My Official Staunton 1851 Reproduction Review

When I returned to chess a few years ago after a thirty-year hiatus, it wasn't long until I wanted the perfect chess set. At the time, I viewed the perfect set as the House of Staunton Collector with king stamping. I've collected many sets since then, and my tastes have evolved, but I've always wanted a good Jaques reproduction with king side stamping. I never could pull the trigger on the HOS stamped set, though. When Chess Bazaar came out with their second batch of 1849 reproductions, I wanted one, but they were out of stock for a long, long time. By the time they were back in stock, I realized that I really did not really like the look, proportion, and posture of the knight.

I began following the Jaques reproduction topic in this forum, and while I've been put off some by the turn it has taken towards marketing, and by some of the exchanges I've read there, I did enjoy the pictures and much of the discussion, and I did become interested in the Official Staunton line, and the 1851 reproduction in particular after reading reviews by Frank Helwig and Mike Ladzinski. So I bit the bullet and picked one up. With the antiquing, as I'll not live to see the natural patina.

The set arrived four days after I had ordered it. The packaging was tasteful, with the company logo on the outer box, and the pieces individually wrapped in baggies and snuggled in form-cut foam inserted in two heavy card board trays that pulled out the side of the box. HOS uses a similar system for its high end sets. I like the foam inserts so much I find it hard to use anything else for storage. Someone out there should design a wooden box that the foam inserts can be used in.

For the full Jaques effect, I immediately set the large club-size pieces on my modern 2.5" square Jaques board. I liked the look. 

Tomorrow, the review continues with more pictures and commentary...

great looking set. Now I am drooling again. 

Hey Chuck, welcome to the 1851 club! Thanks for your partial review and your really nice pics.

I'm not normally one for traditional Jaques style sets, but that set up is just beautiful. 

The first thing that struck me about the pieces as I removed them from the packaging was their weight. These are some well-weighted pieces. I'll get out the scale over the weekend and weigh them. Combined with their size--4.4 inch kings, these are some hefty pieces. The second thing that struck me was the superbly smooth finish. The third was the coloring. A good job with the ebonizing. But the antiquing stood out. I think they really got it right. Not too brown, not too orange. Golden with a tinge of toast. Gives me a real ninteenth century feel. After setting the pieces up on my board, I lined them up to take a look at their proportions.

As among themselves, I find the pieces well-proportioned, with one possible caveat. I like the height and mass of the rooks. I don't like my rooks overshadowed by knights or bishops. But as to those rooks I'm overall undecided. I'm just not sold on that base. It seems too bulbous and too large relative to the bases of all the other pieces. Perhaps there is an historical explanation for this--I haven't researched the set's historicity. Overall, I like the rooks, but their bases will take some getting used to.

Of course, I love the stamping of the kingside knights and rooks. Really gives you that authentic Jaques feel I never fully got from my otherwise solid HOS reproductions.

Next up, more shots comparing individual pieces.

Very nice. I've been debating that set myself but I need another set like I need another hole in my head.

Always happy to drool over other's sets though. Thanks.

Thanks, Robert. You are absolutely correct.

Dynamite photos and two thumbs up for a meticulously carved set ! 

Friday night we played ten-minute with the 1851s. My friend Phil loved them, noting the design, craftsmanship, weight, size, and excellent antiquing. He singled out the knights and the bishops for their beauty.

Here are some portraits of the individual pieces.

The tubby rooks...

The bishops are very well designed and carved, with deep, wide, curving mitre cuts. The enirety of the cuts are well-finished. Later this weekend I'll post more close-ups of these impressive clerics.

The knights are the stars of this set. Practically perfect in every way. The only qualification is the delicacy of the lower jaw, which seems vulnerable in the ten-minute games I typically play. I know this set isn't exactly intended for blitz or rapid play, but that's about all I have the patience for these days. I'll post detailed shots of the knights later.

And finally the pawns...

Gomer, my head looks like swiss cheese. One of the many things my wife has taught me over the years is the value of retail therapy. My education came not through lecturing, but by carefully observing the relentless growth of her shoe and purse collections. While collecting chess sets won't cure my problems, it does make me feel better.

Well done Chuck, thanks  for adding more pics of your gorgeous 1851 set. Owners of this set are licking their chops with pride! It doesn't get any better!!

By the way, Cgrau, how did you do with the new pieces?

On a related question, how did the feel of the pawn collars seem compared to the 49's? Noticed one is turned vs. other down. Curious if even makes a difference in feel or play.

The stubby rook is one of my considerations, I prefer the narrow parapet's, wondering your definition of "stubby". And thanks much for kindly sharing your therapy.

Now to find something as beautiful that fits a 2" board for Christmas/birthday

Edit: reread/viewed your room pics, and realized "Tubby". Promptly cleaned my glasses and phone screen both. Still curious if it's the weight or thickness of room. Thanks again.

Awesome set & pics.! I think the Rook bases look just fine IMO. Its more likely you are not used to the set yet so, give it some time to grow on you.

4-2. My first loss came on time as Black where I otherwise had a decent advantage. The second came as White in the sacrifice variation of the Sveshnikov where I literally forgot to protect against a simple mate in the middle of my own attack. Age ravages the short term memory first.

I had no issues with the pawn collars during play. I haven't played with and don't own a '49, so I can't compare.

Well, stubby is an apt word, too, though I like the height of the rook, as well as its thickness and mass.  What I'm referring to is the size of the rook's base. Sometimes when I look at it it seems disproportionately large relative to those of the other pieces. It looks larger than the queen's base and rivals that of the king. That's one presumptuous rook! But overall, my preference for robust rooks trumps my questions about the size of the base. Perhaps as kick suggests, it's just a matter of getting used to it. The bottom line, is that I love the set and I'm happy I bought it.

Thanks, kick. You may be right. As I wrote above, overall, my desire for robust rooks exceeds questions I may have about the size and proportions of the base.

Wow-Those knights and new photos above could be on the cover of the next issue of Vogue magazine ! 

Cgrau - that is a beautiful set!

QuestionableKnight wrote:

Cgrau - that is a beautiful set! I am wondering. Do you have the chess bazaar 1849 reproduction? If so, thoughts on comparison?

Thanks, Q. Sorry, I don't own the CB 1849. You could check out the separate forum topic here on Jaques and Jaques Reproductions. You will find lots of comments and comparisons there. Here's the link:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-equipment/reproduction-and-real-jaques-of-london-chess-set