Minor differences observed in different Shkolnik III sets

I have been browsing Shkolnik III sets on Etsy (I just bought one!) and started noticing some differences between some of the sets—usually between sets allegedly stemming from the ’70s versus the ’80s. For one, some of the ’70s sets seem to have slightly rounder miters on the bishop, which is also the case in the ’50s Sholnik II sets; the ’80s Shkolnik III sets feature bishops with slightly more elongated or tapered miters. Let me first show you the archetypal Shkolnik II and III for reference.

Shkolnik II (1950s).

Shkolnik III (1970s).

Okay, I just finished writing this post, and I found out that there are five parts to this story. So let’s start with part 1.

—

Part 1 – Revisions between two decades

Now, here is one of several Shkolnik III sets from the ’80s I considered buying. The miter tapers off at the top, although possibly less than the set above. I don’t know—it’s sometimes hard to tell. But another difference I’m observing is that the cone finial of the king is shorter.

And below is a picture of a Shkolnik III set from the ’70s. This is the set I just bought, as I prefer the slightly more bulbous miters which more closely resemble the Shkolnik II. Notice also that the finials of the king are longer than in the set above.

Now, I think it makes sense that the design of this set evolved slightly in a decade or so. I’m not quite sure why they would do that—especially such minor revisions—but I can accept that it did evolve in the ’80s.

But here is where I get a little confused. I checked the set I got my stepson some weeks ago, which is from the ’80s. Yet it has the same bulbous miter as the ’70s set I got! See the photos below. The finial of the king is also longer than in the reference set I posted but as long as in the set I just purchased—but definitely more blunted! I only just noticed that.

Anyway, either this set is actually from the ’70s rather than the ’80s, or quite possibly some of these revisions were made in the early ’80s, meaning the early ’80s sets retain some of the features seen in the ’70s sets, while the sets from the later ’80s feature bishops with more tapered miters. Does anyone know if indeed the design was revised in the early ’80s? I think this is such a niche question, I’m not sure I will find answers. For starters, none of the sellers of these sets seem to know the exact year of production—just the decade.

—

Part 2 – Asymmetry within each set

But wait! The plot thickens, because I just noticed another discrepancy in the photos above. The bishop miters vary in shape within the set! I just took a quick picture below. The miter of the left bishop is slightly more tapered, and the miter of the right bishop is actually a little shorter! Measuring from the top ring to the top of the finial, the left miter is 2.8 cm, while the right miter is 2.65 cm. Curious!

I’m noticing the same difference in the white bishops. And I just measured them, and they have exactly the same proportions as the black bishops; the more bulbous one of the pair is 1.5 mm shorter! This suggests there is a slight asymmetry in the molds.

—

Part 3 – Variance from the manufacturing process?

But wait! The plot thickens even more. I seriously thought this was the full explanation just now, but I just noticed that the more bulbous black bishop has its finial higher up and less merged with the main part of the miter, yet I’m not seeing this same difference in the white pieces.

Could there be something about the manufacturing process that introduces some variance? I started thinking maybe the main piece comes out of the mold, and the spherical finial is then placed on top of the miters in its liquid state, so some of the finials sink a little deeper while hardening. But I’m noticing the finials have mold lines that perfectly align with the mold lines of the rest of the pieces, so it definitely comes out of the mold in one piece. I have no idea then why some of the finials come out differently.

And interestingly, this idiosyncrasy is not specific to the later manufacturing process of the Shkolnik III; I noticed the same thing in a Shkolnik II set I considered getting!

—

Part 4 – Different padding

I thought the set below was really beautiful, both because it looks so pristinely white, and because of the unusual magenta-colored padding. I don’t know if the padding suggests a restoration or not. I figured so, because all other Shkolnik II and III sets I’ve seen have significantly deteriorated brown padding. Well, and I’ve seen a few pristine white sets with non-felt white base pads.

But I later found a different Shkolnik II set with magenta padding! Both of these magenta sets are from the ’70s; and they’re from different sellers, so now I question whether it’s a restoration job.

Curious though that the base pads are magenta, rather than the red you sometimes see in Soviet sets.

—

Back to part 3 – Variance from the manufacturing process?

Anyway, that was a little detour. The primary reason I  brought up that magenta set is because I would totally have bought that one, if not for a significant discrepancy in the miters—the same discrepancy I just realized is also present in the set I got my stepson.

Look, this black bishop looks as it should as per the archetypal set I showed at the start of this post:

But what’s up with this one? The miter tapers off, and the finial is quite high up, way more disconnected from the main body of the miter than in the other bishop!

I actually really like this miter; it looks much more defined. But it’s such a significant discrepancy between the two bishops; I just didn’t want a set with such an obvious asymmetry. So as much as I love the magenta base pads, I left this set for someone else to buy. I hope they don’t notice the discrepancy!

I showed my friend this curiosity a few days ago—before I found all those other differences between different sets, and the fact that my stepson’s set also shows an asymmetry in the bishops—and they suggested there could be some imperfections from the manufacturing process. I dismissed that hypothesis, arguing that they come out of molds, so they should be consistent. But I think they were right after all; it seems the bishops can show quite a bit of variance even within a set. It’s possible that if I start looking more closely at the other pieces, I will start noticing some differences there as well.

