apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

im sure you will hear from eames demetrios, if not already. he wrote an editorial to dwell once about mentioning knock offs as a solution... im ambivalent myself, as knock offs can be just as important as the real thing, ie keener/jackobsen 7 chair. it has everything to do with what people can afford. i remember reading something about the ray eames white fiberglass chaise and how it was created for an easily reproducible/inexpensive furniture competition. vitra makes it for 9000 dollars. a knockoff is 900. which one seems more like the original ethos of the piece?

Thanks, Maxwell, for this post. I appreciate you taking into account the fact that "not everyone is fabulously wealthy and can afford everything they want or need," and that knock-offs have their place.

But, alas, what about those of us for whom $300 for a single chair is still *far* out of reach? We're in a recession, and I can't be the only AT reader who is living paycheck to paycheck and struggling to make ends meet in a tough economy. (I love AT's many DIY posts and the Craig's List scavenger feature for this reason.)

For those AT readers who, like me, have to decorate on a dime, the notion that $300 - $400 is the "low end" or "cheap" price point is prohibitive. Are there any knock-offs that look interesting that come in at half or a third of that price range? Sure, I understand they won't be as pristine or as long-lasting as the real deal, but for me, $2,200 has to cover two months' worth of mortgage, utilities and phone bills -- not just one chair. Yet I've become addicted to AT and would love to beautify my home... if there were truly inexpensive ways to do so.

The "Ames" collection - I love that! Why not call it the "Eems" or "Emes" collection?

Personally, I prefer to purchase authentically licensed mid-century furniture. Most pieces I have collected - new and used - are such.

However, I do have a very well-made George Nelson-inspired daybed manufactured by Modernica (original manufacturer: Herman Miller).

I believe Modernica used to also manufacture the Eames storage units for DWR on behalf of Herman Miller until there was some kind of falling out between the 2 or 3 companies involved.

But, to each his own. I found the fake reproduction versus authentic reproduction on Designaddict to be very tiresome. It just went round and round and round.

All i can say is, You buy what you can afford

Ditto, jplee.

9000 vs 900 is a whole different story..
But 480 vs 345...? I'd save the extra 150 and buy the real thing. IMHO...

I think a Saarinen Womb Chair is a really excellent candidate for knocking off. The argument for buying an expensive Knoll original often includes, "The real thing will last forever and you can hand it down to your grandchildren." Not a bad argument for something like, say, an LCW. With the womb chair, though, the foam deteriorates and needs to be replaced. (I recall a furniture restorer featured on AT who said that vintage womb chairs basically all need their foam replaced.) Because it's such a tough job to upholster, the cost of the job is multiple thousands of dollars, i.e., almost the value of the whole chair. It's really very hard to justify spending $4000 on something that's guaranteed to be worn out and require a massive reinvestment by the time it's passed on.

I sat on a PGMod womb chair at a friend's and it looked great and was sturdy and comfortable.

I read an interesting article (about fashion design, but I think it's applicable here) about how knock-offs drive the design cycle. Real Fashionistas want it because it's new and because not everyone else has it. The knock-offs make it so that, yes, everyone else DOES have it, so the Fashionistas go out and buy the new fashions and the cycle repeats itself. As for the rest of us who thing it's ridiculous to pay 10 times more for a name (and don't kid yourself, they aren't THAT much higher quality), we get to buy at a more reasonable price something that is almost indistinguishable from the original.

Naturally, the process is a LOT slower for furniture but it's the same basic thing. I'm lucky, though. I prefer antiques (100 years old) which can be had for a song these days.

As a designer I've never understood why people feel they should be able to afford anything they want. I can't afford a real Van Gogh painting. Okay I could buy the poster but that's a different medium. Should someone create duplicates and sell them just so you could hang one in your house--would you even want what is obviously a copy in your house? Wouldn't it be better to use that same money and support a living working artist? Why is it that the minute we talk about products or furniture it's okay to support copying?

If you can't afford, so be it. I can't afford to buy a Mercedes Benz or a $18 M apt, but I'm not losing any sleep over it. Buy something else, make your own, get it used. Creativity often comes having to solve difficult problems.

If you insist on buying knock-offs, don't expect me to accept it. I've had my products knocked-off and it's not a homage. This is my lively hood you're taking from me. I understand if you bought something without full knowledge. Just can't support the idea of people knowingly buying a knock-off and being proud of it. Sorry, this has obviously hit a nerve with me.

I agree with jplee. I love good design, but frankly can't even afford the knockoffs. Anything over $200 is expensive. I've managed to make a nice apt on a budget of 50 bucks a month, plus a few big purchases here and there. It really can be done.

im sorry cheryl, but a Womb Chair is not a perfect candidate for knocking off.

Knoll does not and has never said " it will last you forever"

the same goes for the barcelona collection.

Knocking off iconic pieces is doing a grave injustice to the integrity of the design and the designer.

Even taking inflation into account, most of the classic mid-century pieces are now being sold for many many times their original value when first manufactured. They're popular, and license holders like Herman Miller are more than willing to put a hefty tax on style.
That said, it's getting really tedious seeing Eames chairs EVERYWHERE. I'm ready for this trend to die down.

