apartment therapy changing the world, one room at a time

Limited selection of items, but products are fetch. Knockoffs are good for the finacially limited, so I will be getting the The Phantom (Eames La Chaise) when I can. I mistakenly voted in "High Price", when clearly they are low. DWR has the reproduction for 6,850, while IMOD's version is 1,875. And who doesn't love the sputnik???

Limited selection of items, but products are fetch. Knockoffs are good for the financially limited, so I will be getting the The Phantom (Eames La Chaise) when I can. I mistakenly voted in "High Price", when clearly they are low. DWR has the reproduction for 6,850, while IMOD's version is 1,875. And who doesn't love the sputnik???

Super nice ball chairs at unbeatable prices.

Isn't it a little weird that they totally copy the eames chaise and then call it a reinvention? this looks to me like a lawsuit waiting to happen. I'm sure whoever is making the DWR version is paying a licensing fee to somebody; the Eames estate?

anyway, if you want the knockoff, I wouldn't wait.

I'm not sure what I think about knock-offs in general, but I'm sure it's not only the financially-challenged who buy them. So do they devalue the original? Is that a bad thing? This is such an idiosyncratic piece, and is so identified with the designers. It raises some interesting questions. Like, Eames set out to make affordable mass market furniture, so isn't it kind of obscene that the chaise is selling for eight grand? Wouldn't C and R _want_ us to knock it off? If they were still alive, though, I bet they'd be mad.

or rich.

(but yeah, I thought the Eames estate and the folks at Herman Miller were pretty fanatical about protecting the designs from copyright infringement, so I don't know how these rip-, er, KNOCK-offs are getting past...)

"or rich"

...not to mention really really old...

I own one of these chairs from inmod. In my opinion it is nicer than the vitra version. Herman miller has nothing to do with this chair. It was never in production until vitra licensed it. It existed only as a museum piece. Those big shots out there ripping on knock offs should educate themselves before jumping to conclusions. Price has little to do with quality and everything to do with marketing and licensing.

I wasn't knocking quality, since I don't own either so can't compare, nor was I speaking of price. I WAS actually talking about licensing, and intellectual property. To me, this is an example of an infringement on someone else's original design, with no apology. Sorry if I got the license holder wrong, but be it Vitra or Herman Miller, this approach bothers me personally. If it doesn't bother you, congrats, you got a great deal on a chair you love. But somebody is making money on someone else's highly original idea.

what he said.

Even if the designers are dead, and even if the design was only "published" in a few museum pieces, it's the same as downloading something off Napster, just on a different scale. That doesn't mean that I haven't done it myself -- I own a reproduction DeKlint lamp, and I know the original designer didn't get anything from my fabulous made-in-china lamp, but the design still makes me happy. I bought mine before I'd seen the original at DWR, so I did feel a little twinge of guilt, but I saved $175 and managed to choose something at my local lighting store that turned out to be famous. Not everyone can afford an original Chippendale, either. However, if you know enough about the design to know who holds the license, surely you also feel a little bad that the Eames estate and foundation isn't getting anything? Don't just dismiss the price difference as just "marketing fluff money" or profit for a faceless corporation...

Why anyone would prefer to pay $6000 for a name, over a fraction of that price for something very comparable is completely beyond me. Personally, I don't have that kind of dough to spend on an Eames La Chaise, and considering that a company like Vitra would charge that much is an insult to me, and every modern art & interior design enthusiast I know. Are reproductions ethical? Absolutely, and for those of you who don't know, the law completely goes in favor of it. In the interest of making high design affordable to people like us, there are such things as "expiration dates on patents." I'm sure a company like Inmod would do their homework on something like that before infringing on existing patents and copyrights.

I'm a modern art & interior design enthusiast, and I would not skimp on price to buy a blatant idea theft.
Granted,I'm not dropping $6000 or even $1800 (which still ain't "design for the masses pricing", btw...) on any version of this piece, but there is a principle involved here (to me, a graphic designer who thinks "an idea" holds and retains value.)

Certainly reproductions are ethical, when the reproducer has paid a licensing fee. Like VItra.

And then of course there is reproduction for the purpose of parody, which is protected by the first amendment.

But Inmod is not selling a reproduction or a parody, it's selling a "reinvention" which means they're coyly pretending they've changed the thing enough that they don't have to pay anybody.

And you're mistaken, Liv, in saying that the law is in favor of unauthorized reproduction of copyrighted material. Remember Napster? Are you aware of the issues around bootleg dvds? Police raids in Kowloon on manufacturers of designer knockoffs? We all know that patents and copyrights expire; the point is, I don't think this one has.

I don't own the $8000 version or the $1800 dollar version of the eames chaise. Neither one is in my price range (and while beautiful, the thing has really become so overlaid with connotations of Status and Good Taste (and that's on Vitra) that I don't even want one), but I don't feel the high price is a personal insult. Not being paid enough for my work and ideas is a personal insult. There's no rule that says you get to own an artwork simply because you feel yourself qualified to appreciate it. Unless someone forgot to tell me, in which case I'm on my way to the MFA in my neighbor's vanagon.

