Chavet B210 Reproduction

Eyechess

The Mopane is used for the black pieces with the white pieces being boxwood.

https://www.houseofstaunton.com/camaratta-signature-series-cooke-luxury-chess-pieces-with-boxwood.html

magictwanger

Looks really nice......That board shown certainly does not hurt the aesthetic.

Audioq
Eyechess wrote:

The Mopane is used for the black pieces with the white pieces being boxwood.

https://www.houseofstaunton.com/camaratta-signature-series-cooke-luxury-chess-pieces-with-boxwood.html

Doh! You're right. Don't know why I saw that as Ebony & Mopane. I already bought a New Cooke box & ebony from HOS when they first came out but I could see myself buying a box & mopane set at some point. Seems to have a really nice uniform color. Hard to tell from the pics but it looks respectably close grained as well.

Eyechess

Yes, it is pretty closed grain.  As I said, this set works great on my Colorado Woodworker board of American Walnut and Maple.

MCH818

@Eyechess and @Audioq I love the Mopane wood because of the thread created by @Eyechess about his HoS Cooke Luxury set. I think it looks as good as my Collectors in blood rosewood. If I ever buy that set it will be Mopane for sure.

utpic

@Audioq the "even-if" statement was aimed at differentiating two types of "illegalities" - one IP and the other contract related.  The "are" refers to the category type. Re-worded : the one is a question of breaching an agreement (or not) and the other a question of breaching IP (or not). And it does remain a strong question whether this Chavet B210 reproduction breaches IP law.

It is simple Audioq: Chavet, an existing company, are the manufacturers of the Chavet B210, so naturally possess the manufacturing rights of this set. If another company starts making copies of those sets they have to show that they have the manufacturing rights to do so. So there is every reason in this case to be suspicious (CE have no info in this regard in the set description). You obviously don't care much about IP issues because it wasn't an issue when you bought the set and even now that the question has been raised it doesn't concern you sufficiently to want to contact CE and get clarity.  Don't try throw the burden of contacting CE on me, it is YOU who bought the set.

@Audioq You have not answered the 2nd question: please tell us all whether you would buy a reproduction of the FIDE World Championship set or not. 

@Audioq For the record, if you really want to know, I had 5 Chess Bazaar sets and I got rid of them all, including that Dubrovnik. And anyway, Dubrovnik is not in the same category as the Chavet because it is not the product of a single company. I know many chess collectors who are scrupulous with copyright issues and who have Dubrovnik reproductions. I can only assume that there are no possible copyright infringements involved.

 

Just one last general word on IP - because the question was raised above by others. And this I know a bit about because it pertains to my career. When it comes to designs and artworks these gain automatic IP protection from the moment they are created. I don't have to register any artwork or design I make. All I have to do is prove that it is my design and anyone who copies it would be guilty of infringement of copyright. This would pertain to chessmen design too. No difference.

 

Audioq

The discussion of legal/moral issues regarding reproductions has been raised in a new thread

Morals and Ethics In Chess The Chess Equipment Business

Please post there if you wish to discuss these issues. I don't think it's appropriate to confine this discussion to a post on one particular set. Cheers.

 

Bamboo58

This Chavet B210 looks a very nice set. I like the antique affect of the dark pieces. 

Audioq
Bamboo58 wrote:

This Chavet B210 looks a very nice set. I like the antique affect of the dark pieces. 

Yes it is well done. I think it is a walnut colour. I've no idea how these sets will age obviously, but there is a nice contrast in the set as new.

utpic

@Audioq I have said everything I wanted to say on the subject, having nothing more to add, other than that it would have been nice for you to emphatically answer my second question.

My original post was about this specific set on the post - it was not off topic at all. The example of the FIDE WC was to dispel the notion that these "reproduction" companies are always stringent with copyright. They are not, which is why caution should be exercised when buying potentially problematic reproductions, like Chess Empire's Chavet B210. But while you have rejected virtually everything I have said, which you are entitled to do, you still have left us all uncertain as to your exact position with regard to the FIDE WC reproductions. I'll gladly call it a day, but for the sake of closure, would like you still to answer that question. Here, on this thread. Cheers.

Audioq
utpic wrote:

@Audioq I have said everything I wanted to say on the subject, having nothing more to add, other than that it would have been nice for you to emphatically answer my second question.

My original post was about this specific set on the post - it was not off topic at all. The example of the FIDE WC was to dispel the notion that these "reproduction" companies are always stringent with copyright. They are not, which is why caution should be exercised when buying potentially problematic reproductions, like Chess Empire's Chavet B210. But while you have rejected virtually everything I have said, which you are entitled to do, you still have left us all uncertain as to your exact position with regard to the FIDE WC reproductions. I'll gladly call it a day, but for the sake of closure, would like you still to answer that question. Here, on this thread. Cheers.

It was answered in post #58. I think my position is fairly clear on this.

utpic

@Audioq. Fair enough. (One is still unclear whether you condemn companies copying sets when the original is still readily available and whether that counts as an infringement of IP in your opinion, but I won't press you further). Topic closed.

Audioq
utpic wrote:

@Audioq. Fair enough. (One is still unclear whether you condemn companies copying sets when the original is still readily available and whether that counts as an infringement of IP in your opinion, but I won't press you further). Topic closed.

I'm genuinely not sure if staunton sets can be validly protected by IP and that has yet to be shown to me, other than as opinion/conjecture. If a set has a valid, enforceable right to exclusivity then I would condemn copying it. Joins us on the other thread, I'm sure your opinions will be of interest. The topic is not completely irrelevant here but it is a massive area of discussion and I don't want this to become a topic purely/mostly about IP.

chessroboto

I have been meaning to mention that the Chavet knight seems to be the inspiration for the DGT official 2013 World Chess Championship pieces?

chessroboto

Just realized that the sets used in the World Championship matches of the 90s were Chavet design, so I’m dropping a link to another forum with the pictures to show the actual pieces:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-equipment/types-of-sets-used-in-world-championship?page=3

Audioq
chessroboto wrote:

I have been meaning to mention that the Chavet knight seems to be the inspiration for the DGT official 2013 World Chess Championship pieces?

Yeah some people on here have commented that the think the Chavet set was OK but nothing special since it was essentially just a "German Knight" set like the DGT timeless type pieces. The WC set is also a variation on that kind of set. I've no idea which came first Chavet or some other German Knight set.