First nice chess set

The OP, @complimentaryjet, was very specific in that he likes Set A and Set B. He asked, "Any advantages or disadvantages besides style that I may not be taking into consideration?" Didn't need to trash either of his choices.    But hey, if he's cool with it, it's all good. 

Be a bit careful with comparing board sizes though.

Current US (?) standard sizes seem to be 2" (50.8 mm) and 2-1/4" (57.2 mm). Only on Frank Camaratta's website did I read about 2-1/8" (54.0 mm), which seems to be a historically relevant standard for the type of Jaques reproductions he sells.

Europe (or non-US?) standards are 50 mm and 55 mm.

As you can see, neither 2-1.4" nor 2-1/8" equal 55 mm, but but 2-1/8" is a lot closer. The 2.2 mm might not seem very significant, so I provide visual proof:

To my eye, the set looks significantly more crowded on the 55 mm board than on the 2-1/4" board.

And in fact, I recently ordered a 2-1/4" JLP board at Chesshouse, thinking it was the closest analog to 55 mm. The board is beautiful, but I just can't get used to the "airyness" of pieces on a 2-1/4" board. To me, the pieces look a bit incoherent, a significant tad too loose. So, with some pain in my heart, I might actually return the board, and start a search for a nice 2-1/8" or 55 mm solid wooden board, which unfortunately do not seem to be in great supply.

That's a good one, indeed!

I use to have a 2nd set to play in parks and public places, schools and so on..
This one is a cheap and has lower quality. If  some piece is lost, at least 

is easy to buy a new set.

Chess Set Sizing - Pieces vs Board...

The primary sizing criteria for the set and board is that of square size vs King base diameter...
A good rule of thumb is...
King base diameter = 0.75 * square size
or equivalently....
Square size = 1.33 * King base diameter
Any variation from these ratios, or the size of individual pieces and pawns is a matter of personal preference...

http://blog.chesshouse.com/how-to-select-the-right-size-chessboard-for-pieces/

Hi RussBell, thanks for info with source. I have to say, though, that more modern sets (e.g. DGT Timeless) tend to have have much narrower bases than classic Staunton(-inspired) sets (e.g. Sinquefield), while the stems and "hats" can roughly be same sized. E.g. a base size difference of 1.4" vs 1.75", or a 25% difference. Kind of invalidates that rule of thumb, in my opinion.

In the end, you really have to see the set on a board and see how you feel about that.

@Aernout_nl - Rule of thumb is not a rule.  It's a generally accepted guideline. Nothing invalidates it.  And base diameter is not a function of how modern the set is.

I'm sorry. I am a bit late to the party. Beyond style, I would say blackwood is not very common so that is a point for HoS. Many say the WCC set is really stable and handles well. I would say that is one for the WCC set.

In my opinion, neither qualifies as an "heirloom" set. I think only sets made to the level of a set from Noj, Oleg Raikis, and similar artist qualify under this label. That's not to say the sets you mentioned are not nice. They most certainly are. I just believe heirloom is a level that is not easily achieved at any price level.

Having said that, you should buy the set that "speaks" to you. It should be the one that you just adore when you see it. It should be like the car you just love when you see it drive by. Which ever set meets this requirement is the one you should buy.

First consider/choose the set, noting the King's base diameter. Then, using the King's base diameter together with the rule of thumb I posted above, make your choice of square size (i.e., board).  

As an example, and for reference, consider that for tournament play, where the pieces are 3.75 - 4.00  inches tall, a board with a square size of 2.25 inches is typically used,  Note that it's not the height of the pieces, but rather the typical King base diameters of pieces of that size that informed that choice of square size.  For example, given that square size, the rule of thumb indicates that the King base would be approximately 2.25*0.75 = 1.6875 inches, or close to that value. 

There is no rule that says that for personal use you can't ignore the math and choose your set and board to suit your preferences.   

However for tournaments, there are generally rules regarding the required height of the King and the board's square size (see my following post about FIDE Handbook).   Also, at tournaments, boards with 2.25 in. square size are typically used, which value was arrived at by the math and the average base diameter of the Kings conforming to the height range requirement.

 FIDE Handbook.  Rules regarding chess equipment.  See Sections 2.2 (pieces) and 3.2 (board)...

https://handbook.fide.com/files/handbook/C02Standards.pdf

Note that the King base diameter and board square size requirements are consistent with the rule of thumb I've indicated above.  (You'll have to do a little simple math to confirm this).

For the World Championship set, you are in luck: The website contains pictures of the set on a 50 mm square size board, on the page for their set + board combo, while pictures/video of the set on a 55 mm square size board can be found easily as the matches of the World Championship and the Candidates are played on electronic DGT boards which have a 55 mm square size. For example, on the same website, on the page of the chess pieces, there are some pictures near the bottom of the page to show-case the pieces in action. But any coverage should show the pieces on the 55 mm board (e.g. here, though not the best quality).

For the Dubrovnik, I don't really know to be honest. Check vendor's websites for images and hope that they specify the square size (and if they don't, look for combo deals that include a board).

The knight is very polarizing for sure, but who cares what others think. All that matters is you like it.

I think a Noj will also do fine on a 50 mm board. Personally I found my 2.25" board a bit too large, but I know everything is larger on your side of the pond, so maybe it's perfect for you...

55mm squares are smaller than 2.25".  

You can do the math...

1" = 25.4mm  => 55mm = 2.1653".   

Yes, that seems to be exactly their point...