apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

To me, furniture isn't like art. It's meant to be manufactured, and if it's being built to the designer's specs, in no way (to me) is it inferior to a "vintage" piece.

Knockoffs are a different story, however.

None of the above, since not all (pristine) vintage models are cheaper than even relicensed pieces.

Just seconding P(2) -- the vintage things that I find tend to be a lot *more* than the licensed versions.

I agree with Bolder; licensed = legit so why pay the same price, or more, for someone else's dents and dings?
The trouble is the unlicensed knockoffs. Here in Toronto we're losing yet another terrific vintage shop (Flair, 1132 Queen West) because owner Paul says he can't compete with cheap knock-offfs from China. I spoke to him last week about his shop closing and he told me "one per cent of one per cent of people actually give a damn about whether a piece comes with a genuine pedigree. They see this stuff on HGTV and they want the 'look,' they don't care about the designer label.' Sad, but apparently also true.

sometimes knockoffs look the same but then they're really quite uncomfortable when you know for a fact the real one is extremely comfy.

I really like things that have a little bit of wear. They hold a story and are reuse/recycle!

I really hate the term "Reproduction" when it comes to licensed product.

Really, the term came about once there licensing became an issue by the manufacturers.

The furniture that is made today by Fritz, Knoll, Cassina, and Herman Miller are the original designs, by the original designers, made by the original company that distributed it. The only way it is an "original" is if you are buying a 1956 Eames Lounge and Ottoman, or a 1958 Tulip table, or a 1958 Egg Chair. Anything after the initial dates are reproductions if you want to look at that. Even if the design has been out of production for many years and has been brought back recently, its still the original design - unless you look at someone like HM who changed the Eames plastic pieces to PP instead of fiberglass (a great move and I have no doubt Charles and Ray would have approved), same for the Swag leg series...these are reasons you may want to have an original -because of a material or finish change. However, an LCW is the same no matter what year you buy - the production has not changed nor have the specs. However, I will tell you if you buy a Vitra LCW that it is slightly different stance (not sure why they changed it).

Vintage can be cool - just because of the history of the piece, and the wear and tear - look at Artek's "2nd Cycle" program - more manufacturers should get into doing this. The product is aged and has a patina no one else can give it, plus it has a story to tell. How can a new one compete with that.

You may want to buy a new one though because you want it to grow along with the life you have.

Americans are obsessed with keeping things in perfect condition - always looking new...whereas Europeans know that things will age and enjoy the look of something that shows wear.

If you want to buy a vintage piece, buy a vintage piece - a new LCW is $700. Youll see them on Craigslist for typically $400-500.

If you want to buy a new one, buy the real thing - knock offs are shitty, not made as well, and most of the time do not have the same specs - usually having a bit more of an akward stance.

Hope this helped.

FYI The LCW and other similar Eames chairs have been in continuous production by Herman Miller since the 50s. Almost all vintage LCWs will be Herman Miller, just like the new ones.
If you like the patina of an old one, get it if it's in good shape.
However, beware of the chair's condition. I have bought several vintage chairs that I thought were pretty good deals, but have been burned by unrepairable damage or shocked at the cost of reupholstering and reconditioning.
As an example, I bought a vintage Bruno Mathsson Eva chair. The webbing was a bit frayed at the time of purchase and the webbing failed after just a year of very limited use. The replacement webbing costs more than $450 from a vendor in Finland (damn the low value of the dollar) and the labor cost would be another $450. A new version of the chair issued by DUX would cost about the same as reconditioning this old chair.
Just beware of that potential when buying vintage.

By the way, the LCW is one of the best design buys out there. It is extremely comfortable for such a little wood chair.
Look for shops that sell the real thing at a slight discount, Circa50 dot com is a great place to order from and they provide free shipping. Also Highbrow furniture. DWR does not discount these except during their annual Herman Miller sale.

It seems to me that there are three issues here: authenticity; price; and gratification.

If authenticity is a question, then vintage or licensed "repro" is the way to go. BTW, I agree with the point about the the term reproduction in this situation. In prints there's term, re-strike, for prints that have been struck from the original plates, but were not part of the artist's original number. It's unfortunate that there's not a similar term for furniture.

