Morals and Ethics In Chess The Chess Equipment Business

No, I didn't know they were different. The first Marshall I bought was an imperfect set so HOS had pictures of that actual set. I liked it a lot so when the rosewood and then the bud rosewood went on clearance I bought them to have a set in each wood. I just assumed (yeah, I know) that one Marshall would look like another and they would all resemble their pictures. Disregarding minor differences in the knight carvings. My first two look enough alike and like the HOS pictures that I was completely happy with them. The knights in the third set are not even close, in my opinion. I asked Steve if I could swap the set or at least exchange the knights. He said he looked at the remaining sets they had and they were all the same as the knights I had. Since they were being discontinued it was my last chance to get the bud rosewood set. The wood was nice and I could mostly ignore the knights OTB so I kept it. I know they're back at HOS but comparing the two pictures above I wouldn't call them the same set.

I didn't mean to derail this thread. Ethics in business is something we should all consider in any transaction. Years ago I was looking to buy a house but the owner was doing some things I thought were a little shady. My lawyer told me "This is a business deal. Ethics have nothing to do with it." I don't have that house and I don't have that lawyer. Chess sets can have any design or shape. I just feel that the same sets from the same retailer should closely match each other. I also feel that if you're going to name a set after one of the accepted Jaques standards it should actually look like that standard.

Like others in this thread, I'm not willing to assume that Cammarata has the legal protections eyechess is asserting, nor even the ethical high ground that only he can sell sets similar to ones he has designed. 

Since we're talking about ethics among chess sellers, I'm more offended by the branding for the Ultimate Chess Set, since:

1.  Fischer had no association with this set;

2.  Fischer was known to normally refuse any attempts to commercialize his name.

3.  Fischer's estate undoubtedly never gave permission nor is receiving royalties from the gross abuse of his name in a logo. 

I would definitely be upset not knowing about the differences especially if the product differs from the photos. To me that is not acceptable. It is also not fair to the consumer. I would not call it unethical if it was just a mistake in not updating the photos. If the seller knows the photos are wrong and still leave it that way then that would be unethical.

Also, I am not sure  how to feel about the Marshall sets being different. I believe things like this happen a lot. I looked at a lot of old threads about reproduction of Jaques sets and some of those old sets look nothing like the ones today. The one that comes to mind the most is Official Staunton.  I remember seeing a thread about their 1849, 1851 and 1870 set from 2017 (I believe) and it looks different than the sets under a similar label that OS produces today. Of course OS changes their sets a lot. Their Cooke 3.5" from 2019 is different than the one they have now. I know because I wanted their JJ Cooke 3.5" but OS was out of stock earlier this year. HoS is a little different. Their product lines stay the same for years and years, so I wouldn't expect them to be different.

In all fairness, Frank named this set before he named the Jaques Marshall.  And he called it the Marshall to avoid a name conflict with a Jaques set he wholesaled to Jaques.

I don’t think the current owner of HoS is that sensitive to these piece differences by name.

DrChesspain: You should have brought that up with Shelby in the forum posts that he monitors. I'm sure he would have responded to your opinion.

I never said Frank had, or did not have, any legal rights to the fabrication of any Chess set.  Let’s get this clear.  I wrote and discussed moral and/or ethical considerations.  This is the title of my topic.

I do disagree with someone that says a fellow that has created a Chess set design for his professional and commercial uses, should not expect any exclusivity.

When the manufacturer that was under agreement to make that specific design exclusively for an individual, then starts selling that same production direct, this is not honorable.

Copies of the set are kind of tacky.  But usually the copies are not made as well as the originals and therefore pale in comparison in the long run.  This is the Rolex argument.

The practice of the last years has shown even if these things are not completely legal, we do not see any of the originators complaining by legally going after the fakers.  So it legally does not matter.

Agree to some extent. From an ethical (not legal) point of view it all depends on the amount of design/creativity that goes into a set. If the set is simply a rehash of the staunton design with a few changes I would be less inclined to think it deserves exclusivity than if it was a unique, new design.

I'm not sure the Rolex argument applies as Rolex is a vertically integrated manufacturer who controls every aspect of production. Indian chess sets are all manufactured by the same companies, using the same materials, processes, machinery and craftsmen for all their sets regardless of who sells them. I think HOS did (do?) seem to go the extra mile in terms of trying to get its reproductions closer to the original sets but I can't see how that would translate into longevity, better handling etc.

