While the set had been reupholstered at some point, each piece remained in very good condition. The client assumed that because of the age and provenance the trio would be worth upwards of $20,000. He came to this conclusion because a new Florence Knoll sofa starts at $9,000. Unfortunately — whether sold to a generous dealer or at auction — it is unlikely that the entire suite would be sold for much more than $5,000. How can this be?
The 20th century design secondary market is quite unforgiving towards three categories of furniture:
- Pieces in continuous production — this includes Florence Knoll's eponymous designs, the popular Barcelona chair by Mies Van Der Rohe or the majority of Arne Jacobsen's seating.
- Reissues — this category is made up with furniture manufactured for a specific amount of time, discontinued and then put in to production again. Many of the Eames chairs and George Nelson's designs are good examples of reissues.
- Licensed Reproductions — these reproductions are similar to reissues, but are not necessarily connected to the original manufacturer. The licensed manufacturer pays a royalty fee to the original designer/company. As an example, Vitra holds the license to reproduce Jean Prouvé's furniture — but they were not the original manufacturer.
Serious collectors of 20th century design are normally interested in the very first examples of iconic manufactured furniture — not the three categories explained above. Examples that were prototypes, from the first year(s) of production, or that were owned by someone crucial to the piece's iconic status are the designs that achieve major prices at auction. Everything else — whether 40 years old or 4 years old — is often just "used furniture".
A STRANGE TWIST: THE BARCELONA CHAIR
Not to pick on Knoll, but the Barcelona chair — arguably the most famous chair of the last century — is a paradigm of this value hierarchy. Ludwig Mies van der Rohe designed a pair of steel chairs with tufted leather cushions for the German Pavillion at the World's fair in Barcelona in 1929. Mies would stay in Germany until 1937 when he immigrated to the US. During those 8 years a small unconfirmed number of Barcelona chairs were produced. Christie's (in London) sold the most expensive example, made circa 1929/30, for $204,832 in October 1997.
Amazingly, an example of the same chair from New York City’s Seagram building (also designed by Mies) fetched only $9,600 when auctioned in June 2004. Considering that the price of a new (authentic) Barcelona chair — which has been consistent since the late 1980's at around $6,000 — this example from the Seagram building was a bargain as important 20th century design artifacts. Today, if you are a shrewd shopper, it is possible to purchase a vintage Knoll Barcelona chair for less than $1,000 at auction…
But let’s hope it is authentic. As Modernism was rediscovered its greatest hits became heavily sought after. Sadly, this led to a significant and increasing amount of impostors. Companies that produce licensed designs (such as Knoll, Herman Miller and Cassina) have been forced to become more assertive with stamping and labeling their products to distinguish them from their counterfeit cousins.
IS IT A KNOCKOFF?
It should be pointed out that furniture is considered a functional object in the US and therefore is NOT protected by copyright laws. Companies such as Modernica in California have been manufacturing "Eames" furniture, especially chairs, that are not officially authentic. As a result they can't use the Eames name on any of the products and the Eames Estate does not receive any royalties. Herman Miller (or Vitra in Europe) has manufactured most of the official Eames' designs since the late 1940s.
There is a good rule of thumb when buying new or vintage design classics: if there is no mention or markings of the manufacturer, the piece was probably not made by the original or licensed manufacturer. In other words — it's a knock-off. Also, if the piece is brand new and priced under $750 (see eBay for a myriad of examples) it's also likely a knock-off.
Auction records — even from the major houses — can be vague about period marking. Don't be afraid to contact the original manufacturer for help authenticating vintage examples. Books such as The Furniture of Poul Kjaerholm: Catalogue Raisonné by Michael Sheridan, Knoll: A Modernist Universe by Brian Lutz help both aspiring collectors and designers better understand the details and dates of design icons.
WHY BUY THE REAL THING?
Buying fakes, or pieces that are "inspired by the classics" is considered deplorable in design circles. How can one appreciate design while condoning and patronizing the outright plagiarism of successful designers? Sometimes it seems that there is a double-standard in design: while people may consider it ultra-tacky to buy fake designer handbags, buying 20th century furniture is often tolerated because people want “the look” and don’t care about authenticity. Knockoffs are easy to find — In New York City, White Furniture specializes in vintage pieces and inexpensive reproductions of popular classics. But not everyone is a fan; as one Apartment Therapy reader wrote in reference to a post of this store "Folks, buying unauthorized reproductions is a cheezy thing to do".
