Agreed, but, as the old saying goes, "don't piss down my back and and tell me it's raining."
Good days and Good Knights
Sort:
Here's an example of the knight workmanship that Frank C. did when at HOS. This comes from my Limited Edition set that Frank did a few of back around 1997. I know of only one other member here that owns Frank's first limited edition set besides myself...
Wonderful craftsmanship. A beauty!
ROBB_CHESS wrote:
Here's an example of the knight workmanship that Frank C. did when at HOS.
Fair's fair — this is the workmanship of some unknown Indian carver, not Frank Camaratta, and those carvers are still producing the same quality pieces today, though HoS's quality control doesn't sound as good.
There were two early HoS Superior Collector sets on Ebay in the last few days. Interestingly, the king side markings on one (possibly both) were silver, not red, and the kings came with alternate finials. One set had some small damage and a later replacement king but it had the sarcophagus box. It went for under $200. The other, in perfect condition with fitted briefcase, went for $500 (one bid).
loubalch wrote:
The exception being their Mechanics Institute set, which was patterned after the last complete set that was on display at the Mechanics Institute Chess Club in San Francisco.
They may have named it after a genuine set in this case, but you can easily see from the photos you posted that the knight in this case bears very little resemblance to the original. That knight is a travesty of the real MI knight. I don't know why they don't pay more attention to the originals when they're commissioning these sets.
FrankHelwig wrote:
Frank Camaratta at least would have been well aware of the difference between a BCC Royal and a BCC Imperial.
I don't know if he still holds to this opinion, but at one time he apparently believed that the "probably an Ayres" sets were BCC sets: see http://www.chessantiques.com/BCC&Others/tn/pages/bcc1935.htm . The Ayres origin may be debated but I don't think many people now seriously think they were BCC sets.
Israel Freeman, mid-20th century, sterling silver and gold with inset jewels. If you want the set, it's up for $45,000 this week on ebay!
And I s'pose the board for the set above would be double that?! Dark squares pure gold & light squares sterling silver?! Love the castle rook showing individual stones in the tower, but the knight looks like a foal running away from the sound of the cannons, not a warhorse ready for the fight.
Yes - the Queen also looks like a very peaceful nun! The Bishops are good, but the Rook's also my favourite. Here's the whole set of Black pieces ( gold with silver decoration; White is the cheapo version, ie silver with gold. And all hands and faces are handcarved bone ...)
andy277 wrote:
They may have named it after a genuine set in this case, but you can easily see from the photos you posted that the knight in this case bears very little resemblance to the original. That knight is a travesty of the real MI knight. I don't know why they don't pay more attention to the originals when they're commissioning these sets.
Andy, Not having seen a close up picture the original M.I. knight, I'm not sure just how close they got this one.
I've noticed subtle differences between my (HOS) Nottingham set and the original BCC Imperial set on which it was patterned. Another vendor told me that it took him 6 mos. of trial and error before he got an acceptable prototype Jaques set from his suppliers in India. So, apparently it's not as easy as we think. Honestly, I've yet to see a replica set that is indistinguishable (i.e. turning and carving) from the originals.
loubalch wrote:
Andy, Not having seen a close up picture the original M.I. knight, I'm not sure just how close they got this one.
… So, apparently it's not as easy as we think.
I haven't seen a close-up either, but I can see from the photo posted above that the original knight had a nicely shaped head with a clear mouth which the HoS knight does not.
Obviously knights are more difficult to get right, but retailers get some of the more basic things wrong in their sets too. Look at the Spassky Fischer sets that are around. many of them get such a simple detail as the inside height of the rooks’ crenellations wrong. Or the Dubrovnik sets that have four crenellations on the rook. Or the HoS Nottingham set, which has very different sizes for the double collars on the pawns, when the original had almost equal collars. If you're not going to get such basic things right, then call the set a modern interpretation not a reproduction.
Ditto.
nice!
Oct 25, 2014
0
#95
A person needs confidence when buying a set for this price from the vendor. Frank doesn't won the place. he still may have an office and maybe used to consult but doesn't handle customers. After I read the thread with the 3.75 plastic set from HOS and how some pieces were defective and some just crappy and the customer wanted to reutrn the set...the customer got chanrged not only shipping it back but also to add insult to injury got hit with a 15% restocking fee. So between paying the shipping both ways and the restocking fee he paid enough for a set of these plastic pieces and wound up with NOTHING. Terrible customer service by my standards. Very shocked on how this customer got treated. WOuld I feel comfortable dropping 1K on this set, NO, it is a georgeous set but there would have to be guarantees in writing before I buy a set like this. No way would I be payng postage back & forth to replace a single piece. And if the whole set was junk I would want to return it for a FULL refund including BOTH of my shipping charges.
Oct 25, 2014
0
#97
Beautiful wood, maybe some other sellers will start making sets out of woods like this.
LuftWaffles wrote:
Of course, a very similar knight is available in the "craftsman" series from HoS, at a much lower price. I think the craftsmanship (couldn't resist) seems to be of a much higher grade in this new set though. Also the design of the whole set is much more tasteful and fits the knight a lot better.
Another thing that comes to mind is, 3.625' is clearly "playing" size, but this knight won't survive many blitz games with a mane like that! My guess is, you won't find many of these in good condition 50 years down the line :-)
Blitz is for the cheap plastic sets IMO. These sets are for playing a close freind at regular chess.
First and foremost, the chess knight should blend in with the rest of the pieces. One should not have to ask "was this knight part of the original set?"
Seems like an obvious requirement, but take a look at the set below:
I'd never spend a dollar on this monstrosity. All of the pieces are stylized, except for the knight.
Take a look at the picture below and see how the excessively detailed knights distract from the rest of the set:
I just don't understand why some designers go for the extreme, naturalistic detail on the knights in some sets.
Frank, that just goes to show how little research HOS did before naming it the BCC Royal. This type of unenlightened scholarship doesn't lend a great deal of confidence about their other commemorative sets, like the 1959 Zagreb.
I have been making the same point especially about the made-up design HoS calls Zagreb 59 for some time.
I don't think it's sloppy research. Frank Camaratta at least would have been well aware of the difference between a BCC Royal and a BCC Imperial. I believe it's knowing disregard of facts in favor of whatever is believed to be the most effective marketing message.
And let me point out I dont mean this as a major criticism of HoS. I'm grateful for their contributions towards raising the quality standards of chess retail and helping reestablish old 19th century set designs for today's audience.