Ditto, jplee and inkstainedwriter.

On another note, has anyone heard of or checked out Advanced Interior Designs? They "supply high quality original designs and reproductions of modern classic furniture" and have a showroom in San Francisco. I wonder if any AT:SF readers have seen their products and if they're of good quality?

We got two knock off Barcelona chairs from Jennifer Leather many years ago for an amazing price, and before Knoll started enforcing their controversial claim of trademark rights. The cushions are thicker than the originals, and as such I actually find them to be more comfortable. There's no way I could justify spending the amount an original Mies van der Rohe would cost, even if I added a couple zeroes to my income.

Yes, the caning on Breuer Cesca chairs will sag and break though in 15-20 years. Yes, the leather on the Eames Lounge Chair will start to crack and require replacement in 30-40 years. Yes, the foam on Saarinen Womb Chairs will crumble to powder in the same timeframe..

...but look at the old knockoffs and see where they are in comparison:

1960's Eames Lounge knockoffs by Selig are out there, but the mechanism's are impossible to repair and the cushions can't be replaced except with custom work - but replacement parts, pads and clips are still available for the Herman Miller chairs of the same vintage. Knoll Cesca chairs can be easily recaned, but the cheap 70's/80's vintage chairs from Italy require the entire seat frames to be replaced, if you can find them. Saarinen chairs are easily reupholstered with new foam by an experienced craftsman (I recently had a pair of 70's vintage Saarinen Executive Armchairs redone w/ new foam for @ $400 labor each some remnant Unika Vaev yardage: You can't touch a new one in a basic fabric for less than $900 each)

Then again, Thomas Chippendale hasn't been making furniture for a couple-hundred years - but everyone from Ethan Allen and Thomasville to Baker and Stickley are making making "Chippendale" knockoffs, some better than others...

I agree with jplee but have a slightly different question: where are the up and coming designs the rest of us can afford? Something in an Eames frame of mind, but not a knockoff. For the most part, I can't even afford the knockoffs. But I'd love to see similar original styles at prices people on a budget can afford. Which, for me, has basically meant hanging out at Target or the Ikea 2 hours from me (small towns aren't great for midcentury modern). eBay or Craigslist is pretty hit or miss.

Where are those pieces available?

inkstainedwriter -- I'm glad to know that you've been able to get the aesthetic you want on a budget of $50 per month. That sounds like around what I have to spend, and I'm moving soon and need to start from near-scratch, with a teeny-tiny budget. I love AT for the inspiration pics/ideas, but I get so frustrated that so many of the options are so far out of reach for me. Good to know you've made it work.

bellaknollie -- you wrote, "Knoll does not and has never said " it will last you forever" but you probably never went to the DWR shop in Brooklyn Heights. I popped in to lust after Tom Dixon's wire coat rack (no chance of buying it, unless it goes on sale to, say, 75% off...). The saleswoman talked me into sitting in the womb chair. It was beautiful and extremely comfortable, but when she told me the price I nearly fell out of the womb. I said I could never justify that kind of expense, and she did indeed tell me that it is an investment piece that I'd have for years and years, that it is such high quality that I could resell it ten years later for as much as I paid for it, etc. -- I can't remember if she literally used the word "forever," but she did imply it.

I'm with you, ChristopherB. Eames chairs are akin to that ubiquitous Keep Calm And Carry On print - every time I see either item pop up on a design site, I heave a sigh.

ChristopherB is spot on about current prices vs. what they were in the actual mid-century, even adjusted for inflation. My mother and my aunt bought my grandparents a Harry Bertoia Bird chair (with ottoman) in 1968 for $90. If you use the government's own inflation calculator, $90 in 1968 would mean roughly $550 in today's dollars. Certainly not the $3,000 price tag it fetches in stores like Hive.

@inkedstainedwriter: just curious, your name implies you might make your living as a writer? I'm not singling you out....just want to know how do you feel about your original written words being reprinted without your being paid for it? That's essentially what knocking off does to the original designer.

There is no reason why original design has to be expensive. But first, the furniture companies have to hire and pay designers to design original goods. Most of them would rather print out photos from AT (or other sources) and send them directly to their factories to copy...which is why you'll often see the same design with slight variations over and over again from several makers. It's what happens in the fashion industry as well. All the designers go to Europe to shop for trends and come back home to copy the exact style, the exact color palette, etc.

Until we value and demand originality / design over price point, we will not have original design at lower price points. Make your voices heard with your pocketbook and decide wisely where you choose to spend your money, no matter what budget you are at.

I've posted more thoughts on this at the "knockoff debate" AT link.

