Eames Demetrios vs. Dwell Magazine  

Preaching vintage as an...
Preaching vintage as an alternative will never cut it, at least not here in the West. We are obsessed by newness, as evidenced by all the granite countertops and stainless steel kitchen sinks. Most people I know buy things that do not age well; future garbage, or trash-in-the-making. Once the product ceases to be new, it's deemed funky junk or a curio.

LOL...a whole lot to answer to
I was deliberately trying to avoide the ESU issue. Its a gray area. Personally i'd buy Miller, but thats me.
Olive - I agree - Mr. Demetrios needs some help with language, but I can see through that to his point. I disagree about pricing - it actually hasnt changed much when you account for inflation.
Whitespike - I disagree. The Eames have always designed for a 'need' - but that is a generalized need - not a specific need. (and ps. some of the pieces were designed for very specific uses: Alu Group, Alu Chaise, LaFonda - not the general public) Personally, I dont think $250 for a plastic chair is that bad of a price. Ikea charges up to $100 and their designs are half-assed at best, downright crap at worst. As to materiality - I think its still in the shock phase. Can you imagine the disappointment in the 80's when the 670 went from Rosewood to Walnut? But people will adjust. I'm not suggesting you polish Demetrios' boots - but the overal tone of this thread was highly negative towards him. He's protecting his best interest and I really dont see why that offends people. I dont think any one of us can lay any sort of claim to the Eames designs other than him. Do you? If you want to express your opinion email him. He's very personable in his responses.
Barry - Herman Miller is the 3rd largest furniture manufacturer in the world. The enourmous majority of that business is corporate clientelle. And like it or not - corporations redecorate every once in a while. The average family end user will probably hold onto their chairs much longer - but they represent a tiny fraction of the end user.
Finch - I preach vintage against those who preach "this is the way its SUPPOSED to be." If you want it the way it is 'supposed' to be buy vintage.
Also - you're right in terms of quality. Modernica is one of those anomolies in which knock-offs are made relatively well. I tend to slag them off because at one point they represented a number of their own designs, but have recently pushed more into the knock-off market. Its disappointing because it undercuts the legitimacy of their own designs. It speaks of greed rather than pushing design forward -and that dont sit right with me 🙁

Also
I really dislike the "what Charles & Ray would think" argument. Short of relying on historical evidence or personal interaction none of us here actually KNOWS what Charles & Ray would think. Would they be annoyed at Mr. Demetrios for going after knock-offs? Doubtful. They were clearly aware of, and against knock-offs in their own times.

Also - you're right in...
Also - you're right in terms of quality. Modernica is one of those anomolies in which knock-offs are made relatively well. I tend to slag them off because at one point they represented a number of their own designs, but have recently pushed more into the knock-off market. Its disappointing because it undercuts the legitimacy of their own designs...
I really don't see how it does.
I think I've pointed this out before, but here goes again: if there is even a singular example of an American Based company, employing US craftsmen, who can make the same product with the same materials, to spec, as a licensed supplier, for a faction of the cost, then it is enough to make any sensible, skeptical hi-end furniture buyer (not collector) ask himself where the difference is made up.
And indeed, Modernica is only one of the anomalies.
Though it's a natural human tendency, let's agree not to be religious about these things. Let objectivity and hard evidence trump loyalty.

new v old
One flaw to the buy-vintage-only mindset is that buying vintage, i.e., used furniture, depending upon the previous owner or owners, is a crapshoot. Could be that it was mistreated and poorly handled in shipping or transit, or has failing joints or stress fractures that aren't readily visible. Also, if we're talking used upholstered furniture, it is largely hit-or-miss with reupholsterers -- more often miss, including the much lauded BK Upholstery. Based upon my own experiences, in certain instances, it just plain makes sense to buy new, if you can.

