x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store

VIEW

Official Staunton's Amazing 1849 Antique Lacquered and Ebony Chess Set

  • #1

    Official Staunton's amazing 1849 Antique Lacquered and Ebony Chess Set is scheduled for December delivery. I was blown away by their pics of this magnificent 1849 Jaques reproduction.  The exquisite hand carved Knights are the best replica 1849 Jaques Knights I have ever seen. Here's their website description:

    Limited Edition of (100 sets only) each will be numbered with certificate of authenticity. 

    "1849 Antique Lacquered and Ebony Chess Set. We are delighted with this latest edition to our winter 2017 catalogue. This set is the best 1849 reproduction in the World, nothing comes close! Collectors Worldwide are raving positively about this design. 


    Our production is a detailed replica of an original set manufactured by the British 'Jaques' company, circa 1849. English chess master, Howard Saunton, promoted this set at the first international chess tournament in 1851. Its clearly distinguishable pieces soon became the competition standard known as the 'Staunton' set. 

    "The set has embellishments pioneered by Jaques of London which include the king side stamping (see images)

    4.4 Inch King height- Ebony/Boxwood. Triple core weighted. Lacquered finish to the boxwood pieces. Supplied with a solid wood mahogany box."

    Height of Sovereign
    4.4 Inch
    1.85 Inch
    Weight of Ebony Sovereign
    85grams
     
    Materials Used
    Boxwood/Ebony 
     
    How many Queens?
    4
     
    Recommended Chessboard Square Size
    2.36 Inch

    Here's the link to their set: 
    https://www.officialstaunton.com/collections/luxury-chess-pieces/products/1849-antique-limited-edition-4-4-chess-set-mahogany-box

    nullnullnullnullnullnullnull

     

     

  • #2

    Wow-nice! But $1000+ is too much for my budget.  Anyone know what are the shipping costs to the US?  Perhaps wait for the 50% discount he usually gives Chess.com members?

  • #3
    cghori wrote:

    Wow-nice! But $1000+ is too much for my budget.  Anyone know what are the shipping costs to the US?  Perhaps wait for the 50% discount he usually gives Chess.com members?

    Its good price for this no ?at Hos Staunton is $3000 ! and is no as nice or accuracy as this one i think it 

  • #4

    The pieces themselves look great, but why lacquered? Were any real Jaques 4.4" sets from the mid-1800s lacquered? I think shiny lacquer looks cheap, because it's normally used on pieces made of inferior wood and with low-effort turning/carving/finishing. Ebony and boxwood are both "cream of the crop" woods for turning and carving. Due to their high density and being very close-grained, they can hold fine details and take a polish almost like metal. It's odd to cover them up by hosing them down with a thick coat of shiny lacquer.

     

    Those awesome knights are nothing new by the way. AIW has had practically identical ones on their website for at least three years (and probably longer):

     

    null

     

    null

     

    AIW makes the best looking Jaques reproductions in my opinion, by far, and the set you ordered from Official Staunton is made by AIW as far as I know, so it's no surprise that it looks so good. But still... why lacquer? I don't like "antiqued" finishes like on those AIW pieces in the pictures I posted above either.

  • #5

    Maximrecoil.... that AIW set is no jaques, it so bad, design is total wrong...show a jaques looking as AIW one you show it ? King Queen Bishop all too high , pedestal is wrong on knight pieces , antique finish polish is mottling and awful bad...useless indeed.. ..true collectors here understand Official set this set is best no question ..ya but shine coat i also not too sure of it , but shape pieces are very very good to jaques 1849 

  • #6
    TemplarsKnights wrote:

    Maximrecoil.... that AIW set is no jaques, it so bad, design is total wrong...show a jaques looking as AIW one you show it ? King Queen Bishop all too high , pedestal is wrong on knight pieces , antique finish polish is mottling and awful bad...useless indeed.. ..true collectors here understand Official set this set is best no question ..ya but shine coat i also not too sure of it , but shape pieces are very very good to jaques 1849 

     

    I said that the knights from the AIW website picture are practically identical to the knights in the Official Staunton set that the OP posted:

     

    null

     

    As for the overall set, I like the way it looks (aside from the antiqued finish, which I don't like at all, ever, on any set) as well as the best-looking JoL sets I've seen, and better than the not-so-good-looking JoL sets I've seen. The same goes for the set posted by the OP. Aside from the finish, the differences between the two sets are extremely minor. The most noticeable difference is the shape of the king's "head" or "crown". The OP's set has more of a funnel shape to it.

  • #7

    noting similar at all..no sir... so difference..maybe you not a collector so you canot see hugeness of differnt in two image you use above

     

    here is camaratta 1849 their webstore said it copies from original which is next on the right side....you see original jaquaes and you see Official is same! 

    null

  • #8
    MaximRecoil wrote:

    The pieces themselves look great, but why lacquered? Were any real Jaques 4.4" sets from the mid-1800s lacquered? I think shiny lacquer looks cheap, because it's normally used on pieces made of inferior wood and with low-effort turning/carving/finishing. Ebony and boxwood are both "cream of the crop" woods for turning and carving. Due to their high density and being very close-grained, they can hold fine details and take a polish almost like metal. It's odd to cover them up by hosing them down with a thick coat of shiny lacquer.

     

     

    Couldn't agree more Maxim - they look like they've had a spray-on tan and then smothered with baby-oil.

