I detailed my reasons somewhere
on this forum. It's just generally not very well made furniture. Also, some of it is really nice, but some of it has kind of a kind of cartoonish style, like the lounge chairs with the tall backs and the sofas with wildly flaring ends. But mostly it's the quality of construction that bothers me.
here's mine
i've read a lot of the negative posts and my feeling is this. Pearsall found ways of creating furniture that could put some style in the working joes home from that period. they used manufacturing methods that helped to keep prices within reason and this is why we can still find the original furniture today. yes maybe a little less quality than the high end but i'll trade that for the fact that their accessibility then allows us to have availability now. quality can't be that much less as all pieces have had their 50th birthday. thanks for you time.
While I agree that the...
While I agree that the Pearsall style could be considered "cartoonish", I think it's quite fun and far less cartoonish than the ridiculously childish Memphis movement that people were raving about a while back. With the right upholstery against the walnut bases, even the most flamboyant Pearsall wing back chair can look classic IMO. And a proper upholsterer / carpenter should enable a Pearsall chair to last another 50 years or more...
Yes, it's fun furniture,
and I much prefer it over Memphis-anything. I do wish I'd saved some photos of unupholstered frames, though. It's more than "a little less quality than high end". The lounge chair frames look like DIY projects: plywood boxes that must be half upholstered before assembly, curved plywood backs attached to the seat frame with wood screws a fraction of an inch from the edge. Yes, a lot of these have held up for 50 years but how many more didn't? We'll never know.
They can be made to look pretty good but it takes some doing. They weren't designed with an eye toward reupholstery, as even mid-range furniture is.
Here are a couple of shots...
Here are a couple of shots of my 1410-C wingback stripped during reupholstering, including a fuzzy blowup of the bracket connection (I was neither the photographer nor the reupholsterer).
I'm happy with the quality of the chair for my use. The exposed walnut frame is solidily constructed, and I have not noticed any comfort/appearance issues due to the back plywood shell construction.
Then again, I always viewed (some of) his designs as affordable versions of Kagan's designs, so am not disappointed that the build quality is what it is, especially for what I paid for it.
I'm with Woody...
I happened to get an Pearsall sofa recently, well more of a daybed. You know, visually, it's interesting. Very low profile (needs reupholstery). But honestly? The construction can't back up the design. When I lifted off the travertine, plywood. Looked hack. I think there's so much better for the same money or less that will stand the test of time. Just my two cents.
That's one of their nicer
designs, cdsilva.
I've always liked the walnut bases on a lot of their chairs and sofas--maybe not the style on some but the quality of the wood and the construction and the nicely done curves, yes. The inside construction just doesn't measure up to the parts that show.
The misperception
that plywood is an inferior construction material is still with us -- perhaps forever ?
Sheet materials are used where a flat and continuous surface is needed -- as in so much furniture, including case goods and seating both. Formed (curved) plywood is a uniquely appropriate material choice, perfected in the last century.
Solid wood is a resource best employed for appearance pieces, and for frame structure, both visible and hidden -- but not when a uniform and repeated grain appearance is required.
Each member of the furniture-making palette has its place. Visible (appearance-grade) solid-wood tops are one thing, while a sub-top under a stone panel is another. A veneered surface must have an appropriate substrate, which will not be solid wood because of dimensional and flatness issues -- now that we have useful and superior substitutes such as MDF and plywood.
Totally agree, SDR.
However, the plywood used in the Pearsall furniture I've stripped was pine, not the more durable beech ply often used in Danish furniture. It was splintered and cracked wherever it was screwed to the frame, and many of the screw holes had become enlarged from the wear of the screws against the soft wood.
The upholstered arms are often plywood boxes with maybe 1/2" foam padding, instead of an open hardwood frame with more comfortable soft sides (utility fabric or webbing, foam or batting, then finish fabric).
I have nothing against plywood in furniture! I love it when it's done well. I'm redoing some Erik Buch chairs right now and the stripped curved beech plywood seats and backs are so nice they could easily stand alone if it weren't for the old glue residue and staple holes.
fair comment, SDR
I was really only referencing my Pearsall sofa in this case. It's missing an elegance in personality AND construction that bothers me, more than the plywood. I just don't get the sense that when it was made, that there was any great attention paid to detail. To Spanky's point, nails, glue everywhere (the underside) to me, cheapens it's overall aesthetic. hey, just my two cents.
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com