Gen II Herman Miller Eames Lounge chair. 670/ 671.  

very nice.

Hi again, I found your thread! And a very nice find...
Based on the use of down and feathers in the cushions, my guess is that it is at least pre-1971. Probably 1960s.
If you can get Kin to weigh in, he would probably be able to add more info, as he is obsessed with these chairs.
KIN??? YOU THERE?
EDIT: I had not noticed the patent number before. I was able to zoom in and read the number. It looks like this one was made in 1965. (Kin would still have more to say I'm sure!)

how can you tell patent numbers linking it to 1965?

also is it the general consensuses to use Hume modern for the shockmounts? the round shock mounts that go between the two backrest on my chair are not looking that great either. I see modern conscience sells replacements. that a thing i should look at?

I have a chart with all of the US patent numbers correlated to inclusive dates. It goes back to 1836.
It is copyrighted so I don't think I should re post it here… but it didn't take me too long to find it by googling the hell out of "US patent numbers and dates" or something along those lines.
The last long number on the Herman Miller paper label (lower right hand column number) is the one that was current when the chair was produced.
As for shock mounts, I have only re glued one existing (arm rest area) mount on a 671, and have not used any of the new ones. But I did use Alfie's special glue from Hume Modern, and it worked well. He sells both the glue and shock mounts separately. I think he sells on ebay sometimes.
Kin would know more about the shock mounts and processes though.

does anyone know where to buy these shockmounts?

I might be mistaken, but that big thing with the screws in it behind the lozenge shaped shock mount looks to be a home made repair.

i found that picture here.
http://www.designaddict.com/forum/Repair/Herman-Miller-Eames-Lounger-Sho....

Ah, back to the old question then : "should I restore it, or should I improve it?"
Yeah better shear-strength maybe, but not the most graceful shock mount design. I know nobody will see it, but that thing will always be lurking down there...
Just my opinion, but a fix like that would always require disclosure -for better or worse- and probably keep a few like myself from buying the chair if you ever choose to sell it.
(But we have been down this road before!)
There's plenty of room to "improve" on almost any design, if you choose to look with a practical eye. Why not put a warming element in the seat cushion for more comfort too?

Apparently that is a Herman Miller made improvement. Surely HM would be accorded the allowance to improve the product? (Of course the flip side of this is what drives collectors' pride of ownership of the earliest possible specimen).
But my point is that there is a party whose right to "improve" is granted, even if grudgingly in certain cases. And this improvement comes from that party.

Yeah, I see your primary point Leif. And to your other point, Herman Miller is only the company, not the original designer! So there is that.
What if Herman Miller decided to add cup holders?
Now we can have the "Charles and Ray surely would have made this reasonable and need upgrade" discussion…

Well that is the grudging part. Finn Juhl designed a chieftain prototype with an integrated ashtray, while we are on the subject of cup holders.
Eventually I suppose all designers have to hope their works will be valued enough to find good custodians. And what good custodianship looks like in changing times is a subjective decision.

So my chair had a old shitty repair to a broken back as well as drilled through lower butt panel. Any high collectibility is already out the door I assumed . I just want a chair that will last a long time after it is made whole again.

Quite reasonable when you put it that way. And in all fairness, I know full well that there are many on this board that would definitely prefer the stronger improved shock mount.
(I thought about starting an ashtray collection awhile back. They are so completely shunned and removed from their original intent , that I started to look at them in a purely aesthetic way, like some kind of weird abstract sculpture or wall relief. But I kept returning to the association with smoke smell, etc, and came to my senses)