Thanks everyone
For all the help/investigation/info.
We all got so obsessed with the base, I forgot to snap more photos of the shock mounts... I'm still curious whether they are original, and how I might be able to tell. I'll upload more photos later. 1954-1956 would be consistent with the smaller shock mounts, correct? The drop of glue, however, suggests they might not be original, as it seems like a somewhat sloppy repair job.
Fortunately the rest of the shell looks great!
My shell
I hope my chair is relevant to the discussion too. Apparently mine is also a lounge shell chair. I just don't know if it's the MAX, LAX, or whatever AX it is. The base measures 11 inches from the "X" spot and the lip of the shell is 13 and 1/4 inches off the ground. Note how close the height is to the LCW.
wow
the dueling measuring tapes are out now!
And objectworship and chair love are even getting to see some chair porn along the way! But now I'm getting confused as to what the original question was! (just kidding)
So, joshlamiel, I don't think anyone ever answered your question about whether the shell with no markings was a zenith shell or not.
It is generally understood that the "3rd generation Zenith" shells have the three small embossed dots in a small triangular pattern centered between the shock mounts. If the chair has no embossments at all, then it is still pretty early, but probably not Zenith production. This is all consistent with the 55-57 dates we figured out above. And also consistent with the dates for the 1956 swivel glides lounge base. But I guess its still possible that the chair could be as early as 54, but that is a stretch. The swivel glides and no dots probably nail it to at least 55 or later.
The shock mounts seem newish to me. Just guessing, but If the mounts are old, I think it would be pretty obvious once you removed the base. Original 60 year old mounts are going to have some pretty strong imprints, as" toomanychairs" said. Do these mounts have any imprints at all? (And don't forget, you have the advantage of the other similar aged chair to compare against)
KIN- It does seem possible that your shell could be a MAX shell and/or base. Hard to tell from your photos though, and all the measuring of the seat heights confuses me, I have to admit!
It would be easier to compare the angle of the legs with those on the eamesdesigns site if you post a rear view and side view shot from a bit of a distance.
MAX base, MAX shell. They are both 1954 and earlier variations as far as I know. I do know that when I stack up my older rope and venice shells, there are a few that are wider and don't want to "nest" as easily. Those are probably MAX shells. REALLY hard to show that difference in width on a photo. But the bases can be identified more easily.
WOODY- hearing that there are TWO heights to your plastic glide H lounge bases is making me wonder if one of the two heights you mentioned is the same as my single small lower-than-usual H lounge. Or could it be that there are THREE heights to the post 57 plastic glide lounge bases? Whew.
I will have to go dig out my post-57 lounge bases today and succumb to measuring tape Hell once again.
(It is still pre dawn on the west coast so I'm gonna do that much later on today.)
Grey/Parchment
Would you guess that the grey and the parchment shells came from the factory on the same order? Are there differences in the chairs beyond color?
Does it look to you like the chairs have been taken apart? Looking at where the bolt rests upon the dirt in the third photo it looks to me like things might have shifted slightly sometime...
(Parenthetically, if I may rattle, (People (including myself) in many situations treat Eames shells and bases as interchangeable, which they obviously sort of are, but each chair began as a specific product from the factory, and any disassembly/ reassembly will cause wear which may or may not matter much depending on condition or other factors... the system of appraisal can be kind of flexible, for example a narrow mount stacking side shell may benefit from a base swap, whereas there is probably not much of a good reason to corrupt a nice original vintage h-base chair with an unnecessary switch, although I suppose this can just be a matter of taste... something about preservation... yawn...)))
(blinks eyes)
joshlamiel
I think the dates are still pretty much the same as we had arrived at earlier.
The 1956 bases and the embossed double triangles of Summit Plastics is a common and reasonable overlap. Assuming the 56 base is original to the shell, that is the big key in nailing the date.
But how BIG are the Summit double triangles?
In my way too detailed notes, I have the Early Summit double triangle chairs date range to be from 1955 to 1959. But there were larger double triangles on the earliest chairs in that range, and smaller double triangles on the later shells. No specifics beyond that. Because that would be too obsessive, right?
Then in 1960 or so, the Summit shells change to the embossed circle S. Forgive me. It's an illness.
PS It is possible that the shells were not original to the low H bases, but they feel right to me, in spite of the re glued mounts. (The pair thing, the age/wear thing on the parchment shell, it all seems to add up.)
Yeah, I know
Those 670 Police are lurking everywhere kin.
Didn't I see you driving by my house one day last week in a white unmarked van? All I know is that the license plate read "KIN 670", and there was a telescope sticking out of the window as it slowed in front of my place. Then it sped off.
I know the sharks are circling. I can feel it. An offer is coming.
HEIGHTS for Lounge H Base
Post-1957 lounge height H bases with white plastic glides:
(Measurements are from ground to highest point at top surface of front mounts)
4 @ 14.0 inches. Aluminum. Glides whitest and they seem newer
2 @ 14.5 inches (or a bit less) Both painted Black. Glides seem yellowed.
One was original to
a post-1960 Summit circle S shell,
and closest in height to 1956 swivel lounge height
1 @ 13 and 3/8 inches. Exactly 5/8 inches lower than lowest "normal" one.
Only the two front riser tabs are lower, causing the
shell to be less angled. The top plane of the tubing
is the same height. The legs are also less angled,
causing a slightly more boxy look. Aluminum.
Same glides included as others.
Clearly three heights, even if we are off a bit here or there. I can't tell if the oddball lowest base is a recent or older one. You would think it might be cooler looking because its so damned low, but its not. It has no movement.
PS I'm wondering now if there were specific shells or dates associated with the two different main base heights that woody and I came up with. Maybe the taller bases were always painted black? Or always for side shells? (for instance)
Just a thought.
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com