Very nice.
Is that pre-finished plywood ? Looks good. While we all like these curtain-coated factory finishes as time-savers, some of the products receive a really thin coat, of unknown durability. Later refinishing might be difficult; I have yet to try paint strippers on the product.
Time for me to chip in my two cents on reproducing items designed by others. I have no problem with it, when the purpose is to provide oneself with replicas of goods otherwise unavailable to the maker. I don't approve of items made poorly, for any reason; the aim should be to meet or exceed the original manufacturer's standard, and to carefully apply the measurements and proportions of the originals. It is the responsibility of such makers to mark their pieces so than no future owner would be deceived as to the origin of the item.
All of this is beside the point of commercial knock-offs of dubious accuracy or quality, with which the furniture trade is flooded.
We have a lot of discussion on Wright Chat about the propriety of making duplicates of the architect's work, either furniture pieces or entire buildings. The restoration architects and the owners of Wright properties are, understandably I suppose, leery of the practice; the Frank Lloyd Foundation forbids it, with threat of legal sanction. Yet a couple of newly-built reproductions of Wright designs have been completed in the past decade, apparently without meeting such disapproval. The two examples were both completed with complete fidelity to the original designs, at great expense. In one case, demolished structures were recreated, while in the other an unbuilt design was realized.
The danger, to the reputation of the designer and to future appreciators of design, is that makers will take liberties with the design, inserting their own design decisions into the process while promoting the object as an authentic copy of the original work -- or allowing others to believe it to be such a work.
My feeling is that the world can use as many examples of a good design as it can get. Creators of those designs are (or would be) understandably upset by unauthorized copying of the work. On the other hand, dead designers no longer work in the field, and in most cases their work is no longer under copyright protection -- sometimes to the contrary of claims made by gatekeepers. In most cases, items intended for private use can safely be made.
My point of view is that of a designer and lover of good modernist furniture and architecture, not that of a collector or dealer in such goods, where (presumably) exclusivity is a guarantor of monetary value. And I certainly believe that designers and artists learn from the greats by studying their work, including copying and/or applying design elements and details found in that work. Motive, and the paths it leads to, is the deciding factor, I think.
Laser etched a marking that...
Laser etched a marking that can't be missed saying unofficial and unlicensed. It is 2.25inch in diameter
Yeah, it is pre-finished ply. I might put some veneer on the top. Walnut or rosewood
with comments like this
"Looks like You'll be in business in no time.... "
i might sell them cheap in spite of you. i have said it more than once that these are for personal use and i wasnt going to be selling them. i marked them that any future offspring of mine would never mix them up.
Slow your roll, EH...
Short of him smashing the thing, I approve of nothing.
Also why is there a HM emblem on the decal?
And SDR, I fail to see the relevance of intent in this. It's a moot point really as what the knockoff jockey is thinking at the time of knocking off doesn't stop it being a knockoff. But if you have a clever hand with proper schooling there's absolutely no point in fabricating a replica. Observation and disassembly should be education enough.
funny
your argument amounts to calling the SEARED IN words "UNLICENSED" and "UNOFFICIAL" .. an H "decal".
Nice and slippery, but it won't fly.
You also completely fail to answer what I said about his intent. And the "decal" makes his intent clear. What more do you need?
Besides, as I have stated before it is a moot point, since the details are wrong. The ply is not correct, etc. You already know that but you would rather bash.
That is unethical.
"intent doesn't factor in"
Your "intent doesn't matter" argument assumed that the end user would have no way of knowing that the resulting table was a fake.
But that is not true now. Not with the "DECAL" spelling it out.
Intent is again relevant. No mistake can be made now.
The way you attempted to diminish and trivialize the importance of the burned in mark and belittle it by calling it a "decal" is extremely unethical.
And a flabby argument as well.
Wrong on both counts, EH...
Firstly, I've never come across a knockoff which wasn't obviously a knockoff. They never measure up, whether it's due to the company cutting corners, being inept or wanting to differentiate from the original for legal reasons. So what does that matter? There are plenty of people out there, some of which who have a lot more money than me, who are perfectly happy buying a knock off to save a few coin. The market is there regardless of quality.
And secondly, what's unethical about my "decal" jibe? I mean, it could be seen as a jackass comment I suppose. But then that wouldn't be my first or last, would it? It's nothing if not clever. I don't mean to be braggadocios. But I found it quite amusing. And isn't that what this thread's all about? Personal gratification?
But on a more serious note, if his mark didn't include the emblem of a company with which he has no affiliation whatsoever I probably wouldn't have made the comment...
If you need any help, please contact us at – info@designaddict.com