The wet wipes I used are, I think, baby wipes - with only water and some essential natural oils. Theoretically, they should not be able to absorb natural stains - and definitely not in this amount.
@A_Capybara_A
You're not the first person to use baby wipes on their pieces... see thread on baby wipes.
@A_Capybara_A
In your photos, the grain, pores, and coarseness looks to be a type of rosewood.
Note that "Padauk wood is obtained from several species of Pterocarpus ... Most Pterocarpus[9] woods contain either water- or alcohol-soluble substances and can be used as dyes." [Wiki]
So you may simply be rubbing out the natural color pigments of that wood. Please stop using 'wet wipes' as they will damage the finish (I don't know of any 'wet wipes' that only contain water).
@a_capybara_a It's hard to know exactly what species of wood is used. HOS may be getting the set from India and they may not share all the information about the wood or finish..
I agree... you may not want to use a wet wipe as it might include other ingredients that can damage the finish. Has HOS provided any instructions on care? You might want to reach out to a woodworker for some advice as well.
@lighthouse
I was not trying to clean the pieces - I was trying to test if the pieces were dyed. But agreed - a soft cloth would be better to care for the pieces.
The stains were definitely not wax - they did not have the texture and expected insolubility in water.
Your set looks lovely - where did you get it, if you don't mind?
Hi The set,s from TCE , Picked it up some years back before the price hike , The custom knights worked out to be around $130 , with tax , lets say two set for the one & a bit .
The board is a 50's one from a defunct chess club . Needed a lot of TLC .
Best buy cost me around 25 euros , For a 60mm sq , Very hard size to find in this style .
Greetings everyone. Please allow me to introduce myself. My name is Shawn Sullivan and I am the President/CEO of the House of Staunton. A good friend of mine told me about this discussion and I wanted to comment on a few important points that were raised.
* "Blood Rosewood" is a marketing term that was coined by Mr. Frank Camaratta back in the early 2000s. It is not nor has it ever been the actual name of a species of wood. It's kind of like how White Chocolate is advertised as a type of chocolate, yet it contains no chocolate whatsoever.
* While the original Blood Rosewood pieces were crafted out of a type of Rosewood, CITES restrictions over the years have forced us to change woods. Our current Blood Rosewood pieces are made out of Padauk.
* We do not augment (stain) our genuine wood pieces in any way/shape/form. When I read this post, the first thing I thought about is the number of customers we've had that have complained/returned Genuine Ebony sets that we've sold them because they had visible grain and blonde streaks, and the customer deemed this as an inferior product. We believe that the true beauty of the wood lies in its natural appearance, so characteristics like these add character and uniqueness to the chess set. While we could stain our ebony sets, like many other companies do, we have chosen to preserve the natural beauty of the wood because IT IS A NATURAL MATERIAL. We only use the highest quality woods to minimize the grain and the streaking, but it won't eliminate it. It's a natural material, after all.
If anyone has any questions for me, feel free to message me directly. Have a great day!
Interesting discussion. If folks are saying or agreeing that HOS isn't a company to get wood pieces from, then who is at this point in time?
Having read the entire thread, I was under the impression that the OP comments were retracted.
I just wanted to respond because other questions were raised.
I have many chess sets but most are from HOS and I have never had any problems with my HOS sets. I have 2 lardy sets from the 70's. The lacquered has "the lean" and the gilded does not. A boxwood and ebony from USCF circa 70's. The only pieces I ever had a problem with is a bud rosewood set that had the base crack on a king or queen on the dark pieces. I got those from a company in India that is either defunct or their name changed.
* "Blood Rosewood" is a marketing term that was coined by Mr. Frank Camaratta back in the early 2000s. It is not nor has it ever been the actual name of a species of wood.
I think it’s one thing to use a marketing term like this for actual rosewood (though I don’t get the point of it), but it strikes me as very disingenuous to change the wood type along the way but still call it blood rosewood. You’re using wood that is less costly than rosewood, but you’re asking a higher price for it than even ebony.
I’m curious, why is blood rosewood more expensive than ebony on your website, even though padauk should be more accessible and easier to work with than ebony?
Fair points.
Whenever we changed the wood, we also changed the images so our website reflected what people were actually getting. So we tried to be upfront about it. We certainly never hid it.
