1920s–1950s Soviet Leningrad Schoolboy sets vs. modern reproductions

I recently became acquainted with the Leningrad Schoolboy pattern (also called Leningrad Schkolnik, which is Russian for ‘schoolboy’), which typically comes from the ’30s to ’40s, although I’ve seen some sets from before and after these two decades (which I will present in this post).

The name Leningrad Schoolboy refers to the fact that this set was seen being used by schoolboys from Leningrad, such as in the c. 1937 photo below.

Photo from the St. Petersburg Archives (provided by Sergey Kovalenko).

In this post, I want to explore the Leningrad Shkolnik reproductions and several originals, describe their common characteristics, and assess which reproduction does the originals more justice.

The reproductions

I first came across this set through a recent reproduction by the Indian Chess Company, which they call the Circa 1930s ‘Leningrad Schoolboy’ Soviet Chess Pieces. It’s an interesting set, with that oversized knight, a spike finial on the king, and the miter of the bishop has a delineated apex—almost like a tiny roof or spike on top of an ellipsoid—which is something I’ve never seen before. The kings are 4.2″ (10.7 cm) tall, which is significantly taller than the original sets.

Leningrad Schoolboy in sheesham & boxwood, offered by the Indian Chess Company.

Although I wasn’t familiar with the Leningrad Shkolnik set, when I saw this reproduction, I realized that the House of Staunton’s Minsk Series and the *new* Minsk Series—which I’ve had on my wishlist for a while—are Leningrad Shkolnik sets as well!

Minsk Series in ebonized boxwood & boxwood, offered by House of Staunton.

*New* Minsk Series in Indian rosewood & boxwood, offered by House of Staunton.

As far as I can tell, besides a broader range of wood types to choose from, the *new* Minsk Series shows a few minor differences compared to the initial Minsk Series:

• The knight has slightly different eyes, the outermost point of its back is positioned higher, and the head seems to have less stubby proportions.
• The miter of the bishop seems slightly taller and more narrow.
• The top of the rook is a bit less tall, and tapers at a steeper angle.

Here are the different wood types and finishes available for the *new* Minsk Series:

For some reason, the knights of the golden rosewood version of the *new* Minsk Series are completely different:

*New* Minsk Series in golden rosewood & boxwood, offered by House of Staunton.

Both of these Minsk sets feature kings that are 3.75″ tall (approximately 9.5 cm), which—as we will see in a moment—is actually a bit taller than the originals.

I’m not sure why the House of Staunton decided to name these reproductions ‘Minsk Series’. According to Moscow collector and chess maker Alexander Chelnokov, many Leningrad Shkolnik sets were sold in Leningrad and Ukraine. Minsk is the capital city of Belarus—a country neighboring Ukraine—so I guess there is a tenuous connection there. Maybe the set was based on a specimen from Belarus?

The originals

So those were the Leningrad Shkolnik reproductions that are currently available. Let’s see how they compare to original sets.

None of the repro knights look anything like the originals, but the set below comes closest to the *new* Minsk set. It’s quite a late set for this pattern—from the ’50s, as opposed to the ’30s to ’40s. As you can see, it features that characteristic spike finial on the king, wide double collars on the bishop, a slanted turret on the rook, and of course a knight that is at least as tall as the bishop—marginally taller in this case, and taller than the queen as well. The king is 8.5 cm (3.35″) tall.

1950s Leningrad Shkolnik, offered by Nick Filatov & Ludmila Kulish (SovietChessUSSRGift).

Below is a similar set, but this one is from the ’30s. Uncharacteristically for this pattern, the kings feature flame finials as opposed to spikes. The description of the listing states that the finials are new, so one can assume they used to be spike finials. The king is 9.5 cm (3.74″) tall, but it probably would have been the same height as the set below if it still had its spike finial. The other pieces are the same heights between these sets, although the king’s base is marginally smaller than the set above, at 3.2 cm (1.26″) as opposed to 3.3 cm (1.3″).

1930s Leningrad Shkolnik, offered by Nick Filatov & Ludmila Kulish (SovietChessUSSRGift).

The set below features wildly different knights than the two sets above, but this may be the most common design for Leningrad Shkolnik sets. I’ve seen several sets with knights like these, in any case. The king is 9 cm (3.54″). In this design, the knight is in fact marginally smaller than the bishop, but still characteristically tall. According to collector and researcher Sergey Kovalenko, at least some of these sets were made by artel Vsekokhudozhnik (the same artel that was responsible for several Soviet Upright sets).

1930s Leningrad Shkolnik, offered by USSRovskyVintage.

Below is a ’30s–’40s set of the same design, from Chuck Grau’s collection. His knights are marginally taller than the bishops, however. The kings are 8.75 cm (3.44″).

1930s–1940s Leningrad Shkolnik, from Chuck Grau’s collection.

The set below is a curious Leningrad Shkolnik with a design that deviates considerably from the others, allegedly from the ’20s. It may appear considerably smaller, but the king is actually only marginally smaller than Chuck’s set, at 8.7 cm (3.43″). I think it looks smaller because of the wider bases; the king’s base is 3.5 cm (1.38″) in diameter. The proportions look more squat due to both the wide almost untapered bases, and the wide collars and crowns. The rook is more narrow, but the top is much broader. 