    I believe the finish used by Jaques in the 19th to early 20th century was French Polish. Can anyone confirm?

  • #9

    no.. its  must perhaps the lights problematic taking image 

    this one form website null

  • #10

    I admire the effort Carl puts in to these reproductions, but for the same price I purchased a genuine 1855 Jaques chess set in its original mahogany box. Sure, it was a tournament size and not a club size set, but I'd go for the real deal over a reproduction any day of the week.

    Genuine sets also maintain 100% (or more over time) of the money you put in to purchasing them..

  • #11
    Minarima wrote:

    I admire the effort Carl puts in to these reproductions, but for the same price I purchased a genuine 1855 Jaques chess set in its original mahogany box. Sure, it was a tournament size and not a club size set, but I'd go for the real deal over a reproduction any day of the week.

    Genuine sets also maintain 100% (or more over time) of the money you put in to purchasing them..

    yes userstand Minarima wht you say is good, but 4.4 jaques 1849 sold ebay more eur 11000 !! and the 1849 design is rare to find, so what problem invest in a top well made design 1849 repro ? for less than eur. 850 . Ofiical UK  is the next Jaques for sure. Jaques began history sometime like Official Stanton is right, ok 

  • #12

    I completely understand where you're coming from, and somewhat agree with your sentiments, however in my eyes this breaks the first cardinal rule of collecting, which states that you should 'always purchase the best example of a particular price range than the worst of a higher range at the same price'. For the same price of this 4.4 inch 1849 reproduction one could purchase a genuine 3.5 inch 1855 set.

    Each to their own I guess.

  • #13
    TemplarsKnights wrote:

    noting similar at all..no sir

     

     

    False. The two knights I posted side-by-side pictures of are extremely similar. In fact, they are the same basic design. With regard to the head and neck, the differences between the two knights I posted are no greater than the differences between the two knights you posted. I could point out minor differences all day long between the two knights you posted, just as I could with the two knights I posted. But that's missing the overall picture.

     

    >so difference..maybe you not a collector so you canot see hugeness of differnt in two image you use above

     

    There aren't any "huge" differences (the base has a different profile to it, but the carved parts are extremely similar), and I have as much or more of an eye for details than anyone. Making reproductions of various things is my specialty. If I were to make a reproduction of a Jaques knight, (specifically, a 3D model of it that could be fed into a 5-axis CNC mill) there wouldn't be any dimensional differences noticeable to the naked eye.

     

    >here is camaratta 1849 their webstore said it copies from original which is next on the right side....you see original jaquaes and you see Official is same!

     

    No, it is extremely similar, not the same. There are tons of minor differences, as I said.

  • #14

    Too shinny. I would be distracted. Nice se though. Maybe remove the lacquer and add matte finish. 

  • #15
    MaximRecoil wrote:
    TemplarsKnights wrote:

    noting similar at all..no sir

     

     

    False. The two knights I posted side-by-side pictures of are extremely similar. In fact, they are the same basic design. With regard to the head and neck, the differences between the two knights I posted are no greater than the differences between the two knights you posted. I could point out minor differences all day long between the two knights you posted, just as I could with the two knights I posted. But that's missing the overall picture.

     

    >so difference..maybe you not a collector so you canot see hugeness of differnt in two image you use above

     

    There aren't any "huge" differences (the base has a different profile to it, but the carved parts are extremely similar), and I have as much or more of an eye for details than anyone. Making reproductions of various things is my specialty. If I were to make a reproduction of a Jaques knight, (specifically, a 3D model of it that could be fed into a 5-axis CNC mill) there wouldn't be any dimensional differences noticeable to the naked eye.

     

    >here is camaratta 1849 their webstore said it copies from original which is next on the right side....you see original jaquaes and you see Official is same!

     

    No, it is extremely similar, not the same. There are tons of minor differences, as I said.

    verbal  bullshit nonsence .... any collectors are here? explains to this idiot verbal nonsence maximrecoil sets are total differnce ..he has no clue at all ..idiot....he visits lots other forum to mkae nonense bullsht arguing..it tracked him dowm, now ignore this foolnull

     

  • #16

    After reading this thread and looking at the photos I agree with MaximRecoil.

    I also do not care for this antiquing process or lacquered pieces.

    It is good to note that even the Jacques sets from the period had differences between pieces and even pieces in the same set.

    templarKnights there is no good reason to attack and insult anyone on this forum.  This is true even if you disagree with that person.

  • #17

    I think a lot of the differences in opinion on this thread can be divided into those who have actually held genuine early Jaques chess pieces in their hands and those who haven’t.

     

    Those that have will know that they have a subtle lacquered feel to them, now wether lacquer was actually used to create this effect I will leave to the experts.

  • #18

    I believe that Jaques sets (at least the early ones, if not all) were French Polished (i.e. shellac). See

    http://www.antiquechessshop.com/products/ref1227-early-jaques-staunton-chess-set/

    Where the description says "the set retains an excellent original french polish finish"

  • #19
    Minarima wrote:

    I think a lot of the differences in opinion on this thread can be divided into those who have actually held genuine early Jaques chess pieces in their hands and those who haven’t.

     

    I sort of agree - but then I've never seen one of these top end repro sets in the flesh, so I can't really make a comparison

  • #20

    Templars, how about deleting that post? It was a bit unpleasant

Online Now