Katy
http://fengshuibyfishgirl.com

azure: "I can't afford a real Van Gogh painting. Okay I could buy the poster but that's a different medium. Should someone create duplicates and sell them just so you could hang one in your house--would you even want what is obviously a copy in your house?"

kind of ruined your own argument a little.

like a lot of people have said, people buy according to their own monetary limits. you can't afford the van gogh so you get the poster...different mediums. can't afford the eames lounge chair, so you get a copy- also made with different materials (not as drastic as oil paint on canvas vs a poster, but doesn't really matter). until you choose to spend the money to get the real thing, you can enjoy something that you love and are inspired by. the great thing about our world is we have options and the ability to choose.

i do agree in some instances that copying goods is wrong, but i don't want good design to be exclusively enjoyed by wealthy people. that's the opposite of what the Eames' wanted. People think the copies hurt the Eames name or something, but there is more love for them now than any other time, I'm sure. They're just as important now.

actually fishgirl said what i was think pretty well too...
until we keep our wallets in our pockets and speak out about certain things our way too overpriced, then nothing will change.

lab director- it's not the same. A poster of a painting is a printed image of a painting--not a painting. A knock-off of a chair is still a chair.

Copying current, living designers and artists (with copyright and patents still current) is much different than copying material that is essentially in the public domain, but companies are now claiming as trademarks. This applies to the furniture we're discussing here, but also works of art, music, etc. and always gets confusing and stuck in courts when there are competing claims. Digital media is creating even more confusion. Most of the laws were originally intended to help living creators receive proper revenues from their own inventions, but was not intended to keep companies from holding monopolies (of sorts) on creations that just happened to stand the test of time.

azure: true...hmm, but i can buy a copy of the statue of david, that's still a statue...

but really, i'm completely for supporting artists and buying original whenever i can do it. also goes for furniture.

just that some things are overpriced and it's not fair! :)

although i'm also against people thinking they should have whatever they want, when they want it....

so to sum up, it's a tight rope i'm walking.

This is the first time I've felt compelled to comment on AT, since I just lucked into a dirt cheap Plycraft Eames-knockoff on the weekend. It's the first piece of decent furniture I've been able to acquire since most of my income has been geared towards other priorities.

I'm going to buy a) what I like, and b) what I can afford. So long as the piece isn't being misrepresented, I am quite happy to purchase from a manufacturer (or thrift shop) making decent design accessible to those who aren't wealthy. Like jplee and inkstainedwriter, I don't feel obliged to wait until I'm able to fork over a few months' rent for one chair.

@azure: No, the knock-offs aren't really hitting your livelihood (unless they are pretending to be offering authentic goods by you). As others have pointed out, there are different markets for furnishings.

Just because I'm willing to shell out $200-300 (say) for a knock-off of one of your designs, doesn't mean I'd shell out $700-1000 (say) for the original. I'm not in that upper market at all. Knock-off or no knock-off, I wouldn't buy an original from you. That is, I'm not a potential customer of yours who was lured away by a knock-off.

Oh and just to clarify: that comment was meant to illustrate an economics principle, not at all a knock on you or your business, azure.

I feel like saying you should never buy a knock off is a little unrealistic. What kind of house do you live in? Where did the concept for that particular design come from? What kind of car do you drive? What clothes do you wear, what do you eat, etc.? I mean, theoretically everything in your life could be a "knock off" of some previously existing item. It just seems extremist to expect that nothing you own will ever imitate.

I agree with tabithacat. It's hard to find anything that's truly original, unless you make it yourself. And even then, just look at the way trends develop in fashion, art, design, music, haircuts...many things fall into "genres" because they are influenced by the times, popular culture, and so on.

I think @azure has it spot on.

Buying knock-offs is intellectual theft and the justifications presented for it here are intellectual dishonesty. It is no different to illegally downloading music, movies or software.

If you can't afford a classic piece of design, buy a modern one. There are great pieces from up and coming designers all over the place.

And if you can't afford them, or used originals, I'm afraid my reaction would be that is tough luck. Life isn't fair. Why do you all feel you are entitled have anything you want just because you want it?

I also can't afford much of what I would like.

Like @azure I also can't afford an original Van Gogh. But I would never dream of buying one of the Van Gogh oil reproductions you can get on eBay for $100. It would scream pretentious shallowness if you hung such a thing on your wall.

And that's what buying knock-offs does.

It provides compelling evidence of your faux taste and I cringe every time I see one here on AT.

I am in complete agreement with azure. Also, what people fail to realize is that the REASON they want the knockoff in the first place is that it possesses a resemblance to the original. Part of the cost of making the original is hiring a designer to design the product. Creativity cost money. It is not free. When you steal someone's intellectual property you take away the incentive to create something beautiful.

I don't quite understand how the business of knock-off artists like "Advanced Interior Design" mentioned above can be described as anything other but theft. At which point does something like the Azumi's LEM bar stool become a "modern classic", which apparently means it's ok to churn out crappy copies in some chinese sweatshop?

I'm not sure where this disregard for intellectual property comes from. "I can't afford it" somehow doesn't really cut it. If my co-worker has a brilliant idea and I don't, that doesn't make it ok to steal his work and sell it as my own.

Btw, the White-on-White "Eiffel bucket chair" looks pathetic.

