> This would have to be the most laborious and lengthy manufacturing process.

In the video from the article, Munro opines that this is actually more time-efficient since you don't need a 60 year old tree to produce lumber that you then have to cut and then fasten together to make the structure. Since his business is still fairly young it would take a long time to market the first batches, but in another 5 years it seems likely that he'd have reserves and you could just buy a chair at your convenience. In terms of laboriousness: it doesn't seem to require lumber milling or furniture-making tools or skills. More work up front, but maybe less work in the long run?

A large tree expands, puts down new wood, at a far faster rate than the tiny saplings making these chairs. Per acre, a forest growing naturally would product far more wood. So, for a given acreage, a managed forest would product more wood per year, more chairs, than these art pieces.

Thanks for sharing! I know nothing about making furniture. Just sharing what I saw in the article. I took it to be hearsay since there's no analysis of materials, time or environmental impact. Just a guy and a camera on the internet.

I doubt it. There are machines for doing all the steps in a conventional chair, whereas these are hand-made. Maybe if they can get it down to an efficient process it can be efficient.

A chair is £2,500 according to TFA, which is epically steep in my world.

I hope the wood is finished to last, heirloom style.

That is an incredibly expensive chair. So the market is very rich people?

Is this a rhetorical question? The market, clearly, is people who want to pay 2.5k for a chair.

the investment page has some interesting numbers on them.

Looks like they may have expectations of approx 5k Pounds a chair.