I usually look for aesthetics and stability. Check the ratio of the king's height to it's base. If it is 0.4 or higher, than the set should be pretty stable. I like by sets to be tournament sized so I choose sets that or between 3.6 and 4 inches in height.
As far as aesthetics go, that is a more personal matter. I like sets that have nice looking knights or bishops and prefer sets where the crenulations on the rooks and queens are shaped to prevent breakage. There is a certain style of bishop shape that appeals to me. My current favorite bishop is the BH Wood set from HOS because of the silhouette of the bishop.
Weight is also subjective. a heavily weighted set is a pain to lug around whereas a set that is too light can be a bit unstable. You'll figure this out as you find a weight range that you like. I'm not a big collector, but these are the things I look for when choosing a chess set.
You guys have twisted my arm and convinced me to become a chess set collector myself.
After spending the best part of a week perusing several sited I have narrowed it down to two sets.
I was wondering if any of you would be willing to help me decide which one to go for? I'm hoping your expert eye will be able to tell me the pros and cons of each one.
This set will only be used to play long time controls. No blitz, as I don't want the pieces damaged. The price of both sets are similar but aesthetically they are both very different. I like the rooks and the pawns in the first set. But in the second set I prefer the Knights. What is more important?
Also King height, should I be bothered about such things for a first set? Or weight?
What are things to consider when choosing one set over the other?