The second example is a little work-table for a lady, upon the thinnest of thin legs, joined by X-stretchers, simply pierced, and rising in curves to support a central urn finial. There is one drawer in the table, upon which is a movable upper part of two tiers of drawers covering the back half of the table. This upper part has a tray top or border with a broken pediment filled up with an urn to carry out the design of the stretchers. If Shearer's name were affixed to this, there would be no doubt of his equality with Heppelwhite in designing a general shape. Unfortunately for him, Heppelwhite's name appears on the plate. The conclusion must be that the latter surpassed him in grace though not in workmanship and ingenuity of interior arrangement. It is quite possible that Shearer may have given the initial impetus in the direction of simplicity and lightness, which differentiates these two men's work so completely from that of Chippendale. Carving in relief practically does not appear on their furniture in this book. Heppelwhite's chairs are to be considered apart in this respect, together with his bedposts.

Smooth, polished curves and straight lines are both men's characteristic, accompanied by inlay, which Chippendale e'schewed, and by realistic painting, which he also never indulged in. For this reason, and for his carving, Chippendale must be put upon a higher plane of artistic achievement; but for unassuming utility and light gracefulness, combined with resourcefulness of interior work, Thomas Shearer holds a worthy place, though Heppelwhite surpassed him. What the former would have done if his volume had not been a price-book must remain an open question. The simplicity of his designs, or rather the absence of decoration, was no doubt dictated by the necessity of being typical.