In terms of the website pricing, our pricing is based upon our production costs.
Fair points.
Whenever we changed the wood, we also changed the images so our website reflected what people were actually getting. So we tried to be upfront about it. We certainly never hid it.
In terms of the website pricing, our pricing is based upon our production costs.
I’m not sure how one could differentiate between rosewood and padauk per se. A layman like me certainly couldn’t. I think it would be neat to know what kind of woods were used. Even more specifically, what kind of padauk, ebony, etc. As a collector I find it nice to have that kind of information about the sets I acquire.
Where do the higher production costs come from compared to the ebony pieces?
I’m not sure how one could differentiate between rosewood and padauk per se. A layman like me certainly couldn’t. I think it would be neat to know what kind of woods were used.
Since the term 'rosewood' is itself a layman's term for many woods from around the world, the use of the term 'padauk' seems to be another term which characterizes that 'rosewood' which is highly reddish and comes from Africa. My impression is that the naturally red wood is more sought after than most of the other commonly available brown 'rosewoods', and so I've seen the padauks cost more.
I too think it would be neat, and valuable, to know the exact scientific species of wood being used. However, this may be a very big ask given the many thousands of woods available from around the world. Just the logistics of sourcing, identification, and tracking through the global wood industry with 100% accuracy seems to be an impossibility.
It is my understanding that the higher cost for padauk stems from the fact that the wood has to undergo a special treatment (pressure) before turning.
It is my understanding that the higher cost for padauk stems from the fact that the wood has to undergo a special treatment (pressure) before turning.
I'm curious to learn the source referencing pressure treatment of Padauk. I've worked with Padauk (mostly instruments) many times, especially on the lathe and routing table with wonderful results. With a Janka hardness just under 2000, it works rather easily. It is rather oily and should be sealed prior to finishing.
By the way, untreated Indian rosewood isn’t deep red either. I feel this is more evidence to suggest that ALL rosewood chess sets are dyed. Quite disappointing, as I always assumed the wood was just that red.
It is also disappointing that more or less all ebony sets today are treated in a similar way, too. Most ebony timbers are of a pale pinkish-grey colour and only some ebony species are naturally dark brown to black, although this refers exclusively to the heartwood. In its original state, the heartwood is rather dark brown or deep black, but interspersed with more or less pronounced grey or brown grains. The uniform deep black colour known from the production of modern chess pieces is usually not based on a natural occurrence, but is artificially brought about by a chemical process. Here is how a natural ebony chess piece from India actually looks like in the sunlight after polishing, but without chemical treatment.
While I do agree with you @EfimLG47 in regards to preferring naturally colored ebony wood, that which is without any chemical process or dyes, I do, however, believe it is a completely different discussion than what has been discussed in this thread. It does seem that most, if not all, of this thread has spawned from misconceptions surrounding the natural colors of rosewoods, and for that matter, the terminology of 'rosewood' itself. And to be honest, making such strong accusations based on ignorance is quite an injustice. I'm not trying to offend anyone here, but some clarification would seem appropriate.
This picture here shows what most people would consider the color of rosewood.
I'm sure it's not Brazilian rosewood, nor Madagascar rosewood, but most likely some species of Indian rosewood.
Here is a picture of Padauk.
I'm sure it's some kind of African padauk, who really knows, but I don't think it would be rational to believe this could be some sort of dyed Indian rosewood. To draw an inference that all bright red rosewood is always dyed Indian rosewood does seem ridicules, and thus inappropriate accusations, and without merit.
While I haven't bought any chess sets from HoS, I do have to discount just about every accusation that I've read in this thread. The OP's account is brand new ... so new in fact that we had to wait several days before pictures were allowed. A new user, or just an alt account to rant, well, who can say. And another poster that gaslights people for his own agenda, well we all know about him. And yet another poster who actually has some beautiful sets, but maybe lacks some knowledge regarding rosewoods, well that's common and acceptable. But such strong, baseless accusations does seem to deserve some serious debate.
To be truly fair, I don't see any fault of House of Staunton, nor their selling practices. The explanations given by @alphalio looks to be very rational and in line with just about every other chess vendor that I've seen. Even the use of the marketing term "Blood Rosewood" for African Padauk is just fine, since all of these terms are commercial terms for types of rosewood (which in itself is a marketing term).
