House of Staunton Review - Dyed counterfeits.

@A_Capybara_A

In response to your message to HoS:

Regarding the King's leather bases...it does appear that the 'imperfect' set actually does not state the leather king's bases. I see that it does on the full priced listing, but not on your 'imperfect' listing, so nothing wrong there. I suspect (since those leather pads had HoS embossed) that HoS didn't want to have their name on an 'imperfect' set. Personally, I wouldn't fault them for that. So the listing appears accurate.

Regarding the lack of Pterocarpus odour...well, you would typically be able to smell it when being "worked", meaning during sawing, milling, routing, or sanding. I don't get the impression that you were doing any of these things, so don't expect to smell that odour.

Regarding the red color coming off with baby wipes...I'm pretty sure that those wipes contain more than just water (as I've never used/seen any baby wipes that only contained water). However, let's assume that you only used a cloth with only water...as noted previously, much of the color in Pteracarpus woods is water soluble. (People have been extracting color pigments from organic material for thousands of years..I know the Egyptians did it...to make colored dyes) So it's not surprising to see some soluble red color from such a red wood, even with only a watered cloth. And I'm not sure of your comment in saying that you expected some sawdust or oils on the pieces. I've got two Padauk sets and have not seen this, nor on any other wooden sets (well OK, I've seen some wood chips on some cheap sets, which I wouldn't expect on nicer sets).

On the whole, in going through all of your points, and in looking at the 'imperfect' listing, it does appear that you received what was advertised, and doesn't seem anything was fraudulent at all. Most, if not all, of the chess vendor' sites do market 'imperfect' sets at a very significant discount, and with the policy of 'no refunds' prominently posted. It looks like you got about a 64% discount on that set, which is obviously attractive. Heck, at that price, you could buy two sets, cobble together the good pieces, still save 28% off full price, and have a second 'beater' set.

@Yenster1 Thank you!

Firstly, regarding stains.

- With 'dripping' I meant a significant amount of stain being easily wiped off. Sorry for being vague! Imagine a piece of leather being soaked in oil, and the oil can subsequently be easily wiped off - this is the best analogy I can think of. To me, this seems to be way too much stain for "natural colour bleeding".

- I have used the same wet wipes on other products (another "golden rosewood"/sheesham chess set; a redwood pen; a wenge pen) without absorbing any colouring.

- Natural colour bleeding should be oily. This should be sparingly soluble or insoluble in water-based solvents or wipes. The stain did not have an oily texture, and was quite even absorbed - which is not normal considering solubility and particle cohesion.

I remember another website saying colour bleeding should only be sawdust or oils - sorry for the lack of clarity there.

- If the colour bleeding is natural, then one would expect the reddish-brown hue of the wood. This may not be obvious in pictures, but the stain was magenta coloured. Near the start of this thread, it was discussed that this may have combined with a tan colour of cheap woods to achieve the desired effect.

On smell - I took the finials of the kings, which were uncoated, unlacquered, "simple" wood. The carving was intricate and there were lots of microscopic rough edges and open surfaces. However, no matter how closely I held it up to my nose, I could not notice any smell.

On density: the tops of the knights can be screwed off, leaving just a piece of unweighted wood. According to woods-database.com, boxwood and African Padauk should have a roughly 4:3 density ratio. I did not notice this difference. Additionally, African Padauk should be twice as dense as most Pinewood species. I have a pinewood drawer handle at home, and the weights/densities appeared similar (certainly not enough to be twice as dense).

Many thanks for the review information! I did not notice another imperfect Savano set on sale - I will leave my review there.

I was not unhappy with the value for money. Breaking it down, it is roughly $20 a piece - which is not bad considering the level of detail. In production, there could be "failed" carvings as well. The basepads were not a huge deal either. Rather, I am a "natural materials" fan, so getting undyed natural wood was my greatest priority. This is why I am not satisfied with this purchas experience.

If you do not mind, where (and when) did you purchase your Padauk sets?

The wood suspicion aside, I cannot blame HoS for misinformation. In a previous email, they had specified that Blood Rosewood was Padauk as well. The imperfections (scrape, peeling lacquer) were no big issues either.

