Dwell did not write a response
as they sometimes do, they just published it as-is, I assume for the readership to form their own opinions.

As many of you know, I am not a fan of repros/knock-offs, and learning that Modernica does not actually have the molds is enlightening. But for Dwell to stop running the big color 2 page Modernica ads, as well as the ads from Modernica's dealers, would create a significant loss of revenue for a magazine that I feel has done a great service to educate its readers on the legacies of many great designers, Eames included. They have also been a green-oriented magazine from the beginning.

Also, is this a polite request for something the magazine should consider? Judging by the tone, I don't think so.

I also wonder: Is charging 2K for a child's plywood elephant also consistent with the Eames's vision?







http://hivemodern.com/products/?view=sub_product&sid=2077

I suspect that...
Mr. Eames Demetrios ignores that our knowledge on the environmental impact of differents materials has evolved since the death of his grand father. Charles and Ray Eames have been part of the many waves of environmentally responsable designers but they did not know what we know now.
The environmental load of glassfiber re-enforced polyester is 362 mPt/Kgr. whereas Polypropelene is only slightly lower at 305 mPt/Kgr. Which is quite a distance away from plywood...as in elephants... with 188,000 mPt/ sq. meter

Modernica
Could Modernica have molds that were used by companies contracted by Herman Miller? I remember reading that Herman Miller had a variety of contracted factories to produce the shell chairs.

I wonder exact what is the deal at Modernica
since they have the Bubble lamps legally, and no one at Herman Miller or Knoll have stopped them from making either the Fibreglass shells chairs or the Grasshopper chair and "case study" Florence Knoll designs.

I am primarily a big fan of buying originals - indeed I bought a new Eames square work table from Hive Modern two years ago - but I'm turned off at the price of the Eames Sofa, as well as the silliness over how ridiculously expensive Vitra hawked the limited edition elephant.

And,please, Eames Demetrios, don't call me Shirley!

If he's convinced that Modernica's
fiberglass (or is it fibreglass?) 'Eames' chairs are not 100% legitimate, than the Eames foundation should slap a lawsuit on 'em.

I'd much rather see the Eames Foundation work with Vitra to get their prices on their liscenced Eames products down. After all, it's been written time and time again that both Charles and Ray were especially concerned about designing beautiful furniture for people to purchase economically.

Vitra treats every one of the products they produce as if they are Tiffany in disguise.

That's one reason why good people on a budget in Europe are trying to buy Herman Miller products at U.S. prices and get them shipped to Europe.

Dear WoofWoof
Sorry for the delay. I can assure you retirement does not make the days longer on the contrary....
The question about environmental impact is a good but difficult one and I fear I would not do the methodology justice if I try to explain it within the short context of this forum. So allow me to give you the link to a pdf document that is more explicit and has been put together by the very people that developed the system.

Please open the Eco-indicator 99 pdf file

One comment about the control of moulds at subcontractors.

Considering that the Eames shell production was initiated many years before the introduction of so called pre-pregs Pre-pregs are pre mixed polyester and glass fibre that includes all the components but also so retarding chemicals that give the mixture a reasonable shelf time. Heat and pressure during the production play the role of catalyst. These pre-pregs require steel or at least a good quality aluminium mould and will produce a shell every two-three minutes. At the time H.M. had the Eames shells made the available technology was the so called wet method which requires les expensive moulds (most often in glass fibre re-enforced polyester) but because of the slow process (the shell stays in the mould for at least an hour) they needed quite a number of moulds. I find it very difficult to believe that all these moulds?and we are talking about hundreds? are still in well controlled locations. I have doubts about that?
One other consideration that the environmental one is that an injection moulded shell of this size costs around U.S.$ 2,50-2,75 to produce (including the material) whereas a pre-preg produced shell in glass fibre and polyester is closer to U.S.$ 12,50-13,50. Prices are based on U.S. production conditions not of-shore?.


http://www.pre.nl/eco-indicator99/ei99-reports.htm

It should be
said that, as there is no copyright on the designs themselves, the only control the Eames family or foundation has on other makers is use of the name Eames (pronounced EEmes, not Ames, kids !).

We have Koen's many past messages on that subject to thank for the information -- which nevertheless seems to slip through the cracks, perhaps because it is counter-intuitive and/or because of words like young Eames's above. . .

Of course, present-day makers (reproducers, copiers) of classic designs needn't use the original names, since the visual information embodied in the objects themselves is a more than adequate communication of their significance: everybody (with any interest in the subject) instantly recognizes a Barcelona Chair, a Noguchi Coffee Table or a Marshmallow Sofa. . .though they may not notice irregularities of shape or an incorrect material.

Price, they notice ! Oh yes. . .

And please don't tell us that...
And please don't tell us that the plywood chairs are going to be made of a lightweight metal to save trees. I'm all for being green, but don't f**k with design history. Just move on.