MrCranky, I don't believe it's intellectually dishonest -- nor pretentious -- to recognize that beauty and comfort shouldn't be the sole domain of the wealthy. Illegally plagiarizing writing or illegally downloading music is not the same thing as purchasing a similar (though not the same) piece of furniture at a lower price-point than a higher-end piece. If someone passes off Shakespeare as their own creation, that's a problem (just as it's dead wrong for anyone to lie and claim that a knock-off is manufactured by Knoll or Eames, etc.). But Shakespeare has influenced countless writers, just as high-end designers have spawned numerous clones. The imitations don't degrade the value of the original, they just make the concepts more accessible to a broader audience.

And *that* seems to me to be the real problem some folks have with reproductions -- that it enables non-wealthy people to experience beautiful items, and expands style and design beyond the province of the rich. No one is saying that lower-income folks are "entitled [to] have anything you want just because you want it." What we're saying is that we shouldn't be relegated to tedious, cookie-cutter, mass-market particleboard from Ikea and Target as our only options for furniture.

By the way, here's a design analogy that no one has made so far in this discussion: every year before the Oscars, haute couture designers clamor for the opportunity to dress starlets in their lavish, extravagant gowns. And every night after the Oscars, mass-market manufacturers set to work churning out knock-offs. The next day and throughout the week, every morning news show and Access Hollywood-type tabloid infotainment program runs segments on where the "Average Woman" can get herself a prom dress or bridesmaid's dress for $150 to $300 that closely resembles the $30,000 gowns Halle Berry or Kate Winslet wore on the red carpet. Does the fact that Macy's sells knock-offs of John Galliano and Vera Wang hurt those designers? Not in the least. As slowdown commented, people who'd buy a Macy's reproduction would never be able to afford to blow thirty grand on a dress. They'd never even consider buying something like that. But in the meantime, Galliano, Wang and all the other designers whose creations are copied end up getting free publicity on all those news programs -- the copies are compared to the originals, and the originals are always considered prettier, higher quality, more desirable. Those designers are still considered the gold standard, further solidifying their reputations as remaining current and in-demand.

The same thing holds true for interior design reproductions. If someone can afford an original piece of quality furniture, they'll purchase that piece... for quality, for taste, and in many cases, simply to lord it over those of us who can't. But either way, the reproduced brand gets to remain current and desired, in large part because of reproductions broadening their appeal to a wider audience.

Well said, jplee.

Besides, ALL design and art exist in a continuum. Plenty of designers of now iconic furniture were influenced by those who came before. This is no knock on their originality but an acknowledgment that no one designs in a vacuum. Knock offs, so long as they are not blatent misrepresentations, simply take their place in the spectrum of design from any given era. Good design should stand on it's own merits, and subpar copies will announce themselves soon enough. But some of them are good or good enough, and, dare I say it, may represent some improvement over the original.

At some point an iconic design becomes a kind of norm that the next generation of designers can build off. If that next generation learns its craft making less-than-perfect copies of existing, so be it. Some of them may yet emerge as the next Eames. And in the meantime, the masses get their modern chairs at a pricepoint that's almost affordable.

I'm always skeptical when anyone too energetically defends intellectual property. Sure, protect your trademarks, servicemarks, copyrights and whatnot, but if they're not using your name or engaging in outright plagiarism, what's the issue? Are you afraid the work of the copycats will surpass your own? Worried you'll never have another good idea?

Jplee,

You seem to feel that stealing people's intellectual property is a way to open up a new front in the class wars. I'm not sure how sending money to shady factories in China helps in the fight against the Man, but I guess it helps justify the larceny.

I am not saying that you should be reduced to 'tedious cookie-cutter particleboard from Ikea or Target'. Although, when you buy knock-offs, isn't that exactly what you are getting? What could be more cookie-cutter than the thousands of fake Ames, Eems and Ooms chairs out there?

The problem is that you seem to want (the same) specific pieces you can't afford, when there so many other wonderful and cheap pieces out there.

The whole point of an Eames or Bertoia or Antonio Citterio piece is that it is a combination of the designers eye and precision manufacturing fulfilling a vision. I just don't see how a knock-off can provide the same satisfaction, even aside from the theft. So knock-offs (to me) don't give poor folk the chance to experience beautiful things just like Massa on the hill. They give poor folk the opportunity to buy masses of dreck.

And your argument that it doesn't affect the designers and manufacturers is patent nonsense. Most people on this site want their homes to have some degree of individuality. Do you think folk will continue to view the originals as desirable when every other home has pieces that look the same? There is already a backlash on AT from people who are sick of the ubiquity of MCM. I've never been the biggest MCM fan myself, but I certainly wouldn't go near the genre now.

I'll happily admit to being elitist, but since when is there anything wrong with that?

I have the money to buy the real Eames lounge chairs but today, I scored 3 of them for exactly $400 in total, taxes all in. Two in walnut, one in ash.

At $450 originally, they're obviously not "real."

But I saved $1125.50 so I could give two poops if someone comes to my place and points out how fake they are.

They're incredibly well-made, sturdy and the grain is beautiful.

For someone who is new to home decor and interior design, I purchased them because they're gorgeous, not because they're Eames or I wanted to have some kind of Eames-inspired pieces.

