Smith Brothers of Berne dates back to 1926 and still builds made-to-order upholstery in the U.S. Their sofas lean on sturdy hardwood frames, a drop-in steel spring unit, and long-wearing seat components designed to hold their shape.
For this sofa review, I lived with four common styles—243, 248, 253 Large Sofa, and 374—and ran them through the same routine: evening streaming, laptop work blocks, quick “in-and-out” sitting for shoes and chores, and a few short naps. Across the board, the shared strength was stability and cushion recovery. The real differences showed up in seat depth and the kind of posture each sofa naturally encourages.
Table of Contents
Product Overview
Below is the quick snapshot of how each style scored, plus who it felt most suited for in day-to-day use.
| Sofa | Overall Score | Pros | Cons | Ideal For |
| 243 Sofa | 4.3 | Structured sit and strong back angle; tailored presence | Less sprawl-friendly; warmth depends on upholstery choice | Upright TV, laptop sessions, traditional/transitional rooms |
| 248 Sofa | 4.4 | Easygoing balance; simple to place; smooth posture changes | Not a deep lounge; in fabric, spills show quickly | Everyday living rooms, mixed work/TV use, mid-size spaces |
| 253 Large Sofa | 4.2 | Deep lounge comfort; roomy seat deck; relaxed movie-and-nap feel | Deep seat can pull posture forward; larger footprint | Taller loungers, sprawling sitters, family movie nights |
| 374 Sofa | 4.3 | Compact width; flexible placement; well-rounded comfort | Less of a “statement” look than 243; not as lounge-deep as 253 | Apartments, guest spaces, multipurpose rooms |
Testing Team Takeaways
Seat depth was the divider. The 253’s 25" seat depth pushed us toward lounging, while the 21" seat depth on 243, 248, and 374 stayed more upright-friendly.
Marcus consistently noticed the front-edge support during quick perching and stand-ups. Carlos favored the 243 for steady laptop posture and the 248 for long “sit, shift, repeat” sessions. Mia liked the 374 for curling up with a book and called the 253 the coziest for side-lying—while also being the hardest of the four to sit fully upright on for long stretches.
How the Four Styles Compare
| Model | Overall dimensions (W x D x H) | Seat depth | Seat height | Arm height | Back style | Upholstery options | Perceived seat feel | Back support feel | Cooling / breathability | Cleaning effort | Best room fit |
| 243 Sofa | 91" x 38" x 33" | 21" | 20" | 33" | Pullover button-tufted inside back | Fabric and leather | Medium-firm; keeps you upright | Most supportive for upright sitting | Neutral to warm (depends on upholstery) | Easiest in leather; moderate in fabric | Medium-to-large living rooms |
| 248 Sofa | 86" x 36" x 36" | 21" | 21" | 25" | Pullover inside back | Fabric and leather | Medium; settles faster than 243 | Balanced; pillow-adjustable | Often cooler in textured fabrics | Moderate; varies by weave | Small-to-mid living rooms |
| 253 Large Sofa | 99" x 44" x 38" | 25" | 21" | 26" | Semi-attached inside back | Fabric and leather | Plush, lounge-forward feel | Best when reclined | Neutral; can warm on long sits | Moderate; more cushion surface area | Larger rooms, open layouts |
| 374 Sofa | 80" x 38" x 38" | 21" | 20" | 26" | Pullover inside back | Fabric and leather | Medium; easy in-and-out | Good, but less structured than 243 | Generally breathable in fabric | Moderate; straightforward upkeep | Compact rooms, flexible placement |
How We Tested It
I rotated each sofa through the same daily patterns: evening streaming, laptop work blocks, short naps, and quick sitting for shoes and chores.
I scored assembly and setup, cooling and breathability, comfort and ergonomics, durability, size and layout practicality, fabric and cleaning, and value and warranty (see how we test sofas), then broke comfort into seat comfort, back support, and seat-depth fit so the numbers matched what we felt hour by hour. We repeated the same routines for two weeks, tracked cushion feel changes, and compared how quickly each seat returned to shape after heavier use (full testing notes live in our sofa resource hub).
Smith Brothers Sofa: Our Testing Experience
243 Sofa
Our Testing Experience
The 243 was the one I reached for after a long desk day. The seat stayed structured enough to prevent that slow slide into a slouch, and the higher arms gave me a solid brace when shifting positions. Marcus liked the firm front edge for quick perching, and Carlos said it was the easiest of the four for keeping an upright laptop posture.