Simple Competition
... is done best with witty well designed advertising campaigns. So many companies are remembered for their advertisements. It's a perfect time to stop moaning and start using design instead of bullets.

Charles and Ray's way of solving a problem was with design, not public bitching. They could have publicly humiliated designs and designers that they did not appreciate. But, they got their point across by designing something better instead. People know their design ethics by action more than words. Those who are aware of their words are pulled there by their designs.

My challenge to the Eames Office is to solve this perceived problem with real design.

What does the public want? I am sure that was a question Charles and Ray asked themselves when solving a problem.

If people don't like the new material, regardless of the reasons behind changing it, then they won't buy it. If they won't buy it, then I guess that is also eco-friendly ;)

All kidding aside, if Modernica is making that big of an impact on sales while the Eames Office has the ultimate weapon (the name itself) then there is something wrong with either A. the marketing or B. the product.

Another reason Modernica may have an edge is that they allow themselves to be sold by small and large businesses. Herman Miller decided a number of years ago to sell only through big box design stores and websites. At one time I could buy Herman Miller from a small modern furniture store in my small market. Believe it or not, they starting selling in what I thought was a market unable to appreciate modern furniture. But Herman Miller pulled the cord. "Design Within Reach, Room and Board, and Highbrow only please." There are more small markets than big markets, I believe. Design is for everybody. When you exclude yourself, you get excluded. Easy concept.

As to the bitchiness of this whole thread
It is irksome that many people here dont take things with a grain of salt and a healthy dose of historical perspective.

Whitespike, perhaps, should be reminded that at first production the plywood and the fibreglass were radically new materials, and I'm sure they met with backlash from folks who preferred 'traditional' materials in their home furnishings. I prefer the fibreglass production, but then i buy vintage. I did, however, buy a plastic production as a gift for someone because I knew she wanted a color that was difficult to find.

Olive - the letter suggests nothing against buying vintage - something I highly encourage -especially to those looking for the feel of the 'real' thing. If you want fibreglass, buy vintage and save the material of both the Modernica & Vitra productions.

SDR - When Herman Miller/Eames/Demetrios decided to change production I'm sure they did so with the understanding that something was inherently bad about the fibreglass. Why would you applaud someone that continues to do something that is harmful?

And as for the whole thing about Dwell - it reminds me of watching one of the Presidential debates: Hillary and Barrack are discussing the US economy and how they are trying to keep jobs in the US - completely oblivious to the irony that they were sitting in blatant Eames Alu Group knockoffs. Here are two people decrying outsourcing - but literally sitting on outsourced products. How can Dwell honestly present a dialoge on design while accepting advertising from a company that is subverting the design process in spirit (while doing a delicate tapdance around the legal aspects)?

I think Mr. Demetrios could possibly have used different language - but truth be told I imagine any single one of us in his position would be doing the same - defending our legacy tooth & nail.

PS. I've corresponded with Mr. Demetrios on the Plywood Elephant and he explained that price is the same reason it was never mass produced in the 40's - its a fairly complex mold process for plywood that is very expensive to produce. Its current production is as a design object, not a toy. I dont fully agree with that, but I dont begrudge Vitra to charge what they will - I probably wouldnt buy it either way.

What
legal aspects ? See copyright comment above.

I agree with your assessment of Eames Demetrios's motives in writing his piece.

I suggest that HM changed to molded plastic because it's a faster (cheaper) method, not because of its similar (see Koen, above) eco footprint.

SDR
That was my point - the legality of their knock-offs isnt in question, with the possible exception of the Noguchi Coffee table. Whats questionable is the way that they tap around exactly where their designs come from and the legitimacy of them. For example this quote:

"For the first time since 1983, the classic 1950 Fiberglass Arm Chair, often referred to as the most significant furniture design of the 20th century, is being produced by Modernica in Los Angeles, using much of the original equipment that produced the original chairs."

This seems to align themselves in the direct trajectory of the fiberglass chairs. While technically none of what they say is untrue it is certainly misleading. It implies that Modernica originally produced the chairs and is resurrecting their manufacturing process.

Why not simply say something like "The original manufacturer of the chairs has chosen a new material. Modernica feels that fibreglas is a better choice for X, Y & Z reasons".

And I haven't fully read the report Koen posted, but I dont fully agree with him about the ecological impact yet. I have a hard time believing that a material that is recyclable is equal to a highly toxic, non-biodegradable, non-recyclable material. I may yet be proven wrong, but my gut is pulling me in the other direction.

My point...
the whine-y, un-generous tone of the letter. 'Me me me it's all about me and my family legacy'. I can imagine that annoying Charles and Ray as much as the fact that their products are no longer affordable to the masses.

And my stance on licensing, ownership,legacy and copyrights hasn't changed a whit. Caveat Emptor!