Essentially, money, quality and aesthetics do trump loyal to a brand.

With the money I save, I can afford to have people over to enjoy some nice bottles of wine on these chairs.

Give up to get, people.

Azure- the Eames' are dead and I think they would be appalled at what has become of their estate and designs. All it's been left to is money and class when we all know Modernism is not for or about that, something many I think have forgot. Modernism as a movement was meant to improve and change the way we live our lives in both the world and the home.

MrCranky, I find it odd that you'd reduce my argument to supposedly stoking "class wars."

"A new front in the class wars," you say? Really? Seems like the only people who ever use the term "class wars" are those who don't like the idea of non-wealthy people having... much of anything. Or, more to the point, those who would, as you say, "happily admit to being elitist, but since when is there anything wrong with that?"

The superiority and exclusionary nature of that sort of thinking is precisely what is wrong with that.

And for now, I'm done being baited. G'night, everyone.

It's my understanding that the patent on many of these pieces by Knoll and Herman Miller have long expired.

I believe it was the use by companies, such as Alphaville and Steelform, of designers' names in their marketing of these "knock-offs" that was resolved by the courts a few years ago.

Is this not the same situation as when drug patents expire and generics flood the market? I don't think I can take a hard position in favor of authentic mid-century pieces, because, quite honestly, I almost always buy the CVS brand over Tylenol, among other generic drugs.

Picasso borrowed from Fang masks for Les Demoiselles d'Avignon. The Hans Wegner T-Bone chair is a knock-off of the Chinese Ming chair. Should we forego buying originals of Wegner's chair because he ripped off the shape of that chair? Or perhaps buying knock-offs of the Wegner chair made in China is actually some kind of karmic circle?

Jplee

I wasn't baiting you. I was using your own words. Here they are again:

"And *that* seems to me to be the real problem some folks have with reproductions -- that it enables non-wealthy people to experience beautiful items, and expands style and design beyond the province of the rich."

Surely you detect a hint of classism there?

And if people have a problem with elitism, why are they so all-fired keen to buy knock-offs of work by elitist designers? Designers like the Eames did not craft their furniture for the masses. They were made in limited runs through very labour-intensive methods. Eames himself created ads for Herman Miller warning people to avoid knock-offs.

He also said "The details are not the details. They make the design." And it is the details the knock-offs get wrong.

Modernism was a reaction to traditionalism and, like most such movements, was inherently elitist. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

As for the Tylenol argument, for me the difference is that we are talking about furniture as art here. Most people (die-hard Warholians aside) don't consume paracetamol for its aesthetic qualities.

You all know my position on knock-offs.
So why don't you buy vintage?
I bought my vintage Bertoias for $99 each (The black plastic coated ones) and $149 for the 1970's chrome ones. (in almost new condition). That was 2 years ago. Right now, you can find it cheaper. Eames fiberglass side chairs are dime a dozen these days on evil-bay. There's no excuse to buy a knock-off.
If you like the BMW 3 series but can't afford one, buy a Mazda 3... not a chinese copy of the BMW version. LOL!
-joel

A knock-off is not the same as a counterfeit.

And just because someone is claiming royalties to something doesn't mean they actually have the right to - often, they just have to power to. If you sing Happy Birthday in public, technically you owe Time Warner an ASCAP fee. It's commonly agreed the song is in the public domain, but Time Warner makes $2 million off it each year, so they will fight anyone who challenges them. And who, as an individual, has the interest to challenge them anyway? It's easier and cheaper to just pay the fee.

It's great that consumers are more aware - mostly via music downloading and other digital technologies - that it is wrong to steal commodities of creation from living artists. But there are reasons why there are limits on the lengths of time copyright and patents can be enforced, and they are usually based on the length of an average human life, not a multi-generation corporation that usually bought (or took) the creation from an individual in the first place. And despite what many here are claiming, there are many levels of grey area to this debate.

@jplee

dwr is a DEALER, therefore they are not the voice of Knoll.
If they say things will "last forever" then they need to check themselves.

buy vintage before you buy a knockoff.

i have an eames aluminum group desk chair. it's authentic herman miller and i bought it used for 450 dollars. sure, that may be a lot of money for a desk chair for some of you to spend. however, i have sat in it comfortable for a few years now. i love the way that it looks and i love it's quality and comfort.

in terms of price, it's in the ballpark of some of the knock offs that are being advertised here. the main difference being, if i wanted i could likely sell my eames chair for what i paid for it. whereas the knock off would have lost most of it's value the second i took it out of the box.

plus, and maybe this is just me... i don't like not having the genuine article. i like what i like and i want the real thing.

Wait a minute...

I found a gem once. Accurato.com.
I purchased the eames RAR. That is, the eames rocking chair, in a pristine white.... why would i mention this or even the company.... well...

They are the only place that still makes eames shell chairs out of fiberglass. I am an industrial designer, so weighed all of the pros and cons before buying and they follow like so.

