Morals and Ethics In Chess The Chess Equipment Business

I have a question, can you copyright the design of an object? For example if a manufacturer comes out with a nice looking toaster can another manufacturer come out with a copy and just put their own brand name on it? How about works of art? If I create a sculpture and sell it and someone else sees it can he make one just like it and sell it? How about a chess set? If someone creates an unusual looking chess set can someone else copy it and sell it?

If the chemical formula for Coca Cola can be patented indefinitely, why not the design of a chess set? They’re just both “objects” anyway. 

I agree with you. I gave this example to provide a direct apples to apples comparison of two identical products. This example (and many others) can be used to give a general idea when comparing HoS and Frank to other retailer where the comparison might not be for the exactly the same products. So they might say "we are more expensive because our products are higher quality" - to which I will answer "but you are also MUCH more expensive even when comparing the same product". 

I have few sets from HoS, Staunton Castle, Chess Bazar and ChessNcraftsIndia. I definitely don't consider myself an expert, but I examined all sets very closely, and I can tell you that I see absolutely no differences in the quality. Of course this is a very small sample, and HoS products might be more consistent in terms of quality. But this is my observation so far.

Here is one example. I was looking for The Northern Upright reproduction. HoS selling them for $695, I got it from Staunton Castle for $300. And the cheaper set is actually slightly larger (5" vs. 4.5"). Someone please tell me how you can justify paying more than twice, considering that Staunton Castle is an excellent set, comparable in quality to HoS.

So personally, unless I see something very unique and/or heavily discounted, I will have a hard time to justify buying from HoS.

You will note that I have consistently talked about sets created by and produced for Frank Camaratta, not all HoS sets or products.

Frank never designed or created Chess Boards, for instance.  I have been happy with boards I bought from them over the years.  However, I think Raphael of The Chess House has had better boards made that are less expensive.

The current owner of HoS has maintained the higher prices. 
When I want to buy something, I look for the highest quality at the lowest price, and I always have done this.  I have never bought a Chess product from HoS without looking for and getting the maximum discount possible.  Well that is not true maybe not the first 4 or so sets I bought from Frank in 1998 and 1999.  After those first purchases I could eke out a 10% from Frank because I had bought more from him.

But, understand that I look for the best quality product first.  When I realized that the Noj Sets were of such high and impeccable quality, I would save up my spending money and even sell off other equipment to pay for the Noj.  I also did this with the better Camaratta sets when he owned the company.  You see, the higher quality lasted longer in all aspects.

There were times that I realized Carl of Official Staunton had the same set as HoS, not Frank, and I simply bought from Carl.  This is also true of Chess Bazaar.  Frank has not created that many different designs.

My latest buy was that Chavet set from Chess Empire.  This set is excellent.  These guys know how to make better quality pieces, and they really do.  Perhaps they learned from Frank and perhaps Frank even learned from them.  But in the final analysis, Chess Empire is at the top in quality.  They are definitely high on my list of where to get the best quality Chess pieces.  And because they are direct, their prices are lower.

I am not a blindly loyal consumer.  Of course I am loyal to those that have produced very nice product.  

Mind you if I was going to buy a new set would go for the Chess Empire ,

The Sinquefield Series Chess Pieces
3.625" King

would not pay what Hos want which is around 1500k

I can see your point about this part. I didn't think about the part about the headquarter and being a manufacturer, but that kind of stuff goes on a lot in the US as it relates to NAFTA. Lots of things were produced in Mexico but can still be labeled as made in the USA. Lots of manufacturing companies do this.

As for having something against HoS, I got the impression you didn't like their statements. I did not get the impression you didn't like their products. Me personally I don't like their QC but like their customer service.

Understood. My example wasn't so much an apples to apples like yours for sure. In terms of quality, I can't really see the difference either. I own sets from HoS, SC, CB, OS, and Noj. When I compare the boxwood side for HoS, SC, CB, and OS, I really don't see the difference. I can tell you there is definitely a difference with the Noj set in terms of craftsmanship and quality of the finish. It is beyond superb to put it mildly. The design aspect leaves a little to be desired because it is slightly different that what they use to make. But that's neither here nor there in terms of our discussion.

This manufacturing statement with artisans goes back over 20 years with Frank originating it.

Because of the written and signed contracts, Frank claimed the manufacturers as his.  I don’t agree with that. I only agree with the sets he had produced.

I also remember trying to get a set with the best training and coloring as in their picture.  And I also remember a time when a piece arrived broken.  When Frank owned the business, every piece of every set was inspected before shipping.  Frank would have them wrapped in raw cotton, an agricultural product from that area.

After Shawn took over, both times I mention above, the pieces were in a box from the manufacturer, on a shelf in their warehouse.  They had dropped the on site inspection and wrapping.

So whenever I buy a set from HoS now, I always talk with Kevin and get him to go to the warehouse himself and open the box to look at the set before I get it.  But I am mot buying sets from them much anymore.