You assume that Modernica's...
You assume that Modernica's quality IS equal to Herman Miller or Knoll or Carl Hansen etc. I'll assume that assumption is based on the fact that Modernica used to make the ESUs. So, if they were so good, why did Herman Miller drop them?
I don't mind friendly competition, or development of new ideas. There are plenty of new designers who are making great strides in the spirit of Modernism. The fact that Modernica makes a knock-off that doesn't totally suck doesn't excuse the fact that they are using designs in a dishonest way. It's still a knock-off.
Modernica didn't have to pay for any of the development, testing, or knowledge that lead to the plastic chairs OR the ESUs OR the Noguchi tables OR the Wegner chairs. Nor do they provide anything in return for those designs - nothing back to the foundations or the families. All the work has been done, all Modernica does it reap the rewards.
While I applaud their commitment to US workers and quality I really wish they would use that towards their own designs.

...You assume that...
...You assume that Modernica's quality IS equal to Herman Miller or Knoll or Carl Hansen etc. I'll assume that assumption is based on the fact that Modernica used to make the ESUs. So, if they were so good, why did Herman Miller drop them? ...
Lucy, I assume nothing -- remember? I am a skeptic. I question only your assumption that they are not up to snuff. Please, I invite you to prove this theory with hard, tenable evidence. No wassailing from the gut on this. The onus is on you, who believes, to prove to me why companies like Daniel Donelly, Modernica, Modern Woodworks and a few others I can't think of are hacks offering second-rate renditions, or, in your lyricism, crap.
...I don't mind friendly competition, or development of new ideas. There are plenty of new designers who are making great strides in the spirit of Modernism. The fact that Modernica makes a knock-off that doesn't totally suck doesn't excuse the fact that they are using designs in a dishonest way. It's still a knock-off...
Doesn't totally suck. This damnation through faint praise once again connotes that Modnernica's offerings are anything less, structurally or compositionally, than a much higher priced licensed copy. Again, your evidence please.
...Modernica didn't have to pay for any of the development, testing, or knowledge that lead to the plastic chairs OR the ESUs OR the Noguchi tables OR the Wegner chairs. Nor do they provide anything in return for those designs - nothing back to the foundations or the families. All the work has been done, all Modernica does it reap the rewards...
I mostly agree with you here...mostly. I still don't think this makes up for the difference, however. The R&D was long ago paid for. When it comes to compensation and remunerations the foundations and families, however, I agree with you.
...While I applaud their commitment to US workers and quality I really wish they would use that towards their own designs...
There's maybe only so many variations on a theme.

you all can fight it ...
you all can fight it out over modernica I think they are great for what they do and the bubble lamps the best of the best even better than Howard miller and they get every bit of respect,
no one ever calls them a knockoff, smart they got in good with Jacquline Nelson, cause they are the go to people for great lighting, i personally could care less about there case study line that they developed but the chair stands and fiberglass chairs are every bit as good as Miller was in there Hayday,
They truly are a good company,

I am quite surprised that...
....nobody seems to be disturbed by the fact that Eames Demetrios comments on an ad in Dwell. It was my understanding that although we all know that magazines like Dwell are living from the ad space they are selling, the advertisers respect a certain level of editorial independence. I am not suggesting that there is never any pressure from advertisers nor that journalists are completely free from auto-censuring there written products, but generally speaking we do not measure the credibility of an article or a magazine or a TV program for that matter by the advertising.
I am not a fan of blatant copying, even when the copyrights and other intellectual protection measures have expired, but that?s not what I read. I see someone questioning the credibility of the editorial contents based on advertising?
Thanks Olive for the link. I do not always agree with the small details like measuring the validity of conservation by it?s economical impact?but all in all it is a well crafted and interesting piece.
It was not my intention to question the validity of choosing a recyclable material (polypropylene) versus a non recyclable one (fibre glass re-enforced polyester). I only wanted to put it into perspective by showing that a recyclable material like polypropylene only deserves to get that environmental advantage if it is really recycled. The figures show that it is not and so the end results in terms of environmental load are not very different.

Koen
You are so right. Doh! I let it pass me, but yes, editorial and advertising is like church and state. Often times they are completely run by two completely independent departments. While I worked as the marketing art director for an alt weekly, the two were completely separate. That's not to say that the ad department did try and keep the paper in it's best interest. There were times we turned down ad dollars because it was not in the best interest of the paper.

