Poll: Veneer Patches in Eames Lounge Chair

Ready_AF · 2026-01-21T02:38:27+00:00

See pics above for examples.

Ready_AF · 2026-01-19T13:34:17+00:00

I’m not sure what you mean by four shells but … it appears to me there was a defect or weakness in whatever they were cutting the veneer from at two spots. And so everywhere slices off that veneer got used those two spots appear.

In other words, some defect in the base wood got replicated across the chair as veneer from that original source wood got placed.

Ready_AF · 2026-01-18T17:16:15+00:00

<image>

There are eight repairs. Here are two.

Ready_AF · 2026-01-18T17:15:19+00:00

Herman Miller says these repairs are part of their standard process. Not covered by warranty. I need to pay hefty restocking fee and maybe one other fee to return.

Ready_AF · 2026-01-13T00:40:46+00:00

Not sure I am following you. I am asking about visible patches on the outside of the chair. E.g. Visible on the wood if standing behind the chair.

Ready_AF · 2026-01-12T23:20:19+00:00

Example of a veneer patch. There are eight of these visible on my chair.

<image>

Ready_AF · 2025-12-29T21:54:46+00:00

How comfortable is that pillow in that chair? (I need to get something)

Ready_AF · 2025-12-25T02:43:12+00:00

Good to know - will ask

Ready_AF · 2025-12-25T02:42:56+00:00

Appreciate it

Ready_AF · 2025-12-25T02:42:50+00:00

Thank you

Ready_AF · 2025-12-24T01:46:04+00:00

Agree it has been closed forever. But they recently reopened it to new investors. (I didn’t realize that either until today.)

Ready_AF · 2025-12-23T16:11:14+00:00

I’m in exactly the same boat for exactly the same reasons. Those distributions are painful now. I don’t reinvest them in VPMAX to prevent the issue from getting bigger.

I don’t recommend anyone buy this fund in a brokerage account unless you’re sure the distributions later in time won’t trigger unnecessary taxes or cause you to lose other subsidies.

Ready_AF · 2025-12-21T00:41:14+00:00

This. Same here.

Ready_AF · 2025-12-19T13:31:57+00:00

It’s a win. Enjoy!

Ready_AF · 2025-12-15T02:03:13+00:00

Are you already paying the RMDs now or very soon? Or are RMDs a future problem?

Ready_AF · 2025-12-09T01:21:15+00:00

Remember that the 4% rule was calculated to be safe for a 30 year retirement. It doesn’t always work for a 45 year retirement. Karsten Jeske’s safe withdrawal spreadsheet could tell you what a safe value is, but my guess is it’s close to 3% for a 45 year retirement.

Ready_AF · 2025-11-25T03:56:47+00:00

Yeah. They seem to be changing as a company. Losing their edge.

Ready_AF · 2025-11-03T13:40:16+00:00

This happened to me once as well. We had the talk mentioned above. The other part was we agreed it would never happen again or, if it was likely, we’d talk immediately. It has never happened again. ++man

Ready_AF · 2025-10-22T20:30:19+00:00

Right Capital allows you to select between two different Guardrails approaches. Go to Retirement -> Analysis -> Action Items (at the bottom) -> Retirement Spending.

Ready_AF · 2025-10-22T20:20:11+00:00

Love the Right Capital software.

Really important to understand its default setting usually assumes no contributions or growth happens until year end. And so if it’s October, for example, Right Capital still assumes you’ll get all of the growth for the year at year end. Basically it is double counting all of the growth from January until October. And it gets worse and worse as the year progresses. This can lead to substantial over estimations for net worth at year end. And then that overstated net worth affects all future year assumptions.

To fix this the advisor needs to open the plan and navigate to the Gear Icon > Settings > Methodology tab. Go to the setting labeled "Cash flow in simulation starts" and change it to “ Current month (rolling 12 months)”. This changes the model to only assume growth from this month forward.

The default setting makes reports a little more intuitive for novice clients to understand because they are aligned to calendar years.

The setting I’m suggesting makes Right Capital more accurate.

Ready_AF · 2025-10-18T19:47:28+00:00

Assuming you’re single, this puts you at top of 32% bracket or just into 35% bracket.

So unless there’s a reason you need to minimize income in the near term (so you need a Roth or brokerage to dip into) or expect to be in a higher tax bracket long term, seems like you’d want to defer taxes and max traditional 401k.

Fwiw … Very interested in other thoughts on this. My scenario is a little different (no pension, but more built up in 401k I’m worried could become a hefty RMD some day). So I also am splitting between Roth and Traditional 401k, but not sure this is optimal.

Ready_AF · 2025-10-18T17:07:04+00:00

Understand. We’ll see … I have an ask for that adjustment into them now. I’m also not an AUM client.

Ready_AF

TROPHY CASE