Houseofstaunton.com issues.

Just purchased a chess set for my son from HOS after to reading mostly good reviews around the 250$ price point. Is this the quality to be expected? The pictures on there website looked amazing and sold me on the set then upon opening it looks very different. Trying to figure out how to attach photos…

You'll need to use a browser for images but won't be able to attach them until your account his older and has more activity.

Maybe post a link to the set on the HoS site?

There are some great HoS sets in that price range. I’ve got a few. The Camaratta Collection Moscow 1935, the Ukrainian Grandmaster, the Zagreb 59, and the Baku sets are favorites of mine.

I had an issue with a few of the pieces in the Baku set. HoS was very attentive and immediately sent replacements. The quality of design and finish, the feel and weight are consistently among the best I’ve purchased anywhere. Which set did you buy and what are the issues?

I have noticed that older sets bearing the same name as newer sets are not always the same. For example, compare the ‘Petersburg 1914’ knights on Frank Camaratta’s Chess Antiques site with the set by the same name on HoS. Not the same! The dimensions are also slightly different.

I’m curious what the issue with the Baku pieces was. I might want to get the repro at some point.

And which St. Petersburg 1914 is the older one? I’ve noticed several sets where the Chess Antiques variant is superior than the HoS one, even though the description says the former is made by HoS as well. The knights of the St. Petersburg 1914 set on HoS looks quite cartoony, which is a style I’ve come to associate with ChessBazaar. Part of that style are the circular eyes. You can see the same in the three Mechanics Institute sets by HoS. I’m not a fan of that style at all.

The Moscow 1935 set does look quite similar on HoS and Chess Antiques. Maybe the CA knights are more refined, but I’m not quite sure. What a strange set, by the way. I think it’s really beautiful, but it’s puzzling as a Moscow 1915 (Botvinnik–Flohr II) reproduction, as the knights used in that tournament (Capablanca and Menchick knights) look nothing like it, and the kings didn’t have spike finials.

Here is a real BFII with Capablanca knights (from Sergey Kovalenko’s collection I believe):

And here are Menchick knights, from Chuck Grau’s collection:

Despite the Moscow 1935 set making no sense as a repro, I might get it at some point; it’s a beautiful set. I would rather get it from Chess Antiques though, as their variants tend to look more refined; and often are less expensive than the HoS variants as well.

The defects in the Baku included a crooked knight and a couple of cracks. Nothing major and quickly replaced. From time to time there’ll be a lemon with any product -

I share to a degree your taste for Soviet design, however, my personal interest in acquiring a set based on the accuracy of reproduction is close to nil. My pleasure derives from the form and craft of the set itself, regardless of pedigree.

What attracts me generally to Soviet designs is the tall elegant shapes (though like all generalizations, they’re not all that way, e.g. the Shkolnik are stubby - but still attractive). The soaring pieces in the Moscow 1935 are a delight - it is Frank’s design improvisation that I’m enjoying.

The Persinger sets are wild - heavy paperweights. I actually love these for their unique bold design. Playing them tempts one ‘to bowl’! 😁 They require a large board, but wouldn’t work nearly as well aesthetically at a smaller scale.

My concern with the Petersburg set on CA is that you would actually receive the set on HoS. Frank claims that they ‘should be’ the same set…….. I’d purchase Frank’s version, but not the HoS one, so have decided not to move forward. Beyond the knight carving, even the dimensions differ slightly -

I have to say that some of the HoS sets in the original poster’s price range are the ones I enjoy most. A few very expensive sets I’ve acquired provide much less joy and are used only infrequently (not sure why I keep them except maybe because I know I’d have to sell them at a huge loss?). Some exceptions are two HoS Empire sets - I really enjoy these in every way: design, woods, size, weight, craftsmanship…. And a couple of non-Dubrovnik NOJ sets.

But how far we’ve gone astray from the original question!

Start the return or replacement process immediately and don't let them push you around. They are not nearly as reputable as they used to be. All of the sets on their website have good reviews because they delete any reviews that are 3 stars or less, a very shady and dishonest business practice.

The OP hasn't come back with a link to the set or any description of his concerns about the set he received. Not much to go on there. There's been no indication of any "pushing around", either.

As far as not being "nearly as reputable as they used to be", as a long-time, many-repeat-purchases customer that hasn't been my experience at all. And I don't pay much attention to web site reviews anyway as they're all subject to the "bathtub effect" anyway.

@GrandPatzerDave

Share your experience and perspective. But maybe my expectations are just too low. 🤓

I purchase the grandmaster set. They wanted me to pay for shipping to send back initially. i let them know i felt I shouldn’t have to pay. then they sent shipping label for pieces. They wanted to exchange all which I didn’t like as I feel I’ll get some flawed pieces again. Time will tell… they have not sent shipping label for new pieces yet. I asked for the rosewood gilded if possible instead of the Purple Heart as they did not look like picture or very good in general. Flawed, light in color compared to pictures and poorly stained. I thought they were made from Purple Heart not stained to look like they were. They did refund 40$ for the board having a couple dings and looking nothing like picture as well. I do think if you could get a good set with no flaws including the bad stain it would be a good buy. Maybe just luck of the draw as they definitely are not inspecting to closely or have lower standards then me.

Oh I forgot to respond to this! Beautiful sets! Are the black Baku knights lighter than the other pieces though? That’s curious to see in a modern set—assuming it’s not just lighting.

Did you get the Moscow set in Anjan? The pieces look darker than the golden rosewood pieces on the HoS website. They look nice. I’m normally not into lacquer, but I actually really like the red lacquer version on Chess Antiques, but there seem to be no buying options for different finishes. Do you know if you have to request it via email or something? I’ve noticed there are never buying options for the different wood types and finishes Chess Antiques present.

