Teak Credenza ID, I know I have seen this before, but cannot place it....  

Update....

So I was able to take a look at the piece, and although I like the design, it is in pretty rough shape. Definitely not worth what the current owner is asking, in my opinion.

It is decently constructed. The teak is definitely the older, more red variety of the 50's and early 60's. The sides are solid teak, which I found interesting. The legs are actually Afromosia. Interior looks to be birch or maple (maybe beech, but I doubt it). The top is where the damage is; there was clearly some serious water damage, as the surface is bubbling in a few areas. There was a lot of staining, but that is easily remedied. I am guessing the substrate is particle board, since that is what the shelves were, and once it bubbles, I don't know of any methods to get it to lay flat again.

If I can ID it, I might consider making an offer, but they are asking way too much for it in the condition it is currently in. Thanks again for any insight on an ID.

Oh one last detail, it was marked but the label was gone. The remnants of the label were in the top left corner, as you look at it from the rear. label was about 1/2" tall and 2.5" wide. Only other marking was the Danish control badge, which was metal, and inset into the interior wall.

I very much doubt that the sides are solid teak and the top is particle board. The wood movement equation does not work. From you description of the bubbling, it is certain the top is particle board, therefore the sides must be something dimensionally stable.

It is interesting that the legs are Afrormosia. That narrows the field substantially. I will think who might fit the bill.

Did you get any more photos? That would certainly help.

This is a complete pain, but you could go through this list. The maker is almost certainly on here.

https://www.designaddict.com/forum/General-discussion/Danish-Furnituremak...

Axel Andersens M

Simply amazing.

Aunt Mark

Ps. simply amazing.

Thanks Leif. I was going through all the sideboards that were teak and designed in the 50's on the index. I will go through these next.

I also was surprised by the sides, but I am telling you, I know my solid wood vs. veneer. I specifically looked really close for edge banding, and when I could not find it, i started tracing the rings from front, through the side. I could not see the back. These cover the tambour doors which wrap around the side and to the back, between the interior of the sideboard, and these solid teak pieces on the exterior. They are not the typical thickness of a veneered case piece, they are thinner.

As always, thanks for the direction here. I will continue to brute force it.

Oh and here are a few extra pics. I did not take any while I was there, I find people become suspicious of you when you do that.

Doubt they will help, but worth a shot.

found a similar one in Rosewood, ID'd as Kofod-Larsen for Brande. Same legs, same raised edge on the top sides and back, same pulls. Defintely the same designer and maker, as the one I am looking at.

attribution is on Pamono, which is clearly not dependable:

https://www.pamono.com/large-rosewood-sideboard-by-ib-kofod-larsen-for-b...

Ok, I think I got it.

Ib Kofod-Larsen, most likely for Brande M

There is something very wrong with that DFI listing. The first image is an Ib Kofod Larsen for Faarup design. The second image is your sideboard. And the DFE says Ib Kofod Larsen for Brande. From that listing, I would not be any too sure of anything, yet.

Faarup's mark was a rectangular sticker though. Maybe that helps?

Here is a Brande sticker of about the right shape, too:

http://www.lauritz.com/da/auktion/h-rosengren-hansen-palisander-skaenk-f...

Yeah, I noticed there were two different pictures on there, I also have not seen any of the attributed Rosewood ones online, marked. I also noticed that the Faarup label was closer to what I saw on the back.

The DFI quotes Mobilia 1962 no. 79 as their source, so clearly someone with this issue, or a Brande Catalog confirming the DFI, would be the best sources.

I have neither of these, so I am now at the mercy of the forum I guess...

Send an email to the people at the DFI, and politely point out the peculiarity and ask if maybe they can check the original document.