I am speaking specifically of the individual creations of Gregor of Noj, and of Frank Camaratta like his Knights with that slotted mane.

The GM Pavasovic set of Noj is very specific and singular in design.  

it gets muddied a bit because Frank does have all his designs made by the India manufacturers that are not exclusive to him alone when they make all their sets.

Understood. NOJ sets do look different to others. I actually think its a shame that local manufacturers were lost in the 70s/80s/90s. Each locally produced set had something of a unique local character, whereas now all sets have a certain homogeneous quality since they all made in the same place using the same techniques.

A contract is never a guarantee of performance. It's the basis of a lawsuit.

Today, things are wide open.  The Chess Empire is most likely the best manufacturer of sets made in India.  So we now can buy these high quality sets at lower prices.

I know that I am very happy with my Chavet Reproduction from them that I recently bought.

Staunton Castle also makes high quality sets that they sell direct.

I wonder where Frank Camaratta now goes to have his sets made.

Did HOS not use an indian maker called JS Arts at some point?

That sounds familiar.

(Sorry I'm late to the discussion but hey this post is only 5 days old.)

@Eyechess - You insist that CB has copied Noj's Tal set. Would you also consider HOS to have copied Noj with their recent Tahl set from The Camaratta Collection?

This is not a criticism. Just trying to understand the logic behind the debate. After all, most of these sets sold by manufacturers and/or distributors are repros of the original.

(HOS Tahl Series Chess Pieces - 3.875" King)

Oh, of course you’re right.

Back when this Tal 1960 set happened, we watched as cgrau and his friend paid someone to make technical drawings of the pieces based solely on some photos of tournaments using the set.

Then we saw how Gregor of Noj made a very high number of pieces to get it acceptable.  The set design was created only from the photos.
It was not too long after its release that some poster on here told of him contacting CB and having them copy the Noj set.  
This is why I said then and now that I would not buy the CB Tal set.

Later other companies including HoS had their copies made.  
I am lucky because I don’t like that set design so I won’t buy it anywhere.

I have no argument if someone wants to buy one of these copies.  

Yes even these work intensive reproductions, like the Noj Tal, are copies of the originals.  The actual actions of the industry shows it doesn’t matter.  

However, I can still have integrity and honor.  I can and will operate with my moral compass.  Others can and will do as they choose. 

zagryan This is not a criticism. Just trying to understand the logic behind the debate. After all, most of these sets sold by manufacturers and/or distributors are repros of the original.

Eyechess

However, I can still have integrity and honor. I can and will operate with my moral compass. Others can and will do as they choose.

At some point this debate goes back to the chicken & the egg ?

And a luxury problem . Not everyone has money to go out and buy a Noj set or a over price HOS chess set for the USA market .

Most people who looking to buy a chess set are looking for a nice deal on what there can afford .

And Chess Empire & Stauntoncastle make very fine sets .

I would rather have the real thing not all these remakes of a chess set ?

When it comes to HoS I'm of the opinion that their value really depends on the set you're eyeing. I think they have some really good value stuff in the bracket until 500 USD but beyond that it gets pretty crazy pretty quickly. The pricing seems arbitrary as well at some stage. They had like 3 or 4 Fischer Spassky / 72 sets out at some point with vastly different prices (200 USD vs 600 USD IIRC). With very few if any discernible differences between the sets. That's crazy to me. I know, quality of the wood etc. etc., but still just absolutely insane. Same with their Sinquefield stuff. They had the sets the players actually used selling for close to 1500 USD (correct me if I'm wrong) while piece-for-piece pretty much exact copies of that set were selling for 500 USD. Their Cairns cup and Sinquefield sets look exactly the same to me also. 4.4 inch king Spassky set selling for 800 USD...?

@Lighthiuse We are in agreement.  As maik1988 points out, not all HoS sets are overpriced.  I pride myself on buying the best value sets anywhere.  
@maik1988 I have never spent more than $540 for a Chess set from HoS and that was back in 2004.  I like to remember that HoS is not Frank Camaratta.  Under the current owner, they have used different manufacturers.  In this we have seen varying prices and quality.  When they sell a Camaratta set of his recent, last 6 years or so, design they pay him a commission on that. 
@sound67 You are legally correct.  However in the case of that specific Tal 1960 set, I disagree with you regarding morals.  Of course time has passed and we now see numerous copies of that set out there.  

