New possible chess set design

Hello, Chess.com community,

I would like your contribution in feedback, for the following might become a part of the chess market one day (though, I don't see myself being a competition to House of Staunton too quickly! lol):

This is my very first design for a set, and I feel that a lot in it can be imrpoved upon; though some may disagree and like it the way it is.

Do you think that a set like this is something you would like to buy? What modifications, if any, would you personally make to the design?

(March 04, 2016, 11:57pm PST - The images have been edited out due to being outdated; the design has been updated and is in its 2nd draft stage at the moment; please consult posts #31, 51 and 34 for the updated images.)

Is it something that you wouldn't buy because of a reason?

As a first-timer, I have limited experiecne with designs and such, so your contribution would greatly aid  in my market endeavor!

Thanks,

BCgn18

I'd be worried about the knights' spiky ears injuring someone. Making them furry like real horses' ears would be nice though.

Thanks for your legnth well-thought feedback; and, I appreciate your support and fondness of my first atempt at creating a luxury Staunton design.

Base-height proportion is actually my top priority in designing this set. The base for King is 2.75" wide, and the height is 6-6.375" tall, excluding extra height added by crown cross. This is actually the standard of Staunton's luxury sets set to 6" king. (Though, House of Staunton had official 6" sets in the past where the King's base was much smaller; I have one set with Kingbase of 2.25", which I thought was pretty narrow!).

Because I have owned these large HOS sets, it hasn't been my experience where the pieces are easily knocked over. I'm hesitant add any more inches in diameter mostly because those customers will need a board of 3.125" or 3.25"; if anything, I don't think anyone wants to buy larger than that, because 3.25"-squares for a chessboard is already huge and space-consuming! (I would know; I own three of these.)

(I have also decided to have the set created in 2 other Kingheights: 3.625 and 4.5; though, I don't know if this enhances structural support.)

Perhaps the head is too large. The Kinghead's diameter is ~1.625-1.75".

As far as two colors are concern, it's a general feature I was hoping to repute my sets with, as to set myself appart from House of Staunton. However, I too couldn't help but noticed something excess with the neckpiece being the opposite color. I suppose I didn't realize I felt this way until someone else also points it out.

Or, if you're meaning that the entirety of the pieces should be monochromatic, including the bottom base and upper head components, that can be a good idea, too.

Sorry, fburton, I skipped over you!

I can make that happen. Chances are, the ears and horn piece will be dulled and shortened.

The knight was a particularly difficult piece to render in my 3d program. There are lots of features on it that I don't know how to put into the 3d model, and so I will probably just write my instructions to my craftsman as to what features to add and specifically how to make them.

In my selling my sets, I was hoping to give customers many options for customization, in order to make the sets more marketable. Some of these options include

- height

- choices for crown designs for the King and Queen

- circular or quadral set

- mono- or bichromaticism)

- Knights coming with the option to include or exlude unicorn's horn

The features of all my sets, as to be different from HOS, are these, as well as:

- option for Rook heights being taller than King

- a cross design attached to the back of all Bishop pieces (did you see this in the above pictures?)

- Queens, like the King, having attachable crown components, for variety

Those points on the knights will be fragile.

The ears will be shortened, and the horn piece is attachable.

Though, I agree.

I could be quite candid in my opinions of this set, but first I will ask if this is something you are truly looking to hear. I won't hold back.

Very cool for a display piece but I'm not sure I'd pay hundreds for a display piece. Biggest issues are how narrow they appear, which may be misleading due to the design. I'd be interested in a modified version of it however, smaller (3.75inch King), wider pieces at the base (not drastically but a bit),  no hair/horn (even in casual play those look awfully fragile), and the king's final either needs to be wider and look less fragile or I'd like just a ball top like you see in eastern sets( like Dubrovnik ). I really like the knight aside from the fragile looking hair/horns; nice touch.

What are you targeting price wise? Would a modified set described above possible and if so what would you estimate it's cost as?

Way to go though, awesome creative design.