PRO to buying a New eames rocker from Accurato -

1. I wanted the richness of the quality of fiberglass.
2. I couldnt find a decent quality used one for the right price
3. I used a coupon found on some other site
4. I got a white shell, with walnut legs and eiffel base, and lifetime warranty and shipping included from CA to Pennsylvania for $350

The DWR versions or other new versions may have a stamp on the bottom stating they are from herman miller who whomever, but god damn the new material feels cheap and flimsy. While more eco, it's not a big concern for me as this chair is like art and will probably be in my life until I die, and then handed off to someone. The quality of the origional technique of the fiberglass is top notch, and I believe its done in the same space the origional eames chairs were manufactured.

It's got the exact look and feel and make of the old eames pieces, except I didnt have to restore or keep hunting or just go with a color that I stumbled upon, but instead got exactly what I wanted for the cheapest price I could find. I think DWR versions are what, oveer $450?

Okay, thats all. I will buy more from them in the future. But wait - so is mine technically a knock off? Because it doesnt have the herman miller stamp? Or is mine of more value because its in mint condition and holds true to the old school technique of casting with fiberglass?

Once upon a time, a chair was something that you put your butt on when you wanted to rest...

lorenzo.

modernica makes the shell chairs in fiberglass on the exact equipment that herman miller used to make them on. they are the same price as the newer flimsy eames chairs, but likely more authentic than the newer herman miller ones.

slowdown- I probably won't be able to sway your opinion but just to explain that my products sell at Target so it's a bit hard to say that people can't afford the real thing. Competing companies have taken my products, slapped their name on and called it a day. I know I had to work long and hard to be able to afford to live in NYC on a designer's salary. It's hard to hear that whatever you bring to the table as a designer has no value in the market place. And if you do stand up for your rights, you get accused of not having enough ideas. Ouch! What other professions have to deal with this? Why is copying a song any different from copying a chair?

Anyway, it's true that we all get inspired by things and that ultimately we're surrounded by objects that have their roots elsewhere. Who knows I'm sure I've unknowingly bought them try as hard as I might. What I find hard to swallow is wanting to promote businesses that don't want to create original design. There are so many great products out there, why limit yourself?

i think whytephoenix perfectly ended this discussion. hilarious!

True, true:)

The fact that the original designer isn't technically losing those customers that can't afford to spend the big bucks on originals is irrelevant. Companies that sell knockoffs make tons of money off of someone else's hard work: it's parasitic.

@cindycandy: "Companies that sell knockoffs make tons of money off of someone else's hard work: it's parasitic."

But here we go in a circle again. What's the line between being inspired or influenced by strong, interesting or iconic design and being "parasitic" on someone else's creative vision and hard work? I still don't think anyone has given a good answer to that question.

Besides obvious cases of theft (taking an idea or design wholesale and passing it off as your own), how do we determine who owns what idea? Dior is credited with the 'New Look' silhouette, but a cinched waist and voluminous skirt is not really a new idea in the history of fashion. It was 'new' only with reference to the decades immediately preceding it.

Anyway, my argument was not about whether it's morally defensible to steal or riff on someone else's ideas or not (it's a complicated issue, for the reasons I mention above). That's another issue. My comment was more about stating the obvious: People will buy what they can afford. Those who are concerned with the pedigree of their furnishings will buy authentic, pay more for it, and enjoy the finer workmanship, bragging rights, etc.; those who are not will buy a knock-off and enjoy none of those things.

This site makes it easy to see where the line is:

https://www.mattblatt.com.au/

It doesn't get much more obvious than that.

Knock-offs are lame. 90% of the time you can get vintage licensed originals for less than a knock-off. Try eBay or Craigslist or whatever MCM store is near you.

I have eight Eames fiberglass shell chairs (real Herman Miller ones) that I got for around $100 bucks each. They're way cooler than the new plastic Herman Miller ones and certainly better than any knock-off. Ditto goes for my Bertoia chairs--I got four, with the original Knoll seat pads for $600. I did buy new Eames Herman Miller LCWs from Highbrow and after a few months one of the backs came loose. Highbrow replaced the entire chair in just a few days and paid for the return postage of the broken chair. I doubt you can get that kind of service from any company that makes or sells knock-offs.

The good thing about buying vintage is that your house or apartment doesn't end up looking like page 24 in the DWR catalog. Many amazing designs are no longer manufactured--Charles Pollock sling chairs, Eames La Fonda chairs, Clement Meadmore, Paul McCobb...

Buy vintage and hold out for licensed originals.

Markjudep I am right there with you... I am completely against knock offs... you can easily find vintage Eames furniture on craigslist for less than half the price in great condition... In the past 2 months we just bought a vintage purple vinyl shell chair from 1973 for $170 and a purple management chair from 1980 for $275, the only part of this chair that wasn't perfect was the arm rests which can be buffed and refinished. If price is an issue, there are plenty of other options besides knock offs. Especially when you factor in the quality and how it was made.

This argument could go on forever. We buy what we like, what we need and what we can afford, and for each of us that's something entirely different. What's with the judgement on AT all the time?

Knock off or not to knock off, that is the question.