And the Persinger set is indeed wild! Really cool to see. I love the Empire set as well—especially the two variants of the rooks and queens, and the pawn design. It’s sadly outside of my budget.

Veering more off topic, I can't speak for baudouin27's set, of course, but I'll offer an additional data point from my recently purchased HoS rosewood Baku. My black knights appear a little darker than most of the other black pieces. This appears to be due to the knights being carved from wood with uniformly denser grain. Perhaps this is more heartwood. Later I'll add some photos I took that show a knight next to a pawn. When one side of the pawn is facing the camera, it looks lighter than the knight because it has pronounced grain striping. The other side of the pawn has dense grain and appears the same shade as the knight. I don't think of this as undesirable at all and definitely not a defect. It's just some fine details in real wood. It is an excellent set.

Light side of pawn

Dark side of pawn

On topic, after seeing those photos, I would be just as disappointed with the product and support from HoS as the original poster is.

@Wandelkoningin

The dark Baku knights feel slightly heavier than the boxwood pieces. They are also slightly lighter than the other dark pieces. Sapwood perhaps? In any case, they are clearly of the same wood and all these grain/color variations are part of the beauty of natural wood.

The light and dark knights in the Moscow 1935 set feel about the same weight. The dark set is Anjan.

I’m generally not a fan of Sheesham/Golden Rosewood, but there are exceptions! On ChessAntiques, what you see and clarified in the text has always been what’s available. However, Frank Camaratta has come up with other sets/variants once I’ve asked. He’s a mine of information.

I hear you about budgets/affordability/cost-to-value. I hadn’t planned to acquire an Empire set (too expensive), but one appeared on ebay (the Empire Prestige set). The second set came from Frank (ChessAntiques) and was not to my knowledge listed on the site. Both sets second hand, but alas not ‘vintage’! 🙂

Baku knights:

Moscow 1935 knights:

Baku on outside, Moscow 1935 inside:

Regarding the OPs original post, I agree with mjeman. That said, the pieces in the OPs post are what I would expect Purple Heart to look like, but they clearly do not match the image on the HoS site. I am surprised at the difficulty in making an exchange - HoS has always been very responsive to me:

- A chipped crenelation in a Classic Staunton rook (replacement sent immediately).

- Baku set pieces with blemishes - replaced immediately without asking for the return of the defective pieces.

- A vertical chess board shipped in the wrong size (directly from the maker): return shipping paided and correct board shipped immediately (I’m afraid someone lost money on that one).

That’s 3 issues out of a couple of dozen or more and all 3 dealt with immediately and without discussion, so I am a bit surprised…

It does look more like purpleheart than in the photos by HoS, but the stain seems too light, with the boxwood color coming through too much in places. That dark spot on the rook is unacceptable as well.

I find HoS very strange about purpleheart. If you search for 'purpleheart' on the website, you will find several chess boards supposedly made of purpleheart; two are simply painted purple and look nothing like purpleheart, and there are a few pre-order chess boards that look so red, it looks more like pandauk with a magenta stain.

As for your set and one of the options for the gilded Zagreb, the color is stunning to me, but they’re almost like Indian rosewood with a cool red stain. I almost get the impression HoS doesn’t know what purpleheart looks like.

Having said that, the set looks stunning to me. I would probably prioritize appearance over an authentically purpleheart color.

I do like the color of your chess pieces a lot, but it’s absolutely not as advertised. I would probably be very disappointed if I was expecting to get what HoS promoted, even if there were no issues with the staining.

It reminds me of a purpleheart gilded Chavet set I ordered from Royal Chess Mall if I remember correctly. The set I received was brown. Beautiful, but nothing like pictured. I sent the set back at my own cost. Very frustrating.

I like the grain and I like the more homogeneous appearance. But I think I would be disappointed to receive a set with an inconsistent appearance like that. Yes, grain variation is natural, but in my opinion it's up to the manufacturer to provide a consistent set by using wood with a consistently visible grain in all the pieces, or a more even appearance in all the pieces. I personally do see this as a quality control issue, but clearly opinions on this differ.

Having said that, it's a gorgeous set.

It’s funny because I buy Soviet sets with inconsistent patina and wear and even variability in the carving of the knights and I love that, yet when it comes to modern sets, I expect consistency and would be disappointed in significant color differences and significant variability in the grain. I’m currently getting a set made by Porat Jacobson and maybe it’s more expected based on how much I’m paying for it, but I trust that he carefully selects the pieces of wood so as to ensure a consistent appearance in grain and color. Variance in wood is natural, but it’s up to the artisan to carefully select the cuts of wood. Though I’m glad you can appreciate a set with inconsistent grain and color. I love the significant color differences on the back of one of your Baku knights though! I can definitely appreciate that when it’s seen in all the pieces of a set.

Your black Moscow knights are fascinating with the orange grain! Last week I joined the Jaques Facebook group and found some beautiful early Jaques sets in ebony with an orange grain. Someone referred to it as crayon ebony, although I can’t find information on that. Apparently Jaques switched to a different ebony in the 1930s or so, after which the black pieces were pure black. But the orange grain looks stunning to me. I don’t know if it was less desirable at the time, or if there were supply issues, or if they switched to a cheaper ebony. I find it sad we don't see significant grain in ebony pieces anymore. I heard it's because a few decades ago that type of ebony became endangered, so chess makers switched to a different type of ebony.

Anyway, really cool to see orange grain in a modern set!