EFFECTIVE 14 Nov. 2012 PRIVATE MESSAGING HAS BEEN RE-ENABLED. IF YOU RECEIVE A SUSPICIOUS DO NOT CLICK ON ANY LINKS AND PLEASE REPORT TO THE ADMINISTRATOR FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION.
This is the Frank Lloyd Wright Building Conservancy's Message Board. Wright enthusiasts can post questions and comments, and other people visiting the site can respond.
You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, *-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time they see fit.
The lable says only "gumwood and upholstery." No mention is made of the actual matter of the chair: is it plywood, edged in solid ? Gum veneer
plywood would have been an oddity at any period, I would have thought. Of course it may have been that custom-veneered panels were used in the
house, and of course in the cabinetry and furniture. I suppose there was no opportunity to peek at a hidden edge ?
The little triangular wing legs are unusual for this type. Perhaps the vertical panels of the chair are even closer together than usual ?
An unusual armed version, for Brandes:
Lewis, in 1939, has a chair from which the postwar versions descend ?
And the Eifler office-designed chair for the Peterson residence has a very narrow stance, without "training wheels"; the back is narrower than that of the Winn example.
Tracy, in 1954. Mr Wright seems to have conceived of the chair as an object like a fine vase, which exhibits "lift" by rising from a narrow foot.
Many prewar Usonian chairs are narrow in front and wide at the back, like a tricycle. Carleton Wall:
Speaking of Brandes, years ago I got a tour of that house from Brandes' son-in-law (friend of a friend). He told a story that someone had broken into the house and stole their living room chairs. The replacement chairs he had in the room then were Usonian-esque and I'd assumed they were duplicates, but they didn't look anything like the ones in your photo.
https://stuartisett.photoshelter.com/im ... eGNv_BfqOg
If they had ones like those in your photo, I didn't see them. Perhaps, they didn't replace the originals with the same design (?). Where did you get that pic?
Regarding Winn, you might be on to something regarding the gumwood and the lack of mention of plywood. My wife commented that it didn't look like plywood to her. I told her sometime they edge banded the plywood with solid strips.
Looking close at these photos, however, it doesn't appear to have edge banding, or be plywood. We can see the radiusing of the outside corners of their cuts. Do you suppose this is fabricated using solid stock?
In the lower photo, that triangle we see under the side piece is a solid piece that spans across to the other side piece. You can see it bridging underneath. I haven't seen that detail before in others.
certainly be glued up of two or three or four boards -- whose ends, and joints, must be apparent on two of the four edges . . .
Some of those parts might have veneered edges -- those can be fragile, and almost never survive undamaged, especially near the floor -- but the seat
doesn't appear to be anything but solid wood.
It is possible to miter a solid edge onto both plywood and solid, which in the latter case would conceal the ends of the boards. If mitered, that's a mighty
tight corner ! There's good reason not to edgeband solid wood: the panel will grow and shrink across the grain, with time, and the EB won't, which
opens corner joints. Not what we see here . . .
The rounded corners of the back board are of interest. We're seeing solid stock, there, surely. But the seat could still be edgebanded ply.
I see no obvious joint in the vertical panel and the grain is consistent across its width. I would be flabbergasted if that turned out to be a single board . . .
Now -- what is the bit of metal cylinder we see under the seat at rear ?
standing behind it). The left edge of the seat shows saw-marks, unlike the right-hand edge we looked at before. Did a piece of, say, 1/8" or 1/4"
edgebanding fall off, leaving a raw edge never meant to be seen ? It's possible to read this front corner of the chair as having 1/4" EB to the front of the seat,
its end now revealed by missing side EB. But nothing is really clear -- so far.
I'm beginning to think that we see veneer edgebanding to the front of those rear uprights, seen below the back. What an interesting hodge-podge . . .
Now: the winglets are perhaps Doug fir, while everything else is a bland material with no strong grain. Perhaps the verticals are solid gumwood,
with no EB. There's damage to the front legs, under the seat, that could be dented (soft) solid wood, or edgebanding. I'm seeing those wing legs as
remedies to a perceived or experienced tipping problem.
http://www.artnet.com/artists/frank-llo ... BD7rOS37A2
I recall seeing earlier photos of Rosenbaum where they had Eames DCW chairs at the dining table and an Eames LCW in Stanley's study.
Here are some Futagawa photos when the dining room contained Eames DCW chairs. I think they look like they fit. Nowadays, FLW designed dining chairs are re-placed there, and the Eames pieces are relocated in various rooms of the house, still looking compatible.
speak of. Ash has an open grain like oak, and a plain-sliced board would have highly-visible grain. Quartered or rift-sawn ash would have a ribbon grain
almost as visible as that of fir. And the stain that's on this chair would have brought that grain to the fore.
It's probably gum, like the first chair we looked at. And the lack of training wings tells us that those were added later -- wouldn't you say ?
Yes, I've never seen a more sympathetic pairing that those Eames DCWs around the Rosenbaum dining table. Who knew that Eames was sent from
heaven, along with the Rosenbaum wood-and-brick space-ship?
I love your pairing of the Eames LCW and the Winn chair. Maybe the owner of this chair -- post-Winn, even ? -- had that very image in mind when he or
she added them ! It's hard to deny that the very broad back practically demands them . . .
https://images.wisconsinhistory.org/700 ... 0010-l.jpg
Ah -- the later one was narrower. Maybe the same chair, cut down for some reason. Burned corners ?
https://archhistdaily.files.wordpress.c ... 8/1925.jpg
No -- different grain to the back. Unless there was more than one of this throne . . .
The chairs without the triangle supports were designed so they could be incorporated into a larger grouping if needed - sort of a modular system. There was also a chair with a single right arm and a chair with a single left arm to complete the grouping. The chair pictured with the support was meant to be a stand-alone.
The original auction states the wood is cherry.
No one's copping to the chair being modified. The difference in material of the wing feet is suggestive nevertheless.
True enough. I was the owner of the chair pictured above (without the supports). I can attest that at least once I and the chair took a tumble when I extended my reach to the side in order to grab something off a nearby table. Perhaps the Winns tired of this experience and added the supports.No one's copping to the chair being modified. The difference in material of the wing feet is suggestive nevertheless.
http://www.hardwoodinfo.com/specifying- ... e-a-g/gum/
SDR, the chair Craig owned is shown from the rear. Would you guess that the back piece might be solid stock, given its radiused corners and cutout. And, in contrast, the vertical legs, seat, and back support are edge banded plywood? And the side 'training wings' are solid stock? Is that your best guess given the spotty evidence? If so, is that uncommen to mix ply with solid stock in Usonian chairs?
Uh oh, here's another cryptic Taliesin mini-mystery -- Steinerag titles this photo as taken in a "Private office" in taliesin III in 1926, meaning it was right after the rebuilding, probably prior to all the various later modifications. I wonder where this view was located. If simply in the Studio, then why the term "Private Office"? and why the lineup of chairs like this?