The simplest thing to consider here is that all good design was brainstormed, drawn, sculpted and then produced by very unique individuals who took the time to consider, 'what is good design?' A great deal of these people dedicate their lives to the art of creating and their labor comes with a price tag. They own and deserve their fare share of any profits made from their work.

Knock offs, though appealing to those who can not afford the larger price tag, is theft. Plain and simple. You take money from someone's well deserved pocket and give it to another for not thinking of it first.

It takes an enormous amount of time and passion to become an iconic designer and in the end they are rewarded by being knocked off. Think to yourself, 'how would you feel if someone at work took credit for 90% of your ideas and received a large amount of your paycheck?"

Sure, that's fair.

Fearless Botazofa
Designer for 901

OK I sort of fell out of the arguments around the middle here, but I want to say just a few things, hoping it won't be redundant.

I find some commentors are confusing things here, and I think there is a difference between :

-Fraudulous vendors selling fakes as authentic,
-fakes sold as fakes but done in China in humanly/environmentally and legally dubious manners,
-good copies sold as such at reasonable prices (and often made by the very same italian craftsmen who work for Cassini or Knoll for exemple),
-good copies sold pointlessly almost at the same price as the original,
-bad copies that are worth what they are sold (or even less, ie the awful Eames rocking chair above),
-prohibitivley expensive originals
-also the difference between works that are recent creations (living designers) or models from the 1900s to 1950s in public domain *claimed* to be copyrighted by manufacturers. example : le Corbusier, Charlotte Perriand and Janneret created their originals ca. 1928 for exhibits, and they were only manufactured around 1965 by Cassina, the same goes for Rietveld's chair, or even William Morris wallpaper).

Another detail, speaking of copies vs original artwork, like it has been said, they were intended for mass-production, and I beleive you can't really compare with artwork like a Picasso or a Van Gogh, which is an original and unique creation : design by definition is mass-produced. (although, Rubens copied da Vinci, Delacroix copied works by Rubens, etc etc, so even in that domain you can't really have a definite argument).

I just think this whole debate has to be a bit sorted out.

I have the intention of buying a le Corbusier LC2 sofa, an imitation manufactrued in Italy.
I informed myself about the maker on the net and from friends in the field of furniture retail.
The craftsmen are the same ones who work for Cassini.
Le Corbusier is dead so he won't suffer from the purchase. Who is actually being prejudiced in the story? His heirs? Are they the ones who spent their life designing? Anyhow the furniture is now in the public domain.
Maybe I'm causing harm to Cassina, should I fell sad? They already have their clients and I would never have the means to buy a sofa from them.
However if I find a used sofa, same model, edited by Cassina of course I would privelege it above the copy, even if it was just a bit more exmpensive.

Wasn't the aim of the Eames' "to get the most of the best to the most for the least?" To some, it is about value and not about cost, but in what world does a $3700 lounge chair become available to the most?

I couldn't afford the Eames Soft Pad Management Chair so I bought a copy off of Ebay. It lasted a little over 90 days before the tilt spring gave way and the spindle came through the chair pad. I am lucky I was not seriously hurt. It didn't look good up close as the metal was not polished the stitching was not aligned but I had no idea the basic mechanism was dangerous. It did look ok from across a room. I think at the time the Eames was $1100 and I ended up paying $570 with shipping for the copy. I saved nothing. I had to wheel the copy to the dumpster and the ebay seller would never answer my request for refund or replacement. I think you are better off carefully searching craigslist for a vintage piece and of course inspect it carefully to make sure its not just a beat up knock off. Another good strategy is to save up in a small bank account throwing those b-day presents and little windfalls at the end of the month into an account just for your designer prize. It would have been better to save for a year and still be sitting in an Eames that probably would last decades rather than being thankful I was not impaled. :)

I understand the concern about knock-offs potentially cutting into a designer's livelihood, especially designers that are just starting out.

HOWEVER, in the case of someone like me, buying a cheapie reproduction instead of the real thing does not constitute a lost sale for the Eames- I never would have been able to afford the real thing to begin with. I would have to buy the knock-off or nothing at all (something from Ikea instead?) So my chair purchase is hardly coming out of their pocket. Whether I buy a copy that pays *homage* to them or a totally different design, they still aren't down $2,000 as a result.

If anything, the Eames craze has done nothing but create a lost of good recognition and press for the designers(!) Yes, trends often result in knock-offs being made to supply all the levels of demand - which I know can be viewed quite negatively. But, I'm sure many many people out there never even knew who the Eames were before all this started. And while knock-off sales are up, I'm sure sales on the *real thing* are too. And geez, there are freakin' Eames commemorative stamps out there! I doubt that they would have frowned on all this wild success and fanaticism. ....And if anything, all of us who can't buy the real chair are that much more likely to go buy the coffee table book instead. ;-)

@MrCranky: "I also can't afford an original Van Gogh. But I would never dream of buying one of the Van Gogh oil reproductions you can get on eBay for $100. It would scream pretentious shallowness if you hung such a thing on your wall.

And that's what buying knock-offs does.

It provides compelling evidence of your faux taste and I cringe every time I see one here on AT."

