Two New Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation Licensees

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


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.
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 12:34 pm

Two New Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation Licensees

Post by erban »

I made a post on PraireMod this evening about what appears to be some truly high quality, new FLLW products. You can view the info here: ... lw_li.html

I'm aware of many mixed feelings regarding FLLW merchandise and this article at Jet Set Modern states one person's specific thoughts on the subject:

However, there are certain products that truly are stellar and not just of the t-shirt and poster variety. Do any of you own any FLLW licensed products? A barrel chair perhaps or a sprite garden statue? Does anyone have strong feelings for or against these licensed items?


FLW merchandise

Post by Ozwrightfan »

Just replying to erbans posting, I agree totally with the Jet Set Modern article. I have looked at many of the shopping sites and have dismissed a lot of the merchandise as tourist crap. I proudly display on my dining table, a pair of the crystal candle holders FLW designed which I purchased from Tiffany's in Sydney Australia. I would love to purchase a sprite but the shopping sites won't ship outside the USA. Strewth mate, I thought americans are "can do" people, men to the moon and all that.


Post by Guest »

New Zealand was the first to discover flight....tru fact. But none want to admit it. (Go ahead and but me for copy write!)

First in flight?

By Chris Mooney, 4/20/2003

THE UNITED STATES may be gearing up to celebrate the centennial of human flight on Dec. 17, 2003, but the rest of the world has other ideas. New Zealand, for example, recently commemorated the 1903 flight of an inventor named Richard Pearse, which supposedly took place on his Waitohi farm. Pearse is just one of many individuals, from mere fabricators and local legends to genuine aviation pioneers, who may have preceded the Wrights into the air.

Brazilians have named their countryman Alberto Santos-Dumont the ''Father of Aviation'' for flying 220 meters in France in 1906 -- at a time when the Wrights still had not performed a publicly announced demonstration. As for the ever-pesky French, many still hold out for Clement Ader, who built the steam-powered Eole, a craft resembling a giant bat. Although it was incapable of sustained flight, in 1890 Ader managed to get the Eole off the ground for 160 feet or so -- a mere ''powered hop,'' according to the Smithsonian's Tom Crouch. Aviation historians have debunked Ader's claims of subsequent flights, but in his new book ''Taking Flight,'' Richard Hallion notes that visitors to Charles de Gaulle airport can dine at Chez Clement, a restaurant featuring a graphic of Ader ''laughing jauntily'' as his Eole soars in the background.

The Wrights have had rivals aplenty in their own country. Consider the delightful story of the Reverend Burrell Cannon, a Baptist pastor in Pittsburg, Texas, who in 1902 flew his Ezekiel Flying Machine 60 feet, according to neighbors. A more serious threat has come from the Smithsonian secretary Samuel Pierpont Langley's infamous Aerodrome, a powerful and hulking craft that was the utter antithesis of the Wrights' nimble flyer. From 1914 through 1942, the Smithsonian claimed that the contraption had actually been capable of flight, thus challenging both the Wrights' priority and their patent claims.

At least the Smithsonian finally admitted its error. By contrast, the dispute over Gustave Albin Whitehead, of Bridgeport, Conn., who supposedly made numerous flights in 1901, including a crossing of Long Island Sound, seems capable of going on indefinitely. Tom Crouch likens the Whitehead debate to the never-ending ''arguments over the authorship of the Shakespeare plays.'' With something as important as the first sustained, controlled, and powered flight of a heavier-than-air craft in human history, how could it be otherwise?


Post by rgrant »

I also have the candlesticks, which are actual FLW designs, not "inspired by," and I give them as presents to people who appreciate Wright, and sometimes to people who don't. The worst of the rip-offs is a barrel chair key chain. But some of the items that use his graphic designs are not all that bad, but making wallpaper out of the concrete block patterns is beyond the pale.


Post by FrankFan »

I think it's great that the money from merchandise goes to support the Foundation's mission to continue education efforts. Also, the archives at Taliesin West are invaluable and need to be preserved.