One more note on the wood issue - I purchased (and returned) another company's sets. It was also in Padauk, and obviously stained. Some wet toilet paper soaked off abundant stain from unfinished surfaces. In addition, I also purchased a board - and a lot of red stain had leeched onto the white squares. The HoS set, in comparison, had similar amounts of stain but the toxic/stinging chemical smell was less intense.

Thanks again for the engagement! I am learning a lot

@A_Capybara_A

Regarding my two Padauk sets...one was from Chessbazaar purchased at the end of last year, and the other was purchased just last month from Royal Chess Mall. Since both are pretty new, I can say that the red colors probably haven't faded much, however, I do seem to recall that my set from Chessbazaar had something in the listing that stated a manufacturing date of 2021. I'm not sure of the actual manufacturing date of my other set. I've not had any issues with either set...though I didn't like the leather pads on the bottoms of CB's 1849 Cook design, and ended up covering them with felt.

Well, IMHO, I believe you did get real and naturally colored Padauk. The presented evidence (smell, magenta, weight) to me is just not convincing, or maybe, just not definitive enough to assert some kind of fraud. I'm thinking the only definitive way to determine the authenticity of the wood may be true destructive testing (splitting a piece in half) but...I would not do that.

I hope you can make use of that set and enjoy it, or maybe in the near future, find a different set to enjoy.

@Yenster1 Absolutely! The carving and feel are still spectacular.

Thanks for your thoughts - this might be a difference in approach. You seem to assume the wood is genuine without strong, obvious countering evidence; while I raise suspicions on my observations and demand conivincing explanations to resolve them. I still believe the woods were dyed, but neither of us can get what we demand:

- we do not want to destroy the pieces;

- there is no easily accessible authority on woods, and HoS does not seem to give any explanation other than saying "we do not dye woods and we are a decent company" (which I would appreciate, @alphalio)

- Even if real, woods can show variation (either naturally or through the production process)

- Most importantly, dyed counterfeits only work economically if they are overlooked by the majority of consumers.

I have not brought from chess bazaar or royal chess mall before, but will take a look. Thank you!

We do not have to agree - but I urge everyone to apply their awareness when investing on a chess set. At worst, HoS sells counterfeits; at best, their customer service has not left a good impression upon me.

Hmm, well I don't have a dog in this fight, but in an attempt to focus on a resolution, please give some thought to the following question. I honestly can't think of anything practical, but maybe you can, and be specific, and then ask them for it.

What kind of "strong, obvious countering evidence" will convince you that the wood is genuine and not dyed?

This is all very interesting. I've never had any issues with my HOS sets. I've often considered buying a sight unseen sale item but never could get over the caveat for those items posted like a big warning sign in extra large font "ALL SALES FINAL! NO RETURNS OR EXCHANGES!". It means what it means

...and to finish my thought. I don't know anyone who would spend money on an expensive wood item and upon receiving it decide to put any type of water on it. It's a bit shocking to me. I clean my pieces with a dry cloth and apply wax to them when they need it which is very rarely. Water and wood don't mix!

I’ve looked at various exotic wood sellers and wood databases, none of which mention padauk as a type of rosewood, so I don’t think questioning the legitimacy of blood rosewood is a matter of an ignorance-based accusation. Padauk has nothing to do with rosewood. They have different appearances, and although both are easy to work with, rosewood has a blunting effect on tools, so one would expect the cost of rosewood to go up—in addition to the difficulty of sourcing it.

I also disagree that a marketing term that obfuscates the fact that no actual rosewood is used is just fine—especially not when you ask a higher price for padauk pretending to be rosewood than ebony. At least as a layman, this makes no sense to me given the accessibility and workability of padauk—as per the wood database, as well as someone in this thread sharing their personal experience working with padauk, which is in line with what the wood database says.

Or to be precise, the database states that African padauk and Andaman padauk are easy to work with. Burma padauk is not because of its higher density and interlocked grain.

