Wright Chat

Mid Century Modern Set 6 High Back Frank Lloyd Wright Style Wood Dining Chairs


David

Interesting chairs; I'd guess they were architect designed. It's a shame there's no provenance. For $12,500 there should be some information about their origin; perhaps a serious buyer would be given something of the kind ?

Considering the framing of the back panel, I wonder if a back pad had originally been contemplated . . .

SDR

The side of the upright has a weak, line to it. Better if it had been straight from top to bottom. The front leg seems too heavy. The cushions seem very thin; I bet these chairs are as uncomfortable as they look.

I agree that improvements could be made to the design. As I see it the bulk of the chair calls for a heavier base. The recessed back panel with its
protruding rim makes sense, comfort-wise, only if a cushion were to fill the void. And of course the seat needs a bit of rake, to provide comfort if one
chooses to rest one's back against the back of the chair. As it is the seat actually appears to sag forward, though I believe it is dead level.

I have tilted the seat a modest two degrees, and made other changes below the seat. There are five modifications to the left-hand revision, four to the
right-hand one. The width of the pedestal leg is interchangeable, right to left, depending on preference. I show the chair without upholstery. Seat height
should be raised to compensate if no cushion is to be employed. Drawings are tracings of the photos.

Needless to say, widening the front "leg" will contribute to stability, a chronic problem with three-legged chairs. The deeper rear footprint will help as well.

On reflection, regardless of other modifications perhaps the plinth should retain its forward rake . . .

SDR

The chairs are attractive and would look good in a Usonian interior, but so would a set of well used Nakashima Conoid chairs bought at auction for close to the same price....
https://www.google.com/search?q=nakashi ... _AUIuQIoAg

Certainly. Perhaps there isn't an environment that wouldn't happily accept either choice; they are somehow comparable, in the context of an Organic interior -- though hardly comparable in terms of quality.
Who doesn't like a good cantilever ? I love the Conoid tables, too . . .


Here's a late entry to the subject chair modification derby:

My eye keeps wanting to open/remove the back panel below the seat level of the chair to the right in SDR's last post....

Yeah -- that's a good idea. Having introduced a new back panel (and seat panel) that are flush with the surrounding solid stock, the existing back
becomes (structurally) redundant, and might be dispensed with completely ?


The overriding aesthetic impediment to the chair might be the decision not to taper the width of the back; its breadth at the top imposes a burden on what's
below, in achieving visual balance. This is the kind of problem that ordinary photography inevitably exaggerates. A view camera, with its ability to correct
converging (or in this case, diverging) parallel lines, would help. A low-angle photo like this one minimizes or eliminates the problem. Perhaps Mr Wright's
discerning and sensitive eye was insulted by that distortion, resulting in his directive to young Pedro and others, to shoot interiors from a sitting position ?