Now, I'm not a fan of some of the Wright products out there. However, there are many things that I've bought with the FLLW logo that I enjoy. There is the copper urn and weed holder by Historical Arts & Casting, which are excellent. Also, the Imperial Hotel China is nice. I do use notecards to send to friends and family that have Mr. Wright's design motifs on them.

I just stay away from FLLW puppets, keychains and posters.


FLW merchandise

Post by FLWfan »

I agree with FrankFan. I would not buy the keychains and the puppets are pretty creapy, but I love the copper urn and the garden sprites.

I guess what it come down to is, I would and do buy the products that are reproductions and high quality over the inspired stuff.

Posts: 42
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Lebanon, OH

Post by Collinst3 »

I have purchased several of the Yamagiwa lights and are most impressed with their quality and attention to detail. They are expensive, but after I get them, I quickly forget about the cost. I enjoy them everyday.
Tony Collins
FLW addiction recently fed by building a wright-inspired ranch designed by former senior Taliesin Fellow.


Post by Guest »

I know they're cheap, but I think the keychains are kind of fun -- especially the barrel chair!


Post by Guest »

Puppets? Did someone say puppets?


FLW merchandise

Post by FLWfan »

Anonymous wrote:Puppets? Did someone say puppets?

Yeah, they are actually marionettes of Frank Lloyd Wright and they are dressed in different coats and scarves and he has a cain. I wonder if anyone has bought one.


Post by Guest »

Now that you mention it, I do seem to remember seeing something like that in a gift shop. How odd. Pure marketing genius?


Post by Guest »

PS The inspired stuff just never seems (W)right.

Posts: 32
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 3:32 pm
Location: Detroit MI USA


Post by jrdet10 »

I'd love to be able to talk about by Wright house, but since I keep failing to win the lottery, I can tell you about some of our stuff:

_ the garden sprite has developed a nice light-green patina after three summers. Well worth the cost.

_ we have four supposedly "original" Luxfer Prisms that we found in a box in the corner of a Toledo, Ohio, antique shop. No big deal if they're not original; they sit on our kitchen windowsill and REALLY WORK!

_ the Lake Geneva Hotel magazine rack tends to collapse when you slide it a couple of inches so you can vacuum under it.

_ the wife doesn't wear much jewelry, but that didn't stop me from buying her a Guggenheim brooch last Xmas. She doesn't wear it.

_ the paperboard HO-scale Robie House is way, way beyond my engineering capabilities. I'm thinking of assembling a McMansion instead.
"Well, there you are!"

Posts: 149
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:20 pm
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Post by Mobius »

I have heavily researched Richard Pearse's flights in the very early 20th century. I have been to Yes, we could believe that he was the first TRUE pilot, and first with powered flight in 1903 except for one thing: in 1922 he wrote to the Otago Daily Times and denied that he had flown before the Wright Brothers.

It may well be, that Richard's definition of "flight" was far more rigorous than Orville and Wilbur's (Including the ability to turn, circle, climb and descend, and the full use of ailerons (which he definitely DID invent).

However, with the inventor's name on the denial, it seems academic at best.

What we can say about Pearse is that he was a mechanical genius, and as the last of 7 sons, did not get to attend university as his father had blown too much money sending his other (utterly useless sons) through school.

Pearse build internal combustion engines (and later his own "aero-engines") without ever having seen one operate: entirely from scratch.

The tragedy of Pearse is that while he may not have been the first to fly, he definitely did invent (and patent) the aileron - the one piece of equipment an aeroplane really can not do without. Sadly, the patent expired (after 7 years) and it wasn;t until 4 years after thatm that plane manufacturers "discovered" the patent, and began incorporating them into every single aeroplane since. Pearse made not one red cent from this, the most important of inventions for modern flight.
How many escape pods are there? "NONE, SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"

*Plotting to take over the world since 1965

Posts: 240
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 8:24 pm

Post by EJ »

Uh, I think you got the wrong chat board, Mobius.

Interesting stuff, though....
"It all goes to show the danger of entrusting anything spiritual to the clergy" - FLLW, on the Chicago Theological Seminary's plans to tear down the Robie House in 1957

Post Reply