Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Is This Real Vintage or a 1980's Repop?


It's cool, but almost looks TOO cool, you know? I mean, have you ever seen a boomerang print lamp shade from the 50's or early 60's? I haven't.


It reminds me of this lamp click HERE which was correctly identified as an 80's redo, 50's style.


Seen these come up for auction occasionally, this one identified as "1960's", but the seller may not know themselves.


What do YOU say, my savvy mid century shoppers?

"REAL" 1960's, or a 1980's-ish reissued 50's STYLE lamp?

(I'm not implying the seller is intentionally trying to misrepresent, nor am I implying a "reissued" lamp is "less than", I'm simply curious what my blogger friends think!).
.
.

27 comments:

  1. I'd say it's a repro, we don't have these kinds of lamps here so I'm no expert...best way to know for sure is by looking at the cord and plug.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The cord looks "yellowish", but even in the 80's plug styles were sometimes the "older" non-polorized one's, I think.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 'non-polorised'?? You lost me there. Of course your plugs are quite different to ours so age-related differences might not be so obvious, but here you can tell by the cords as well, the oldest are cloth-covered, then it went to a sort of 'dual cord', which looks like 2 cords joined together side by side, this is what most of the 50s ones have...having said that, i've just gone and checked the 3 American lamps I have close by, and the cords ALL look like that. So I probably haven't been any help!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry Ranchie, Sue is me, Kitty, too many bloody logins, LOL!

    ReplyDelete
  5. i cant tell! it's super cute, and 80s in vintage in my book as well because that was over 20 years ago, so on a technicality i would still say its collectible?

    ReplyDelete
  6. lol no problem Kitty. By 'polorized' I mean, one of the metal prongs is a little wider than the other.

    I think my brand new light duty extension cords are that double-joined together wire too.


    I suppose 80's is considered "retro"? I dunno, I still think of stuff from the late 60's-70's as retro rather than vintage lol...

    ReplyDelete
  7. It has a reproduction feel, but not sure why. The boomerangs seem too obvious, and the orange is more of another era, maybe? It's still super cool.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yeah I do like it, but it just has a "repro" feel to it.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If I had to guess, I'd say repro...but that's just gut instinct and not based on anything factual. It just has that "feel" of something thats trying too hard to be mid-century. Know what I mean?

    ReplyDelete
  10. imo it is to clean to be vintage

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yes I do Dana... Yeah, I'm getting that feeling too.

    I wasn't considering getting this lamp, it's got that repro feeling to it, (which I personally don't like). I was curious what my fellow mid-century friends thought about it's authenticity or not, and if my gut feeling was the same as everyone else...

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think its repro, but regardless its cool!

    ReplyDelete
  13. I wouldn't have a clue but i love it ;-)) dee x

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hmmm, I actually would go with original on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm basing my theory mostly on the base of the lamp, which looks authentic to me because of the color gradation detail at the bottom.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I think what everyones "feeling"is:

    - It doesn't have the simplicity and flow/proportion as the 50's.
    - It's "too much". The shade should be on a simpler base and the base needs a simpler shade.
    - Both pieces are nice but compete with each other.
    My basic take on the 50's was that even though there were advances on styling the proportion was still elegant and it "flowed" right.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The crowd says repro and I'm inclined to think so too. It's something that mis-remembers what the 50s were like. Also, the plastic ball in the middle looks to be of too high a quality plastic for the time period it's trying to replicate.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yeah that area of black overspray is like the style vintage chalkware has, but this looks to be ceramic and ceramics didn't have that sort of cheap factory overspray style... That I'm aware of.

    The red ball is like an atomic particle, but lamps didn't incorporate "atomic" like we do today.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'm with everyone here; something about it is saying 80's repro.

    ReplyDelete
  20. As far as the little red ball goes..I have had a few atomic lamps with a similar ball and they have always been made of wood and had some issues with the paint flaking off due to the wood shrinking over time.

    ReplyDelete
  21. I wonder if Antiques Roadshow would take a look at this for you. I imagine if the shade was from the 60s, that print would be at least a bit faded. Maybe it's younger than the base of the lamp?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Oh I don't own it, it's an auction on eBay right now lol.

    Back in the early 80's, as is true just about every decade, 50's stuff makes a resurgence, and companies try to profit off the nostalgia by making 50's repros. Heck they are doing it now, I bought a Herman Miller style clock at Wal Mart lol.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I agree with Dana. It looks like it was designed by a company that was purposefully trying to make items that looked like they belonged in the 50's. It's still pretty neat though!

    ReplyDelete
  24. But I'm 99% sure it's not from the 60's but the 80's. :)

    ReplyDelete
  25. omg i LOVE THIS VINTAGE BLOOOOOOOOOG!!!!
    really nice!!!
    u have a new follower ;)
    http://thefourthcornerofstephanie.blogspot.com/
    xxx

    ReplyDelete
  26. I think it's cute. I'd buy it. But as you know I'm the Queen of No Self-Control and keep getting stuff that turns out to be not what it was supposed to be. Oh well.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hey! This lamp has tremendous style! Maybe it looks too 50s to be 50’s and is an 80s copy of a 50s or 60s idea? But its style is eye catching and glorious! xx

    ReplyDelete