George Nelson was already a...
George Nelson was already a highly successful designer and well known writer by the time he designed his line for Arbuck in 1950.
For example he became Herman Miller's Director of Design already in 45 or 46 as far as I know.
I have seen a chair, coffee table and a side table, which he did for Arbuck and they look nothing like any of the designs shown in these threads, not even close.
That said, I don't know if he also did other designs for Arbuck, so I can't tell if yours are a GN design or not.
Fast and furious
Most of the time when an auction house is putting together a catalog they are working at a pretty furious pace to get everything ready in time for the auction and things are not necessarily researched as closely as they might have been.
It's happened more than once where a listing sneaks in based on a consigners description that never gets properly vetted and researched and only years later that someone looks at it and says: "Hey, Wait a minute!"
Auction catalogs are rife with mistakes, just because you see something in print does't mean that it's true...
this is silly...
I have seen the photos of items he did for Arbuck that are documented attributions, and they look VERY CLOSE to this set.
To say they do not is an observational error - sorry, there is simply no simpler way to put it - you must literally be joking. Honestly...your going to tell me next that a Wendy 1/2 pound burger looks nothing like a Wendys 1/2 Pound burger because it has ketchup and the other doesn't. Of allllll the furniture houses everywhere on the globe, it just so happens that the same house in the same year put out two tables with almost identical bases and tops - and yet they look "nothing alike".
This is just smugness (again sorry for being blunt) - without the attribution to George Nelson you couldn't tell what piece Nelson did at Arbuck because frankly, they both are pretty darn unattractive and fail to look anything like real good dinettes of the era - sorry George - not one your best pieces.
The bottom line is that there is no known attribution for or against. Just as we do not see a clear attribution for, we do not see one against either. Got an attribution for another guy? Show me.
I am personally going to go with the opinion of a major auction house run by a person with qualifications and who is known in the business.
This is not to say he can not be wrong - and that you can not be right - but in the absence of certainty who do you think I should go with?
Either way, I am waiting to see what the professionals say - they will make their opinion known once they have viewed all information they can get (they aren't jumping to snap conclusions - they are pros). Unlike on here by some where opinions with actual lack of evidence are mistaken for facts - by the people sprouting them.
I did not want to get into this on here - I had a private email and phone call with someone in this thread who has now decided to post their "opinion" - I was going to update in a week - and I still shall.
It is a most interesting discovery process - and that is certainly the fun part of this. Anyone thinking they purchased a George Nelson table when an major auction house says they are "A" and nothing else contests that is on the right track - but mistakes do happen.
So, hedge your bet - if you are right and they are not George Nelson, then you are right by default and luck opinion - it's 50/50. A professional would not do that. So lets wait here for the facts to come through.
🙂
- A.S.
Quick search:
Just did a quick search for you. Found a book, George Nelson: The Design of Modern Design. Seems to have his chronology of design...it mentions that Nelson designed "armchair, occasional table, coffee table for Arbuck, Brooklyn." Take from that what you may, but it doesn't mention any other designs by Nelson for Arbuck.
In the absence of certainty...
Don't be certain?
You're agreeing while disagreeing. In fact, apart from being smug and ungrateful for the feedback you asked for, I don't think you have a point at all.
You're going to go with an unconfirmed attribution AND wait for conformation?
You're acting as if this is a huge mystery yet you admit the designs are nothing special?
Huh?
Jesus Christ...
I feel like this has turned into a bizarro world MCM slap fight. I'll be happy to use the table to enjoy my coffee in the fall weather and not even think about who might have designed it. Maybe I'll ponder it's origins again IF some actual hard information comes down the pike next week, but I can't summon up the energy to even care enough to post any more about this shit anymore.
I had found lots of examples of this table, and similar pieces, attributed to Nelson online and due to only finding a few of the chairs started a thread looking for some more info on them beyond dealer descriptions. Pretty simple, but after 18 posts I've got bupkis.
