or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by Kent Wang

I'll bet you a free pair of shoes that my captoes are better than anything that AE can make. Put another way, if you buy the captoe and can prove that the AE is better, keep the captoes and I'll refund your money.   Our benchgrade range is on par with C&J handgrade   Our handgrade range is on par with John Lobb and Edward Green
Foo: It looks much better than I thought it would, though still not my style. I'll refrain from rehashing.   Only in the modern style do you have named iconic pieces. With everything up to art deco, you have some well known makers, but never single pieces that are famous.
You gotta be kidding me. Nearly everything in your living room is distinctive, far more so than a Barcelona, Saarinen, etc. Your rug, Arktura Nebula coffee table, Tom Dixon Mirror Ball lamps. Only your Knoll is not.    That's what I don't like about your living room. Too many powerful, distinctive pieces competing with each other for attention. If that's what you like, then that's fine, but don't tell me you don't look for distinctive furniture. If your only criteria was...
Foo: what does your dining area look like? Do you have the Tulip? I only found diagrams of your living room.
I actually dislike the Tulip table. I don't like the resin-coated finish; it looks like plastic. It would look better as bare steel. More importantly, a table should have a wood or glass top as metal is too cold to rest your arms on it. But even if I loved it as much as you do, I wouldn't want to see it everywhere. I would much prefer a world with more variety. To make another analogy, in the world of architecture, all major buildings are unique. As great as the Chrysler...
It's tough to make an analogy between furniture and clothes as furniture can be so distinctly different while clothes can be very subtle. I would not fault a man for wearing navy suits just because everyone wears navy suits.   Perhaps the closest analogy for furniture is art. For the most part, one buys furniture because of its distinctive look, as long it achieves a minimum level of utility. The world would be an awful place if every building had the same Warhol prints.
Bandwagoning is driven by ubiquity, which obviously influences the majority of the people that buy these pieces (again, Aeron excluded due to its function). Do you think if everyone evaluated the merits of the design of these pieces in a vacuum, i.e. without considering how many other people own them, they would really be so popular?   I'm just going against the stream; I'm anti-bandwagon.   Do you not find it tiresome to see the Barcelona chair at every museum, lobby,...
Of these, Wassily chair is the oldest at 1925-1926, but the Le Corbusier Grand Confort line which includes the LC-2 is 1928, and Barcelona chair is 1929 (the Barcelona Pavilion, in the context of the 1929 International Exposition in Barcelona is pretty amazing). Definitely.
Let us first try to list and sort the most common modern furniture pieces. I believe:   Aeron chair Barcelona chair Eames lounge chair and ottoman Le Corbusier LC2 sofa Saarinen tulip chair and table Wassily chair   The first three are the most ubiquitous by far. The rest are more disputable and harder to rank.   My problem with these pieces is that they are so ubiquitous that I would never buy them. Except for perhaps the Aeron, as it is a functional piece...
We can only do reverse pleats (pleats open towards the pockets)
New Posts  All Forums: