• Hi, I'm the owner and main administrator of Styleforum. If you find the forum useful and fun, please help support it by buying through the posted links on the forum. Please visit ou very popular sales thread, where the latest and best sales are posted, including the latest, updated, very comprehensive, Styleforum Black Friday Sales List

    Purchases made through some of our links earns a commission for the forum and allows us to do the work of maintaining and improving it. Finally, thanks for being a part of this community. We realize that there are many choices today on the internet, and we have all of you to thank for making Styleforum the foremost destination for discussions of menswear.
  • STYLE. COMMUNITY. GREAT CLOTHING.

    Bored of counting likes on social networks? At Styleforum, you’ll find rousing discussions that go beyond strings of emojis.

    Click Here to join Styleforum's thousands of style enthusiasts today!

double00

Distinguished Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2014
Messages
9,830
Reaction score
11,620
haha just taking the piss

stupidity aside i like the 33s very gracious taper from the flat to handle to little tail nice!
 

gdl203

Purveyor of the Secret Sauce
Affiliate Vendor
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Jun 9, 2005
Messages
41,795
Reaction score
35,700
How can this be controversial, really? Only in this thread. They look fine.
 

otc

Stylish Dinosaur
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Messages
19,623
Reaction score
10,273
Those look really good, actually.
Yeah, there is a set in my family and they are great to use too.

They are still kicking themselves for not buying another set (they have 8 place settings). My only complaint is that the big spoon is just a little too big for most uses.
 

FlyingMonkey

Distinguished Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
5,321
Reaction score
6,013
As it happens, all of my favourites of the POTT line are what have become the 'historical' sets that you have to order specially, POTT 24 from 1963 in particular.



I couldn't justify buying any of them unfortunately...
 

brokencycle

Stylish Dinosaur
Moderator
Joined
Nov 21, 2008
Messages
19,190
Reaction score
13,724
Of those Pott sets, 33 >> 24 >>>>>>>>>>>> 35. The 24 would be the winner, but the fork proportions seems off to me.
 

venessian

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
2,695
Reaction score
1,358
This is such a silly criticism. Almost all modern(ist) design can be said to look cheap, simple, utilitarian, etc. Yet, those are the exact virtues meant to be elevated and celebrated in modernism. Many of the iconic modern designs you have posted, for example, “look like” they belong at a campsite or in a cafeteria—at least to those either uninitiated or willfully dismissive.
Silly how? Because I do not happen to agree with your taste? Then your own stance is, by default, even more subjective and far more silly than mine. And less elucidated, frankly.

Your second sentence is beyond absurd, complete nonsense; your third line egomaniacally insulting to every other reader of this thread, as if all others are so uneducated. But, typical and entirely predictable at this point. There are no Georg Jensen "Prism" or "Arne Jacobsen", etc flatware pieces at any campsite in the world, is my guess. If a cafeteria uses such flatware, lucky cafeteria, and lucky patrons too.

You asked for opinions and alternative suggestions, and so opinions as to why I find the Pott design ugly, and alternative suggestions I find more attractive, were delivered. You don't like opinions and alternative suggestions that differ from your own taste? Rhetorical question, but...: Too damned bad, you know? Frankly it is extremely hard to see much insightful or constructive discussion of design, of any era, per any function, in any material, in your 23000+ posts.

I think it is far more interesting, constructive, and useful to critique modern and contemporary design on other grounds. For example, why not focus on the relationship between function and form? What about quality of materials and manufacture? And when assessing aesthetics and elegance, why not do so without concern for whether a thing “looks like” something else? There can be beauty in the common and inexpensive, after all.
Really now? Where are the revelations here? One cliché after another, and not much more.

Why restrict the discussion of "the relationship between function and form?" etc, to "modern and contemporary design". Are you for some reason opposed to discussing design from other epochs within those frameworks? As far as we know, the Sumerians, Inca, Nara, Greeks, etc all studied those relationships constantly as well. As a bonus, they likely made and used more attractive flatware even. Thumbs up to them.

That last line, "There can be beauty in the common and inexpensive, after all", is particularly rich considering your posts and acquisitions. Who else here pompously pronounces such shallow statements while otoh buying and then incessantly preening about over-priced hack Basquait skateboards, $3000+ teasets, truly ghastly dining chairs, and a baby blue Porsche, with the pretty insane coda to the latter, regarding buying new (and, yes, ugly, imo for reasons previously stated) Jasper Morrison everyday drinking glasses: Leaning toward the sea blue version (to match my car, duh), but also really like the moss green.

JFC, man.... :rolleyes2:
 

venessian

Distinguished Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
2,695
Reaction score
1,358
There's a single perfect version of every design object ever created, and the purpose of this thread is to find it.
"There's a single perfect version of every design object ever created, and the purpose of this thread is to find it precisely detail why it sucks."
FTFY.
Both these statements feel only 1/2 true.

It seems that for at least some here the purpose of this thread is to really show off that one can walk and chew gum at the same, even better if like a Wallenda Bro over NiFalls, in terms of logic, between those two statements.
 

TheFoo

THE FOO
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
23,129
Reaction score
4,396
Silly how? Because I do not happen to agree with your taste? Then your own stance is, by default, even more subjective and far more silly than mine. And less elucidated, frankly.

