Poltrona Frau Marks 60 Years of Dezza with Rare Reissue
Poltrona Frau pays tribute to one of its most iconic creations with the release of a limited-edition reissue of the Dezza armchair, originally designed by the legendary Gio Ponti in 1965. The commemorative collection, limited to just 60 individually numbered and certified pieces, celebrates six decades of design excellence and marks a pivotal moment in the brand's legacy.
The Dezza armchair was the first product to define Poltrona Frau's new identity post its move to Tolentino in 1962. Known for its geometric minimalism blended with subtle curves, the armchair remains a hallmark of timeless modernist design.
This exclusive 60th anniversary edition is upholstered in Pelle Frau® ColorSphere Impact Less leather, reflecting the brand's sustainability ethos introduced in 2022. Available in sophisticated Panna and Iris shades, the palette recalls the serene coastal interiors of the Hotel Parco dei Principi in Sorrento—also designed by Ponti.
The standout element of this re-edition is a unique pattern based on a previously unpublished illustration by Gio Ponti, featuring 26 stylized hands, each named and imbued with whimsical identity—from 'the gloved hand' to 'the fortune teller's hand'. This motif symbolizes the craftsmanship and 'intelligence of the hands' central to Poltrona Frau's values.
Each of the 60 pieces includes a metal tag with its edition number and is accompanied by a certificate of authenticity, reinforcing its status as a collectible design object.
Poltrona Frau CEO Nicola Coropulis said, 'This limited edition not only honors Gio Ponti's creative vision but also enriches its cultural value through material innovation and a deeper design narrative.'
Available online in select European markets from February 13 to April 1, the Dezza limited edition will then be made available through selected Poltrona Frau stores worldwide.
The reissue not only revives a design masterpiece—it also bridges past and future, celebrating a legacy of craftsmanship with a sustainable, contemporary spirit.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
28 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Best of BS Opinion: Trump's citizenship rules may upend world order
Hello and welcome to BS Views, our newsletter that sums up today's opinion page. Our editorial as well as lead columnist weigh in on President Trump's proposed ban on birthright citizenship and its wider consequences. Our second columnist looks at what plagues India's manufacturing sector and how it might be fixed. The first major shock of the Trump presidency was an executive order banning 'birthright citizenship' in the US. As our first editorial points out, birthright citizenship is the norm in most countries that have inherited British common-law, including the US. President Trump's order faced legal pushback but the US Supreme Court has said that lower courts' decisions cannot amount to a nationwide overturning of the order. In short, the White House might be soon be able to start restricting birthright citizenship. The birthright citizenship law has held good since 1898, and has allowed the US to become a successful multi-ethnic society. That is what enrages some of Trump's followers who oppose the idea that that anyone can be American. If birthright citizenship is indeed rolled back, then it will be an epochal shift in American identity and in its role in the world. The Indian Railways is set to increase fares starting July, a move that is expected to pull in revenue of roughly Rs 700 crore this fiscal year. However, as our second editorial argues, this bump is unlikely to change the dynamics of the railways' revenue - given passenger fares account for less than a third of the total revenue - or help it fund infrastructure upgrades. Instead, losses are covered through cross-subsidies from freight operations and higher fares for premium travel, such as air-conditioned rakes. This, too, may be a losing proposition considering freight traffic has been losing out to road transport, while AC services account for a mere 5 per cent of passengers, forcing it to look to government grants and extrabudgetary support for capital expenditure. The real issue is the lack of clarity on its commercial and social objectives. Without rationalising these contrasting goals, the railways will struggle to become world-class. Our lead columnist Mihir S. Sharma wonders if the West's experiment with open borders is coming to an end, given President's Trump ban on birthright citizenship and European nations' realisation that their openness might have had unintended consequences. Some of his advisors' and party colleagues' are even willing to seek to void citizenship rights of naturalised Americans. What is worrying is that these ideas are finding echoes across the Atlantic. Germany's decision to open borders to asylum-seekers from West Asia have had a ripple effect in the continent's politics. In the UK, Brexiteers oversaw migration grow manifold from non-European nations, including India. As a result of populist backlash against what is seen as unbridled immigration, mainstream politicians across Europe are slowly closing the continent off, following hesitantly in Trump's footsteps about foreigners among their midst. India's manufacturing sector and it's role as a solution to persistent issues of employment and economic growth have long been the subject of debate. While the need of the hour is more local manufacturing, points out our second columnist Debashis Basu, it's share in GDP has actually slipped further. The much-touted Production-Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme hasn't quite taken off. A genuine manufacturing ecosystem takes years of reform which, in India's case, has been sporadic. Had it taken off, he says, it could have addressed both joblessness and poverty. Instead, the government has focused on cash transfers and welfare schemes, killing any incentive to work. India's demographic dividend, Basu warns, is fast turning into a demographic liability.
