Danum Series 4.4

You guys are awesome!

I restored the queens to their rightful glory no problem. Took about an hour but they are looking sweet! Yeah Mandeep stepped right up huh? Pretty cool.  

Put it this way, if I was to pay the full asking price of $500 + Then I really would like what I had paid for / Then along with the wait ! So in all fairness that would mean no flaws of this kind, On the other side it's great that you can speak to the CD like this & he's make it good !

Yes the Punjab knight from CB is similar albeit crazier.

No comparison.The Danum Knight looks fully finished,while the C.B. Knight,though nice,looks like it needs more subtle work.

Although I agree the SC Danum Knight is more finely sculpted, the CB photography department is not doing itself any favors with the poorly lit unflattering pics of the CB Sher-E Punjab Knight. Below is a better shot. Much nicer looking than the flat Dorito orange pic depicted above.

I like the silhouette of the CB knight better than the SC knight but it's too big in relation to the other pieces. The former appears to be in battle while the latter is preparing for battle.

One side is different than the other. The Danum knight is more sculpted while the Punjab knight is slightly cartoony in comparison. I love them both.

Yes. It has a bit of 80s rock star, japanese anime flair to it. It definitely has presence on the board. I'm more of a Chavet kinda guy. But I do see the appeal of this style Knight (Sher-E Punjab) as well. It definitely takes much more skill to sculpt. 

Just found you Brynmr.  Haven't had a chance to read through the posts but I'm happy for your receipt of it. As you know, I am a big fan of this set. However, I got a sense, rushing through the feed, that you had had a problem with a piece, so I will go through the thread to see how it might advise my interface with Mandeep going forward. You may remember that I'm waiting on the Attica, and will subject it ruthless evaluation, with an eye to publicizing Staunton Castle's  best efforts as a manufacturer and retailer, which may of may not lead to satisfaction. Either way, I will leave a mark, if not so too a scar.

Yes read through the thread. There are a few twists and turns. At the moment I am very pleased with this set. I am confident Mandeep will right wrongs and replace a couple of cracked pieces. I love this design so much that I'm going to ask him about a half set in padauk to compliment the ebony. An odd request to be sure but worth a shot. We'll see. 

Hello friend,

So, I read through the thread. It seems to me like this transaction has all of the hallmarks of a typical online retail experience, such as I have described in detail elsewhere on this forum. It is nice that Mandeep is being obliging, but the experience should have been free of complication. You have paid for and received what he calls a 'luxury' chess set, one that despite being beautiful, is not also too luxurious, because it has flaws. I expect the same thing will happen to me when my set arrives proving the point. This is the way things 'are', not because it 'has' to be the way of things, but because previous purchasers haven't insisted on better treatment.

Vendors have grown lazy and accustomed to sending out product with material defect such that it now describes their quality. When I get mine, and it suffers the same condition, the retail message being sent is clear: Fool me once... Most people are simply too lazy to sweat what they think is just the small stuff and vendors (particularly manufacturers) trade against this indifference to their own profit. If luxury means anything it must mean free of immediate or ultimate defect due to poor materials, poor workmanship, or lack of due diligence with regards to quality control.

If I were Mandeep, I would have a stockpile of pieces in every style from which I could instantly draw and deliver replacement pieces for expedited shipping to service that which evidence suggests is a problem that is not going to go away. Rather, the evidence manufacturers are possessed of is that if they obstruct your pursuit of satisfaction sufficiently, it is you that will 'go away' and stop bothering them without receiving acceptable consideration. Our ability to love imperfect things is commendable as we reinvent it as 'character', but defect of character it is overrated with regards to inanimate objects (and more often than not...with people).

Don't love things that don't love you back! Do however enjoy them for what they have on offer. My point is that the luxury of material perfection and execution (above and beyond beauty) is one of those things we can pay for the privilege of enjoying. If we are not getting it, we shouldn't pay for it. If however Mandeep and others would like to make the case here that his 'modestly' priced sets are not in fact 'luxury' sets, they are just 'fancier' designs, and further, that the price of these fancy sets accurately reflects their position in the market relative to what true luxury sets cost at the House of Staunton (over $1000), then maybe they have a point.

