I'm looking to buy my first wooden chess set (the only sets I've ever used are plastic pieces on roll-up boards,) and I think I've settled in on a good match.

After some research, I've decided on the following:

Chess Pieces:  http://app.thechessstore.com/product/FSR375/

Alternate link (chess store link is shaky):  http://www.amazon.com/French-Staunton-Chess-Rosewood-Boxwood/dp/B00134783O/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1366844798&sr=8-13&keywords=rosewood+chess+pieces

Chess Board:  http://app.thechessstore.com/product/RWM50/

Alternate link (chess store link is shaky): http://www.amazon.com/Rosewood-Maple-Chess-Board-Molded/dp/B00134AC32/ref=sr_1_3?s=toys-and-games&ie=UTF8&qid=1369364245&sr=1-3&keywords=rosewood+and+maple+chess+board+molded+edge

Chess Box:  http://app.thechessstore.com/product/BXRW425/

Alternate link (chess store link is shaky):  http://www.amazon.com/The-Chess-Store-Rosewood-Box/dp/B001ARSYFK/ref=sr_1_2?s=toys-and-games&ie=UTF8&qid=1369366837&sr=1-2&keywords=chess+box+rosewood

Before I purchase these, would anybody care to give me any advice/warnings?

And MOST importantly, I have a serious question. With a nice set like this, what happens if one of the wooden pieces gets chipped or lost? I mean, I can't just walk into my local hobby store and buy a new rosewood chess pawn, now can I?

I can imagine losing one pawn, and suddenly the whole chess set is ruined. Has this happened to anybody? Do any companies offer replacements?

Aright.. thanks. Anybody know about replacement pieces?

2" squares are slightly small.  The set says that 2" squares are recommended, but I would prefer to make that decision myself based on the width of the base of the pieces.  The 75% rule is pretty good, so if the base is 1.5" then that is about right.  I would be surprised, though, if that is indeed the width of the base.  usually, 3.75" king sets are slightly wider at the base than that. I would prefer to have these measurements available, and I don't see them on the set.  Most tournament sets the squares are larger than 2" and the pieces are wider at the base than 1.5".  Just something you might want to check out before dropping a bit of money on a wooden set.

Interesting, I was under the impression 2'' squares are the *normal* square size.

If that's the case, is there really that large of a difference between 2'' and say, 2.125''?

It sucks not being able to see the sets in person before buying, but there are no physical stores in 100 mile radius around my house that sell wooden chess sets.

Not a huge difference, of course, but noticeable.

I would say 2 1/4" or 2 1/8" are more normal sizes.  It really depends on the pieces.  See if you can nail down the width of the bases and then use the 75% rule.

Okay, thanks. I'm waiting for an email back from thechessstore about their policy on replacements.

In the mean time, I'll see what I can find out about the size of the pieces and possible larger square size on my board.

I have never used a wood board (or even seen, for that matter) so I really don't know. 

But here you get the standard non-wood board at 50 times the less price. 

The board's a cloth, the pieces feel like ivory (not real though) and there's a velvet bag. Let me find you a pic. 

Value Club School & Tournament Kit - Green

Yeah that's a nice set, in fact I think I have that exact one. I use that set for Tournament play and it works great.

Now though, I'm looking for more of a "show" board. A board that not only stays in my home and looks fancy, but also is perfect for leisurely going over my games.

I would suggest that you buy a board with contrasting wood.  Rosewood pieces on rosewood squares don't offer a lot of contrast and may be difficult to see especially in poor lighting. 

I have rosewood pieces on a Drueke board where the dark squares are walnut and the board and pieces look good together but the pieces 'pop' off the board and are easy to see.

cool

I have heard that keeping the pieces similar to the colors creates a more aesthetically pleasing look, at the cost of less practicality (because the pieces can be harder to see)

I have no experience in these matters however. So you would recommend a walnut board, to stay away from identical colors?

According wikipedia the staunton design is made for the future. Still i doubt  it wouldn't see a change in the next 30 years to be realistic, with high tech kids generation.

Also if you compare earlier tournament pieces from the last century, you can see gradually improvment in the standards from almost every decade to date, so even in 10 years perhaps the current GM pieces is out of fashion and almost entirely replaced !?

I just like how the staunton knights look. I like that kind of *thin* design.

The value of my set would increase in my opinion if it lost some of its relative popularity. It would make it more unique.

Not necessarily walnut, but just not the same wood as the pieces - if you get rosewood and boxwood pieces then don't get a board with rosewood and/or boxwood-colored squares.

Drueke boards are nice because they are birch and walnut and I don't know of any pieces that are made of those woods.  I have several sets that have pieces made of blood rosewood, boxwood, ebony, olive wood, black laquer, etc.  and they all look good on the Drueke board.

Generally speaking, most people want to show off their pieces and let the board kind of be in the background.

Kudurru: Thanks, I will definitely have to reconsider my board then. I will look for a Drueke.

Owltuna: Damn, that is unfortuanate. I've heard the chess store is a pretty good business. Did you end up ordering from a different place?

I would. I have (stained) dark brown Rosewood for my "black" pieces, and Boxwood in what might be its natural colour (compared to white plastic, or white squares on a vinyl board it appears distinctly yellow) for my white pieces. This set shows well and plays well on walnut and maple squares.

Regarding the size of board: UCSF and FIDE have different rules. FIDE insist on 5.5cm squares, that two pawns can fit side by side on a square (which some DGT sets don't!!) and the rest of the pieces be "in proportion".

UCSF specify king base size should be 78% of the square size (side measurement) and that four pawns should fit on a square.

Good luck finding _any_ set that meets either set of rules 100%, even if advertised as meeting FIDE and/or UCSF rules. (There are more rules than I've mentioned ...) In practice (note DGT reference above) it seems that there is flexibility in application of the rules. And for a home set, the rules are not really applicable anyway other than as guidelines you might care to bear in mind.

To sum up this too-long posting: if in doubt, choose bigger squares. Crowding is worse than too much space. If your king diameter is 75% of the square size it'll probably work out pretty well. But down to 65% is survivable, and if you're used to UCSF rules, a little more crowding may be acceptable.

I went a smidgin below 75% and brought my square size up to 2.5" (OK, 63mm) as there are many sets made for that size. I, too, thought of the lost/broken piece problem, especially as I was having a table made, not just choosing a board and I imagine that sometime in the table's lifetime (which should be longer than mine!) someone will want or need to buy another set of pieces for it.