My Official Staunton 1851 Reproduction Review

Hi Polar, here it is. Hope it helps!

http://www.officialstaunton.com/collections/chess-pieces/products/1851-reproduction-staunton-antiqued-chessmen

Thanks cgrau! I realised when I re-read your initial post (my eyes naturally went straight to the chess set) that you decided against the CB set (so I edited my post, but not after you had seen it!). I asked because it is always valuable to the get the opinion of someone who knows their sets and has both kinds...

The set looks great on the Jaques board. Is that the same board you once labelled as 'shoddy' workmanship (in a topic I created)? It looks good to me!

The next time you play chess with this set on that lovely HOS Elm Burl board you have I would love to see some pics!

Q, that's the same one I said was shoddy. It is, too, especially compared to the two knockoffs I have from HOS that are superior in every way. I'll shoot some with that elm board for you!

I own both and strongly prefer the OS set over the CB set. Here's a couple of comparison pics:

Thanks Frank for your honest review. I actually found your thorough review on the reproductions and real Jaques of London thread and appreciate your honesty. This set has now bumped CB off my wish list!

They also have very nice looking sets and the price is reasonable.

Thanks, Polar. You're right. "Official" is just part of their trademark. They just began offering another 3.75", a Fischer/Spassky 1972 reproduction. I'd be interested in what you think of it. 

http://www.officialstaunton.com/products/reykjavik-series-ebony-chessmen

Totally agreed, David.

I agree with Polar.. a 3.75 inch King is more Standard. I do like looking at the larger versions though.! The 1851 is awesome. Thanks for the pics everyone.

Polar, Kick, thanks for your insights. I agree that 3.75" sets are a good size for tournament play, and that large sets like this one are pretty much beyond what FIDE and USCF rules contemplate. But this set and others in this genre are intended as reproductions of classic Jaques designs, and Jaques made a lot of 4.4" king, large club-size sets. I like playing with them at home, even in 10-minute games. I'd never schlep one to a tournament, or expect that a TD would let me use it over an opponent's objection.

Q, I still owe you the pics of the 1851 set on the elm burl board, but here are two of the Official Staunton 1870 set on it. This set is quite similar to the 1851 but its black pieces are ebony and the white pieces are not antiqued. I'll do up a full review of it later. Like the 1851, it'a a large club size set with 4.4" kings.

Hi Polar,

I very much appreciated your comments on this thread. I saw that you had posted a very interesting piece on the Lewis Chessmen, and wanted to commend you for posting it. But, alas, it seems you have blocked me. I am sorry if I've done or written something to offend you, though I don't know what that might be. Please unblock me so I can exchange my thoughts on your threads just as you have done on mine.

Many thanks,

Chuck

Thanks for adding those comparison shots, Frank. Pretty dramatic.

Cgrau thanks for the pics! The set looks stunning and I'm envious of your current collection!

I can't afford to be a serious collector of chessmen but I do own at least four sets three of which are of $10 nice chessbazaar sets. Despite that I am also very impressed by this set, and I think of getting this design somewhere at some point.

This set looks very similar to my favorite plastic set. It's the one usually sold for $30 and described as "quadruple weighted" and has greater detail than the widely used plastic club set, and wider bases.

The form of this set is ever more impressive to me particularly because of the rooks. My main criteria for a "good set" is that rooks should be fat. They're usually fat as is. But their wall angle, the stem, should always be almost vertical with only a small angle.

This always helps me visually distinguish rooks from other pieces. I don't understand the appeal of room design that is shaped like a symmetrical flower stem with only its top distinguishing it as a real rook.

Anyways, I wnet off on a tangent. The pieces look great and their coating is very pleasant to look at.

How good are the pelted bottoms?

Thanks, Drawgood. They are nicely felted. I did have a problem with the rooks. The white king's rook had a base ring damaged the first time I played with it. I just received the replacement directly from the carvers in India yesterday, and it is a perfect match with the set. Excellent customer service backing up a very worthy product.

DG, here are a few shots of the felts.

The damaged rook (L) and the replacement rook (R).

The damaged rook repaired. I'm no Alan Dewey, but it'll do.

Thank you, the pictures are very nice.