1920s Leningrad Shkolnik, offered by Nick Filatov & Ludmila Kulish (SovietChessUSSRGift).

It’s not that noticeable in the black bishop, but as you can see in the white bishop, the miter is segmented into two parts. The eccentric pawns echo the general shape of the bishops, although without the dividing line. And finally, what sets this set apart is of course the fact that one of the white knights has a red bust. I’ve seen this in a few other Soviet sets before, and it has been suggested that this is a matter of using up spare parts, rather than a deliberate design choice.

1930s Leningrad Shkolnik, offered by Nick Filatov & Ludmila Kulish (SovietChessUSSRGift).

Incidentally, I’ve only seen bishops with segmented miters and interesting pawns like that in one other Soviet set, which is also from the ’20s. With those croissant-like knights, baguette-like bishops, and pretty suggestive pawns, I’ve jokingly called this the ‘Bakery & Buttplugs set’. Anyway, I thought the similarity between the bishops and pawns was worth mentioning. It makes me wonder if these two sets were done by the same maker.

1920s “B&Bs set’, offered by USSRovskyVintage.

And as a bonus, below is a little pinned Leningrad Shkolnik travel set from 1941. Many of its design features deviate from what characterizes Leningrad Shkolnik sets, but it’s still recognizable with those supertall knights, the narrow bishop miters, and the spike-like finials on the kings. The kings are 3.7 cm (1.46″) excluding the length of the pins, while the knights are 4 cm (1.57″).

1941 Leningrad Shkolnik travel set, offered by TracesOfTimeSU.

I also found a non-pinned version of this set from the ’30s—also travel size. The kings of this set are 4 cm (1.57″).

1930s Leningrad Shkolnik, sold by Mykhailo Kovalenko (ChessUSSR).

Characteristics

As you can see, the Leningrad Shkolnik sets can vary quite a bit in their designs, but the following are characteristics most of these sets share (the non-travel sets, anyway):

• Kings with spike finials
• Pedestals that taper towards the collars
• Royals with tightly spaced triple collars of decreasing diameters
• Bishops with wide dual collars that are generously spaced apart; and elongated miters with a tiny “nipple” at the apex
• Unusually tall knights, which are comparable in length to the bishops, or even considerably taller
• Rooks with tapered turrets, which lack crenelations

Most accurate reproduction

Neither existing reproduction is completely authentic; they get some things right, and quite a few things wrong.

Indian Chess Company repro

The Indian Chess Company repro features thick bases with bulging middle bands that are actually characteristic of the later Yunost sets, but aren’t seen in any Schoolboy sets.

The collars are okay, but the collars of the bishops should be larger and spaced apart further—although to be fair, Alexander Chelnokov posted a 1930–1941 set in his Facebook group (Russian Chess Sets (Tsarist, Soviet and Modern)) that featured more tightly spaced triple collars exactly like the royals, so not all sets feature large dual collars. I would show the set, but Alexander has requested not to publish his photos outside of the group, so search his group for ‘Leningrad’ to find it.

The apex of the miters should feature a little knob as opposed to a cone. The knight gets the angular belly right, but that’s probably the only thing; despite a fair amount of variance in Schoolboy knights, the ICC repro resembles none of them. And the rook should be more squat, and feature tapered turrets.

The head of the pawn is far too large, and too spherical. The kings do have fairly accurate spike finials, however.

The kings are 4.2″ (10.7 cm) tall, which is about 0.67″ (1.7 cm) taller than the originals tend to be.

House of Staunton repro

The reproductions by House of Staunton feature more accurate bases, although they taper a bit too gradually toward the pedestals. The collars are done quite perfectly though, including the collars of the bishops. And they got the knob on top of the miter right!

The knight again seems to be a modern invention rather than an authentic reproduction of any original Schoolboy knight.

The rooks feature the right amount of tapering of the turrets, although the rooks as a whole are far too slender; and none of the original rooks are concave. HoS does get the height of the rooks relative to the pawns right, however.

The heads of the pawns are the right size; but in the originals, they don’t tend to widen at the top; they’re more ellipsoid. As for the finials of the kings, the spikes feature a rim which we do see in the originals, but placing the spike finial on top of a sphere seems to be a modern invention. It’s a very compelling design in my opinion, but it’s not historical.

With kings of 3.75″, the set is comparable to the tallest Leningrad Shkolnik specimen I found which is 3.74″.

Conclusion

Who created the better set overall? I guess this is a matter of preference; I find the Minsk sets a lot more beautiful, but others prefer ICC’s Schoolboy set. Irrespective of personal taste, however, I would say that the Minsk sets are more authentic reproductions. They are far from replicas, but I think they’re beautiful interpretations of a set that is about 90 years old now, and they incorporate enough Leningrad Shkolnik characteristics that they are immediately recognizable—assuming you’re familiar with this rather obscure pattern.

As far as I know, all the original Leningrad Shkolniks were unweighted. The reproductions are not (1,530 g or 54 oz for ICC’s repro, and 1,151 g or 40.6 oz for HoS’ repro), but that’s most likely something chess collectors and chess enthusiasts will appreciate. I’m a fan of the Minsk set, and only wish it were heavier.

Which reproduction do you prefer? And what do you think of the original sets?

PS: For more information, have a look at Chuck Grau’s article:
A “Leningrad Schoolboy” Set from Artel Vsekokhudozhnik