Search result for: the-last-thing-you-aquired-
| # | Post Title | Result Info | Date | User | Forum |
| Dear SDR | 1 Relevance | 20 years ago | koen | General discussion | |
| Dear SDR Just to answer some of your questions. Modeling in clay has been around for some time, and it still is. A lot of consumer products have never been modeled other than on screen...and it shows. Serious designers working for serious clients will not to tooling without having seen the real thing, either milled or build in Stereo-lithography. But before all these things existed the most common way to make something symetrical was to model one side on a granit modeling tabel or a stable granit floor. Depending on size a bridge-like structure would roll alongside the model. On this "bridge" you have a pivot on the centre line and an arm that can be moved from one side to the other. The arm has a number of needles that can be fixed with a thumb screw. So at a fixed point on the length you take the posision of predetermined points on the half model and you turn the arm over the part that you want to reproduce. There you build upp a reference surface and go to the next point. To get from model to real sheet metal press tooling, you make a harder copy of the clay model put it on a Dremmel (3D pantographic milling equipement) and copy it into the steel. Yes you can make the Dremmel turn a positive into a negative shape, yes, later editions could make the symetrical equivalent on the basis of an half shape. Untill the late 70ties, this was a common thing to do. The first 2D drafting demonstration I got to see was in 1968 and the first 3D (wiremesh) shapes in 1984-85 if my memory serves me well. These were already very complex organic shapes, but that particular program never reached the market. We had to wait a few more years before the first less sophisticated software came on the market. I am not sure dcwilson that the origin of these softwares were NASA related because it was several years before the shuttle, but many of them were certainly related to the aviation industry. These days one would not even dream of going back to cutting plaster of Paris and all these other fun methods... | |||||
| Cloudburst | 1 Relevance | 19 years ago | LuciferSum | General discussion | |
| Cloudburst One of my biggest peeves about knock-offs comes more from this issue of desire; the pervasive idea that simply because one WANTS something, one should be able to HAVE it. Except most people only want the LOOK of something - not the quality and craftsmanship (and therefore, pricetag). What most people want is the status a designer item brings. (would anyone knock off the canvas tote bags you get at the bookstore?) Quality is important, and it takes time, money, and effort. My father and brothers are very fine carpenters. One is a stained glass artist as well. Two uncles are a painter and a designer. My grandfathers were a construction foreman and an opera singer. My own training is in sculpture and bookbinding. Creativity, knowledge of materials, and specific craft seem to run in my family: I see a very direct link between that knowledge and a high quality piece. So there is this desire for the status and look of these iconic pieces, for which people are willing to spend money buying knockoffs. That money goes to something that can only ever be a ghost of the original. Example: A shop near wor sells a "retro ball clock" which has the standard Nelson colors: blue, orange, & green. Someone has also seen fit to add lavender and pink. The result is an atrocious approximation of a real Nelson clock. In the same way you can approximate a Jaguar by building a kit car - it doesnt mean that you HAVE a Jaguar - you have some object that only LOOKS like a Jag. Styling aside, the kit car lacks the engine, the horsepower, the inherent value (for resale, inheiritance, etc)of the real thing; all of those things that MAKE it a Jag. Some approximations get closer than others. A friend (I previously mentioned her buying a horrible knock-off starburst clock) bought the Ball Clock from AllWorld. When she got it the dimensions were very close to the real thing. But 11 of the balls were matte finish - one was high gloss. Also, the hour hand was brown - not orange. Despite being very close, it was still an approximation. Every time someone asks about the clock she'll have a choice: be dishonest and call it a Nelson clock, or acknowledge that its a fake. I can see the argument about decorative items not being inherently harmful. The basic function is to provide aesthetic appeal (and in this case: tell time) I offer two counters: One, the approximation can never be the real thing. No one will think the Mona Lisa in your bathroom is anything but a poster - however, a knock-off Nelson clock is meant to be dishonest. It's sole purpose is to lie about its origins. At best it's a halfway decent copy, at worst it tarnishes the brand identity of the original. Second, the money spent on a knock-off could very easily be spent towards an actual good design by a lesser known designer. There are plenty of great mid-century clocks that tell time equally as well, and can provide a similar aesthetic appeal. Just ask Aunt Flo. | |||||
