me. I think Imma vote save.

  20. I actually love the wood one, as is. The fact that it is cheaper is gravy. I think if you looooooove the arteriors one, you should splurge, but if you are conflicted, save the dough!

  21. Hey girl – I put the huge wood RH one in my sister’s upstairs room and it is adorable – everyone loves it! go for the savings…
    xoxo -e (modern24seven)

  22. E- thanks for the feedback! Nice to hear from someone who has used it.

  23. Tara

    SO I was totally ready to say “get the RH one; cheaper and chic anyway!” but once I saw the actual, not catalog/company photo, I think you need to do the fancy schmancy one. You are a single woman, and you should embrace the opportunity you have to have a giant diamond hanging over your table. My hubby would never go for it (even though he’s letting me paint our walls coral! eeee!). I say splurge on the diamond! They are a girl’s best friend!

  24. RH all the way. Loving either the wood, DIY gilded route or steel version. I’d love to see that baby in gold…

  25. The feel of each fixture is quite different. One is delicate and sophisticated; the other is bold and either almost-rustic (wood) or almost-industrial (steel). I think it depends on the atmosphere you’re wanting to create and the contrast or complement you wish to achieve given other pieces in the room. Can’t wait to see whichever you choose in the room!

  26. Erin

    I agree with Christine, and I think it depends on your table. That said, I really like them both but the scale of the RH one is a bonus.

  27. in agreement with everyone. like the RH one better b/c it’s bigger and the dust on the glass will drive you crazy!

  28. Save!
    RH….
    Fabulous!

    xoxo
    Karena
    Art*by*Karena

  29. LindsB

    Such a hard choice! If I didnt look at the price I’d say go with the splurge version- but then again I like the shape of the other one as well. Clearly, I’m no help!

  30. The Now

    I happen to love the cheaper one… That never happens to me!! I’d say save on the fixture. The wood is really cool!

Leave a Comment

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>