New versions (licensed reproductions) of design classics — by designers such as Hans Wegner, Eero Saarinen, Warren Platner etc. — are expensive. But anyone who has owned an authentic example of any of the chairs discussed can attest to the quality of materials, high level of craftsmanship and amazing sculptural and decorative presence of these design icons. While resale value is an important consideration for some, it is not the end-all and be-all. Living with design classics, is an enriching pleasure. Just be sure to verify that what you are buying is authentic.
WHERE DO I BUY THE REAL THING?
The authentic classics are sold at stores like Design Within Reach (though they went through a recent time period of knocking off — this seems to have changed with their recent change in leadership), or directly from the manufacturers like Fritz Hansen and Cassina Don't forget online sites like HiveModern.com and Unica Home.
Images: 1: Joshua McHugh, Florence Knoll Collection; 2: Florence Knoll Sofa; 3: Barcelona chairs at the Barcelona Pavilion by Flickr member malouette as licensed by Creative Commons; 4: Modernica Case Study Fiberglass Shell Chairs; 5: 1958 Poul Kjaerholm PK-22, Courtesy of Modernity, Stockholm Sweden
Before & After: Emily Henderson Transforms a Senior's Studio Space
Danielle's Charming, Classic Walk-Up
Good Food to Share 
The Big Book of Small, Cool Spaces 
Apartment Therapy Presents 
The Eight-Step Home Cure 
White Enamel Four-P...
On Saying No to Paleo: Why Eating Isn't One Size Fits All
Perfect Summer Cocktail Recipe: Honey Bourbon Lemonade
There is a third reason why the price quoted by an auction house or consignment shop is lower: They have to make something on selling the item. You and I, through craigslist or ebay, will never get top vintage market price on a piece. In order to do so, you usually have to sell through a dealer and they will take anywhere between 15 and 50% out of the overall proceeds.
Also- Especially in upholstered furniture, trends and tastes in upholstry can greatly effect the price.
Although mid-century has been a very popular area of collecting for quite a few years, the pieces themselves are still only around 50-60 years old, so unless they are extremely rare, these pieces straddle the line between "antique" and just plain "used furniture". I think that might explain why the vintage pieces are often so much less expensive. But you're also talking auction prices versus retail prices. I would not be surprised to see an exceptional and early Florence Knoll 3 piece suite sell for close to $20K at a high end NYC dealer.
I say, avoid the reprimanding and confusion (and money, for that matter) and just buy cool vintage stuff that you like. My favorite items tend to be by unknowns or manufacturers like Lane.
At the end of the day, I just say buy what you love. If that happens to be an "unlicensed reproduction", then so be it, and don't worry about what anyone else says or thinks about it.
I agree with Scoot and clank1969. Kristian is also right about upholstery impacting value. I had trouble figuring out what the "iconic" pieces are worth, so I gave up on them and switched to clean, modern designs that look great today (with new upholstery) but were never popular enough to be replicated (e.g., Milo Baughman and Thayer Coggin). I got some great bargains that were upholstered in poor condition, seriously out of date textiles. I have developed a furniture collection that's unique and specific to my taste without worrying about over-spending.
Most people have no idea what design classics look like. Few take design courses before shopping. They go to a chain or department store to buy what they think's comfortable and nice-looking in order to have something on which to sit. I was seeing ugly Barcelona-like chairs outside all over for decades before I ever heard the phrase Barcelona chairs.
I see nothing wrong with buying inexpensively made new or used furniture when it's sold as such for a modest price, even when I recognize that its silhouette is derivative. It's not buying fakes/counterfeits because no knock-off stamps or labels are used, and no pretense is made of it even approaching the "real thing." I may not even know any one who owns authentic design classics.
People who buy iconic furniture as original art for very high prices are a tiny minority at a rarified level. They are the only ones who need be concerned about not stealing from the classics designers. There's good reason that furniture isn't protected by copyright laws. Am I right, or am I not understanding this issue?
"WHY BUY THE REAL THING?
Buying fakes, or pieces that are "inspired by the classics" is considered deplorable in design circles."
Man, if design circles' opprobrium will not keep people from buying cheaper furniture, I don't know what will. Last I heard, a correctly arched eyebrow from a design circle authority could send people storming through the DWR doors.
Regarding knockoffs, it all comes down to $ vs. $$$$.
That's it. It's not about quality or authenticity. It's about price. More specifically, it's about profit and licensees, like Herman Miller, wanting to make as much money as possible.
Bottom line, if originals were more reasonably priced, there wouldn't be a market for imitations.
I actually own a knock off lounge chair and footstool. I didn't set out to buy a knock off (I didn't even set out to own an Eames chair). It just happened to be sitting on the side of the road for $25. It's hard to find run-of-the-mill used furniture that cheap, let alone one that comfortable!
