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.
I still keep my hand in. My first big table is coming this spring. I'm sure I'll never tire of drawing, though -- with a pencil. I pity those who are stuck with its replacement.
Paper is almost always white bond -- ordinary copier paper, 8 1/2 x 11 so that I can copy and scan at home. (Sheet 6 of the current set is 11 x 17.) I sketch in a 9 x 12 Strathmore (or equal) sketchbook, 60 lb recycled stock. I also use 8 1/2 x 11 gridded pads, 1/8" squares, for scaled sketching and composing.
I would disagree on one detail: The side panel framing should definitely be uniform. The back frame should not extend beyond the front. The perspective is wrong, which is not unusual for FLW's work. Since a lot of the ASB drawings were made by Lloyd, I suspect this was as well. He drew very fast, and often erred. (Ausge if full of mistakes.) Look closely at Mossberg, which is as close as anything I can think of to this chair; the panel is the same type of design. According to Mrs. Mossberg, the chair as designed was unstable, tending to fall backward. Lautner added to the design to stabilize it.
As to "A" on your drawing, I think that, too, is an error, a line that was extended a bit too far.
While using built works as a model is a good thing, don't assume that since FLW spindled the Little chair as he did, that the same pattern was used for ASB.
Taliesin III (1925 ?)
Jacobs I (presumably not original to the house)
I feel these chairs, while closer to our subject chairs (especially 0519.001) than other Wright designs, are still only superficially like them.
And, just for the heck of it, a chair by Purcell & Elmslie, from 1913:
I appreciate your comments on the C3 chair. The side panel is shown with two possible corner joints to the frame -- for the choice of the client and/or maker (the broken line is to indicate "either/or"). I'm glad to have your input on the rear configuration. Do you read the drawing as having an up-sloping bottom plate ?
I'm not sure what is meant by "The back frame should not extend beyond the front." Can you amplify ? I have the bottom plate, upon which the spindles rest, connecting to the inside of the forward structural panel, for obvious reasons. I'm showing 1" of plywood there, as the piece -- a complicated cut-out with narrow portions at various points -- would be unreliable structurally in solid material, in my estimation -- and because ample 1/2" walnut ply is available to the maker after the seat shell and panels are cut. I'd edgeband it on the inside radius with 1/16 or 3/32 solid banding. On the outside it's dressed with ample solid-stock pieces.
My first thought on this chair was to the stability, considering the placement of the rear legs. I've moved them rearward as much as I could, consistent with the drawing. It was necessary to introduce an extra inter-spindle space behind the middle leg; otherwise the spindles and spaces would have had to grow unacceptably, I thought.
I am tempted to build the ASB Chair in CAD just for the fun and joy of the design to see how it would work if it were built.
Life is hard enough; I wouldn't ask anyone to make that seat with a canted cylindrical back. For comfort's sake, if a dining chair has a canted back it should also have a slightly sloped seat. I'd be very surprised if that was the architect's intention, here.
(There seem to be two sorts of dining/side chairs: those whose back is meant to be used, and those whose back is merely decorative (or would keep the sitter from tumbling backward in some sort of hideous dining-room accident). I have little use for the latter sort -- but, here we are. So, I would do something to make it at least marginally more comfortable, while retaining Wright's form.)
I chose to keep the spindle section open ("transparent") rather than backing the spindles with a panel. As a result, the back of the kerf-bent walnut-ply seat shell is exposed and would need to be finished before assembly of the chair was completed. I think the trouble would be worth it; the view through the spindles from front or back would be a pleasant feature, and the silhouette of the seat "bucket" would be a nice plus.