If you think high design should be affordable to people like you, why not find a young designer and commission something? $1800 would probably get you something really cool. Or shop the fleamarkets. Or design it yourself.

Or buy the inmod knock-off. I don't care. I got my fake kate spade bag in the closet like everyone else. But if I ever ran into Kate Spade while carrying it, I'd feel really bad.

It's not an insult, it's a price. You pay more for the brand and the design of things all the time. The price difference is more visible in furniture than in soap, but it's still there. You can recognise that buying a reproduction involves not paying the designer, feel guilty, but still keep buying the knock offs at a more reasonable price. Artists do deserve to be paid for their work and ideas, even if you don't want to pay through the nose for them.

If you don't like Vitra or DWR's pricing on the classics, why not find someone who is just starting out in their career? Surely there are new great designers out there who could use your patronage, and you'll have pieces that aren't pulled out of the catalogue like everyone else. The Eameses were born before either of my grandparents. Their work is beautiful, but they're old. There's someone else out there that everyone else is missing while they rush to plunk down money on these mid-century classics. Find those guys, spend a fraction of the cash that you would spend at DWR, and you'll have an interior that actually impresses me...

Great minds think alike -- Martha hadn't posted when I added my two cents. I agree that DWR is now "good taste". My mom shops out of it, now that she's abandonded her Ethan Allen phase. My mom has good taste and a lovely mid-century house, but surely you fabulously interesting and hip city slickers can find more interesting sources than a housewife who lives three hours from the nearest major airport. The Eameses might as well be Chippendale for those prices. Go stomp around Williamsburg, or visit the art schools when they have gallery shows for their interior and furniture designers. Commission a lamp or buy a print in a gallery... Someone will love you for it, especially since you'll help them prove to someone else that their MFA was actually worth something.

at purecontemporary.blogs.com there's a story about a fight over the Breuer chair between knoll and another manufacturer that seems to support the anti-knock-off position. But it links to another url that takes a more laissez-faire (sp?) attitude. Basically their position is that knockoffs happen, so buy the best you can afford. I still think it's better to support original design than to buy copies of classics, but I suppose it comes down to a matter of taste. Anyway, enjoy your chaises--they're very beautiful.

This certainly isn't the first modern-furniture-conversation-thread where people rail against "knock-offs" and suggest that those who make them, or by them, are engaging in some sort of ethical, or even illegal, behavior. (E.g., comparisons to Napster.) If people think this sort of thing is "unethical," fine -- whatever code ethics may exist for furniture designers, producers, and buyers, it's not exactly a stack of commandments etched in stone. As for those who suggest it's illegal, I'd suggest they dwell on the issue a bit more, perhaps read an intellectual property primer, etc. It would be interesting to hear them articulate what makes "copying" a chair (or lamp, etc.) illegal. Few, if any, pieces of furniture from the MC modern era are protected by copyright, or design patents, etc. And if a piece is not protected in such a way, then making a "knock-off" is OK, from a legal point of view. If you have an ethical problem with it, then articulate it that way (e.g. the Eames heirs are now desitutute, or it soils the Le Corbusier family name, etc.), but please don't help perpetuate public misunderstanding about what types of "copying" are *legally* permissible, and which are not.

Pilgrim, Did you read beyond the first post?

I like Inmod for the quality of their products, service, and I appreciate the fact that they're not about price gouging. I acknowledge that my purchases weren't originals, but then again, what IS original these days? Surely, IKEA has made billions off the designs of others. I wish I could remember the url, but just today I read an article discussing some of their recent blatant knockoffs. I'm sure everyone on THIS thread has bought some kind of knockoff (whether it be an Ikea side chair or a handbag from Canal Street). So, why dwell on the negative side of it? I say 'love democracy'.

I need the EAMES CHAISE...it's urgent...because the original by dwr is very expensive....please reply this email

I just got one. It's amazing.

Just bought a ball chair - it's wonderful...except....having a difficult time getting it in the door!! Any tips?

i'm interested in getting the inmod la chaise. the dimensions are slightly larger than the vitra version -- which is great as far as seating goes.

however, the color is identified as off-white rather than the pure, cold-white of the vitra version. i know it seems trivial to quibble about the color given the huge price difference, but can anyone who actually owns the inmod chaise (or has seen it) tell me whether they perceive a color difference at all? the pure white makes the form seem more ethereal, even floating (if that makes any sense), so this could even be a deal-breaker for me. i've also read that fiberglass is not particularly colorfast, so what is off-white now could be pale yellow 20 years from now.

also, can anyone tell me if the finish is glossy or matte? my recollection of the vitra version is that it has a near-matte finish.

thanks