Any idea what might cause these differences in some of the pieces? The bishops in the Shkolnik II set above definitely show a much greater difference than the bishops from my stepson’s set.

—

Part 5 – Different knight designs

Here is the final part to this story. When I wrote at the start of this post that this story would have five parts, I actually initially wrote that there would be three parts; the story kind of evolved further as I wrote this post.

But when browsing vintage Soviet bakelite sets on Etsy, I came across two Shkolnik III sets that featured a different knight design than all the others. I knew that the Shkolnik II and III knights were different (and the Shkolnik I knights as well), but there shouldn’t be different knight designs within the Shkolnik III, should there?

To be fair, none of these sets online are presented under the Shkolnik name. I’ve just learned from Chuck Grau that there are three different Shkolnik sets, which you can read about on the Gallery page of his website. But could there be a Shkolnik IV set? Unlikely, because all three sets have quite distinct designs, yet the two sets I’m alluding to are definitely Shkolnik III except for the knights.

Here is one of them, said to be from the ’80s.

And here is the other set—also from the ’80s, but presented by a different seller:

I’m also noticing that in both sets, there is a lack of tapering in the miters. And the king finials are very sharp, unlike in some of the other sets. But yeah, those knights are definitely distinct. Here is my stepston’s set again for reference. The two sets above feature knight designs where the head is angled down more, the mouth looks a bit less awkward and more realistic, and the manes seem to have more detail.

I actually prefer the knights from the archetypal Shkolnik III set for some reason. I guess they look a bit more swanlike to me, which I like.

—

Part 6 – Marginally different rooks!

Okay, I thought I was finally done here, but I just noticed yet another difference! The rooks of the two sets I just showed seem slightly sturdier, and the crenelations are a bit taller.

Here I put three rooks side by side; on the left a rook from the Shkolnik II set with the magenta base pads, in the middle a rook from the ’80s Shkolnik III I showed in part 1, and on the right a rook from one of the two ’80s Shkolnik III sets with the different knight design.

Three quite distinct knights! Of course the crenelations became quite a bit taller in Shkolnik III, but the rook on the right has crenelations that are slightly taller than most Shkolnik III sets; and it clearly shows a thicker base than the archetypal Shkolnik II and III sets. Curious!

Or am I starting to see things that aren’t there now? I mean, the crenelations may actually be equally tall—I can’t quite tell. But when I look at the rooks of my stepson’s set in person, they are definitely more slender than in that revised Shkolnik III set. Here are the rooks of one of those last two sets:

And compare that to the ’80s set I posted in part 1:

Oh and I just noticed ANOTHER difference! The pawns of the revised set have a single rim; they lack that inner ring you see in other Shkolnik III sets, including in the off-white set above.

—

Part 7 – Different base pads within the same set

I was just writing the summary of differences I observed below, and while writing about the material of the base pads, I checked my stepson’s set’s base pads to verify that indeed they are made of a leather-like material. Turns out they are made of various materials! Unbelievable…

Here are the base pads of the bishops; the one on the left has a leather-like base pad, the second one looks more like paper, the third looks a bit like resin or a glue-infused fabric or something, and the fourth features some kind of fabric. All four show different textures!

I can’t make sense of this. Does it suggest different restoration attempts? No clue.

—

Summary of differences

Okay, I need to stop now, because I get the impression that I will keep noticing differences and curiosities, and I’m only getting more and more questions that I don’t think I will ever find answers to.

To summarize, it seems there is both some variance from the manufacturing process, as well as incremental revisions in the design of the sets, and then some differences from possible restoration attempts as well.

Let me list all the differences I’ve observed in the Shkolnik III sets:

• The finials of the kings vary in height.
• In some sets the king finials are blunted, while in other sets they are sharp.
• The bishops are more tapered in some sets than others.
• The bishops show variance in shape and the finials within some of the sets.
• The base pads are usually brown in color and very deteriorated, but some of the crisp white sets feature white base pads that are in pristine condition, despite also coming from the ’80s.
• I found two sets with pristine magenta felt base pads. The brown base pads are never felt; they look more like leather, or some kind of material without hair-like fibers in any case.
• Strike that; the brown padding can be of various materials, as evidenced by my stepson’s set. But the brown pads still never seem to be made of felt.
• The knights are of a different design in two sets I found.
• In those same sets, the rooks are sturdier.
• And in those same sets, the pawns have been simplified, as the inner ring on the rim is missing.
• Ahh and one final observation: the finials of the kings in those two sets align perfectly with the heads of the kings, whereas in the other sets you can see a minor or sometimes significant gap underneath the finials.
• It seems like the crisp white sets have sharper details and possibly lack the variance/asymmetries I observed in some of the other sets.

And that’s all I’ve observed—for today, anyway. I will probably leave some comments in this thread if I notice anything else.

it's a beautiful horse from the 2nd set

Yes, I agree! The Chess Empire has a Shkolnik II reproduction in wood that I would like to get at some point. It would be amazing to see a Shkolnik III reproduction.