Modern Woodworks
Finch, I've only breifly seen the Modernica ESUs in their NY showroom and they looked okay. The chairs were okay as well, altho the girl helping me was a total dolt - three times referring to a chair as 'iridescent' when I think she meant 'translucent'. However - it can be argued that these are well made because Modernica had access to the original drawings and specs. I've not seen their other pieces, such as the "noguchi" tables so I cannot comment. And my 'crap' comment was more in reference to the scads of other knock-offs on the market than towards Modernica.
Modern Woodworks, however, I've already discussed on the forum. His willingness to alter the materiality, design, and modularity of the ESUs throws his credibility right out the window. It proves my point that folks like him - however personable he may be - don't really understand 'design'. He's like an art forger: able to ape existing ESUs but his understanding of the proportions and ratios falls apart when creating his own designs. Simply adding dimpled doors and cross braces isn't enough.
And R&D is a big issue - no matter how long ago it was done. None of these designs would exist without that R&D and thats important to remember.
Koen- agreed. Mr. Demetrious should have approached the editorial board and offered his availability to talk about the benefits of the new chairs vs. the old material instead of only resorting to the letters section. I do think that Dwell should consider the effect of promoting knock-offs as a source of ad revenue tho.

Agreed
I would not expect Dwell to advertise knock-offs either.
I don't think of Modernica pieces as being "knock-offs." A knock-off to me is something obviously designed to be an alternative to the original, but is not alike. For example, Burke tulip chairs are so obviously made to cash in on the Saarinen tulip design. They are the same to the layman, but obviously different.
If you knew more about Modernica, you would know that they really started out of a love for design. Originally they started selling only vintage shells because they had come upon a huge inventory of them. After the shells were all sold the demand did not alter. At that point you could only get vintage and new shells were not available to the buying public.
They probably had a good bit of R&D (albeit probably not as extensive) in order to correctly make the items they produce. They probably spent a great deal of time and money getting the tooling made and getting it right ... out of a love for design and a desire to make the product correctly. These items aren't really the easiest to reproduce correctly considering shapes, scale, upholstering techniques. Their items are more or less spot on and well made. I'm not saying that makes them right per se, but it does make them a bit different than say, White on White.
I think of Modernica, because it does create quality pieces, to be a reproduction. The shell chairs are an exact replica, making it a reproduction. If the dimensions were off, or if the materials were changed, or the shape was altered, I would refer to it as a knock off.
As for the quality inquiry on the ESUs: The Modernica ESUs, while very nice, are not quite what the Herman Miller ESU's are. It's damn close though.

Not to belabor the point
but Modernica DID change the material on the plastic chairs. History gives us a logical progression of materiality on the chairs and Modernica wants to reverse that path and stay the same.
Modernica may have started out with a love of design - but any kind of growth is being stunted by their falling back on knock-offs & repros of classics. Cheating on homework in grade school may get you good grades, but it doesnt make you smarter.

I don't understand your claim...
I don't understand your claim that Modernica changed the material. Modernica was reproducing these chairs before the new plastic versions emerged.
Several pieces Modernica makes were previously discontinued. They are providing desired items previously unavailable to the public ... the fiberglass chair, the nelson lamps, the grasshopper chair, the nelson beds, to name a few. If anything, those that prefer new should be thanking them. And again, reproductions are a class higher than knock-offs.
I personally don't mind buying a reproduction (though I don't own any). If I really desired a grasshopper chair I would get one from Modernica. It's not extremely cheap by any means, but it's well done and its new and sturdy (no worries with kids + dogs). When was the last time that chair was available? If someone were to love that chair, don't you think it would turn them on to Saarinen.... and in turn they might buy into Saarinen's estate at some point?
It's a little known fact, but Herman Miller used to print all the detailed drawings, dimensions, etc. in their catalogs. I truly believe they wanted design for everyone. If a designer's survivors are too busy or apathetic to keep their related designer's work in motion, then why are you so worried that they reap the benefits of designs that they didn't design either?
My beef is with companies that only see a buck and make extremely bad versions the standard in peoples minds. Take the butterfly chair for example. Boy did they let that one get away. When I will be able to buy poorly constructed pink eames shells with Winnie the Pooh on it ... now that's when it gets evil!

Awwww Man! but....
I LOVE Winnie the Pooh!