For sale: Richardson House - Glen Ridge, NJ

To control SPAM, you must now be a registered user to post to this Message Board.

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.
Tom
Posts: 2941
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Black Mountain, NC

Post by Tom »

I don't get this:
Roof section of Tarantino restoration documentation shows long steel angles
being introduced to reinforce cantilever.
The angles are installed open side down.
Without notching the steel angles, I don't understand what I'm looking at
in these pictures:

http://www.tarantinostudio.com/FLLW_Ric ... _97.html#5

JimM
Posts: 1509
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2005 5:44 pm
Location: Austin,Texas

Post by JimM »

Hmmm... once the loads were calculated and the steel angles were deemed adequate, one leg was installed vertically to minimize the amount of 2x material removed to accomdate the steel, while the flat of the other leg worked perfectly to maintain the plane of the flat roof.

It looks like photos 5&6 show the new angles spanning between a pier not clear in the foreground, and the next one located right before the man on the far end. The steel then continues beyond that pier as a cantilevered beam to support that line as well as a secondary double 2x beam clearly shown in photo 1.

I think what their saying is that the cantilevered intersection of those two wood beams originally did not contain steel. I think.

The only other thing is, even though the outriggers which the steel was inserted between are not very long, there must be a new connection to replace the original, unless that "interesting" support detail actually offers support for the 2x beams as well? The short outrigger would less be structural and more of a nailer for the roof sheathing and fascia.

Tom
Posts: 2941
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 7:53 pm
Location: Black Mountain, NC

Post by Tom »

You've got to be correct about that.
No way those steel angles are notched.
They've got to be continuous.
Therefore the outriggers are supported between the roof fascia boards
and the new steel with maybe some new wood bolted on.
I keep forgetting how typical a detail that is for Wright.

DavidC
Posts: 7407
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »


DavidC
Posts: 7407
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 2:22 pm
Location: Oak Ridge, TN

Post by DavidC »


DRN
Posts: 3921
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ

Post by DRN »

“Guilt free� Wright designed chairs for a reasonable price!

SDR
Posts: 18838
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

I suppose these chairs, not original to the house nor made during Wright's lifetime, deserve a provenance of their own---build quality notwithstanding.
Whether they are worth, together, what the seller is asking is beyond my pay grade.

But, perhaps by way of sour grapes, I can report my opinion, that these are among the architect's least stable furniture pieces: they would clearly be apt
to dump an unwary sitter onto the floor if that sitter were to shift his or her bulk too far off-center. This is because the rear legs are so close together,
making the base a triangle rather than a rectangle---essentially.

And, to make matters worse, the back is made almost ridiculously wide---the same width as the seat, so that, lined up as in the first photo, they make a
presentable version of bench seating.

A version of this chair is found in several late-period Usonians. Owners will have their own anecdotes, no doubt; I have not come across one in my
reading---yet.

S

SDR
Posts: 18838
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Two handsome chairs in the Wrightian mode, designed by John Eifler's office for the Seth Peterson residence, share some of the same forms as these "Richardson" chairs, but appear more reasonable in their
design. A lounge chair has the same close-set rear legs, but the chair seems to hold together better because its back is integral with the seat panel; the extra weight could be expected to reduce the tendency to
tip. The dining or side chair is sufficiently narrowed to the point where stability seems not much at issue.


Image Image

DRN
Posts: 3921
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ

Post by DRN »

I had the opportunity to sit in the chairs being offered for sale when I visited the house a couple of times. The chairs were positioned as shown in the first photo as a long bench in the entry leading to the living room. In this arrangement they seemed stable likely due to adjacent chairs steadying the one being sat upon. When distributed throughout the living room individually for a party, stability may be at issue as SDR suggests.

The Eifler designed variants on the theme at the Peterson Cottage were stable in all cases that I recall from our stays there.

SDR
Posts: 18838
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

Thanks, Dan, that's useful input. There may be a good reason why the chairs at Richardson were displayed as they were !

One wonders why they were removed from the house---by the present owner ?

I have no doubt that the Peterson chair designs were tested by the architects before final fabrication. I wish I were as confident that the same was done at
Taliesin, during Wright's period of practice. The number of modifications to ottoman design, post-manufacture, alone would bring into question the rigor of
Mr Wright's furniture-design procedures ...

S

DRN
Posts: 3921
Joined: Mon Jul 10, 2006 10:02 am
Location: Cherry Hill, NJ

Post by DRN »

One wonders why they were removed from the house---by the present owner ?
The chairs for sale were made for the house relatively recently, I believe by or for the Paynes. The photos of the chairs are all taken at the Richardson house and its garden path. The house is under contract now...the chairs for sale may not be wanted by a buyer, and might be up for sale by either the buyer or seller. They were not part of the original build.

Roderick Grant
Posts: 9895
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 7:48 am

Post by Roderick Grant »

"This listing was ended by the seller because there was an error in the listing."
Hmmmm I wonder what the error was? Should the price have been listed as $40,000? Four grand for 6 FLW chairs seems like a give-away.

SDR
Posts: 18838
Joined: Sat Jun 17, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: San Francisco

Post by SDR »

As noted, these are not "Frank Lloyd Wright chairs"---if the definition is that such furnishings were made to Wright's designs and while he was in practice ?

S

jay
Posts: 263
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 8:04 pm

Post by jay »

"This listing was ended by the seller because there was an error in the listing."
Hmmmm I wonder what the error was? Should the price have been listed as $40,000? Four grand for 6 FLW chairs seems like a give-away.
The listing had a quantity button---which usually means the price listed is for each item. So, $4000 per chair, x 6.

Matt2
Posts: 205
Joined: Sun Dec 30, 2018 1:07 pm

Post by Matt2 »

Do we consider Cassina chairs "Wright" chairs? It seems to me if they follow his designs and are made from period-appropriate materials then they are Wright chairs.

Post Reply