Herman Miller George Nelson Platfrom bench  

Base isn't original
While the top looks legit, the base has either been very poorly redone or was replaced at some point. The rounded edges are a dead giveaway, as well as the lack of patina and assembly which looks different.

Thanks for your reply..But...
Thanks for your reply..But in the mean time I did some more searching on line and here's what I found..This auction listing from a 2003 Rago modern Auction where they sold 2 of these benchs and here's there Description word for word: Two GEORGE NELSON for HERMAN MILLER blond-wood slatted benches on ebonized legs. (Of the early variety, with round-edged legs). Some finish wear. Unmarked. 14" x 48 1/4" x 18 3/4". They sold for $1000.00 for a the pair.. The link to the sale is included..So now what?
http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/134434

?????
So a misrepresented Live Auctioneers listing legitimizes your bench?
Plain and simple, the base is wrong. Had the bases of the other benches been right, I would wager they would've brought quite a bit more than $500 a piece. But if you want to try to get $500 for yours, go right ahead.
In the realm of authentic or not authentic however, this changes nothing.
You asked for info and I gave it to you.
You're welcome and congrats on doing a bit of research.

One always
wonders what's up, when someone becomes brittle and defensive. . .

Base is certainly wrong.
Base is certainly wrong.

Check the HM 1948 catalog
The base is correct, it's an early version. I've seen it before on another bench years ago. If you look in the 1948 Herman Miller catalog, about page nine, pages aren't numbered, you will see a bench with the identical base.

Thank you!
Thanks Just50s for that information! I was begining to think I made a mistake bying this piece after every one was telling me it was the wrong base.. I had a gut feeling the base had to be right and was early as I knew the past owners (now deceased) and there's no way they would have ever had the base legs replaced. They bought it new and have been the only owners of it for over 50 years according to there Daughter who I bought it from..So thanks again for the Information!

Thanks
For the info.

~
This thread made me put down the highball, and search for another example of this base...with no luck..in one of my many yet to be read books. I did find a book that I didn't realize that i had "The HermanMiller Collection 1952" (Acanthus Press), and noted that all Nelson benches have a base exactly like all others that I've seen..including mine. I wish that I knew how to share a photo of one particular page (pg 16-17) where as the ad shows an optional cabinet for phonograph/radio to set on top of the Nelson base.
per book: #4743
Cabinet for phonograph-radio installation is equipped with blanks in which the purchaser is to make necessary cut-outs and install his own equipment; cloth covered opening for 15" speaker, 8 1/2 " legs or platform bench.
per me:
one 15 " speaker?? and since the Nelson household probably had such a piece in the rumpus room..whatdaya think he spun for vinyl? Henry Mancini?
All the best,

contentiousness
I am one of many here who are bothered by some of the ID queries. Not the ones that are respectful of the responders, but the ones that are disrespectful when an opinion offered does not meet their expectations. As I was following this thread, I had a couple of thoughts. First, I did not know if this was a correct base, but noted it was the same profile as the wood legs on the basic series cabinets, even being square on the outside and rounded on the inside. So it seemed quite possible to me that it could be correct. But it was all guess work on my part so no point in responding.
When SDR pointed out a prickly response, I initially thought the comment was about lunchboxs' response. After a reread, I wonder if SDR had meant it that way or the other way around, though I could see no offense on the original posters' part and pricklyness from lunchbox. In fairness to lunchbox, I could have an unusual read of the conversation. But on this ID subject it made me think that the pendulum swings both ways. Are we any better than disrespectful inquirers when we are snarky in response? I am fortunate to only possess a good general knowledge of this field with as many gaps as certainties. I do respond when I have something to offer, but bear in mind that it is likely impossible to be 100 percent certain in many cases. in cases like this where I have not seen a potential variant, I might respond that I have never seen it rather than it is certainly not. I can only be certain about what I know, not what I have never seen. If it were slats nailed to a couple of apple crates, I would just ignore the post. I am actually happy to see queries proliferate on this forum as it gives me much interesting stuff to view. It would be much more pleasant though if we held ourselves to the civility standard we expect from our forum "invaders". (Note;) I am certainly not always civil. So of course. this is a close subject for me.

.
.

Glides...
Thanks for posting the photo of the glides..Yes, the Glides are missing from my bench..Where does one find them?

Right on
Glass artist, I rarely comment on North American furniture, its a weak spot in my knowledge, I was going to say that common sense would dictate that no one would bother to have a different leg custom made when it could be repaired or an identical could be made if the original owners required that. Wasn't there a recent thread where SDR pointed out a different splined mitre leg construction on a longer bench? I'm not sure.
Sometimes its better to reserve judgement.

Piss off, you PC twats...
I kid, I kid...
Or do I?
Regardless...
I'm still calling BS on this bench. Let's analyze this for a moment...
If this were a super rare(and moreover super early) piece, then I'm absolutely correct in my assertion. Firstly, the bottom of the base(never mind the base itself) doesn't show any wear despite missing glides. So either it's bogus or someone repainted and/or refinished it at some point. Either way, it's no longer original and its value will be lowered by skepticism.
And secondly, what's going on with the assembly? Looks REALLY weird. Every other bench I've seen(which is quite a few) displays symmetrical hardware closer to the center of the bench.
And finally, the patina of the slats doesn't match its supposed age either. I've seen much later examples display much more wear and patina. And the early versions I've seen just don't match this one. Maybe it was redone too? Maybe not?
That's my two cents. I just find it very hard to believe from the photos provided that the bench is indeed an authentic early version.
And as for my supposed snarkiness, that was mild considering the dismissive response I received after offering my opinion.
Cheerio.