What do you call this?

[Bloss]

Yep as others have said a 'Chaise Longue' - wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaise_longue.

I would restore it - they look good and can be very comfortable too (although not with just that wire base!). Paint might well have lead - there are test kits available from Bunnings, but so long as you take precautions it can be dealt with (search on this forum and Google to find out how).

When a piece such as this (which looks like everyday furniture of the period, not a fine bit of work) was built, the support base, slats (which were common in these and other parts that would never be seen would be made from whatever bits and pieces were laying around the workshop - offcuts and lesser quality timbers.

If after cleaning up and finding the timber type etc it seems that it was a fine piece subsequently modified with poorer materials then some trouble might be made to return its original construction and appearance and sourcing identical or similar wood too. If not, and if is as it seems it is a nice looking, but ordinary piece of furniture, (I agree probably Edwardian, but were around long before then and made afterward - still) there is no reason MDF should not be used as a base for cushioning, especially if the upholstering was fully enclosing.

As it happens I reckon MDF would not be the right choice on this piece anyway as it would not give the right sort of support unless sitting on a framed substructure and if I were to build that anyway I would just use slats (or whatever was close to the original construction).

It's horses for courses as always - I hate to see fine pieces of furniture butchered through ignorance or laziness, but I see no reason why plywood or MDF or radiata pine or other materials should not be used in restoration. In the same vein - if it is a high quality piece then the restoration should be at the same standard.

The material used needs to be appropriate of course - just as furniture makers have always used offcuts and different timbers for blocking and drawer sides and cupboard backs and runners etc we should be comfortable using modern materials in the same way.

My point is that purism has its place, but so does pragmatism. It's a personal line to draw, but automatic antagonism to new materials makes little sense to me, especially where it is hidden. This is the approach taken by furniture makers in the past who made the decision based on the client, the intended use and the costs involved - we should do the same.

But it's always our choice.

[endgrain]

"But it's always our choice" .[/quote]

Pointy taken blossy, ok i'll bite, (this discussion ideally needs it's own thread, apologies and cowtows to wasnme for the crossfire/ hijack) however, and to ram home a very pertinent point, in our business (as should be with all quality restoration processes), we think of the next restoration the piece will undergo whether it be 10 or 200 years.
We sign & date all our work in light of this, as was with recognized cabinet makers, craftsmen and restoration houses of the day. (a rare practice today due in part to your "pragmatism" approach)
It's a wonderful feeling to know that with the right signature you won't happen on any "short cuts". We've been on the wrong side of this feeling from time to time and it's not nice I can tell you. More often than not we subtly recommend the "expert" opposition for these nightmares
There's a marked difference between chipboard/ mdf/ and ply (veneered or not) to a rough sawn piece of fruitwood backing or blackwood/ celery offcut.
Informing/ recommending a customer to take short cuts or use inferior material is totally unprofessional and a practice we abhore. If you/they can't afford to do it properly then don't do it at all.
You did mention the B word.
Choice? now thats what johnny howard told us and look what happened !
You wouldn't own a woodchip mill or be a federal member for the environment by any chance?

cheers

[Bloss]

I knew someone would bite.

We seem in furious agreement - it's a matter of judgement on the quality of the piece being restored and how much effort and cost should go into it. A restorer (like endgrain or a simple woody like me) will likely have off-cuts and odds & ends of good timber around the workshop, an irregular or novice DIYer will not.

As to my choices - I am in the middle of restoring a 3m x 1.2m WR cedar two leaf extension table my Dad had made from large pieces salvaged from the counter of the Bank of NSW in Bathurst in the '60s - at that time 90 years old. The migrant cabinet maker used some reasonable wood to make the slides etc (mostly silky oak), but in fact did a pretty lousy job on the construction and the finishing. I have dismantled the table and am restoring it - and will do so to a quality that I will be happy to sign and date.

BTW - I would never suggest that anyone should use short cuts or inferior material - rather that these are value judgements to be made based on an assessment of the piece to be restored. Items taken to an experienced restorer would usually demand highest quality work - others might be better done up with a few screws, some glue, some patching and a coat of paint.

And that's all folks - distorted this thread enough I reckon. (And I'd still restore the chaise longue!)