Will the real George Nelson for Arbuck please stand up  

Great ads!
Thanks for posting.

NOW
They're 'designed'
Straylight, you're a credit to the Design community.
Thanks.

Everything you know is wrong
Unfortunately due to some early screw ups at the auction houses everything we thought we knew was George Nelson for Arbuck turns out to be wrong.
I just figured it might be a good idea to put some fo the actual authoritative information out into the universe.
No charge.

Very well done!
straylight deserves a canned ham and several rounds of whisky for doing his/her homework.
Bravo!

It's disappointing, though...
... that these real Nelson designs are so much less attractive than the faux-Nelson Frank and Son pieces.

Not To Me
they're not.
They're far more cohesive, to my eye.

fastfwd,I completely...
fastfwd,
I completely agree.
The knock-offs do look much better than the original.
These look too "busy" to my eye. I think these materials lend themselves to a more minimalistic design.

How
Odd

Eh?
The Frank & Son stuff is so boringly simplistic compared to this line. This is much more sophisticated stuff.

With you
Lunchbox
The lines are functional, as opposed to abitary and ill- (non) considered decoration.
Sometimes one needs to step away from the names involved (easy for a Brit in this case)

I guess I just can't get past the inefficiency.
To me, these pieces look as though they were designed to be built from materials much weaker than steel. All the extra metal in these pieces is just dead weight (visually, in my opinion, as well as literally).

Why?
the chair and sofa uprights on the side to stop cushions falling through, the coffee table meah under-tier to hold magazines, newspapers and books?
Semes logical, fuctional and, stylistically, of the period to me...

I was really only talking about the tables
becase those are the pieces for which there are Frank and Son equivalents that I've seen.
To me, the gridwork under the side tables' glass tops is unnecessary and a little ugly. There doesn't need to be ANYTHING under the glass (except for the rim, of course), but if Nelson really wanted to put something there to stylistically tie the tables to the other pieces, I think he would have done better to run just a few parallel wires -- echoing the parallel wires in the chair and sofa backs -- WITHOUT the wires that cross them to form the grid.
Does the coffee table have glass over its grid, too? If so, I'd want to see the same change there: from the grid of wires to nothing or to a set of parallel wires.
Also, why does he need EIGHT supports for the glass top? And why are they curved like that? Wouldn't the coffe table look better with four straight supports holding the top? In fact, it might even be better upside down, with its existing eight feet on the floor and its existing four straight legs holding the top.
In my opinion, anyway.
I don't hate the side chair. The lounge chair is ok, too; I like it a lot more now than I did when I mistook the seat-cushion welting for a horizontal steel rod that was bent around the arms and back of the chair at approximately seat-cushion level.

Can I ask a question? These...
Can I ask a question? These threads are not my territory and I think the designs mediocre at best so I've refrained from particpating but whenever I read about something thats 'George Nelson' I think of it as being from the office of Nelson, not necessarily from the man himself. Could he, like Mies, have sometimes done not a lot more than simply sign off on an employees work?
When were the disputed pieces first manufactured and when did he form the office? Please pardon any naivete, as I say not my territory.