What we liked
- Stable, posture-friendly sit that stays consistent over time
- Supportive front edge for quick perching
- Tailored look that doesn’t read bulky in profile
Who it is best for
- People who sit upright to watch TV or work on a laptop
- Households that want a “structured comfort” feel
- Rooms that lean traditional or transitional
Where it falls short
- Less ideal for sprawling, cross-legged lounging
- Can feel warm in smoother upholstery during long sessions
- High arms can limit side-lying comfort
Pros & Cons
| Pros | Cons |
| Supportive posture; strong edge feel; tailored presence | Less sprawl-friendly; warmth depends on upholstery; high arms can feel confining |
Details
- Overall dimensions (W x D x H): 91" x 38" x 33"
- Seat depth: 21"
- Seat height: 20"
- Arm height: 33"
- Inside width: 78"
- Motion type: Stationary
- Upholstery options: Fabric and leather
- Style category: Transitional
- Back style: Pullover button-tufted inside back
- Seat support: Drop-in steel spring unit
- Front edge design: Spring edge
- Seat foam: Qualux Ultra seat foam
- Cushion wrap: Individually wrapped seat cushions
Review Score
| Metric | Score | Remarks |
| Overall | 4.3 | Most posture-supportive; excellent day-to-day consistency |
| Assembly | 4.6 | Low setup friction and straightforward placement |
| Cooling / Breathability | 4.0 | Neutral overall; smoother upholstery can feel warmer on long sits |
| Seat Comfort | 4.3 | Comfortable without feeling sinky |
| Back Support | 4.5 | Best for maintaining a stable, upright posture |
| Seat Depth Fit | 4.2 | 21" depth hit a broadly usable everyday zone |
| Ease of Movement / Repositioning | 4.2 | Easy to shift without feeling stuck |
| Durability | 4.6 | Support system and foam feel built to hold shape |
| Cleaning | 4.4 | Routine care stayed simple with regular upkeep |
| Layout Practicality | 4.1 | 91" width needs reasonable wall space |
| Value | 4.0 | Strong build feel if you prioritize structure over sink-in softness |
248 Sofa
Our Testing Experience
The 248 felt like the easiest “default” choice for a normal living-room rhythm. I could start upright with a laptop, then relax without fighting the cushions back into place. The seat height made stand-ups feel clean, and the slightly lower arms read more casual than the 243. Marcus liked the supportive front edge, Carlos appreciated that the back didn’t push his head forward when he reclined, and Mia said it was easy to settle into without feeling swallowed.
What we liked
- Balanced feel that works for both upright and relaxed sitting
- Easy in-and-out movement compared with deeper lounge styles
- Room-friendly footprint without feeling cramped
Who it is best for
- Mixed-use households (work, TV, casual hosting)
- People who want comfort without a dramatic posture shift
- Rooms where both width and depth are tight constraints
Where it falls short
- Not the deepest seat for full-body sprawl
- In fabric, it rewards quicker spill cleanup
- Back support varies more based on how you position the back cushion
Pros & Cons
| Pros | Cons |
| Best overall balance; easy posture changes; space-efficient dimensions | Not a deep lounge; spills show faster on many fabrics; back support varies by pillow use |
Details
- Overall dimensions (W x D x H): 86" x 36" x 36"
- Seat depth: 21"
- Seat height: 21"
- Arm height: 25"
- Inside width: 77"
- Back style: Pullover inside back
- Legs: Built-in tapered legs
- Upholstery options: Fabric and leather
- Seat support: Drop-in steel spring unit
- Front edge design: Spring edge
- Seat foam: Qualux Ultra seat foam
- Cushion wrap: Individually wrapped seat cushions
Review Score
| Metric | Score | Remarks |
| Overall | 4.4 | Most even performer for everyday living-room use |
| Assembly | 4.7 | Fast placement and minimal fuss |
| Cooling / Breathability | 4.3 | Stayed neutral through longer sessions |
| Seat Comfort | 4.2 | Comfortable without inviting a deep slouch |
| Back Support | 4.1 | Good overall, but depends on back-cushion positioning |
| Seat Depth Fit | 4.4 | 21" depth worked well across different sitting styles |
| Ease of Movement / Repositioning | 4.5 | Easy to shift, stand, and resettle |
| Durability | 4.5 | Support system felt resilient and consistent |
| Cleaning | 4.1 | Normal fabric upkeep; crumbs and lint need routine attention |
| Layout Practicality | 4.5 | Easy fit at 86" wide and 36" deep |
| Value | 4.4 | Strong all-rounder if you want one sofa to do everything well |
253 Large Sofa
Our Testing Experience
The 253 Large Sofa is the one that made me stop pretending I’d sit “properly.” The 25" seat depth invites lounging, and once I stretched out, it was hard to give up the spot. The trade-off showed up during work blocks: without a small lumbar pillow, my hips drifted forward and my lower back started to feel it. Marcus called it the coziest for late-night dozing, Carlos liked it most when he was already reclined, and Mia loved it for side-lying but needed a throw pillow behind her back to feel stable.