India.com
9 hours ago
- India.com
Canada's Digital Tax Just Lit A Fire Under Trump – What's Behind The Blowup?
New Delhi: US President Donald Trump abruptly froze trade talks with Canada this week because Ottawa plans to begin collecting a digital tax from big technology companies, including American giants like Google, Amazon, Meta and Uber. Trump did not hold back. In a post on his Truth Social platform, he called the tax a 'direct and blatant attack on our country'. He said the United States would respond within days with fresh tariffs on Canadian goods. The move did not come out of nowhere. Quietly passed in June 2024, the Canadian law charges a 3% levy on digital services revenue earned from Canadian users. It applies to tech companies making over $820 million globally and more than $14.7 million inside Canada. Here's what really raised eyebrows – the tax is not only forward-looking but retroactive to January 2022. That means US firms could be hit with nearly $2 billion in backdated bills. Trump's response was immediate and loud. 'We are terminating all discussions on trade with Canada. They will know the new tariffs they will be paying to do business with the United States within seven days,' he wrote on Friday. At the White House, Trump doubled down. 'We hold all the cards. Canada made a foolish move,' he said. The United States is Canada's top trade partner. Over 80% of Canadian exports go south of the border. In 2024, that trade relationship was worth over $762 billion. Any disruption, especially in sectors like energy, minerals and cars, could leave a dent on both sides. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who took office just three months ago, now finds himself caught between two fires. At home, business leaders are asking him to drop the tax to avoid economic fallout. Abroad, Trump's threats are growing louder. Still, Carney has not blinked. His office said on Friday that Canada 'will continue to engage in negotiations in the best interests of Canadian workers and businesses'. The tax had been in the pipeline since 2019. But Ottawa delayed implementation in hopes of a global deal through the OECD. That deal never came. So Canada went ahead. Washington sees it differently. Lawmakers from both parties had already warned that this tax would open the door to retaliatory measures. Twenty-one members of the Congress recently urged Trump to push back. The U.S. president is now doing exactly that. His team says a Section 301 probe is underway to assess how the tax hurts American companies. Such probes can lead to punitive actions like the ones Trump previously used against China and France. Canada is not alone in targeting big tech's overseas earnings. France, the United Kingdom, India, Italy, Austria and even Indonesia have rolled out similar taxes. Most charge 2% to 5%. Some, like France's 3% levy, also stirred backlash from Washington. The European Union (EU) is watching this drama unfold with unease. Their talks with the United States are nearing a July 9 deadline. If no deal is reached, Trump has said he will hit European exports – cars and steel in particular – with new tariffs up to 50%. The EU has drawn up a $111 billion list of retaliatory tariffs. Back in Ottawa, business leaders say Canada is playing a dangerous game. The Business Council of Canada warned this week that the new tax risks a major fallout. 'Canada should immediately propose dropping the DST in exchange for lifting US tariffs,' they said. But Carney seems determined to stick to his path. The first payments are due on Monday. And unless something changes soon, a trade fight may be next.
