Eames Demetrios vs. Dwell Magazine  

Note how they used the word "After"....
.... in describing this Modernica Florence Knoll copy sofa. "After Florence Knoll", now this is their usual way to denote an item is a copy/reproduction.
Pure speculation admittedly, but I wonder if possibly some kind of statement is being made here by Wright.
(Again, click the link below).
http://www2.wright20.com:8080/4DCGI/Web_Individual_Lots/EFIT/179

And another.....
Clearly this is no accident. This is from this months upcoming auction. A Modernica ESU, by Charles and Ray Eames, NOT "After" Charles and Ray Eames.
If we consider Eames Demetrios letter to Dwell, about eroding credibility and Modernica's product having nothing to with the Eames family, then clearly he must also think that Wright... is in the Wrong.
Yes? No?
(again click the link below).
http://www.wright-inc.com/auctions/view/F7WY/F7WZ/1/117

the beloved
You have a good point. But this auction house is the brain child of one man, and we can see his opinion clearly. This is one man with a lot of experience. But, I would venture to say that we have lots of experience as well, and many of us cannot agree. So go figure.
I am surprised at the misnamed Modernica sofa. They say "after Florence Knoll." While I get the error, the sofa certainly looks Knoll-esque, the sofa is a reproduction of an early Nelson design called the "Loose Cushion" series. If I find a photo I will post it, but searching google has proven to be fruitless at this moment.
I am also curious as to why they are selling a Modernica shell rocker for $550. Aren't these closer to the 300-400 dollar mark brand new? It's not like they aren't still available, and in any finish you choose!

Whitespike - I know you're...
Whitespike - I know you're feeling beleaguered by me and again I apologize. Perhaps we are both mis-interpreting each other's tones, as often happens in text.
My example of the Pinto was purposefully extreme to illustrate that when things are bad people often change them. Depending on the severity other view this change as good (Pinto) or bad (Fibreglas).
The rest of my argument is predicated on your positioning (which I may be reading erroneously) that Modernica makes knock-offs as a way of preserving design. If this is correct than I submit that the designs Herman Miller continues to produce - i.e. the plastic chairs, are not in NEED of preserving, as Herman Miller and the Eames have decided that the materials are bad.
I followed that by saying that IF Modernica wanted to pursue preservation as their goal they would have a much stronger moral base on which to stand if they were not copying pieces already extant in licensed form - hence the list of items I thought could use a little preserving.
Herman Miller made about 2billion last year. I highly doubt that comes from selling lounge chairs. The Modern Classics represent a valuable facet to Herman Miller, but that value lies more with the brands publicity than with actual monetary profits. I mean seriously, can you imagine trying to build a publicity campaign around cubicles?
To clear up some other points - I do read & respect your posts. I think you're pretty damn smart and put up a lot of thought provoking and challenging arguments. My goal isnt to win anything, simply to extend the dialog further. Case in point - you did not say Plycraft was 'great', you called them a 'quality manufacturer'. I read that as an affirmation of the company and countered. On the other hand my status as a middle child does lend itself to the argumentative side and that I wholly accept. ;-D

Beloved
It's common practice in auction houses to have a sort of code when describing things.
In an art auction a piece by Rembrandt might be described as:
Rembrandt van Rijn
V.R. Rembrandt
Rembrandt
School of Rembrandt
After Rembrandt
Each successive shortening means the auction house is less and less certain of the actual authenticity of the piece. Its kind of like the live-auction way of saying "eames era" to draw crowds. It also allows people to make up their own minds about the authenticity of certain pieces - which relieves responsibility from the auction houses should they sell something less than authentic. Of course, such a sale would be surely and completely accidental... wink wink.
With furniture it would seem less likely that there would be confusion, as most large companies developed labeling systems. Perhaps Wright is trying to accommodate a short supply of modern pieces, or perhaps is simply acknowledging exactly what he has.

.
More than less
More, then less
There, over there
They're over there
Theirs, over there

I love repros...
For target practice
Heyo!

the letter
The letter in the original post on this thread by Demetrios Eames is even more interesting now, as Herman Miller has since gone back to making shells in the evil fiberglass.
So much for the environment (and Ray's wishes) then? I'm sure there must be a rationalization.
Perhaps the new fiberglass shells are "land-fill friendly"?

Fiberglass
Herman Miller's rationale:
Thanks to a new proprietary process of producing fiberglass, Herman Miller is once again able to produce the Eames original 1950 Molded Fiberglass Chair safely by means of a less volatile, monomer-free ?dry bind? process. Like the original shell chairs, our new fiberglass finish has the same covetable surface variation and tell-tale fiberglass striation that have attracted avid vintage collectors for decades.
Available in both the arm and side chair formats in eight archival colors, the chairs can be configured with a choice of wire, dowel leg, stacking, rocker, and 4-leg bases. An array of trim, finely tailored Hopsak fabrics designed by Alexander Girard, Herman Miller?s Textile Director from 1952 to 1973, round out the collection of shell customization options, fully restoring the integrity of the original 1953 shell chair offerings. All chairs can be recycled through the Herman Miller Take Back Program.
http://www.hermanmiller.com/products/seating/stacking-chairs/eames-molde...

thanks woody
So Herman Miller's new fiberglass is better for the environment than their old fiberglass was. Good to know.
But I'm still skeptical enough to wonder if the new fiberglass is a step up (or a step down) when compared to their own more recent pure plastic shells. That was not addressed in the literature.
But given the ongoing huge growth (and profitability) in green awareness, I assume HM would try to upgrade in this regard with any big change in design.

That's commercial propaganda, EH...
Herman Miller's "new" process isn't even worth the mention. Environmental impact is the same. They just finally saw the dollar signs, crawfished and came up with a line to make it look like they weren't caving. Thus this "new" process angle.

Dry press indeed
If that is true, what would Ray say?
I think it's funny how the young Eames went way out on that big green limb, and then it got sawed right off. I wonder if he helped saw it off, or fought HM on it, or simply had no clue.
When this letter was written six years ago, I think we had "peak Demetrios" -- right around that time when MCM was heating up again for the second go around after the dot com bust. Upcoming museum shows, MCM buzz, bright lights. Where is he now? Bali?

My opinion
HM did it because they were tired of losing business to Modernica. They just needed to put the proper spin on it.

Readers may have
missed post #4 of the thread, in which veteran poster and industrial designer Koen (de Winter) quotes numbers suggesting that the polypropylene chairs were not that much cleaner in environmental terms than fiberglass . . .

Not to sound like a broken record...
... but just like the greenest home, the greenest furniture is the furniture that already exists. In this case, that would be vintage Eames chairs.
It also seems very odd to me to quarrel about which is worse for the environment when they are discarded. I don't plan of throwing it away when I'm buying furniture.