I bought these recently but they are not working with my place scale-wise. I don't know enough about mid-century/modern furniture to identify them. Any ideas? There are no markings that I could find and they appear to have been reupholstered at some point. I listed them on ebay, but would love to know who the designer is so that I can correct my listing and find them a good home.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&rd=1&item=110170433371&ssPageName=STRK:MESE:IT&ih=001
Hi
I have two really good...
Hi
I have two really good tips for anyone getting into modern furniture as an investment.
1- Almost 99 percent of the time, zig-zag suspension springs, equals low brow, or common 50s le junke. There are exceptions, but elastic straps or coil spings are found in the better stuff. When latex foam was brought out in post WWII era, it was used without springs in many designer pieces. Study the good pieces from the ground up!
2- The screw on legs from the corner hardware store, are a dead giveaway that this is a turkey. Look at the 4 screws holding the leg adapter to the frame, and you have seen everything that will tell you to bid 10 dollars or 500 dollars. The brass tips on the legs, usually equal bad 50s stuff.
You will find exceptions to these rules, like the Nelson daybed, and yes some Italians used brass on furniture legs, but those brass-swivel-footies are in the low brow division. I still like the low brow division, but it has its place!
Thanks!! I assumed it was a b...
Thanks!! I assumed it was a better designer because the home it came out of - was WAY over the top and had been done by a noted decorator. Course, that doesn't really mean anything. I think we're going to keep them if they don't sell, my Fiance is now in love with them (and I do love the overall shape). I'll just have to rearrange everything since they don't work in the living room scale-wise.
Small details......
If you look into the most basic details, you will find the truth. Look carefully at all things right in front of you, there are clues. You have to study construction though, as if you were the designer and fabricator. That means you should know how to build things from raw materials. This is my speciality, this is also why I like fine design. I also like the goofy stuff, I am not full of myself, or look at my furniture as status.
The low brow division tries to copy the high brow stuff and do it cheaper. Its the China-knockoff-furniture-syndrome, it didn't start in 1995. It was going on in the 50s. All the great furniture was copied by some cheap-o stroke. So when the finished piece is completely covered, and all nasty production hiccups have been hidden, you must be on your toes. You look at what is there, and what is missing. When you smell cost cutting details, you need to have your guard up. I look at the obvious copies to understand why Krueger never made a fantastic shell chair.
It is tough when you are making a split second decision at auctions. Its best to walk away sometimes... the next time you may be better prepared. I keep a database of pictures, and try to be exhaustive in my research.
I was at an auction last winter, turning over a nasty "retro" chair, and someone asked me what I was looking for. I am the label freak, and even if its bad, I want to know who those cheap bastards were! I looked at the clown asking the question, with a wry face, and didn't reply. I thought he would be better to ponder why a detail might matter to someone, rather than explain.
As for Dunbar furniture, I think its trying to be high brow, and plush. It was for the status members of society, and purchased to be pretentious. I find it boring to look at, and would rather not own it. I am sure its well built, its just not cool stuff. I would sell it without placing it in my home. If anyone has a favorite, cool piece, of Dunbar furniture, please say what it is.
My rules are just a starting point, it always takes a good inspection. Someone could have put a dust ruffle on a Knoll sofa! They could have sawed off the legs on a Mccobb table, and glued beer cans on!
donsof
a little radical speaking but if that floats your boat, who am i to say... some of the Dunbar is a little drab and you are
right it was for the high society, but Edward Wormely would not have had it any other way , He designed for the upper crust and was at the pinicle of modernism for the rich while the other guys were trying to mass produce their stuff
McCobb great modern design but cheap cheap cheap it was sold at the cheapest stores in the 50's and his stuff for some reason never impressed me at all i have none of his things in my collection, now as for Knoll just plain great!!! Knoll furniture was in home and office in the 50's and 60's and it has been a main stay since the inception,
As you known since you know everything that Miller was strictly office before the transition to home in 1950. with Eames things, even thoe they always had a great reputation their
mass produced furniture was considered cheap in the 50's
.The King of all furniture and the industry gold standard was BAKER and still is with Widdicom, Henredon, The other designers are good but this furniture was built to last.
Herman Miller
I believe Gilbert Rohde was designing home furnishings when he ran HM in the late 30's like this HM vanity in the Yale design collection. Can't get much less office furniture-like than a vanity.
http://artgallery.yale.edu/pages/collection/popups/pc_american/details24...
Reprints of the HM catalogs from the Gilbert Rohde period are widely available.
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?r=1&ean=9780...
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com