Are you decorating for you, or are you decorating for other people? The way I see it, it is "pretentious shallowness" to worry more about what other people will think of your taste than to simply design your home in a way that, above all, pleases you. I'd rather live in a home that makes me happy every time I walk in than one that garners lots of compliments but makes me uncomfortable or cost way more than I could afford. If that means buying knockoffs because I like the way they look, then so be it.

Huh. There are plenty of Eames et. al. knock-offs from the '50s and '60s, y'know. I never hear outrage about those. Old = cool, I suppose. Talk about faux taste... and faux ethics.

I tend to buy vintage when I can, however that said, it is NOT always advantagious to do so as some of the older pieces may end up quite brittle due to sheer age - especially true of those items made out of plastics that are say 35-40 or more old as plastics of that period don't have the qualities of the plastics available to us today and may not be as durable when exposed to the sun - also, fiberglass will crack over time if not taken are of, I know as I had 2 original Eames fiberglass side chairs that were cracked, bad enough to replace w/ vintage pieces the same color. I did that in the early 90's when I found 2 matching ones for $35 apiece, true they were missing their feet but were original, possibly a tad newer versions however.

I think I read that the original Panton molded plastic chairs from the 60's tend to crack over time so in that case, buy new if you can afford the originals - even IF they are even still manufactured by their original manufacturer to begin with. Sometimes the original manufacturer will cease production but another factory continues on, sometimes w/ the original molds etc of the originals and thus are reproductions of the originals and that's all fine by me.

I WILL agree is making an obvious knockoff and trying to pass it off as original.

Er, I sould finish my thought process here, I meand that I will agree that making an obvious knockoff and trying to pass it off ans an original is not OK.

just another quick point to this argument from another designer...

part of being a good designer is having the ability to solve problems. one problem i see is that good design isn't always affordable. most people end up buying ugly junk that ends up in landfills after a few years. make something people will appreciate and love for a lifetime and make it affordable. then, maybe the world could be a more beautiful place both visually and environmentally speaking.

I am shocked at nearly every post here, especially the pretentious, self-righteous people preaching the judgement of God about copying a chair with an expired patent. This is not, like it or not, a moral issue.

It's a legal issue, whether you like it or not. And, that issue has been decided in courts again and again. The reason the knock offs keep getting made is because it's legal. To the woman who asked the author in the group if he would want his words to be copied - there is a specific law preventing this so this is an invalid argument. And, there is a very big difference with copying a piece of furniture has patent still valid, versus one that has had its patents expire. One copy is not legal, the other copy clearly is. Courts have thrown out cases that companies like Herman Miller have brought against those who knock off, for this reason exactly. And, Knoll (I believe) was awarded "Trade Dress" rights for the Barcelona chair, but copies for this are still allowed to be manufactured by those who knock off because patents have expired. There is a case regarding Knoll vs Gordon International specifically regarding this; look it up.

I also wanted to point out the person who made the observation that the Bertoia chair purchased for $90 adjusted for inflation price vs what is actually charged was very insightful; thank you for that. The argument that somehow the designers lose money is such an uneducated argument. Not only are the current prices out of line with the original, the patents have expired a long time ago on things knocked off today and the designers are dead!

And to compare a Van Gough to an Eames Lounger is ridiculous. A Van Gough is a one of a kind item. By definition the furniture that the Eames' etc designed is not. And, the law is on the side of those who have knocked off the old designers.

To buy a knock off or the branded item is clearly a personal decision. Either one is legally valid, provided that the patents have expired on the branded item. One can empathize with those who are against it and see their point, too. The point for those in favor of knock offs is clearly obvious; they're allowed, they are affordable, F*** you.

If you're going to argue for buying branded only, please make logical arguments, if any can be made at all in favor of buying branded. The dogma of making comparisons with literature and art is so ridiculous. Actually, after literature's copyrights are expired, the literature goes into the public domain, where it can be copied by wonderful sites like http://www.gutenberg.org. See? Please make arguments that make sense; most of these are foolish and cast the pro-branded people in the worst of lights.

Well said @ ahikernamedgq.

I work in the fashion industry where knock offs run rampant. As a clothing designer/ technical designer, furniture just wasn’t my thing. I had no idea who Eames was before hearing about his knockoffs EVERYWHERE a few years ago. If it's pretty, well made, within my means and is fantastic in my room I'M GOOD. I don't care who designed it. Just like in fashion-- if it’s legal, it’s all good. It just keeps designers on their toes. Plus lets be honest, no one is going to buy a knock off Chanel if they can truly afford the real deal. Coco Chanel herself would tell you to buy the knock off and pay your damn rent. (and she would say damn because she was spicy like that).

BTW I am SOOO over the Eames rocking chair that seems to be IN EVERY ROOM ON AT. Come on people, doesn’t this just seem lazy!? I think I find it most offensive when it’s the only chair in the room and one can think of at least 10 other chairs that would work better. To MrCranky this is an example of when elitism is tacky... if you just have it for the name printed under it what's the point?
We all here should be focusing our energy on appreciating the beauty of creating a cohesive, interesting and inspiring design aesthetic within a space. That’s the point of this website.