@wally3, I love you.
Here's a question: What if an unlicensed reproduction goes above and beyond the licensed version of a piece? I'm thinking of Modernica's (unlicensed) version of the Eames rocking chair, which is made of fiberglass rather than the less period-authentic plastic used on the (licensed) Eames rocker at DWR.
Most people who buy knockoffs have no idea that they are buying a knockoff of something that is a modern classic in furniture. It's just a style they see in magazines, movies, tv shows and music videos. And they see that they like it. So they go out and look for it. It's not like most of those people are the type to spend $9K on a reproduction sofa or spend all their time reading design magazines or this site.
Most of my collection is vintage, but I have to say that being able to "complete the look" affordably is definitely nothing to thumb one's nose at.
Nothing is worse than assuming that good design should be the realm of the wealthy few.
Authenticity may matter to those who are fortunate enough to afford orignals. These are NOT pieces of art..........the most popular items were mass-produced to begin with.
One wonders how much Herman Miller is paying the Eames estate when one of their iconic loungers is quadruple of price of an identical Chinese knockoff.
My guess is, not THAT much.
I love my Eames and Breuer knockoffs. Designistas can suck it.
It's important to remember that there were more than just two or three designers in the mid-century era. Designers feed off of, and inspire each other, so who's the knockoff, and who's the original? Just because Mies and Knoll are the names that we remember doesn't mean that they are the only original designers.
... I am pleasantly surprised by a lot of the comments here. Could be this side of the fence loaded into the comments early on, and the blowback is coming... or maybe they're just too appalled right now? Clutching their pearls! XD;;
one of the most hotly debated topics in design presently: the value of design and the artifacts it produces... and it's as multifaceted as they come, of course.
one way to look at it is that buying pieces produced by the original designers enables said designers to keep on innovating. that's a good thing.
even buying them from their licensed vendors while still in first-or-second-run production enables the vendor to keep fostering the designer and their work.
however, for a chair that was designed 50+ years ago by long-dead designers and produced as a cash-cow offshoot of a major office-furniture manufacturer? in cases like this, i'm left wondering if that ___ chair purchase is funding the dilettante lifestyle of said-dead-designer's offspring more so than supporting the design-arts...
so, like a lot of things, i'm looking at where my money is going, what it's really funding and where it will eventually end up. i might buy that overpriced chair because i like the way it feels, looks, etc /and/ because if i tire of it, i can sell it a lot easier than a counterfeit. i'll even pay for decent materials... ergo, my walnut and leather eames lounge chair is original whereas my modernica rocker is not -- but because i think the materials are superior... my "eileen" chrome and glass end tables are as knocked-off as they come as chrome and glass tables simply shouldn't cost $600.
however, i'm not going to buy an original because some designer's grandkids tries to make me feel guilty through an editorial rant in a nesting magazine.
another thing to note: white does design a few of their own pieces... which is good. /but/ they've knocked off a few pieces still being produced by the original designers... which is uncool (and in this specific case, likely very dangerous/unstable).
this little primer (and the resulting commentary) on design pedigree awareness is a valuable break from the constant blathering reviews of average josie and uber waycool's chic urban pad's. it's good to know that your stuff, whether fake or real, has a history. the labor and intention that went into creating the original (vintage) classics can be felt. the hollow tin frames and cheap bastard woods used in knockoffs is generally obvious. licenced reissues seem fine for those who don't like rust, dirt, allergenic degraded latex foam bearing pathogens and airborne dust mite detritus; and of course 50+ years of fart residue.
Rosenatti makes a good point about the some unliscensed knockoffs. Particularly in the case of the Modernica fiberglass chairs. They are much closer to the original design than the ones produced by Herman Miller. They use fiberglass instead of plastic and use the original molds to make these chairs. The quality is SOOOO much better then the new Herman Miller reissues.
as somebody posted earlier- this furniture was designed with mass production in mind- not with exclusivity that exists today.
how crazy would it be 50 years from now if designers and furniture enthusiasts go through the same phenomenom over Ikea furniture.
Personally, I love the style but more so I love the inventiveness during that period in time which makes the furniture probably more relevent now that it ever was- but I am not so uppity to want or need an original- much like swagdujour said with all of the extras such as dust mites....to go along with it.
I registered with AT specifically to comment on this post…
One of the primary reasons Knoll and Herman Miller charge so much for their products is that the bulk of their production still takes place within the United States, where labor rates are higher and where there is some environmental protection. A great deal of the knock-off companies produce their goods in China where they can pay their workers pennies and where environmental and worker protection is lax. From this point of view whether you buy a knock-off or the real deal comes down to your personal beliefs/principles.
