Checkmate

Thanks for the pics.! I have said many times that the set is nice looking even though its not an exact copy. The size is too big for my personal tastes though.

Just looking at the knight in the set CB sells as 1870-1900.  I see an unsual looking rook and the knight looks smooth in the body.  Is there a set this set comes close to or most resembles?  

I've no idea as to the answer to your question Mike, but I ordered one on Thursday night and it's on its way as we speak (just left France). I really like its look, very uncommon form of a Staunton...yet still identifiable as Staunton.

Thanks for the nice pics Frank. I'm also quite happy with my set # 4. We all have diffrent tastes and I like the size of the Impressive Knights and Pawns. Remember when CB first announced this set they called it their "radical design 1849 Staunton pattern set" I also want to compliment you on your nice chess room too.

Hi John:

Can you post some pics of your  1870 set when you get it?  And could you give us a review of this set. I've got this 1870 set on my want list, but before I pull the trigger, I'd like to hear your feedback on it. Also, you said in an earlier post that you would show pictures of both the original CB 1849 set and this latest version. I'm anxious to see the diffrences. And tell us which version you like better.

Pics and reviews coming soon. I'll create a new topic 'cause there will be a lot of photos of a lot of sets.

EXCELLENT!!!

Don't forget the Ebay auctions.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/171521218890?_trksid=p2060778.m1438.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

Vik has informed me they won't be taking custom orders until January.  So anyone looking to buy this set with the 1st round Knights will have to wait.

Interesting this is no longer considered a reproduction, but is instead now an Alan Dewey original.  When I think of it like this it becomes much more appealing, and I want to buy one again lol. 

If we are discussing faithful reproductions of hand-carved knights, I would like to show this comparison.  On the right is the beautiful and attractive knight from the HOS “New” Cooke Luxury Set, and an original Morphy knight on the left.

If you, like myself, prefer the mid-19^th Century version, then you may bid on it right now on eBay.  At this moment the bid is at $6,028.19 USD.  Expect it to climb to 10K and skyward.  In ebony and boxwood, the HOS costs $499 USD.

1850-51 J.Jaques Morphy vs 2014 HOS New Cooke Knight.jpg

Alan Dewey can produce a near-perfect copy of the Morphy by hand.  Could the Indian carvers, such as those employed by Vik at CB also do a near-perfect?  Possibly, but I am not sure you could afford a set.  I can’t.

Hi spad,

Thanks for the compliment but I doubt I am as good or as quick as the better Indian carvers. It is my opinion that there are cultural issues at work here which influence the carved knights as well as production restraints. Whatever the problem of the copying and production of good Quality Staunton pattern knights I expect they can be ironed out with time. IMHO, Knights heads which suit the set and do not distract during a game and which the owner likes the look of are all acceptable.

The other problem is that Jaques seem to have changed the carving styles a lot of times even in the first year finally settling down to the rather square faced knight which is seen with very minor differences of carving hand on most period sets from them. (I do not subscribe to the idea of ascribing chess player GM's names arbitrarily to small differences in carving as this to me seems to add nothing to help with identifying the date the set may have been made and takes away from the idea of looking at the set as a whole not just concentrating on the knights.)

There are some carved knights which are radically different to most of Jaques offerings such as the so called drop jaw (1885-60?) which comes in 3 or 4 distinct versions and the (to me rather ugly) bull nosed knights which are much later.

In the first year of Jaques Staunton production the knights are many and varied. Some variations seem to have only been carved in ivory, some with smooth cheeks like the horse of Selene the moon Goddess in the Parthenon frieze. Sometimes this knight had a gasping mouth (again correct for the frieze) and sometimes teeth in both upper and lower jaws which may have been a bulging tongue which was marked by accident when the upper teeth were cut.

So which knight head style does one choose? I think it is a matter of taste.

Btw, that is a 49 Cooke, not a Morphy, regardless of what the seller stated.

Spad_XIII wrote:

If we are discussing faithful reproductions of hand-carved knights, I would like to show this comparison.  On the right is the beautiful and attractive knight from the HOS “New” Cooke Luxury Set, and an original Morphy knight on the left.

If you, like myself, prefer the mid-19th Century version, then you may bid on it right now on eBay.  At this moment the bid is at $6,028.19 USD.  Expect it to climb to 10K and skyward.  In ebony and boxwood, the HOS costs $499 USD.

1850-51 J.Jaques Morphy vs 2014 HOS New Cooke Knight.jpg

Alan Dewey can produce a near-perfect copy of the Morphy by hand.  Could the Indian carvers, such as those employed by Vik at CB also do a near-perfect?  Possibly, but I am not sure you could afford a set.  I can’t.

Thanks Alan for posting. I guess some of the posters who are experts in the 1849 set and only see one knight as the correct knight which is fine, that is their opinion. I like my set very much and wil be on board as long as I am living for the 3 1/2 Jaques as well as the 4" BCC set.

I really think Vik should give an extra discount, kind of like a buyers club for those who are on board for your first set and will buy the second.  An extra 10% discount would be nice, he can call it a loyalty discount.  You have more influence than I do so maybe you can mention it to him, I already did. 

LOL Thanks guys :)

I will mention to Vik that loyalty needs to be rewarded.

Played with the set a few days now, still like it overall. Here's some more details:

Wood/Finish - seems pretty good. The ebony pieces have occasional brown spots/streaks, but not to the point where I would call it a serious blemish. The antiqued finish on the boxwood pieces is evenly applied.

Weight - just right. The weights seem well secured, no pieces with rattling loose weights or uneven bottoms due to weight sticking out.

Turning - Mostly fine. I think the curved bottom base on top of the flat base is too small (the two should be almost even diameter), but that aside, they did a decent job. The balls on the pawns are properly round, and the collars/tops/cuts are all well detailed.

Design - here's my biggest beefs. Pawns are too large in relation to the other pieces. The kingside stamping looks a little amateurish, and is also a bit too large in relation to the size of the pieces. And the knights are a bit of a disappointment, especially since everyone was expecting 1849/Cooke knights...

Summary - if you don't think of the set as a 1849 replica, then you'll be happy with the set. I don't think it will turn into an investment despite Alan's comments, ie I doubt there will any gains on resell value, but who cares, it's a decent club-size set at less than half the price you'd pay for something like the HoS Collector. Alan and ChessBazaar have done an impressive job marketing/hyping the sets, and my advice to them would be the following: on future replicas, add a unique maker's mark on the King, and make an appropriate box available for the set, w/ the COA attached to the box. I wonder why nobody adds the maker's mark anymore, i think that was one of the elements that contributed to making Jaques sets collectable...

Its nice to read your honest review on this set Frank.! Its certainly a big set. I guess those wanting a large set will be happy. At the price with real large ebony pieces its a good deal IMO.

thanks FrankHelwig, I was seriously thinking about getting one set, but the knight held me back. Hope they improve on that in future versions.

Nobody can show you an original because it is not possible to do so.  It is a silly knight to put in set that is supposed to be a reproduction.