| If the greatest patent number | 1 Relevance | 12 years ago | objectworship | General discussion | |
| If the greatest patent number date is 1964, it cannot have been made prior to that, and it seems reasonable to assume that it probably wasn't made all that much after either... I don't know how often stickers were updated though. I guess looking at a list of all the Herman Miller patents would be the way to check. Realistically, I would think 64-66 would be your year given what you have noted, but the metal Herman Miller tag pictured is from the 70s (or at least I thought it was(?)). Wouldn't a 60s chair have a round tag? Anybody know more precisely what years the tag pictured was used? I'm not having any luck with this thing either... http://www.hermanmiller.com/about-us/who-is-herman-miller/policies-and-l... "no results found"??? | |||||
| Oh, right, carbon fiber.. | 1 Relevance | 15 years ago | Spanky | General discussion | |
| Oh, right, carbon fiber.. ..but that's also the testimonial page on a site that sells carbon fiber bows. This site has a balance between wood and carbon fiber fans, and even among those it seems that a bunch have both and prefer one or the other depending on what and where they are playing. So yeah, they're good, probably especially for the money---but they don't cover all the bases all the time. (My daughter is a cellist and I had a wonderful time years ago helping her pick a cello and bow---it's amazing the differences in sound in what looks like essentially the same thing.) http://www.fiddlehangout.com/topic/26027 | |||||
| Round tables with chrome base | 1 Relevance | 15 years ago | Pegboard Modern | General discussion | |
| Round tables with chrome base I've seen these little occasional tables before, mostly with wood tops. Though I don't have any documentation or evidence of any kind to back it up, I've always suspected that they were by Hugh Acton. Maybe it's just the similarity of the base to his plant stand, but the construction of the tables seems to me like it could be an Acton design. He's still alive and working (doing lots of sculpture these days) and I've corresponded with him in the past. If someone wanted to know badly enough it would be a simple thing to write his studio and ask. I'm sure they would get an answer. http://hugh acton side table | |||||
| eamon | 1 Relevance | 20 years ago | LRF | General discussion | |
| eamon I have purchased several nice pieces of furniture including a barcelona chair from furniture fancy and i havefound them to be honest and trustworthy I love the barcelona chair i purchased it a year ago in off white i have the barcelonas in black from knoll from the 70's and I find this chair to be just as nice, the only thing it does not have Mies name stamped on on the back i have purchase some great furniture from these people and have dealt with Vincent a very nice person to do business with. | |||||
| Some chairs are inextricably | 1 Relevance | 10 years ago | tchp | General discussion | |
| Some chairs are inextricably linked to their ottomans. Any collector who has ended up with an Eames lounge or Wegner Pape Bear that is missing its ottoman quite likely feels like something is missing, and ends up trying to find an ottoman to make a complete pairing. It would not surprise me if Finn Juhl never wanted the Chieftain chair to ever be thought of in that way, and that it would diminish the chair's status as a powerful, iconic thing in itself, that stood alone as a work of art and sculpture. I suspect a conscious decision was made to never market the chair with an ottoman. | |||||
| Virtually all | 1 Relevance | 15 years ago | SDR | General discussion | |
| Virtually all of the Eames loungers on the page(s) linked below are the real thing. Look closely: the chair has metal bars connecting the headrest to the chair back; the chair does not have bolts visible below the armrest. Your chair has the headrest mounted with wood bars, at a position higher than correct. In one photo your headrest seems to be mounted crooked. http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=eames%20lounge%20cha... | |||||
| It seems azurechicken and... | 1 Relevance | 18 years ago | glassartist | General discussion | |
| It seems azurechicken and... It seems azurechicken and lunchbox are on two different wavelengths here. My read is that AC is working from a straight definition of design without approval or dissapproval, while LB seems to take design as a good thing (non neutral) so is chafing at something (s)he doesn't like being called design. I feel cosmetic surgery is most definitely design, And good or bad are separate issues. In this casde; Design? yes. Good? Not in my opinion, but hey, They're not mine so who am I too say without knowing all the specifics? I do however, know cases of reduction that are absolutely good design. If I have read either of you wrong, by all means let me know. | |||||
