My Commission From Oleg Raikis: "The Ideal Staunton" - A Jaques 1849 Reproduction

It is true that they made 4” sets later on. However, MGT88’s reproduction was based upon the 1849 set which only came in 3.5” and 4.4”. Making a 4” version would not be appropriate for this reproduction. He could have made it in a 4.4” version. However, as many have stated a 4.4” would be too big for most. The 3.5” version was a good choice.

Thanks for clarifying. I thought you were following up to your original statement in post #33 about wishing MGT88 created a 4” set. My apologies for misunderstanding your post #43.

@DesperateKingWalk you seem quite argumentative and I’m really not sure what you’re getting at/trying to prove; the set is an 1849 “J. Jaques” reproduction and there were no 4” versions of these sets made; we went with 3.5” as it is a historically accurate size option for “J. Jaques” sets, and for Jaques sets from the 1849-75 period more generally.

Alan’s comment does not vindicate you; in fact, it supports my statement/proves you wrong. Most people, including myself, are generally only interested in Jaques sets from the 1849-65 period, and some from 1865-75 period; generally speaking, there were no 4” Jaques sets made in this period. The fact that some 4” Jaques sets were made in 1867 and beyond does not support the fact that a 4” 1849 reproduction would be historically accurate/representative. Ultimately, it does not even matter; this is a reproduction and can be made in any size; we chose 3.5” for the reasons I’ve given, and I’m not sure why this is even a point of debate. We do not need to justify our decision to you; we could have selected 3.5” just because we like it. Parsing through my words like a lawyer in an effort to prove me “incorrect” in some way is strange/petty.

I would prefer not to derail this thread any further; you’ve stated the set is too small and too expensive for your liking; we appreciate your feedback.

The overwhelming number of Jaques sets between 1849 and WWII were the 3.5 ". I have never even seen a 4 " small club in the flesh but just a few photos. The 4.4 " wooden sets were made in small numbers and gathering from the present state of all the ones I have seen were well used in play. The 3.5 " sets are lovely to play with, and the later antique ones quite rugged. For display purposes, the antique 4.4 " are the tops and are so rare that they command huge prices. Making 3.5 " copies is sensible as it is representative of the most common Jaques and can be used for play.  When I was a schoolboy in about 1960, I played in the London League in St Brides Institute with Jaques sets, of 3.5 ", dating I now know from about 1890-1900. It was a magical atmosphere. My very first Jaques set was a hand-signed 3.5 " set numbered 628 of the style here, made about 1850, bought from an antiques shop. I knew nothing about dating Jaques sets then but had the wits to recognise it was special because it was hand-signed and numbered whereas a more expensive set next to to it had a printed unnumbered label. Fortunately, the shop owner hadn't noticed it.

Very informative, and great history! It is amazing to imagine antique Jaques sets being used in a school chess league! A magical atmosphere indeed. Thank you Alan.

Salty. Don’t pout.

First you said the set was too expensive, then too small, then criticized my reasoning for selecting a 3.5” king height, attempting to prove it to be wrong in some way (“but 4” sets did exist in 1875! Gotcha!”); all of this is fine, but your tone is very negative and I don’t think you’re trying to be constructive in any way. When you began parsing my words around the “1849-1875” statement, I knew you were just here to troll; I pointed this out, and now you’re playing the victim (“sorry I commented on your ad campaign”). Thread derailment and petty debates like this are why I stopped posting on this forum a long while back.

Would you be kind enough to post pics of the different knights offered with each of them named? I'm having a very hard time resisting

Sure:

I think I like #4, Paulsen best . . .

That’s the idea behind the six knight designs; there should be at least one for every taste! The first thing I look at in any set is knight design, and it’s the most important factor for me; if I don’t like the queen, I might be able to live with it, but if I don’t like the knight, it’s a deal breaker.

I agree re the knights. But I will also add: these are the best rooks I’ve seen, by far my favorite. And another key for me are the pawns. I love the pawns in this offering!!!!! You’ve done an outstanding job!!!!!!

Thanks! Yes, I love every piece! I forgot to add that the finials can be left interchangeable, if desired:

@MGT88 - GORGEOUS!

Question, can Oleg make a set in European maple/ebonized maple? I prefer the clean look, even after aging, and the hardness is superb.

I’ve asked Oleg about this in the past and he has considered it; I will ask him again.

 

+1 to this.

Beautiful sets. I love the design and the variation in the knights. The boxwood and African blackwood are my favorites. Makes me want to go out and buy some blackwood to try and turn some pieces for myself.

On a side note, what software did you use for modeling the pieces?

We worked with an engineer in Russia to produce those technical drawings, etc.; I’m not sure which software application he used to produce them, I just reviewed and corrected the files/specs/etc. I can tell you a number of the technical drawings were given to me in PDF format, if that helps at all.

@VBerriz @Wes350 I spoke with Oleg on this and he said that he prefers, for various reasons, to use only his current catalogue of materials (boxwood, african blackwood, bokaut, and mammoth ivory).

Wow, what a beautiful set. Are the knights and rooks going to have king-side markings? Will the King be stamped Oleg Raikis? Apologies if this has already been asked- I didn't read all of the posts.

Thanks! Signing/stamping are extra options; I went unsigned/unstamped. These sets are made-to-order; Oleg generally does not keep sets in stock.