Sure, these companies make profit, so do the knock-off companies, and they should. A firm cannot stay in business unless they make profit. The purchase of a design that is 50 years old is not likely supporting the efforts of the original designer, but it does help support the efforts of the young designers that the company is using.
Finally, about the Eames’ shell chairs. Herman Miller switched to plastic because it is more sustainable than fiberglass, which is virtually unrecyclable. It is my understanding that this change is in keeping with the spirit of the Eames – they would often improve products and change materials as better/more sustainable means were developed.
I’m a broke recently-graduated college student who is in school again. I’ll wait and get the real thing when I can, not compromise my principles just so that I can buy a little more now.
People need something affordable on which to sit. Furniture's based on standard anatomy, so there are only so many ways to shape it. That's probably partly why furniture isn't copyrighted here, assuming the original post is correct.
It looks to me like comments confirm that it's not unethical, i.e., buying intellectual property stolen from designers, to buy furniture the general look of which filtered down from higher origins. In other words, as long as mainstream, reasonably priced furniture isn't presented as being associated with original designer furniture, there's no ethical conflict involving designer compensation for the consumer. There's no moral obligation to study design in order to avoid buying certain styles.
It seems to me that, as far as middle-class American ethical concerns, instead the sweatshop and unethical retailer issues are to be actively considered when buying furniture. I've avoided dealing with Walmart, Target, and Salvation Army since I heard about their bad behavior. Those issues are more relevant, manageable responsibilities for most AT readers--agreed?
P.S. Oh, and the green and American labor issues also should be taken into account. It's a balancing act to do the right, responsible thing both by myself and by the world while avoiding living on used cardboard boxes and/or bankruptcy.
In terms of licenses and royalties, what if the original designers are dead? All forms of art eventually pass into the public domain, even if they were once copyrighted. Rembrandt's heirs don't usually make money if someone reprints a Rembrandt, and ain't no one named Shakespeare making money when I go to see a production of Hamlet.
I'm all for living designers profiting from their designs, but there comes a time (50 years later seems about right) when it's silly to pay off their future heirs for the use of a shape that has become ubiquitous.
John W.'s point about labor and environmental standards, however, is a completely valid one. Regardless of design, it's always important to know where and how things were made.
Personally, whether it is unethical or not depends on one’s relationship to the design industry. I am trained as a designer. To me, for me to purchase knock-off goods would be unethical because authorized versions of a product are the designer’s source of income. When a knock-off company purchases a good and reverse-engineers it I, as the designer, receive none of the profit for the work I have performed. For me it is a Golden Rule situation – for me to purchase knock-offs is to cut off my nose to spite my face.
When I buy a real (second-hand) tulip table, shell chair, etc I buy it so that I can look at it and study it, see what makes it tick, in addition to just using it. Because knock-offs are often tweaked they are worthless for this purpose. There are aspects of design involving furniture that ARE copyrighted, concerning trade dress, that makes the tweaks introduced by knock-off manufactures necessary to avoid law suites filed by the copyright holder. It’s not illegal to produce tweaked knock-offs, but it is lacking in integrity, is easy and lazy.
Middle-class America encompasses such a large group and such a wide range of income levels that it is not possible to make general statements that hold true across the group. Regardless of where one falls within that group, if one is purchasing furniture (ESPECIALLY new furniture) it is important to know the impacts of that purchase; consider, for example, that behind the purchase of a house and car, furniture purchases can potentially be one of the most costly purchases of durable goods one makes in life.
As a long-time reader of AT, it is interesting to me how feelings on this issue have changed to be more favorable/tolerant of "knock-offs".
AT's archives don't seem to go past 2007, but I recall some very heated discussions that condemned all producers and consumers of anything that was not 100% authentic!
For most people I know, it's appropriate and ethical to decline to accept responsibility for the current state of licensed reproductions and reissues of furniture. In my own SES, it's a non-issue, unrelated to my principles or my purchases. Moreover, like most people I know, I'm outside the design industry, so there are no positions to which I must adhere out of professionalism.
I have valid reasons to feel guilty. After consideration, I reject this dubious one. It's fun to learn about unfamiliar design concepts on AT, though--keep them coming, please.
John W's comment is spot on, as are others' comments on art as public domain, etc. I wish there were "like" button for some of these that were particularly clever or insightful... like pippee's IKEA comment :)
To those in Blandwagon's camp:
The problem I have with many of the above arguments against "Licensed Reproductions" (the Eames shells notwithstanding) is that many of you appear to view HM, Knoll, et al. as evil corporate conglomerates who care solely about the almighty dollar. In reality, what John W. said is likely far closer to the truth.