| RE: Furniture Stamp Identification Help | 1 Relevance | 8 years ago | Herringbone | Identification | |
| Soborg produced this cabinet from the early fifties to the late sixties/early seventies. The cabinet itself looks like the real thing but just as Lexi I am not sure about the legs. Our old friend Leif has several Soborg catalogues on his homepage, but none of them features this base. That said, the last catalogue he has is from 1966. (He also has one from 1976, but Soborg had completely changed their programme by then). Maybe the base design was changed after 1966. Looking at this somewhat edged profile I can well imagine that this is 1968ish. But that's just a wild guess. | |||||
| Where to buy Poul Kjaerholm? | 1 Relevance | 18 years ago | NULL NULL | General discussion | |
| Hello I am looking for a black Poul Kjærholm PK31 3 Seater sofa and a PK31 armchair. I have been browsing the different sites that offer these products, but I am not sure which of them are serious businesses and sell quality furniture. I looked at: xxx xxx xxx Which of these (if any) can be trusted? Do you have any other recommendations? (P.S. I am only looking for replicas 🙂 - can't afford the "real thing" from Fritz Hansen. To the editor: I thought I could write the names of the repro shops - as long as I didn't link to them. Edited by Design Addict: No links to unlicenced repro shops. Second edit: Please respect the rules of this forum! | |||||
| SDR | 1 Relevance | 12 years ago | Eameshead | General discussion | |
| SDR I like your story about "paying for the restraint". One of my pet peeves is that aesthetic restraint has a hard time getting noticed, especially when surrounded by clumsier attempts at art making, or design. The easy trick NOT indulged in can get lost in the white noise so easily Reminds me of how easy it used to be to find good Modern stuff. It used to hide out so well in the clutter of the thrift shop or flea market, because its restraint didnt show there. Not until you got it home, and gave it some room to breathe did the restraint get a chance to do its thing. My syntax is weak today. | |||||
| I have no problem with using | 1 Relevance | 13 years ago | tktoo | General discussion | |
| I have no problem with using what you've got on hand if you know it will perform as desired. I even know people who swear by smearing condiments on their furniture, though I wouldn't recommend it. tchp's table turned out astonishingly well and I completely understand the enthusiasm for the particular product used. I'm also certain tchp meant only to help. There are simply better products available with which to achieve similar results with less risk of damage. Our friend kin was not so lucky with the results, however, and has possibly caused irreversible damage to his/her property by following advice offered here. That is a shame and should serve to remind us all to be a bit more cautious, perhaps. Sometimes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. | |||||
| I like | 1 Relevance | 14 years ago | Spanky | General discussion | |
| I like Dawn dishwashing detergent, the stuff they use for stripping oil off sea birds that were caught in oil spills. It's actually quite mild, just be sure to get the version that is clear as the blue one has a dye that can stain. It's the only thing I've found that can get oily stains out of laundry, even after they have been baked in the dryer. Not that your chair has been in a dryer, but the stains have had some time to set. Try it with tktoo's method, though I get the suds worked up by shaking some detergent in a little bit of water in a closed plastic container. I think you can also use a clean white washcloth rather than a sponge. Some cellulose sponges can shed tiny bits that you don't want to work into your fabric. | |||||
| I have a Cappellini... | 1 Relevance | 21 years ago | DMSFCA | General discussion | |
| I have a Cappellini... I have a Cappellini purchased from Limn in San Francisco, the single most expensive non-house/non-car thing I think I've bought. I ended up with it because I went out sofa shopping one weekend and went to Limn first, which was a big mistake, because every retailer I went to after that look awful in comparison. I was hesitant about it and the ability to withstand wear and tear, but after a couple of years it still looks like new. I guess you could compare it to office chairs - those $99 chairs aren't built as well as the $1000 ones. You can see some distant pictures of it in the following web link. --Doug http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/dmsfca/album?.dir=/336e&.src=ph&.tok=phGnx... | |||||
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com