Opinions on the various 3,5 inch king Cooke repros(?)


@OfficialStaunton Great information! I understand it must be difficult to compete with the manufacturers going direct in India. However, I think you have the wrong thread. The OP is asking for opinions from owners of 3 versions of the 3.5" Cooke sets out on the market. We are discussing which is better and why. I think you're looking for the thread about the horse in the window or the one about ethics.


I though price was a factor on this discussion since it has been documented ? 


@OfficialStaunton I stand corrected. I forgot the OP included that part.


The Price difference is simple to explain, we westerners are crippled in taxes, import shipping and Vat- its a heck of a lot to consider and factor in to the RRP.  Similarly, we have to pay taxes on the sales of those goods too. Also, when we order a consignment, lets say a £20k order for example, the freight could quite possibly cost £3k - the vatable and taxable amount is valued on the total cost (£23k)

Indian Sellers do not have to factor in these costs at all. You guys have an amazing choice now, and for collectors like you, then it makes complete sense to buy direct. We predominantly sell to the European market and we offer a fine range that are more suited to the non collector, the gift sector if you will. 

Mandeep (SC) for all his failure in loyalties, is probably among the top 3 carvers of chess sets in the World, the guy is quite phenomenal. His father is in my opinion the best! 


enjoy your chess sets gentlemen, they're all lovely. 

Understand what you're saying but all of the above costs also apply to a customer on an individual set basis. I have only bought once direct from India and the delivery was only released to me when I had paid an invoice to Fedex for VAT, Import duty and processing fees based on both the cost of the item and related delivery cost (the actual freight cost was included in the cost of the item). Other than the double freight cost (one delivery to the retailer and then one to the customer) I can't see how taxes/duties could account for the differences in cost. Obviously the business costs of the retailer (which would include corporation/income tax) would make a difference.

Of course there is the question of whether import duties/vat are actually being paid on direct sales. If not, then that would be unfair competition since retailers can't avoid it. I didn't get away without paying this but maybe others have?  

MCH818 wrote:

I know I said I prefer the SC Morphy and OS Cooke over the CA version but I have to say I am staring to like the CA version too. I was just wondering if anyone actually owns this set and can post some better photos.


I really like this CA version. I actually bought it before any of the others came out. The OS Morphy is also a great set. Not sure these photos are any better, but a slightly different perspective on antique 2" board.


Thank you for the explanation @OFFICIALSTAUNTON. I definitely appreciate it. Price is a factor for me, and I imagine for others, which is why I added it in the original post. Having said that, one probably pays import/VAT on top of Staunton Castle's offerings. I don't know where he's based but probably India I take it? That would add a significant bit of change. But for me, it's the same if I ordered the Camaratta version. Same difference.

@Audioq: That's really a lovely set.


@Audioq Awesome! Thanks! Would it be possible to get a closer look at the knights? Also is this the same as the HoS Cooke set you have? I would assume it is but the CA site states this set is 3 3/8" which is shorter than the HoS iterations.


Also, @Audioq: Any info on the board you have? Did you purchase it from Frank also?


The board was purchased from Garrick Coleman at antiquechess.co.uk, sadly now passed away. The set was bought at HOS about 8 (?) years ago. One of the few reproduction of early Jaques sets where the body of the knight, correctly doesn't protrude over the base and the indentations on the body are smooth, just like the originals.


When I refer to knights bodies not sticking out over the top of the base, this is what I mean. After all the early knights were known as "slim-jim" knights. Very few pictures were taken face on, so it is difficult to tell on many early sets. 


The Staunton Castle knights are a bit fatter, not that it bothers me. wink.png

sound67 wrote:

The Staunton Castle knights are a bit fatter, not that it bothers me.

They look properly fed to me, ready to fight. Looks great.


@Audioq Thanks! The body contour is nice and doesn't protrude like you said. The OS one protrudes and has a sharp frontal curve compared to the original Cookes. The CA states it is a 3 3/8" king. I guess that's a typo.