I agree with p(2) about price -- older pieces can (and do) cost more than the "re-strikes" -- but I would add that if you're willing to search long and deep enough, you will find the piece at a price you like -- on eBay, on Craigslist, even on Trocadero.

Which brings me to gratification -- namely, most people want instant gratification. It's easier to buy the knock-off or the in-the-style-of at a chain than it is to hunt down an original. Alas.

personally i prefer vintage because i like the look of a bit of wear/tear. it gives the piece character and i like to imagine the person who owned it back when it was first purchased.

I think the "cheap knock-offs from China" are a well-deserved come-uppance to the haughty manufacturers who command exhorbitant prices for furniture that is, for all intents and purposes, of unremarkable quality and durability. And it's also a nice come-uppance to all those stores that deal only to the trade or provide discounts only to the trade. If the authorized manufacturers want to discourage piracy, they seriously need to re-work their business models for the 21st century. A Herman Miller line for Target? Knoll upholstered goods for Wal Mart perhaps? If you can't make good design affordable for us, WE will make design affordable for us.

My personal philosophy is thusly: if the original designer of the piece is dead, I will gladly buy a knock-off that is of decent quality. I am not interested in funding the winners of the sperm lottery or some obscure foundation that may or may not be performing good works. It's not a work of art. It's not an investment piece. Heck, it's not even an heirloom. It's something that I will enjoy and use, and eventually replace once it wears out or falls out of fashion. There is no sense in "investing" in furniture that lasts longer than me!

"original" -- who really knows what original is?

1. much "modern" furniture (e.g. Eames furniture) was designed to be mass-produced cheaply. Like Target's "knockoffs"-- good design for anybody regardless of wealth. They never saw their vision realized, but instead manufacturers now mark up furniture to ridiculously high prices because "good design should be exclusive..." (However, it is cheaper to buy nowadays, than it would have been in the time of the Eameses.)

2. it's not really "support" of the original designer to buy the "original" (licensed) designs because: (a) they're dead; (b) they wouldn't get much money because the money is not in the design but the trademark of the maker/holder (more on that below) and (c) it's not allowed by law...

3. The value of the furniture is not the furniture, but the trademark. Hence, licensed design is not license of the design, but the use of the name "Mies" "Eames" "Noguchi" "Wegner"... and those names are expensive to patrol, enforce, and advertise. The trademark holders are people like "Herman Miller" who have an interest in their name and the names of the designers to protect (a) consistency of quality (b) goodwill and (c) designation of source (that is, all "eames recliners" are made by "herman miller") because all of these things have economic value. This is why, on top of the expense of manufacturing, these items are more expensive (the hidden costs of a brand identity)

4. Trademark (branding, source identification) is the only protection these designs have. Furniture design is per se not copyrightable. So talking about "licensed design" is a bunch of hooey because the design is not licensed, but the designation of trademark is... Let me repeat there is NO COPYRIGHT PROTECTION IN THESE DESIGNS. Whether there should be or not is a matter of other opinion, but the truth and legal fiction stands: furniture is indivisibly and entirely functional... Thus, under our country's copyright laws, the furniture is not entitled to copyright protection and therefore may be copied by anybody who chooses... as long as nobody infringes on the "trademark" (that is, nobody sells an Eames' design as an "eames")

Even when it comes to trademark protection, there are different manufacturers who swear that they have the only licensed right to make it. (Corbusier Grand Comfort, for example)...

But, for those to whom quality is an issue, buy the licensed version to be certain of it because Miller, Vitra, etc. have a serious vested interest in guaranteeing the quality of their trademark, whereas the knock-off manufacturers from China do not.

And that, I think, is where legally speaking, it ends.

My own preference? Depends. If I wanted something just to look nice, then I would buy a knockoff. If I intend to use the furniture at all, much less a long time, I would buy Herman Miller for his quality (guaranteed by the Miller trademark, though, not Eames). If available, I would go vintage because I like patina and history. But as it stands, I don't really go for any of the above, but am a functional minimalist.

I just wanted to clear up some confusion about "licensing" and "copyright" and "original" that really annoys me when I see it.

An excellent debate/discussion. Thanks AT.