It does explain that African padauk—the most commonly used padauk nowadays—requires filling in the pores if you want a smooth, glass-like surface (which is presumably what you do want for luxury chess pieces). It also states that reactive oil-based finishes such as polyurethane may have curing issues if the heartwood is not sealed properly beforehand. I suspect that this is what Shawn from HoS is alluding to when he says padauk needs to be treated before turning.

So fair, if the treatment process is extensive, the cost will naturally go up. I just don’t see how the cost can go beyond the price of ebony since padauk is substantially cheaper to source and import, and much easier to work with. But maybe this just betrays my ignorance about how labor-intensive the treatment process of padauk is.

Another thing that doesn’t sit well with me about the marketing term ‘blood rosewood’ is that there is a wood type called ‘bloodwood’ which is similar in appearance to African padauk (as per the wood database), but it’s 40% more dense and has a pronounced blunting effect on tools as well as other difficulties that make it quite an accomplishment if you can get a finished product out of it. So the term ‘blood rosewood’ encompasses names of two wood types that are incredibly hard to work with, and expensive and hard to source, respectively.

As someone who has just gotten into collecting chess sets, I don’t know how it should have been obvious to me that padauk rather than rosewood has been used for years. The whole wood industry refers to padauk as padauk. So I’m quite confused as to why it seems just fine to you that some chess companies use confusing terminology that obscures what wood is really used.

It seems most of the Indian sellers also use the term blood rosewood. The only companies I found that don’t do this are the Chess Empire and Regency Chess. And I appreciate that hugely, because with them, I actually know what I get. The Chess Empire does offer some genuine rosewood sets, which are a darker color like your picture shows. Curiously, the House of Staunton does offer a very expensive chess board with padauk, so I wonder why they don’t refer to it as blood rosewood here. I don’t know if the high price is proportionate to the woods used and the skill and labor involved in producing the board, but I think it’s fine to ask whatever price as long as I know what I’m buying; at least I can then make an informed decision about whether the price is worth it to me.

As for the color of blood rosewood pieces, I’m convinced that at least conventionally, no dye is used, as there would be no need for that when African padauk is used; the wood database shows what African padauk looks like with a finish, which is the same color as the picture of the padauk chess pieces you showed. They also present a video of African padauk being finished, and the finish used looks like a slightly yellow-tinted oil; clearly no magenta dye.

I’m still confused why Capybara’s chess pieces showed a magenta color coming off, and why the wood without whatever he rubbed off ironically looks like actual rosewood and not at all like unfinished padauk. But this may very well betray my ignorance about what is being rubbed off, why that is colored (I imagine it could be stained by the natural color of the wood), and what padauk would look like if you do rub it off.

I’m satisfied knowing that finished padauk does have such a bright red color. And African padauk chess pieces being very costly is at least probable given that there is a treatment process involved before you can turn it. I still find it hard to believe it’s more costly than ebony though, since the wood database reports various difficulties working with ebony, including its high density, its blunting effect on tools, difficulty with the gluing process, difficulty with the drying process, proneness to splitting, and high acquisition cost—all of this unlike African padauk. And I’m still bothered by the use of obfuscating marketing terms, but I can appreciate that this isn’t an issue for everyone. Maybe as a marketing-averse autistic person, I’m just more prone to respond poorly to that.

Would agreed , Why after spending that kind of money . I's a bit like taking a sanded to my new Red Ferrari , To see if it had a red under coat of paint ?

Maybe pricing, and the difficulties in manufacturing of woods, can be separated out of this discussion for now. They are interesting and quite debatable topics but maybe just a little off-topic from the OP. A different thread would be great.

But regarding the terms 'blood rosewood', 'padauk', and just plain 'rosewood', it seems most of your debating points stem from the understanding of the term 'rosewood'. So could you tell us what 'rosewood' means to you?

A simple wiki lookup of Rosewood shows a list of around 50 woods, and includes Padauk.

CITES, an international organization which includes about 180 countries, and governs the world commercial wood trade, also lists specific species of woods (including 'African Padauk') as rosewoods.

So what is rosewood?

