Hans Wegner China chair and Finn Juhl Egyptian chair  

@shepherd-wheel Just to be clear: Do you think your could possibly be copies from the 50s or 60s and is this what you're asking or do you hope they might even be some weird and therefore even rarer originals?

I am assuming they were bought as originals either on special order or from a travelling exhibition. Neither chairs appear to be copies because the production would have been too costly and why produce a wrong copy of a chair in both cases. My guess is they came out of a private school as a few had chewing gum underneath the seats but that is anecdote. I know there were various versions of the china chair produced but not this one as far as I’m aware. For me it is a puzzle but an interesting one which may or may not be the outcome I’d like. 

@shepherd-wheel I thought others would want to jump in but nobody did, so I'll write something. Your chairs are definitively copies. I cannot date them, they may be from the 60, 70s or 80s but I have no clue. What matters is that there are significant differences to the original designs. Fritz Hansen never produced the Chinese chair in oak. It was made in mahagony and cherry wood. Oak doesn't really go well with the refined forms. You mentioned the two upwards already. But the original also came with a lose seat cushion and the backboard was just plain wood, never upholstered like yours.

The Egyptian Chair also was never made in oak until recently by House of Finn Juhl. It was an exclusive design - just like the Chinese Chair - and only produced in exclusive wood species like teak or rosewood. And if you compair Vodder made chairs with yours, you will see that the dimesions are a bit off and that the shapes of Vodder's chairs are much more refined. Look at the joint at the top of the backrest (see picture). Or look at the side rails which on your chairs look a bit angular.

@herringbone, I'd have to agree. First impression is that both chairs appear a bit off to me, too. Close, but no cigar as the expression goes. The only things I might add are that I'm almost certain I've seen the Chinese Chair in rosewood and the center piece of the back is called a "splat" here in the US.

@tktoo Corrections accepted. But where has your „2“ gone?

@herringbone, Ha! I guess it has to do with a long-forgotten password or something that a confirmed Neo-Luddite like me will never understand. But the "2" was just a little too too anyway, don't you agree?

P.S. Not "corrections" per se but, rather, additional observation ...needed or not!

@tktoo Maybe it was a bit too too too but I hate when things change. Will miss the 2. 😅 

I'll add my too too too cents here too.

In addition to more important points made above in regards to their authenticity, I have a rant to share.

The unevenly stained oak, worn-looking leather, along with upholstery studs all point to me to someone being given a design to recreate. Unfortunately in what is otherwise an acceptable facsimile of the design, they've finished it in a manner which is completely incongruous with the design itself, and I assume have tried to lend some authenticity with 'aged' effects?

Call me unfair, but despite this not damaging a potentially original piece, I find this more offensive than painting something and sticking flower stencils on it. At least the latter is done in ignorance, how can someone spend the time recreating these to ignore the original intent?

It's likely I am a little too attached to the idea of singular design authorship! This era of 'remix' is a real challenge to me, unless done with real clarity and intent I feel it's mostly quite insulting to what existed originally. But I suppose what is original is subjective too. I heard Bittersweet Symphony long before I heard of The Andrew Oldham Orchestra...

I'll go back to sleep now.

@kyle-barrett. Off topic I know, but never knew that about The Verve , Andrew Oldham Orchestra " connection". You learn something new every day. Thanks.

Hi, thanks for the replies. I think you are correct though I can live in hope. I am going to add a table as a pair of these came out of the same establishment once more made of  oak and another single table. They have a detail in the side stretchers just below the table top which follows the diamond like shape of the top. They are also peculiarly baize lined underneath the table tops. 

I realise that the production runs of Niels Vodder were Teak and Rosewood though I think I have seen a Walnut version or a similar hardwood of some of the armchairs and agree that you cannot get the same definition with oak. Obviously Wegner was in a sense more accomplished in working across a range of woods for a series of different manufacturers and clients. 

As to the condition of the chairs. I am certain that the 'China Chairs' have been reupholstered as you say really badly and stained awfully. One of the Egyptian chairs must have had rails added at some point with the use of phillips screws straight through the wood and the China chairs have wood blocks added with a liberal use of  screws. I still believe they are 50s or 60s production and that whoever repaired them was clueless as to what they were copied from and probably was someone like a caretaker no-one with any furniture restoration expertise. 

I thought that perhaps the chairs were in the catalogue Finn Juhl and Ditzel published in 1950 Mobeltegninger. Danish Furniture design. Furniture drawings Prepared for Use By Frederiksberg Technical School Department of Interior Design but they aren't as that was a catalogue that was available throughout the world. 

I am still puzzled by why anyone should go to all this trouble, I cannot think they would have been that much cheaper than buying originals given the competency and tooling needed. 

Anyway, I just want to repeat my thanks for your input. 

In case you were wondering, those Egyptian knockoffs are not one-offs. I came across vintage knockoff Egyptians a few years ago. It looks like the same maker as yours, with this one having both front and back of the backrest in wood.