What we liked
- Best sprawl comfort of the four
- Roomy seat deck that supports longer legs
- Relaxed feel for movie marathons and naps
Who it is best for
- Taller users and deep-seat loungers
- People who prioritize nap-friendly comfort
- Larger rooms that can handle the footprint
Where it falls short
- Deep seat can pull posture forward for upright sitting
- Harder to pop up quickly after long sits
- Takes more pillow management to keep posture supportive
Pros & Cons
| Pros | Cons |
| Deepest lounge comfort; spacious for tall users; great for reclining | Deep seat can encourage slouch; larger footprint; slower stand-up feel |
Details
- Overall dimensions (W x D x H): 99" x 44" x 38"
- Seat depth: 25"
- Seat height: 21"
- Arm height: 26"
- Inside width: 81"
- Motion type: Stationary
- Upholstery options: Fabric and leather
- Back style: Semi-attached inside back
- Legs: Tapered front legs (removable) and built-in tapered back legs
- Nailhead: Small and medium size options noted
- Seat support: Drop-in steel spring unit
- Front edge design: Spring edge
- Seat foam: Qualux Ultra seat foam
- Cushion wrap: Individually wrapped seat cushions
Review Score
| Metric | Score | Remarks |
| Overall | 4.2 | Best lounge comfort; requires more posture management |
| Assembly | 4.5 | Larger piece, so placement takes more planning |
| Cooling / Breathability | 4.2 | Neutral; long sits build warmth from deeper contact |
| Seat Comfort | 4.6 | Most sink-in comfort during movies |
| Back Support | 4.1 | Supportive when reclined; upright posture needs pillow help |
| Seat Depth Fit | 3.9 | 25" depth is great for lounging, less universal for upright sitting |
| Ease of Movement / Repositioning | 3.8 | Quick stand-ups and resets feel slower |
| Durability | 4.6 | Support system felt robust under heavier use |
| Cleaning | 4.0 | More cushion surface area to manage; routine upkeep mattered |
| Layout Practicality | 4.2 | Great if you have space; tight rooms will feel crowded |
| Value | 4.1 | Worth it if you actually use the lounge depth daily |
374 Sofa
Our Testing Experience
The 374 was the easiest to live with in a smaller layout. The 80" width didn’t dominate the room, but it still felt like a real three-seat sofa. It hit a practical middle ground—comfortable enough for a short nap, structured enough for conversation, and quick to stand from. Marcus tested the front edge for shoe-tying and said it stayed supportive, Carlos called it a solid middle ground, and Mia liked it for curling into one corner with a book because the proportions felt manageable.
What we liked
- Compact width with a still-comfortable three-seat feel
- Quick in-and-out movement for busy evenings
- Easy to place in multipurpose rooms
Who it is best for
- Apartments and smaller living rooms
- People who want balanced comfort over deep lounging
- Guest spaces that need a versatile main seat
Where it falls short
- Not as lounge-deep as the 253 for full-body sprawl
- Less “statement” styling than the 243
- Back feel is good, not as posture-locking as the 243
Pros & Cons
| Pros | Cons |
| Best compact option; easy movement; balanced comfort | Not a deep-lounge profile; less dramatic styling; back support is moderate vs 243 |
Details
- Overall dimensions (W x D x H): 80" x 38" x 38"
- Seat depth: 21"
- Seat height: 20"
- Arm height: 26"
- Inside width: 66"
- Motion type: Stationary
- Upholstery options: Fabric and leather
- Style category: Transitional
- Back style: Pullover inside back
- Legs: Built-in tapered legs
- Seat support: Drop-in steel spring unit
- Front edge design: Spring edge
- Seat foam: Qualux Ultra seat foam
- Cushion wrap: Individually wrapped seat cushions
Review Score
| Metric | Score | Remarks |
| Overall | 4.3 | Most space-efficient while staying genuinely comfortable |
| Assembly | 4.6 | Compact size made placement and room planning easier |
| Cooling / Breathability | 4.3 | Stayed comfortable through longer viewing sessions |
| Seat Comfort | 4.0 | Comfortable and more upright-friendly than lounge-plush |
| Back Support | 4.0 | Good baseline support; less structured than 243 |
| Seat Depth Fit | 4.2 | 21" depth worked well for mixed postures |
| Ease of Movement / Repositioning | 4.4 | Easy to stand, pivot, and resettle quickly |