For those who are not aware of the term 'Rosewood', please just look up 'Rosewood' on wiki. Or better yet, research the CITES organization on it's definitions of "Rosewood" and all of their listed "Rosewoods" by those experts. And yes, Pterocarpus soyauxii (African Padauk) is listed on their appendix II under African rosewoods in medium priority.
@Yenster1 Thanks for your ideas!
I do have a regular account, but just wanted to keep this anonymous. Personally, I do not feel so comfortable "showing off" a very expensive set to my friends and acquaintances although that would never be my intention.
I believe my suspicions are logical. They can be summed up by the following:
- Dripping stains that cannot be explained by natural colour bleeding in terms of amount, hue, and chemical composition.
- Strong, uncomfortable chemical smells (my family and I are quite sensitive).
- Inconsistent densities based on desk research.
One thing I may not have mentioned so far - I am no woods connoisseur, and do not care about how exotic or valuable the wood species. Beautiful colour and grain would be nice, but having a 'natural wooden set' is my priority.
Perhaps I am still upset and a bit pessimistic. But I had the same problem with another purchaser and HOS is expensive and apparently reputable. This has led to my current distrust of online chess retailers.
My intention of starting this discussion was raising awareness. Even if the implied conclusions are not always correct, I think the increased suspicion and discourse is always beneficial. And, in addition, I believe I was sold a counterfeit in this particular scenario.
If a reputation-based, legitimate company received such a concern, do we all believe I should receive some explanation for service, correctness, reputability, and awareness? This was the response I received:
I hope this clarifies your concerns! Looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
@alphalio It is nice to hear your engagement, and to see the thought you have put in. Thank you!
I hate to be rude or dismissive - but would it be possible for you to answer my concerns in the original post? Grains, streaking and variation are not my concern. We should avoid a situation where one side says "we do not dye our pieces" and the other "the pieces are counterfeited". This is not a debate, but meaningless assertions that does nothing to further our community's awareness.
If you would like, I can re-summarize and present my concerns more clearly and concisely (I know this is a weakness of my writing).
I will do the same - I am a little busy, so please @ me and put any questions or criticisms to which you would like my direct response. If I have not replied within a week, please feel free to post again or message me.
One more question, @alphalio - I tried leaving a review on the "regular" Savano set, as it should be the same product and my imperfect item has been taken off the website. This review has not been posted. Could you look into this please? Alternatively, please let me know how else I can leave a review.
@A_Capybara_A
Regarding the "dripping"...you said in post #13 that there was no dripping, but here you're saying that there is dripping. Obviously conflicting statements, so which are you saying? Or maybe just explain what you mean in some more detail.
Regarding the odor/smells...since I can't smell those pieces, I will say that most of my chess sets have exuded some kind of odor when first opening the boxes, but all have faded over a little time (about a week). This seems typical of the manufacturing process.
Regarding the "density"...how did you measure the density? On a sample with such a small volume, the results may be inconclusive, but, water displacement in a measuring cup may be the only way to measure the volume of that very irregular shape.
Regarding the listing on the HoS site for your "imperfect" set, you can use this link if you need to reference your purchase or maybe post your review. One thing that I did notice is the picture of the "imperfect" set does seem to show the knights' color differences just like your pictures, so it does seem the listing was accurate.
Thanks for the suggestion! I hope so - but I do not believe it is genuine wood with natural colour bleeding as per the desk research I did in the first post. This is based on the assumption that "Padauk" is "African Padauk", https://www.wood-database.com/african-padauk/.
One more question - is Padauk really a rosewood? It's marketed as "Blood Rosewood", yes, but Padauk is never referred to as a sort of rosewood. However, there seems to be other rosewoods in the "pterocarpus" genus.
@A_Capybara_A
Per this previous thread and how wood names are seemingly used very loosely around the world, my belief is that you have received padauk pieces. The term 'rosewood' is somewhat of a loose term, though maybe more often just for a few genera, but I have seen it used for padauk as a type. I can't say whether that's right or wrong since 'rosewood' was often coined as any reddish colored wood (and by people who probably weren't botanists).