Your second sentence is beyond absurd, complete nonsense; your third line egomaniacally insulting to every other reader of this thread, as if all others are so uneducated. But, typical and entirely predictable at this point. There are no Georg Jensen "Prism" or "Arne Jacobsen", etc flatware pieces at any campsite in the world, is my guess. If a cafeteria uses such flatware, lucky cafeteria, and lucky patrons too.

You asked for opinions and alternative suggestions, and so opinions as to why I find the Pott design ugly, and alternative suggestions I find more attractive, were delivered. You don't like opinions and alternative suggestions that differ from your own taste? Rhetorical question, but...: Too damned bad, you know? Frankly it is extremely hard to see much insightful or constructive discussion of design, of any era, per any function, in any material, in your 23000+ posts.


Really now? Where are the revelations here? One cliché after another, and not much more.

Why restrict the discussion of "the relationship between function and form?" etc, to "modern and contemporary design". Are you for some reason opposed to discussing design from other epochs within those frameworks? As far as we know, the Sumerians, Inca, Nara, Greeks, etc all studied those relationships constantly as well. As a bonus, they likely made and used more attractive flatware even. Thumbs up to them.

That last line, "There can be beauty in the common and inexpensive, after all", is particularly rich considering your posts and acquisitions. Who else here pompously pronounces such shallow statements while otoh buying and then incessantly preening about over-priced hack Basquait skateboards, $3000+ teasets, truly ghastly dining chairs, and a baby blue Porsche, with the pretty insane coda to the latter, regarding buying new (and, yes, ugly, imo for reasons previously stated) Jasper Morrison everyday drinking glasses: Leaning toward the sea blue version (to match my car, duh), but also really like the moss green.

JFC, man.... :rolleyes2:
And people think @GeneralEmployer is a troll...
 

GeneralEmployer

Distinguished Member
Joined
Apr 17, 2020
Messages
1,144
Reaction score
842
A lot of V's crazed rants boil down to failures of reading comprehension and basic logic. He seems to have limited cognitive abilities outside of stuff relating to spatial intelligence, though English being his second language could also be a contributing factor here.

@venessian -- While I would prefer to have you decorate one of my houses over Foo, Foo is just a lot smarter than you are. Face the facts. While my tastes may differ than Foo's a lot of the time, what makes Foo's poasts interesting are his take on things and analytical abilities. What makes your poasts interesting is your innate aesthetic and acquired knowledge. So what does this mean for you? It means stop getting into verbal fisticuffs with somebody who is far and away your mental superior. If you must go after Foo, attack him in images. This is the only time you ever get a jab in.

BUT AS A GENERAL RULE, keep your poasts limited to general knowledge type stuff, and do not opine on others sensibilities or choices. Your poasts on Enzo Mari are a good example of fine poasting. That kind of stuff is cool.

Oh I'd say the two peas in that pod are firmly you and he, especially including matters of taste...and it is sort of oddly impressive just how quickly he reacts to your comments. Does flattery get him everywhere?
This is case and point of your stupidity. Because I insta-react to Foo's poast while we're both online, you draw the inference that I was always insta-react to Foo's poast. Then you say Foo is flattering me, when he in no way conceded I wasn't a troll, BECAUSE I AM A TROLL. FOO WAS MERELY IMPLYING YOU WERE THE BIGGER TROLL1111

I know this all hard for you to understand, because language. But I'll make a deal with you as a fellow Northerner. If you stop shit-poasting, I'll stop shit-poasting, i.e. poasting. This means you offer no more opinions, just facts and helpful advice. No critiques, but suggestions. If you do this, I will never poast again on this or any other threak. I long to return to the role of fan, but you're making this very difficult on all of us here.
 

TheFoo

THE FOO
Dubiously Honored
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
23,129
Reaction score
4,396
Of those Pott sets, 33 >> 24 >>>>>>>>>>>> 35. The 24 would be the winner, but the fork proportions seems off to me.
I like the Pott 35 because it is possibly a more focused and committed design. In a negative light, maybe one could view the Pott 33 as more compromised, while it is perhaps more balanced or harmonious when positively interpreted.

Honestly, the trouble is that you can’t really handle these things first. I’d go with the one that feels nicer to use, if I could. In my imagination, the Pott 33 is more likely better in that respect—but I’m far from certain. The broad, flat surfaces of the Pott 35 handles might actually promote better stability.

I really dislike the Pott 24. Whenever I’ve used flatware with tapered handles like that, they have been awkward and uncomfortable. I imagine the tapered fork tines and spoon bowls would also be unfriendly in actual usage. Overall, the design strikes me as more interested in evoking forward thinking than actually being well thought-out.
 
Last edited:

imatlas

Saucy White Boy
Joined
May 27, 2008
Messages
18,402
Reaction score
14,287
As it happens, all of my favourites of the POTT line are what have become the 'historical' sets that you have to order specially, POTT 24 from 1963 in particular.



I couldn't justify buying any of them unfortunately...
I’m with Foo on these spoons - they look useless.
 

Styleforum is proudly sponsored by

Featured Sponsor

Most Interesting Fashion Collaboration of 2020

  • JW Anderson x Uniqlo

  • Nigo x Virgil Abloh

  • Converse x Midnight Studios

  • Rick Owens x Champion

  • Barbour x Engineered Garments

  • Adidas x Bed JW Ford

  • Jordan Brand x Dior

  • Billie Eilish x Takashi Murakami

  • Lego x Levi's


Results are only viewable after voting.

Related Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
449,056
Messages
9,720,383
Members
202,889
Latest member
henrywoodq545
Top