try again
ugop,
Perhaps people are having a difficult time with this question as it a PK91 stool not P91 and it is Fritz Hansen not Hantzen.
I can tell you that neither of my Poul Kjærholm, PK91 leather and stainless steel and fabric and stainless steel folding stools for Fritz Hansen are marked. They were purchased directly from Knoll (when Knoll was the US distributor) and their production dates are 2001.
More (correct) information along with photos are required to receive a more definitive answer.
Try again.
To further complicate matters
... Herman Miller distributed Kjaerholm designs in the early/ mid 1980s shortly after Kjaerholm died and right around the time that production shifted from EKC to Fritz Hansen. As we are in the Mid-West USA we see a fair amount of these Herman Miller distributed pieces that are unmarked other than sometimes a "Denmark" stamp or sticker. It's always been unclear to me whether it was EKC or Hansen production that Herman Miller was selling in the US.
However, in terms of value the pieces clearly marked EKC fetch a considerably higher price than the same piece produced by Hansen regardless of the fact that any difference in the quality is essentially indistinguishable.
1970's
Herman Miller distributed Kjaerholm in the early to mid 70's, not 80's. They were EKC production. My PK20 was purchased from a Herman Miller employee who called it a "Herman Miller Sling Chair" not realizing what it was. It has the EKC stamp on the underside of the frame.
My favorite chair in the house.
You are right Norm.
That is what I get for posting a quick response and not double checking what I'd written. It was in the 70s, not the 80s that Herman Miller was marketing and distributing Kjaerholm designs.
However, it does not change the fact that the large portion of the vintage Kjaerholm I've encountered here (most likely distributed by HM) does not have the EKC stamp or a Fritz Hansen label. I have seen many pieces of more recent production that were labeled Fritz Hansen. Those marked EKC and found locally "in the wild" are much more scarce.
I have also known former Herman Miller employees who had and sold Kjaerholm pieces, but again they were unmarked. I never understood why. Whether EKC or Hansen, I don't know why they would not put their name on it. Even if Herman Miller also labeled the piece. There are Jacobsen designs that have a Knoll/ Fritz Hansen labels.
I don't own the Kjaerholm book which lays out the timeline for his life and work, but have studied it and my recollection was that the production moved from EKC to Hansen in the early/ mid 1980s, which would mean that the Kjaerholm furniture that HM distributed in the 1970s would be EKC production... marked accordingly or not.
Perhaps someone on the forum has that book, could confirm what I remember reading and maybe there is even additional insight as to the production/distribution of his work included within that they could share.
I'm in the UK so can't help...
I'm in the UK so can't help with the HM issue. However, I have and have had many EKC pieces. Some (PK22's in particular) have been stamped TWICE with the EKC logo, and other items haven't been stamped at all but were certainly EKC pieces - i.e bought at the same time in the 1960s as other stamped pieces. With this in mind, I don't think the QC at E Kold was particularly stringent when it came to ensuring every piece was stamped - this could/could not make a difference to the HM pieces but thought it's worth mentioning. Post a pic of the stool if you can and we can have a look.
I've a question
...for Nick or anyone who has seen and handled a number of vintage Kjaerholm pieces.
Recent production is easy to spot based on condition and lack of patina, wear or signs of age and use. However, when looking at a vintage example in decent condition, have you ever been able to discern whether it is EKC or FH production without looking for marks or labels?
I think I have a pretty good eye for detail and I've seen a fair number of Kjaerholm pieces in person and I don't think there is a discernible difference in quality between the two manufacturers.
Has anyone else seen a detail that was different, or a significant difference in quality of construction or materials between the two makers?
Thanks you for answers...
And sorry for mistakes, i've edited my first post.
I've found the stool in France, so I don't think it could be ditributed by HM.
I've made some pictures of it:
There is a padded cushion leatherette (on both sides) custom made on the third picture.
Thank you, and ask me if some details can help.
great stool
ugop,
A person who does not make mistakes never does anything. You corrected your errors and there is "no harm and no foul".
Great stool. The canvas appears to be in wonderful condition.
Please loose the "padded cushion leatherette" as it detracts from the beautiful lines and design.
Congratulations on your find.
A Kjaerholm specialist told...
A Kjaerholm specialist told me that Fritz Hansen has always used brushed stainless steel. EKC used plated steel. Even unmarked pieces can be distinguished that way. Mine are stamped and the steel is very different from new FH examples. The type of steel plating EKC used is no longer allowed in Europe. Perhaps early FH pieces are also plated but I have no idea if and when they switched. If the steel of your chair matches stamped versions then it's clear. If not, the quest continues.
Here is a close-up of the...
Here is a close-up of the EKC makers mark on a Kjaerholm bench about to be up for auction at Wright. While initial inspection of corrosion might indicate plated steel, there are quite a few stainless steel alloys that are susceptible to "tea-staining" corrosion.
I'm not sure what type of plating that EKC used, but it could certainly pass the eye test for stainless steel in appearance, corrosion patterns notwithstanding.
I don't know enough about EKC or FH construction to say either way, but thought I'd post the photo and first-hand observations for those who know more.
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com