Hindustan Times
9 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Nato remains ambiguous about goals in new world
At the close of the Nato (North Atlantic Treaty Organisation) Summit 2025 in The Hague, alliance members made a landmark decision: All 32 nations agreed to raise defence spending to 5% of their gross domestic product (GDP) by 2035. The new pledge, up from the long-standing 2% benchmark, marks the most ambitious military investment target in the alliance's history and reflects mounting security concerns across the Euro-Atlantic space. US President Donald Trump hailed the agreement as a 'monumental win' for Washington, claiming that it corrected longstanding imbalances in Nato's burden-sharing. Despite growing anxiety over global hotspots, the summit avoided direct mentions of several key geopolitical challenges (Bloomberg) The summit declaration outlined that the 5% commitment will be split into two distinct categories. Around 3.5% of GDP will go toward traditional defence spending aligned with Nato capability targets, covering military hardware, force readiness, and interoperability. The remaining 1.5% will be directed toward emerging non-military threats — securing critical infrastructure, cyber defence, civil preparedness, innovation, and the defence industrial base. Nato secretary-general Mark Rutte, hosting his first summit in the role, emphasised that this investment 'will ensure we have the forces, capabilities, resources, infrastructure, and resilience needed to deter and defend in line with our three core tasks: deterrence and defence, crisis prevention and management, and cooperative security.' Yet, despite the show of unity on funding, the summit exposed cracks beneath the surface. Several members, including Spain and Slovakia, pushed back on the timeline. Spain openly stated that it would not be able to meet the 5% target before 2035, while Slovakia argued that competing economic priorities such as improving living standards and reducing debt made the goal unrealistic. France's President Emmanuel Macron offered guarded support for the new defence goals but expressed concern about broader alliance coherence. Stressing that Russia remained Nato's principal threat, Macron warned against allowing intra-alliance trade tensions to escalate. 'We can't say we're going to spend more on defence and then start a trade war within Nato,' he said, alluding to new US tariffs on European goods. 'It's an aberration. It's time we returned to the principle of trade peace among allies.' In a subtle rebuke of recent US actions, Macron added that he had raised this concern directly with President Trump. 'We cannot build a stronger Europe within Nato while undermining our economic unity,' he said. Despite growing anxiety over global hotspots, the summit avoided direct mentions of several key geopolitical challenges. There was no formal communique on Russia, China, the Indo-Pacific, or flashpoints like Gaza and Iran. While leaders addressed some of these issues in sideline meetings, their omission from the official agenda raised eyebrows. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz acknowledged the shifting focus. Merz also lobbied the US for stronger economic measures against Moscow and added that there needs to be more economic pressure, especially 'on those enabling Russia by buying its fossil fuels — namely China and India.' Trump, for his part, maintained ambiguity on Nato's Article 5 — its core clause of mutual defence. When asked during a bilateral with Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof whether he remained committed to Article 5, Trump responded: 'I stand with it. That's why I'm here.' This came just a day after he had publicly remarked there were 'numerous definitions' of the clause, leading to unease among allies. He also made headlines with a controversial comment about the ongoing Israel-Iran tensions. He claimed both nations were 'tired' and ready to 'go home,' though he warned that the conflict could 'perhaps soon' reignite. Is the US hands off or on in the Middle East? In contrast to past summits, where unity against adversaries like Russia or growing concern over China's Indo-Pacific ambitions dominated discussions, this year's gathering seemed adrift in a sea of rising budgets but unclear strategic purpose. Is Nato marooned on an island of anxiety, preparing for unknown threats without a clear definition of who the enemy is? This strategic ambiguity underscored a deeper issue — while Nato is now better funded, questions linger about what exactly it is preparing to confront. With global power dynamics in flux, and transatlantic relationships under increasing strain, the alliance is investing heavily in its future, but the direction of that future remains uncertain. Gurjit Singh is a former ambassador to Germany, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Asean and the African Union. The views expressed are personal.
