Design story

Result: look beneath the familiar school chair

Familiar furniture can hide its most interesting decision in plain sight. Result looks like a straightforward chair until you study the support beneath its wooden surfaces. Broad faces turn into narrow edges. The material is shaped sheet steel, and the design belongs to two collaborators.

Written and reviewed by PatinaHall2 minutes readPublished 23 October 2026

Editorial reconstruction of a wooden seat and separate back carried by a dark frame with angular folded-looking metal legs. — PatinaHall editorial reconstruction. It is not a documentary photograph. A wooden seat and back contrast with angular metal supports. The interpretive frame illustrates the sheet-steel idea without documenting Result’s exact section, fittings or a historical school chair.

On this page

Key facts & takeaways

At a glance

Subject: Result Chair
Entry: Design story
Last reviewed: 23 October 2026
Designed: 1958documented

Three things to remember

HAY and Ahrend credit Friso Kramer and Wim Rietveld together.
The 1958 design uses a shaped sheet-steel support.
Current oak finishes belong to the present reissue.

Start underneath

Result looks familiar enough to escape attention: a wooden seat, a separate back and four legs. Its more particular idea is below those surfaces. Friso Kramer and Wim Rietveld used shaped sheet steel to make a thin support whose faces change width and direction around the sitter. HAY and Ahrend credit the design to both men.¹

The useful first view is from the side. Follow the metal from the floor towards the seat, then upwards behind the back. A wide face can become a narrow edge as it changes orientation. The chair's light appearance comes partly from that alternating visibility.

A section is a design decision

Steel sheet and steel tube are different starting points. A tube brings a closed section; sheet can be cut and formed so its edges, folds and width participate in the support. Result's construction makes those decisions visible without asking the sitter to think about metalworking.

HAY's current account identifies a thin sheet-steel base with an oak seat and back. It also describes the reissue made with Ahrend. These are useful production facts, provided the present specification is kept separate from the materials of every older example.²

The wood and metal have different tasks. The broader wooden surfaces meet the body; the narrower steel components connect them to one another and the floor. Their visible separation helps explain the whole object.

A folded strip of sheet metal is compared with its narrow edge and a round tube. — Original PatinaHall schematic, not to scale. A broad face and a narrow edge give formed sheet different appearances. The sections explain a material distinction rather than the exact Result profile.

Two designers belong in the credit

The manufacturer dates the collaboration to 1958. Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen also places Result among Wim Rietveld's works and names Friso Kramer alongside him. The object belongs to a network of people and manufacturing knowledge, even when a short label has room for little more than a model name.¹³

Remembering both designers changes the story from a lone invention into a shared industrial project. It also avoids confusing a design's authorship with the maker, distributor or date of a particular surviving chair.

Familiarity can conceal the interesting part

The current collection offers different finishes and upholstery choices. Those variations can change the chair's presence considerably while leaving its characteristic relationship between surfaces and support legible. ²

Try briefly ignoring the colour. Look at the gap below the back, the edge of the seat and the way the supports approach them. Result is rewarding because the ordinary act of sitting rests on a less ordinary way of arranging metal. The familiar outline is where the story starts; the underside is where it becomes specific.

Research notesEvidence, connections and limits

The relaunch credits both designers. Museum records describe individual examples, sometimes under a single designer's name. Current oak, finishes and upholstery options do not identify every earlier production version.

Evidence map

Connected subjects and evidence

Reviewed facts

Designed 1958documented
The relaunch credits both designers. Museum records describe individual examples, sometimes under a single designer's name. Current oak, finishes and upholstery options do not identify every earlier production version.
Reviewed 23 October 2026 by PatinaHall editorial.
- Source 1Result Chair: design by Friso Kramer and Wim Rietveld

Reviewed connections

Result Chairdesigned byFriso Kramerdocumented
The cited record identifies the designer of this design or coherent project family.
Reviewed 23 October 2026 by PatinaHall editorial.
- Source 1Result Chair: design by Friso Kramer and Wim Rietveld
Result Chairdesigned byWim Rietvelddocumented
The manufacturer explicitly credits the two designers together.
Reviewed 23 October 2026 by PatinaHall editorial.
- Source 1Result Chair: design by Friso Kramer and Wim Rietveld
Result Chairmanufactured byAhrenddocumented
The source records this production relationship; it does not identify the maker or date of an unreviewed example. Later studio production is not used to date the original design.
Reviewed 23 October 2026 by PatinaHall editorial.
- Source 1Result Chair: design by Friso Kramer and Wim Rietveld

Research trail

Sources and further reading

Result Chair: design by Friso Kramer and Wim RietveldHerman Miller / HAYAccessed 23 October 2026
Result ChairHAYAccessed 23 October 2026
Wim Rietveld collection, including Result with Friso KramerMuseum Boijmans Van BeuningenAccessed 23 October 2026