| Durability | 4.4 | Strong support feel and consistent cushion response |
| Cleaning | 4.0 | Standard upkeep; manageable surfaces and proportions |
| Layout Practicality | 4.7 | 80" width is the easiest fit in tight rooms |
| Value | 4.5 | Strong payoff if space efficiency is a key constraint |
How the Scores Stack Up
| Sofa | Overall Score | Seat Comfort | Back Support | Seat Depth Fit | Cooling / Breathability | Durability | Ease of Movement / Repositioning |
| 243 Sofa | 4.3 | 4.3 | 4.5 | 4.2 | 4.0 | 4.6 | 4.2 |
| 248 Sofa | 4.4 | 4.2 | 4.1 | 4.4 | 4.3 | 4.5 | 4.5 |
| 253 Large Sofa | 4.2 | 4.6 | 4.1 | 3.9 | 4.2 | 4.6 | 3.8 |
| 374 Sofa | 4.3 | 4.0 | 4.0 | 4.2 | 4.3 | 4.4 | 4.4 |
In plain terms: the 248 is the most even, low-drama performer; the 243 is the clear pick if back support is your top priority. The 253 wins on pure lounge comfort, but gives up some universality for upright sitting and quick movement. The 374 stays competitive across the board while being the easiest to fit into real rooms.
How to Choose Between These Smith Brothers Sofas
Start with sofa seating and posture. If you mostly sit upright (TV plus laptop time), the 243 or 248 will feel naturally supportive. If your default is lounging, napping, or stretching out, the 253 is the comfort play.
Then match the sofa to the room: measure a sofa and your walkways before you decide. If your layout is tight or you need flexible placement, the 374 is the easiest fit. For shorter legs or anyone who dislikes deep seats, prioritize the 21" seat depth styles (243/248/374). For taller users who want more thigh support, the 253 makes the most sense.
Limitations
The main trade-off is that comfort is style-specific. Deep-seat lounging (253) can undercut upright posture, while the more structured profiles (243) are less forgiving for curling up. If your space is tight, footprint matters as much as comfort, and the 374 is the most consistently easy to place. And if you want a power-recline setup or the ease of slipcovered sofas, these four styles aren’t the most direct match.
When to Consider Alternatives
-
Why you might pick these models
- Strong structural build elements, including double dowelled joints and a durable seat suspension approach
- Seat components aimed at long-term shape retention, including wrapped cushions and Qualux Ultra seat foam
- Made-to-order upholstery from a long-standing U.S. brand
-
Alternatives to consider
- La-Z-Boy Noah Sofa: a made-to-order, widely available stationary-sofa option
- Flexsteel Mia 5727 Sofa: broad stationary-sofa assortment for style and fabric variety
- Bradington-Young Richardson Sofa: leather-focused option with an 8-way tie and spring-down seat feel
Practical Tips for Living With These Sofas
- Measure doorways, stair turns, and elevator depth before delivery day, then re-measure with trim and handrails in mind.
- Keep a small lumbar pillow nearby for deep lounging sessions, especially on the 253.
- Rotate where you sit and flip or re-position loose cushions and backs weekly to even out wear.
- Vacuum upholstery regularly to keep grit from working into the fibers, and avoid perching on the same front edge every day.
- For leather, wipe dust with a clean white cloth before using any cleaner.
- Use felt pads under legs to protect floors and help stop a sofa from moving during daily use.
- If you snack on the sofa, darker or textured fabrics (see fabric vs. leather sofas) or a simple “blanket barrier” help reduce visible marks.
FAQs
Which model felt best for upright TV watching?
The 243 stayed the most posture-stable and kept me from sliding forward during long episodes, with the 248 close behind when I wanted a softer, more casual feel.
Is the 253 Large Sofa too deep for everyday sitting?
It can be if you prefer upright posture. It’s easiest to enjoy when you recline or add a lumbar pillow to keep hips and lower back aligned.
Which sofa was easiest to stand up from?
The 374 and 248 felt quickest to stand from because their proportions didn’t encourage a deep “sink and stay” posture.
Which should I pick for a small living room?
The 374 was the simplest to place without crowding walkways, while still feeling like a comfortable main sofa.