Items marked as ALL SALES FINAL! NO RETURNS OR EXCHANGES! are all items that are offered at a significant discount, at least 50% off of MSRP. Like many companies, items that are Clearance, Imperfect or Shopworn are not returnable because you're already getting such a good deal.

@alphalio Thank you. Comment #45 was my attempt to summarize my concerns. Let me know if I could improve it further.

Thank you for your point raised. I have understood it, but still have a few concerns:

Firstly, dying woods to resemble natural pattern/grain is not difficult. This is very common in many developing countries. It all depends on intentions/whether it is advertised as real or dyed.

Secondly, you previously accused another companies of dying woods. I have had such an experience with the same set and design. That set and the HoS set had very similar qualities. The colour, grain, pores etc. were all on point. Stain was easily absorbed off for both, with a similar magenta-like colour. The only difference I noticed was that HoS' chemical smell was slightly less intense (although still uncomfortable).

I do agree that dying will affect the natural qualities of the wood. But - and this is my third concern - this relates to the "magenta coloured" problem mentioned earlier. To summarize, one suspicion is that the magenta colour is combined with the natural tan colour of cheaper woods to produce a reddish brown.

Let me know if I have yet to address any of your points. If you could take some time to review my thoughts and offer your responses, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you!

Thank you for your thoughts! Upon reflecting, my concerns come with differences between researched and observed qualities. I would like one (or multiple) wood experts to assure me the wood is genuine Padauk, and explain/resolve the apparent irregularities. I know this is really unpractical - I'm sorry about that!

On a bigger picture, all of my deeper thoughts and observations so far seem to suggest counterfeit more than genuine wood. All the "consistent" appearances, eg. colour, appear to be possible to counterfeit. A sufficiently large/strong range of counter-evidence (relative to the problems) could convince me as well.

If you don't mind, at what point would you start suspecting that the wood is what genuine? What sort of observations would you consider convincing and definitive enough?

@A_Capybara_A

I've seen several colored pens with visible ink tubes and noted it's perceived color, and yet it yields a very noticeably different color when drawn on white paper. This does seem to be more prevalent with reds and purples, and even yellows and greens. So the 'magenta' argument is easily explainable, and actually very typical.

The amount of (what you keep calling) stain onto a baby wipe seems to be rather faint. To me, and as previously noted for Pteracarpus woods, it's simply natural color pigments rubbed from a very colorful wood. Natural dyes have been harvested from plants for thousands of years, including from colorful woods, as noted for Pteracarpus wood.

You claim 'consistent' color appearance as evidence towards counterfeit staining. And yet, in your own pictures, you've noted the inconsistent knights' colors, which then blatantly contradicts your own claims of consistency.

So you have been given explanations for (I believe) all of your suspicions. But if you are still not convinced, then rather than anyone guessing at what kind of evidence you want, I'm suggesting that you simply tell us what evidence you want. Don't ask me what I want, as I'm not the one making accusations. And I am of the belief that the burden is on you to prove your accusations...not someone else's burden to disprove your accusations.

However, you have a 'spare' queen....you can carefully split that queen in half and prove to yourself whether it's stained or not. Go ahead and video that process for proof, and upload some pictures. Whatever the result, you can just glue that queen back together and still (somewhat) continue to use that queen for promotions. (However, I would not do this)

By using baby wipes ? If it is real gold , do you then bite it with your teeth ? DKW

Then try some nappy rash cream !

@Yenster1 Sorry for the late reply - I did not receive an email notification.

I apologize for any misunderstanding. I was not trying to defend my arguments and force you to any concesssions. Given our different perspectives, I wanted to understand yours.

Can you please explain the colour inconsistencies point a little more? The visible colours of the unsealed wood and removed stain are different and I could not think of another logical explanation. This is independent of the wood's natural colour variation.

The assumption is that Padauk's natural pigment particles are chemically cohesive and cannot be be separated by any single solvent. I don't think any organic chemicals have such polarity properties.

Regarding the amount of stain, I compared this with the genuine and counterfeit wood items I have had before. The observations fall into the "counterfeit" category and was similar to another counterfeit set. Admittedly, though, I do not have any genuine Padauk.