@Eyechess That makes sense about the statements origin. Too bad they don't do the QC like Frank use to. HoS QC is not good. From my experience, CB and OS are like that too. There are always things wrong with the pieces. SC's was very good both times Mandeep sent me pieces. There wasn't a mark, ding or crack on any of the pieces Mandeep sent me. I was very surprised. 

Yeah, my Empire Chess Chavet reproduction was also perfect.  I imagine they do not have a high number of sets stocked up.  The retailers like HoS and OS have to get minimum orders in of each set configuration thereby giving them an inventory that can develop cracks and even shipment problems that go unnoticed. 

What about the ethics of some of the high end retailers toward their customers? My favorite knight design is the Marshall. I have three Marshall sets from HOS. The knights from any of the sets do not match the knights of the other sets. None of the knights resemble the Marshall knight as defined by Mr. Camaratta. I can see where the copies of the Jaques Marshall knights may not match the originals but shouldn't the sets from the same retailer match each other?

This is interesting.  At what times did you buy each set?

Apparently the specific Knight look would rely on the carver and perhaps when it was carved.

I bought two of the sets, a Rosewood set and a Blood Rosewood set, in the spring of 2015 when HOS was supposedly discontinuing them. Now it looks like they still sell the Marshall but the pawns, kings, and bishops are different than their previous Marshall sets, and they have yet another different knight. One of my favorite piece designs of the Marshall is the bishop. The current HOS Marshall bishop looks more like the Fischer-Spassky bishop with a more rounded tip.

Apparently, I bought my first Marshall set a few years before the other two. That one looks close to one of the sets I bought in 2015. The knight of the other set I bought in 2015 does not look like the other two. Unfortunately, the records of my transactions were lost when I lost an internet email account.

Here's a link to a post of mine in the "Reproduction and Real Jaques ..." thread where I posted pictures. The next couple posts after that from @FrankHelwig are also informative.

HOS Marshall knight comparison

I notice you also say:

"Comparing the pictures of my HOS Marshall sets to Frank's original Marshall knights shows some differences that exist in many modern knights. From the pictures I've seen of original Jaques knights, almost none of them have sharp edges or points. I know they've probably seen considerable use but I doubt it was enough to round off edges and points. Many modern knights are all sharp edges and points. Sometimes it's so severe they look like skulls with goatees. I don't care for that at all."

This comment is spot on and I have made the same point. Many modern repros look like they have been gouged/cut whereas the real antique sets look like they have been moulded/shaped. There are no hard angles on the old sets.

Well, I distinctly remember when Frank was coming out with what ended up being his Marshall Series set.  The set was made well before Frank named it.

So, back then Frank would post pictures of his prototype sets in a back door directory just before they were made in volume and before Frank would offer them on his HoS site.  I would talk with him on the phone and he would tell me of sets he was having made.  He did this with at least the Marshall Series, Liberty, Renegade, Professional Series, and a few others.  He gave me the directory url and from then on would tell me to look at the pictures there.

At first, he called that set Millennial.  But he was also producing sets wholesale for Jaques in England.  This was the exact same design that he had made for the Jaques Millennial series.  Except the Jaques set was retailing for well over $1000 or so, while he was selling his on HoS for $360.  He told me that the pieces for Jaques were of a better quality wood than for his, but the same design.  He had the files in the directory named Millennial. He didn’t want to interfere with Jaques so he named it Marshall for his HoS offering.  I bought one of the first produced and it was very nice.  I sold it in a purge back in 2010, but replaced it with one when they put it on clearance.

So, those Knights were never meant to be a reproduction of the Jaques Marshall set.  It just got the name after being produced. 

My sets are nice, they're just inconsistent. I managed to get the Wayback Machine (web.archive.org) to pull up a picture of the Marshall from August of 2015. It closely resembles my set.
It is different in many respects from their current Marshall set. So different that they can't be using the same templates for the lathes.
As I said in that other thread, my fussiness increases with the price of the set. I consider the Marshall a mid-priced set and I don't mind if the knight isn't an exact copy of the original. However, I think it should be a closer copy than my blood rosewood set. I don't see why the other pieces needed to change so much, though. It looks like they're using a different manufacturer with different patterns.

Well, they did clearance out this set.  And it figures they would use a different manufacturer when they brought it back.  I am not impressed with the new version.  I suspect Frank did not have a hand in this new thing.

Yeah, I'm not too impressed either. Too many sets are getting that generic tapered body instead of the more hour glass shape of the originals.

@Gomer_Pyle Were you aware set #2 and #3 were different before you purchased it? I ask because when I bought my Noj 1950 set, I was not aware the current design was different when I made the purchase. I was pretty shocked when I found out.

I dislike the undercut bases on both of these sets. I have never seen that on any antique set. Neither of them look like an original 1900-1915 Jaques but the second one is probably a bit closer (?)