With the death of Mr Bond .

Here's the history of the fall of lardy chess sets ? from the chess museum .

Lardy Echecs

Lardy was an important french chess piece manufacturer, founded in 1890 in Dortan near Oyonnax in the French Jura, which closed shop in 1992. In the interwar years and even more in the 50ies and 60ies Lardy must have exported very large numbers of chess sets to the major market USA and England, where they were commercialized by games brands such as Cavalier, Drueke, Lowe,Sterling and others, as well as to smaller markets. This very likely contributed to forcing local makers like Drueke or Horn or other makers in the USA and Jaques in England to stop or reduce making quality wooden chess pieces.

 Lardy was not the only french chess piece maker to flood the world with down to middle market chess sets - Chavet and others spring to mind. Their success in export markets like the USA, Great Britain and Germany heralded the arrival of the ascendent Indian manufacturers who in turn started to take away Lardy's market from them in the 60ies and 70ies.  Most likely Lardy was one of the french turners who produced immense numbers of Regency chess sets as well  - and possibly other styles in chess sets along with sundry other turned wood games - over the last hundred years.  Material was mostly Jura boxwood, but maple and softwoods seems to have been used as well - and as it seems,  even horn, judging by a fine set owned by Guy Lyons.

Lardy Staunton sets - from the 60ies onward - are easily distinguished by the typical blocky knights head - see the logo - a flat horizontal top line with a small jutting rear fin - strong striatures on head and neck for better sets, as well as bulging wooden eyes. It is of course a two piece knight - Lardy started this technique in Stauntons, earlier knights are still two-piece knights.   French makers always had a top line - têtes fines - and a middle line - têtes simples - as well as cheaper sets for the mass trade, with nondescript heads.   The final Lardy design was widely copied by indian chess manufacturers like Checkmate - it also has technical advantages! -  but has now faded from fashion....check the Indian producers websites as outlined in my Links section. It is not easy to distinguish an Indian Lardy-style set  from the original, especially in smaller sets....but European boxwood is different from sheesham!

---

Proto-Lardy Handy  boxwood set with age-mellowed varnish, weighted/felted, pre-WW2, kings 92 mm. Every knights head (two-pieces knights) is different, pointing to hand carving ... or a bit of devil-may care attitude in composing the sets!

Small Proto-Lardy

Smaller version of this early Lardy design - kings at 75 mm, weighted/felted, white king sightly bent with age.

---

Older Lardy Older set from the 50ies - already with the main elements of the angular Lardy head - kings at 96 mm, unvarnished, weighted/felted, 1 bishop is a plastic replacement (which?) - old slidetop box. such sets were commercialized in the US by Cavalier, Lowe, Drueke and others.

Lardy Club Set The top of the line in Lardy, these very large and heavily weighted sets were only produced in minor numbers - very few clubs would use these sets as they are way beyond the FIDE limit of 95 mm king size for tournament pieces - these kings stand 116 mm  (ca. 4 1/2 ") high, the base has a width of 50 mm (2 "). This set came to me in the drab original colouring of natural wood and light matt brown, some of which had rubbed off. This is what they look like after a slight varnishing with 2 coats, and the necessary refelting. Probably from around 1970.

Lardy Club Size in b/w Same size as preceding set, this one is noticeably older - and finer. with minute differences - kings a wee bit finer, knights taller - this set is very finely varnished, with the varnish on the natural side having mellowed to a deep honey colour. Highly esthetical, very satisfying to play with...  no box along - I suspect these sets were sold together with a large - squared chess table!

Lardy St. 5 This set is interesting chiefly because it is contained in an original Lardy box, with the company logo on top, and this stamp in the interior of the lid - which proves Lardy was still doing well at the time of the Nice Chess Olympiad in 1974. the set itself is undistinguished - not weighted, tete simple, a bread 'n  butter set for pushing wood.

Lardy St. 3

Simple set, with 76 mm kings, mainly interesting because of the paper inlay in the box with the initials " C.W." - Carl Weible, a major German games wholeseller, family owned for several generations, still operating (see here).  Recently I have learned that the Bohemia company of Germany was provided with Lardy pattern irons and produced sets with them - this might be a Lardy by Bohemia!  

---

Older Lardy St. 2

Older set, kings 67 mm, in black and white - box wood natural and painted black. Well done knights heads....

---

Chess Collecting

 

Dedicated to Chess Collecting