I also agree with James
The only difference between a Modernica ESU and Herman Miller ESU at one point is a sticker. So are you paying homage to the Eames estate or Herman Miller the manufacturer?

I take some exception to the...
I take some exception to the term 'crap' in reference to the Modernica offerings. There is a sometimes fervent brand loyalty on this forum, lacking even a tinge of objectivity or skepticism. Modernica is crap -- why?

If you're going to slag off a company and the entirety of its product, workforce and quality control in such a way, I think you'd better be prepared to qualify your assertion.

And by the way, though I've pointed this out before -- fiberglass shells are anathema, but chrome plating is okay?

LOL...a whole lot to answer to
I was deliberately trying to avoide the ESU issue. Its a gray area. Personally i'd buy Miller, but thats me.

Olive - I agree - Mr. Demetrios needs some help with language, but I can see through that to his point. I disagree about pricing - it actually hasnt changed much when you account for inflation.

Whitespike - I disagree. The Eames have always designed for a 'need' - but that is a generalized need - not a specific need. (and ps. some of the pieces were designed for very specific uses: Alu Group, Alu Chaise, LaFonda - not the general public) Personally, I dont think $250 for a plastic chair is that bad of a price. Ikea charges up to $100 and their designs are half-assed at best, downright crap at worst. As to materiality - I think its still in the shock phase. Can you imagine the disappointment in the 80's when the 670 went from Rosewood to Walnut? But people will adjust. I'm not suggesting you polish Demetrios' boots - but the overal tone of this thread was highly negative towards him. He's protecting his best interest and I really dont see why that offends people. I dont think any one of us can lay any sort of claim to the Eames designs other than him. Do you? If you want to express your opinion email him. He's very personable in his responses.

Barry - Herman Miller is the 3rd largest furniture manufacturer in the world. The enourmous majority of that business is corporate clientelle. And like it or not - corporations redecorate every once in a while. The average family end user will probably hold onto their chairs much longer - but they represent a tiny fraction of the end user.

Finch - I preach vintage against those who preach "this is the way its SUPPOSED to be." If you want it the way it is 'supposed' to be buy vintage.

Also - you're right in terms of quality. Modernica is one of those anomolies in which knock-offs are made relatively well. I tend to slag them off because at one point they represented a number of their own designs, but have recently pushed more into the knock-off market. Its disappointing because it undercuts the legitimacy of their own designs. It speaks of greed rather than pushing design forward -and that dont sit right with me :(

Also - you're right in...

Also - you're right in terms of quality. Modernica is one of those anomolies in which knock-offs are made relatively well. I tend to slag them off because at one point they represented a number of their own designs, but have recently pushed more into the knock-off market. Its disappointing because it undercuts the legitimacy of their own designs...


I really don't see how it does.

I think I've pointed this out before, but here goes again: if there is even a singular example of an American Based company, employing US craftsmen, who can make the same product with the same materials, to spec, as a licensed supplier, for a faction of the cost, then it is enough to make any sensible, skeptical hi-end furniture buyer (not collector) ask himself where the difference is made up.

And indeed, Modernica is only one of the anomalies.

Though it's a natural human tendency, let's agree not to be religious about these things. Let objectivity and hard evidence trump loyalty.

You assume that Modernica's...
You assume that Modernica's quality IS equal to Herman Miller or Knoll or Carl Hansen etc. I'll assume that assumption is based on the fact that Modernica used to make the ESUs. So, if they were so good, why did Herman Miller drop them?

I don't mind friendly competition, or development of new ideas. There are plenty of new designers who are making great strides in the spirit of Modernism. The fact that Modernica makes a knock-off that doesn't totally suck doesn't excuse the fact that they are using designs in a dishonest way. It's still a knock-off.

Modernica didn't have to pay for any of the development, testing, or knowledge that lead to the plastic chairs OR the ESUs OR the Noguchi tables OR the Wegner chairs. Nor do they provide anything in return for those designs - nothing back to the foundations or the families. All the work has been done, all Modernica does it reap the rewards.

While I applaud their commitment to US workers and quality I really wish they would use that towards their own designs.

you all can fight it ...
you all can fight it out over modernica I think they are great for what they do and the bubble lamps the best of the best even better than Howard miller and they get every bit of respect,
no one ever calls them a knockoff, smart they got in good with Jacquline Nelson, cause they are the go to people for great lighting, i personally could care less about there case study line that they developed but the chair stands and fiberglass chairs are every bit as good as Miller was in there Hayday,
They truly are a good company,

Koen
You are so right. Doh! I let it pass me, but yes, editorial and advertising is like church and state. Often times they are completely run by two completely independent departments. While I worked as the marketing art director for an alt weekly, the two were completely separate. That's not to say that the ad department did try and keep the paper in it's best interest. There were times we turned down ad dollars because it was not in the best interest of the paper.