-Maria
Lunchbox...
I said we are waiting for a fact to arise that gives certainty - perhaps one never will. I have received emails, feedback and comments that do not give any certainty - but it is good information - just not for establishing the credentials of this piece.
Yes, we are thinking based on a major auction house saying that the table is Nelson - that it is Nelson. However, we are searching into what facts they have to support this. And we are also not taking it "at word" and are investigating other avenues to get certain attribution.
Calling a major auction house's attribution as "unconfirmed" is a real stretch. No one has seen the source of their attribution. Yet.
If I pick up what looks like a Stilnovo and see it in an ad from 1970 - that isn't an attribution either - although some on here use that as evidence - which it is not
Catalogs from designers and manufacturers are bullet proof summaries of yearly designs by those that are paid to get it right into volumes are real trustworthy sources.
So the question of what is a genuine bullet proof attribution comes under fire. And we are asking the question because we want to know the answer - and choosing not live with with an attribution we have not personally verified.
No one on here knows for certain.
There is really nothing wrong with "thinking" it is Nelson based on auction houses saying it is Nelson while we are still looking into it to see if this is true. It isn't like we are selling it to you, or have it on ebay.
As for "Thinking it isn't anything special" is very immaterial to the point at all.
I have seen many come onto DA and get "proof" from people here who say it is something - without one shred of ACTUAL proof, just someone "who knows" so the reason for some being so concerned about a small item like this...I find baffling.
I know I'm not that interesting. But the pieces are - so let's stick to what it is all about and not get personal.
Let's reset the matter and take a note from some of the easier going comments in this thread - present company included.
- A.S.
Nelson designs for Arbuck
George Nelson made a total of 6 designs for Arbuck (style #70 according to my 1958 catalog) in 1950. These designs are well documented in the Nelson archives. There are two occasional tables (one round the other square), a coffee table, a pull up chair, an armchair and a sofa. Nothing else.
The items listed as being by George Nelson for Arbuck in the 2002 Rago Auction catalog and the 2004 Treadway auction catalogs were in error.
Sorry to disappoint tinyarmada or anyone else but these are the facts and they are incontrovertible.
Would it not be
more accurate to say; " I have the 1958 catalog and this is what I know was produced." There is repeated claims made that something is not whatever based on partial evidence of what is. Now if you had, say, all the Arbuck catalogs, you would at least have a reasonably tight assertion. If I had one Herman Miller catalog, I certainly could not claim that any unmarked piece not in that catalog is not Miller. The bottom line seems to be that it is safe to prove something IS by documentation, but guessing at best to say that it is not. It is just degrees of how good your guess is based on your available documentation.
1958?
I am sorry straylight, but it was not more than a few days ago via email to me you asserted (with quite some authority I may add) that there were a number of pieces Nelson did for Arbuck - and now that number has jumped to 6.
In a matter of days...
If I had asked you 4 days ago to put down a hundred bucks that your research was complete - you would have said yes.
And now, the number of pieces is up to 6.
It is a fair statement to say that a catalogue is not definitive. 1958 catalogue about pieces produced in 1950.
What if the pieces were discontinued within 6 months of production in 1950?
Catalogues like to show what is available - not what was.
This research is not definitive.
What will be definitive is 100% certainty we know all pieces done by Nelson for Arbuck, and, we also know who designed this piece if it is not Nelson.
Documentation of all Arbuck designs (not catalogues) 1950-1954 would be definitive.
You say "Nelson Archives" well, what are the "Nelson Archives" I hope you do not mean Catalogues or Newspaper ads - because that is not the definitive Nelson Archive.
So clarify what exactly is the Nelson Archive you refer to, please.
My Girlfriend ran across a reference at the Cooper-hewitt design museuem stating they had a 1958 Arbuck Catalogue - is this what you are using?
- A.S.
P.S. Glassartist: You totally right - you made the point clear and you're 100% correct.
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com