I do believe boards were very crowded back then and there were no specifications in writing on how large the squares should be vs the base size of the pieces. I like the way the set is displayed in the above photo. I am also waiting for the Official Staunton version of this set which may be even more realistic.
Cambridge Springs 1904 chess set
Sort:
Sep 22, 2018
0
#183
wiscmike wrote:
I do believe boards were very crowded back then and there were no specifications in writing on how large the squares should be vs the base size of the pieces. I like the way the set is displayed in the above photo. I am also waiting for the Official Staunton version of this set which may be even more realistic.
Lou would have your head Mike, but I don't mind the crowded royals either. Better than pieces swimming in the squares. They do fit better on a 2" square though.
I would be interested in seeing any improvements OS may make. Are they indeed going to issue their own version?
Sep 23, 2018
0
#184
Well, the boards were crowded back then and that was the acceptable way. Don't care what the rules are now, back then it was the norm.
Sep 24, 2018
0
#185
wiscmike wrote:
Well, the boards were crowded back then and that was the acceptable way. Don't care what the rules are now, back then it was the norm.
Going for authenticity. I love it!
Sep 24, 2018
0
#186
Now I have to grow a beard, either that or be cleaned shaved as Pillsbury was but we all know what happened to him. Also, need a pair of those lace-up shoes they all wore.
wiscmike wrote:
Now I have to grow a beard, either that or be cleaned shaved as Pillsbury was but we all know what happened to him. Also, need a pair of those lace-up shoes they all wore.
Very Nice Mike!! After seeing that original example that was found recently I am going to have to get this one no doubt lol.
Sep 27, 2018
0
#188
wiscmike, I have the greatest respect for you, but I must disagree that we "know" what happened to Pillsbury. There are many degenerative conditions of the brain, and, as pointed out by others, the condition everyone assumes he had typically takes many years to consume a person.
The shoes will be back in style, eventually.
Sep 27, 2018
0
#189
Pillsbury, I believe it was well known he had syphilis. Where he obtained it from might be an educated guess but chess history tells us St Petersburg 1895. I do believe he would have dominated Lasker for quite a few years and would have outright won Cambridge Springs in 1904 if his health was good.
He is my favorite chess player of the period. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Nelson_Pillsbury
Oct 12, 2018
0
#190
We had the pleasure of seeing these vintage chessmen up close at our club yesterday, so I thought I'd share a few photos in comparison with the CB reproduction, which I've already reviewed as very well done. Except for a minor change to the King's spire finial trim and the Knight uppers, it would be authentic except for size. King size used in Cambridge Springs was 3.75", but everyone today seems to prefer the 4" version for practical play.
Recent exchanges with Mick Deasey and Steve Etzel put some more light on these Knights as perhaps being modeled after the cheaper Jaques line as seen in his album here and having been exchanged as required per rules established during the 5th American Chess Congress.
Beautiful Knights
And the Kings
alleenkatze wrote:
We had the pleasure of seeing these vintage chessmen up close at our club yesterday, so I thought I'd share a few photos in comparison with the CB reproduction, which I've already reviewed as very well done. Except for a minor change to the King's spire finial trim and the Knight uppers, it would be authentic except for size. King size used in Cambridge Springs was 3.75", but everyone today seems to prefer the 4" version for practical play.
Recent exchanges with Mick Deasey and Steve Etzel put some more light on these Knights as perhaps being modeled after the cheaper Jaques line as seen in his album here and having been exchanged as required per rules established during the 5th American Chess Congress.
https://get.google.com/albumarchive/109071933456760886718/album/AF1QipO2HQ9T7vzGJCEJnQG_YB5XgMV-X_gWWIuDwAAE/AF1QipPXhXls8cCtZtuNPQ7pbRG_D-cAycYqy7OdWSoU
Beautiful Knights
And the Kings
VERY Nice 
. Just makes me want to go back in time even more lol.
Oct 13, 2018
0
#192
To touch one of eight sets that were used at Cambridge Springs 1904 was humbling. To think who played with those pieces, the greatest in the world. Truly a find, as only two sets ever surfaced.
TY for bringing the set to the chess club so we could look at it in real time.
Oct 13, 2018
0
#193
Just pulled the trigger on this set
It was on backorder which gave me another 35% off!
Just have to wait now
It was on backorder which gave me another 35% off!
Just have to wait now
Oct 13, 2018
0
#194
Ronbo710 wrote:
VERY Nice . Just makes me want to go back in time even more lol.
We did, if only for a brief moment looking upon these chessmen.
Oct 13, 2018
0
#195
wiscmike wrote:
To touch one of eight sets that were used at Cambridge Springs 1904 was humbling. To think who played with those pieces, the greatest in the world. Truly a find, as only two sets ever surfaced.
TY for bringing the set to the chess club so we could look at it in real time.
I'd second that Mike. Sam Spade said it best...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8_hGlwau3A
alleenkatze wrote:
King size used in Cambridge Springs was 3.75", but everyone today seems to prefer the 4" version for practical play.
The photographs of David Janowski and Jacques Miese at Cambridge Springs in 1904 certainly look as if the sets in front of them are considerably larger than 3.75", or were Janowski and Mieses both just very small men?
Oct 14, 2018
0
#197
JackieMatra wrote:
The photographs of David Janowski and Jacques Mieses at Cambridge Springs in 1904 certainly look as if the sets in front of them are considerably larger than 3.75", or were Janowski and Mieses both just very small men?
Considerably larger? How large do you think the Kings are in those photographs?
Tournament size chessmen today range from 3.75" to 4.25" Kings and that certainly has no bearing on the stature of the participants. These two examples mentioned are the only ones known.
Unless Janowski and Mieses were both under 5 1/2 feet in height and were of average height, which for a European male at the time would have been about 5 feet and 8 to 9 inches, I would estimate the chess set(s?) that they are photographed with as having kings over 4 inches in height, probably near 4 3/8 inches.
alleenkatze wrote:
"Considerably larger? How large do you think the Kings are in those photographs?
Tournament size chessmen today range from 3.75" to 4.25" Kings and that certainly has no bearing on the stature of the participants."
As there is no ruler of other measure seen in the photographs, Janowski and Mieses are obviously the only things in the photographs that one can compare the chessmen against in order to estimate their size.
I was just recently reading and researching about the Cambridge Springs tournament and went looking to see if anyone made a replica set of these very cool pieces. ... But from the few pictures I see of the actual Cambridge Springs tournament am I correct that the boards were basically black and white? ...
Boards used during the CS1904 tournament were what Chigorin apparently described as cheap paper costing less than 15 cents. I agree that a maple and walnut board would look very nice or you can get a paper board similar to what was used for $1.20 from HOS.
Here's my CB reproduction on a vintage 1 3/4" squares board, so you may want to go 2".
I decided on the high polish option. There are images of both on Chess Bazaar's site.