Colour bleeding is possible, but I did not get the impression that Padauk was an extreme case. I assumed these pieces should not bleed many times more than the genuine coloured wood products I have. My experience may not be representative, but this is a definitive outlier.

Is there information on how the pigments of Padauk were harvested? This could be really decisive. Some pigments were extracted as dust/sand and used for clay (e.g., cinnabar). I know nothing about wood pigments, though.

Solubility is an important "red flag". The natural pigment should be oily (nonpolar), but the removed stain had neither the expected texture or solubility. I am out at the moment and will try something else when I get home. The density is a similarly significant (although less definitive) problem.

I've been confused about the knights too. A couple of thoughts:

- It should be easy (and desirable) to make it colour consistent for both genuine and dyed wood.

- Maybe different woods/cuts are used for the intricate carving.

- It might have resulted from increased exposure to tools/working/UV. But usually, the Padauk colour would darken.

- We only see this in imperfect sets - is this cheaper/easier?

You could certainly be right, but I don't have my head around it completely. I have asked HoS.

I would love to have some genuine padauk in my own hands for comparison. A similar lacquer/finish and an experienced neutral expert would be great. I want to know how HoS sources, manages, and regulates their production. I assume the carving is done in developing countries, which is where we often find counterfeits.

Some of your points were repeated, which means I did not immediately address them. I understand it is frustrating - I am sorry!

You must know how much I wish to be wrong. But I would rather not damage the pieces. I am not skilled, and where can I go if right? Even if my fears are true, I am determined to make the set worthwhile as a collectible artistic piece and functional, lasting set.

On a side note, I am really frustrated by HoS' attitude and double standards. Let me know if you would like to hear more - but the comments are already long enough.

@A_Capybara_A

I've noticed several discrepancies and/or misconceptions which seem unexplainable (at least I'm not going to try). I'm getting the impression that you will always have your doubts with only theoretical debate, which may be somewhat common. But I'll leave this to you with some of my observations regarding a few of yours, which may, or may not, impress upon you the reasons I'm going to step away from this discussion.

Here are some of your points of observtion:

• "Firstly, dying woods to resemble natural pattern/grain is not difficult. This is very common in many developing countries. It all depends on intentions/whether it is advertised as real or dyed."

Though a possibility, however extreme and impractical, it's a highly flawed observation to overlook the pores and texture of your pieces.

• "Regarding the amount of stain, I compared this with the genuine and counterfeit wood items I have had before. The observations fall into the "counterfeit" category and was similar to another counterfeit set. Admittedly, though, I do not have any genuine Padauk."

You compared stain from another "genuine" wood, but not Padauk, to draw an observation of "counterfeit" pieces. This comes close to the epitome of "comparing apples to oranges".

• "Solubility is an important "red flag". The natural pigment should be oily (nonpolar), but the removed stain had neither the expected texture or solubility."

1) Pteracarpus woods have both water and alcohol solvable pigments (as noted in my first post in this thread). I would not assume that Padauk only has 'oily' pigments. However, 2) I'm not sure why you mentioned the term 'nonpolar', but, doesn't your 'baby wipes' contain some oils, which could then be a 'nonpolar' solvent. But whether 'polar' or 'nonpolar', a solvent would not be required for a 'mechanical' pigment removal and absorption with a cloth.

Given that some semi-destructive testing has already been conducted, I'm not sure a return of the pieces would be acceptable, even if they were not an 'imperfect' set. I'm also pretty sure most sellers would void any warranties with such treatment. But you seem to be, somewhat, accepting of what you have, and since I don't anticipate anything changing, maybe we should just move on.

Regards

@Yenster1

Thanks again for your thoughts! Yes - we have no choice but to accept. I have lots to say, pethaps stubbornly, but i will leave it fkr now. It does not seem like we would agree and may find it difficult to exhaustively address everything the other has said. I believe both of us have reasonable views, especially since our evidence and research is limited.

But to all others - feel free to ask more questions or ask for my thoughts on certain points. I hope all of us can take something, and be more thoughtful, critical and careful when investing in a chess set.