For those of you who uphold the virtues of "buying local" for food or other consumables -- and gladly pay higher because of it -- I find it humorous that you take the opposite side in this debate.
I'm curious about the Canadian store Nood: they have alot of DWR-type furntiture but it appears as over priced knock offs (Tags like "Inspired by.." so I have avoided buying anything there so far. Anyone know what the deal is with them and their stuff is the real deal?
(re: DWR)... well, they've gotten in quite a bit of hot water recently when it comes to design copyrights and ethics: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/141/a-modern-mess.html
Great link and interesting read redneckmodern.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpdvEWEWETk
If I remember my art history correctly, at least some of these classic designers embraced mass production because it was the way to make furniture with high quality design and materials available to everyone at an affordable price. Is that original intent of the designers still followed, or has it fallen by the wayside?
This doesn't mean that we shouldn't make allowances for higher labour costs and better environmental laws...but I personally don't know how much of a cost difference those and just those create.
to add onto Jordan's comment- Knoll and Herman Miller are American companies that are doing GOOD things. They manufacture in America, they are doing innovative new design...they are a GOOD thing. If we buy crappy knock-offs we undermine their ability to be competitive, and eventually they will close or go overseas...and then we will all be buying vintage because it is the only way to get good quality.
@ht, if people are forced to buy knockoffs because Herman Miller and Knoll have priced themselves into the stratosphere (far beyond increased labor costs, etc.), haven't HM and Knoll already undermined their own ability to be competitive? Is it our responsibility, in the midst of a recession, to save these corporations from themselves?
I have worked with both Herman Miller and Knoll and am currently working with "Inspired" design. First of all, HM & Knoll are hardly evil corporations (read "Business as Unusual" or "Herman Miller: The Purpose of Design"). These are relatively small, successful US companies - in this day and age, shouldn't we all be supportive of that? Additionally, the quality of authentic design versus knock-offs is staggering. I own several authentic pieces and I purchased them with the intent of owning them for a lifetime, possibly passing them on to future generations. Their quality is such that this will be possible. The "inspired" design I currently work with is riddled with problems- faulty manufacturing, poor craftsmanship, missing parts, cheap materials. These are pieces destined for the dumpster, not an antiques shop.
I think that the heart of this debate is our consumer society's desire for instant gratification: We like, we want now. We can't afford, so we settle for whatever pleases our itch instantly. Then we move on to our next desire.
I still believe there is something about working for what you want. There's just something special about scrapping and saving and earning the real thing and then enjoying it for a lifetime with a clear conscience. Or getting lucky and finding vintage. That would be the sweetest score of all.
I've been a dealer in vintage modern for years and have repeatedly heard both sides of this argument. The best advice that I can give is to buy what you like but buy the "best" that you can afford. If you cannot afford new from Knoll, Herman Miller, etc., you're in luck because more commonplace vintage pieces are selling for less than they have in years. If you want to spend less and are considering a knock-off, make sure that you see what you're buying before you buy it (when possible). Poor quality construction will be evident and should be avoided. Look for sloppy welds, flimsy materials, poor quality joinery and instability or asymmetry and avoid! It's not a bargain if it has to be replaced in a year or two.
I live with vintage originals and newly reissued classics and here's why. Some reissues are improvements over the originals. Take the Jens Risom webbed chairs from Knoll. The lounge chair in current production has been improved upon in that the joinery has been redesigned (with the participation of Jens Risom) to be stronger than the original, thus eliminating a common stablity problem with vintage chairs. Additionally, the frame is now made of maple, rather than the original birch, making a stronger and more durable chair.
Any way you look at it, good design is a good investment!
"The most of the best to the greatest number of people for the least" - Charles and Ray Eames on their central mission as furniture designers. So the question is, who is disrespecting the Designer in this case? The people who buy an unlicensed reproduction (i'm talking about a reproduction that lives up to the standards of the original design in both, style and of course quality - and yes they are out there) or companies like hermann miller or especially vitra that sell eames' designs at unreasonable prices?
Saarinen and Eames designed most of their famous furniture for the low cost furniture competition of the museum of modern art..
Why the terrorists hate us:
http://www.dwr.com/product/bath/sale/vipp-toilet-paper-holder.do?sortby=ourPicks
"I still believe there is something about working for what you want."
And if you're unemployed? And not living in a city with groovy thrift stores and flea markets? What, oh what, are the underclasses to do? And I must point out that the fiscal mess we're in isn't the result of people wanting cheap stuff they could afford, but expensive stuff they couldn't. Like a $4,000 Eames chair.