Most people who make thing out of wood, whose construction and design is, shall we say...subject to the medium, like musical instrument manufacturers, or even gun stock manufacturers, offer differing degrees of quality of materials, fit and finish that you can 'pay' for. Maybe there could be a bronze, silver, and gold grade of chess pieces that offers additional promise of freedom from defect, and a heightened aesthetic return for have more highly figured or more even grain, or even higher grades of finish.

If, on the other hand, it is the case that things are either made properly, and out of the correct materials, or they are not, then we can accept or reconcile ourselves to a  certain inevitability that reduced cost causes implicit risk: it 'could' crack; it means nothing that we have rolled the dice while purchasing a 'fancy' set, whose additional working and filigree may or may not make it even more liable to failure. Premium wood manufacturers season wood for years under ideal conditions before evaluating and using, but that adds considerably to the price.

One more thing: Mandeep did agree to make me a set with 3 sides, but the cost wasn't sufficiently discounted to make it worthwhile. He claimed at the time that all non-boxwood orders constitute a greater percentage of the cost which is irrelevant, as the difference in material cost, at the wholesale and retail level, is a matter of a few dollars. 90% of the cost of these sets is labor. I'll look for the email, but my recollection was that the extra side cost 3/4's of the price of a full set.

That would make the half set of padauk about $285 if the discount of the original order was applied. Maybe if I sold my other set - dunno. Pretty steep even with the discount and there's no promise of that. I've sent a query to Mandeep so we'll see what he says.

@tsheldon Agree with you that luxury chess sets should be well inspected before being shipped. In fact, it is in the vendor's self interest to inspect all of its products, other than sealed ones, before shipping. It is also in the vendor's long-term interest to excel at customer service. Over time, the market will shift to favor those vendors who can be trusted to be reliable. Other vendors will face the loss of volume or will be forced to price their items to factor in poor quality and service.

As to perfection, Richard Sachs has the reputation in the United States of being the dean of handmade steel bicycle frames. He has a saying, "Imperfection is Perfecton." It took me awhile to understand what he meant. I think he means that perfection is something he strives for but will probably never attain. Several years ago, he said that of the thousands of bike frames that he has built over his decades of work, there were perhaps two of three that bordered on perfection, where everything came together just right; just perfectly right. He said that it is the quest for perfection that keeps him involved and excited with each frame he builds. Each is another chance to approach that elusive goal of perfection; each becomes that challenge.

Hi Richard!

I agree. Perfection is not an analog quality; neither the hands that endeavor after it nor the organic media that attempts to receive it possesses its potential. The point is that we should never stop aspiring to a thing just because it is in principle unobtainable. There is exercise to be won in stretching.

I agree and I too am guilty to some extent of not insisting on better customer service and products though I'm better than most. Complaining is just the administration of quality control imo. Many see it as an insult to the vendor. It's not. It's a good thing for the vendor as well as the buyer. This is why I didn't shy away from the warts in my review of this set. The beautiful and the bad got equal time. The Danum set is advertised as a 'Premium' set as are many others but the Westminster set, for instance, is advertised as a 'Luxury' set.  A few sets are neither. It would be helpful to know the difference. My interpretation is a premium set should contain no flaws. 

Curiously (and I mean no disrespect to Mandeep) when I ordered I made 3 requests. 

1. No logo on any of the pieces (success)

2. A good buffed polish on both ebony and boxwood (success)

3. Please check for cracks (fail)

We have some happy agreements going on here.  

Richard, there are very minor flaws (dings, dents) in the datum set if you look closely enough. This is the lack of perfection Sachs was referring to. There is a difference between that and merely checking for cracks. Checking for cracks and receiving a set with no cracks is perfectly achievable.

If a chess set can't survive a shipping without cracking then that's a pretty poor set.