Looks identical to the table my folks had in the late 70s/early 80s. My guess is ... not an antique.

I had one identical to it too, bought it new in 1987.

There are probably three of those on my Craig's List right now.

I think the seller should have called it "antique style".

Yeah-- that is what I was thinking. I would think it would be tiger oak and/or have a different patina if truly old. Too orange.

Around here, when something is listed on CL as *antique* it often means 20 - 50 years old!!! That term is tossed around a lot on CL, partly from ignorance and partly as a hook to get you to at least look at the item.

dlm, here, too. I see far too many '70s items listed as "antique."

Way too orange to be antique-worthy.

Look at the seam where the extension leaf fits. OOops. Might be 1985 but looks more 1995. Too not used looking.

The paws are a dead giveaway. They sort of nod to the style, but never get close to the actual definition of period (or even reproduction of period) paw-ishness.

L.

I would also expect older (100 years +) oak to have a much tighter grain. 100 years ago commercial tree farms with loads of fertilizer didn't really exist in the lumber industry like we have today.

The wood "looks" too new to look old, but I am no expert.

Very much an 80s table from the first round of "country" decor.

That one's better than most, because the feet are more 3-D carved, not flat.

I vote no, not an antique. I'm not sure it's even got a solid wood top. The graining around the edge doesn't' quite match the graining on top. I think. Hard to tell in a photo.

And the paw feet look like they are making a rude gesture...