Mechanics institute set

That Mechanic's Set, which I too have had my eye on, definitely needs 2.5" squares, which is a major drawback as I own nothing but two point two fives. -Gg

I also have a number of 2.375" boards and the Mechanics Institute set will play fine on it.  In fact I know fellow that has owned one for over 6 years and he has only used a 2.375" square board.

However, I certainly would not use a 2.25" board size for this set.  The King base diameter is 1.875" which would make the percentage on a 2.25" square as, 83%, way too high.

On a 2.375" square that is 79% which is about as high as you would want it to be.  The 2.5" square size ratio would be 75%, which is just right by pretty much all standards used.  Now, the 2.75" would give you a 68% ratio which, as cgrau said, overkill.  Plus the 2.75" boards are really quite large overall size, and might be too big for most tables.

However, I see that HoS sells a number of boards with 2.75" square size.  As long as you're ordering the Mechanics Institute set, a 2.75" square vinyl board is only about $8.  You could order one, along with a 2.5" and a 2.375" one and see what you like.  Of course whatever you get, please post pictures!

For those like me with OCT, here's the some dimension tables for the MI set on both the 2.5" and 2.375" boards. The set plays just fine on either, so, as the saying goes, "you pay your money and you take your choice."

That is a massive set! By comparison, both my Hos Zagreb '59 and Dubrovnik sets (boxwood and ebonized) weigh in at approximately 34 ounces! -Gg

I don't buy from HOS because I can't justify the shipping costs up to Canada.  Alas, this set has me thinking it might be time to make an exception.  Amazing.

They are indestructible, though I had a batch of five or six pawns that developed cracks after a year. (No problems with the replacements.) They are very heavy. I don't mind that playing ten minute. Some blitz players prefer lighter pieces.

What are their typical shipping costs to you up there? Do the Free Shipping promotions like the one running now not apply to Canadian sales?

You could break a rib playing blitz with those 

Or develop muscles like Aaarnold, who wants to "pump you up."

 I thought the original eyes were whimsy enough, but these are just... xD Thanks for the laugh!

To each his own. I find them a lot of fun to play with because they are so large and wide and because they deviate from the normal British Staunton design while clearly being Staunton designs. IMHO, the squares you play on should be at least 2.375', as Ron said above.  Anything less would just suffocate them.

To each his own i am not here to bash this set but i will a little bit  ....  even if it is just  to put some counterweight on all the glory that has been given to this reproduction in this thread.

Personally i think it comes close to the ugliest set i have ever seen. Having this said what i really dislike is not the chunkiness but the Knight design which in my taste, and again it's just a matter of taste, but for me it looks plain ugly.

Having this said the mechanical set is a very famous set so from a collector point of view who cares, Mechanical Institute, Capablanca plaid with it etc... So in the past i have even consider buying it, thank god i have never been drunk enough.

Last i saw a pic, thanks Chuck Grau! That is the picture here under where you see Capablanca playing with this set. Take a look at the Knight, i mean it is gracious and even beautiful. When i saw this set  I though hey wait a minute i even like this set ... I mean you just can not compare the original with the reproduction. So out of this i pop out 2 questions:

1/ If i look at this pic and i look at the Knight on this reproduction i truly do not see nor the beauty nor the similarity. So when HOS claims this to be a perfect reproduction of it, it is really hard to believe. Maybe over time some pieces got lost and replaced with less elaborate pieces and those where the ones where the reproduction was based on?

2/ Even if you think about getting this set for it's historic value you can see it right here Capablanca would never play with such an ugly Knight!

I wish I had a dime for every time someone remarked about how cute a newborn baby is and I'm thinking that, only pug dogs are homelier.  That being said, I would never say anything of the sort about someone's newborn or new chess set.  However, the M.I. knight lacks grace, which is a highly desirable trait in chess knights.  Be that as it may, I'm grateful to know more about the set, because it would seem that it is far too large and far too heavy to be of use to me. Soooo, barring a drunken episode when I can't stop myself from making those mouseclicks that result in boxes on my doorstep, I will live my life without ever owning this unique set.    -Gg

I hesitate to draw a lot of conclusions based on a single photograph. Some day, I hope to get to the Mechanics Institute Club and look at the surviving original pieces. 

In the meantime, here is what Frank Camaratta posted in the Facebook collectors' group about the genesis of the HOS reproduction:

The set was commissioned by my friend and fellow Policy Board member IM John Donaldson around 15 years ago while I was in San Francisco. He gave me a few of the original remaining pieces and asked me if I could reproduce the sets again for the Club. So, what you have is an exact remake of the set made specifically for the Capablanca exhibition by a Mechanics Institute Club member. I told John that we would make them for the club, gratis, if he would trash all those horrible plastic hybrid sets they used and I would donate to the club my new HoS plastic sets. He agreed and the rest is history.

With all respect to Frank he wrote a piece like that about the Zagrev set that is a total fantasy isn't it? ( even if i do like that set and have a few of it ) But the knight on that picture is obviously not the same. But yes maybe some weird happened like Capablanca brought his own knights or it 's the Mandela effect something like that .... lol

All kidding asside something like that they have made different Knights over time and Capablanca is playing with an earlier one and Frank copied a later one. I mean something like this is easily possible but you can't ignore that pic and say it still might be a accurate copy of that match when it is obviously not.

I don't ignore the picture. I see apparent differences between the knights in the pictures and the HOS reproduction. I just would hedge any conclusions based on only one photograph. I've worked with a lot of photographs of sets the last couple years, and they play all kinds of tricks on you. I can tell you that pictures of "the same" set can show pretty significant variations in what pieces seem to look like, particularly when the pieces are hand-lathed and hand-carved. Within that picture, I'd say the two knights Cappy is playing with seem to be significantly different from each other. If the two knights shown are so different, then how can we say the HOS knights are so far out of the range of variation as to be as inaccurate as you claim? Maybe they are. I'm not ready to conclude that based on one photo. 

Are the pieces ugly? I certainly see the case for it as to the HOS knight and queen reproductions. The knight is a workhorse, not an elegant steed, and the queen is dowdy. There's no reason for anyone to like that. I, however, do, and it's not for any lack of appreciation for elegance. 

As to Frank C., you can believe him or not. That the Zagreb set isn't historical, as HOS had claimed, doesn't mean that the HOS Mechanics Institute set isn't, and it doesn't mean we should reject everything Frank says. I don't, even if I may not agree with him about everything.