I think this so-called classic remains in cliché mode. Give it another decade before making the classic proclamation.

I heart the "Woods" wallpaper very much; however, I think it makes absolutely no sense to use it as a border (in the top right pic). It goes from being "Woods" to something more like "Stumps." I think it's safe to proclaim it a "classic" design already; it's the most iconic wallpaper out there.

I agree with hejiranyc. When I first saw the original post with this picture, I too called it "stumps". Having this wallpaper in my home, I can attest to the fact that it looks even better in person. As to the "cliche" vs "classic" discussion, I haven't made up my mind. It's beautiful, I love it, it fits my home and my style - I care less if people call it cliche. I actually found the wallpaper myself about 2 yrs ago, before I saw it in other magazines.

When I fisrt saw that wallpaper (...from a source outside AT) I really liked it, and decided that it would really work well on our bedroom wall - until I started seeing it everywhere on this blog. Now, I don't know. The "cliche" aspect bugs me, and if everytime I looked at it and thought "cliche" it just wouldn't be worth the effort - it's expensive enough that if I have any doubts I just won't go with it. So, reading AT and finding out about the "cliche" has actually ruined it for me, I hate to say...

Novabass, would you consider the Eames plywood chair "cliche" or the Emco aluminum chair "cliche?" I suspect that there is a very fine line between "cliche" and "classic," but I think what sets them apart is the issue of accessibility. If you start to see the Woods paper (or, for that matter, Eames chairs!) at Home Depot and WalMart. There is still an aura of mystique about the Woods wallpaper; it's practically impossible to find on this side of the Atlantic and it has only been seen in style-fetish publications. Also, it's not exactly featured in movies and television shows. It's sorta mainstream but still very much under the radar.