When I said "is it something you wouldn't buy", do you think I was looking for nice or honest? ^-^

I have a brother who literally criticizes my every doings and aspect of my life (I think he does it simply for no other reason than the fact that I'm the one doing it. No matter.), so as far as constructive criticism goes, I'm sure it's not something I can't handle. lol

So, actually, another member mentioned the narrow base. I can see how that's a problem.

On the other hand, instead of widening the base, I think I need to lessen the degree of curvature of the transitional hyperbolee that brings the base to the upper shaft, so that there is more support at the bottom. That, and also shrink the heads a little.

As far as the Knight's horn and King's crown piece, they are attachable stick-on's, and they aren't the only designs available; they're simply the only one's I've rendered thus far.

I've already done these things and will show a new rendered picture soon.

Thanks for your contributions.

As far as pricing goes, A set like this, intended as a luxury set, would probably be less than that of House of Staunton's, which 4.4" sets are set to $900-$1400. This set will probably be ~$550 for 4.625" and ~$475 for 3.75".

(image has been edited out - THanks for your contribution!

3/19/16)

It's a great try in my opinion. The things i don't like are:

1) the spikes on the knights because i'm sure they will break.

2) i would like a better design for the head of the queen and the rook.

3) as others said, the base should be a bit wider.

Anyway great job! ;-)

Thanks. But, my response:

1) They won't, because they're attachable. (Though, I probably want to make them thicker and shorter; as I mentioned similarly with the ears.)

2) Please be a bit more specific.

(If you're meaning that the Queen needs crenels on her crown and the Rook needs safeguards on its towerhead, they will be there; I simply don't know how to render them in the 3d program.)

3) Since after the first person said it, it's been fixed.

(Duplicate post edited out)

My first impression was that the pawns are a bit too tall in relationship to the pieces. But it's hard to tell from the angle.

Ah, something new mentioned! Haha I think I got down that the pieces are "too narrow". (Which I agree and have fixed)

MoxieMan, the pawns are very tall; taller than the standard pawn in HOS's 6" set, standing at ~3.25 to 3.375". The pawns in my set are ~4", which is about 3/4 an inch taller than the average pawn in HOS's 6" set.

Do you think that this is a problem?

As for everyone's point on the piece's problematic narrow shaft, here is the most current updated draft of it:

To all have have replied, some of whom may be actual potential customers of this set in the future:

I have just gotten word from my craftsman, whose highly-experienced expert company has existed for more than 60 years, that the original narrow shaft is actually very workable. He has, in fact, created many sets with a tall narrow design like this, too. (Also, I think he has mentioned that House of Staunton, at some point, had a few sets with thin shafts as well.)

I want take his word for it, because he knows what he's talking about. All the same, however, I'm listening to the desires and appeal of the community here as well. So now, I'm undecided as to which shaft I want to actually make official.

Just for clarification in nuance, are you guys not favoring the narrow shaft because of visual appeal and of it merely giving off the impression that it will tip over easily? Or, are people actually concerned about usability for it might tip over easily? I wasn't so sure which one it specifically was, so for those who have contributed to the design, if you can answer this specific question. That would be great. Neither one is invalid and less considerable than the other, I just need to know which it is.

Thanks again for your contribution. I am on my way to making this enjoyable for your purchase.

My comment about furry ears was tongue in cheek, of course.  However, I do think there is some mileage in going for distinctive look and feel, especially in the young chess player market. Nearly all chess sets comprise pieces made from the same material. It might even be worth experimenting with having pieces that feel different from each other. Maybe not you, OP, but in general. Just a thought...

Your "tongue-in-cheek" comment, cute as it was, was in-line with what people were generally thinking: that the ears were a bit too fragile and skinny. =D

But anyways, can you please elaborate on what you mean by pieces "feeling different from eachother"? I'm not too sure what you mean. Thanks.

Oh, just different materials - so that some feel shiny, rough, warm or cold etc. Really only appealing to kids, I imagine.

(Pawns that squeek when you squeeze their 'heads'!)

Every set that I own has pawns which are about 50-52% the height of the king. 

If your pawns are 4 inches and the king is 6.375, you're looking at about 63%, which seems drastically out of proportion to me.

Others may not agree this would be an issue, however.