Question for chess set collectors/experts about value and set names

Hi guys, I was looking at different historic sets and reproductions of historic unique sets. I am not a collector of chess sets but I like to look at and collect photos of unique sets. I thought about how different sets, whether from old manufacturers like Hos, JoL, or from places like ChessBazaar all have some sort of catchy "title". Like when a set is attributed to a country, to a person, to a match, and whatever other random categories. Is there any value in nicknaming these sets if there is no official registry or set patenting? ChessBazaar could make an excellent set and call it "The Honour of Staunton" or "Michail Tal Latvian chess set" etc etc. On what principle would anybody collect these sets if there is no official number of catalog of sets? Seems they're arbitrarily nicknamed. How would you determine value of any set you buy, regardless of how much you may have actually paid for it?

Personally, I'd ask myself these simple questions:

• Is the wood, stone, or metal, heavy and dense?
• Are the pieces durable - does it look as if I could step on it without it breaking?
• Is the board seamless and flawless - are there any ridges or openings that could collect dirt thus leading to decay?
• Is the board firm - karate chop safe?
• Are the corners on both pieces and board well designed and unlikely to sustain damage from day to day bumps?

If it meets these criteria, then it's not bad at all... for a start.

Set names are marketing tools - retailers hope the cache of a particular name will persuade customers to make a purchase decision. Occasionally, retailers will even relaunch the same set under a different name.

Set value for new sets has various components - there's labour/material costs, there's a retailer's quality assurance and customer support commitment, and then there's overall market conditions (supply/demand).

For vintage sets, it comes down to whether they are collectible,and how much other collectors are willing to pay. Too many variables to predict. I've seen late 19th century 3.5" Jaques sets go for as little as $500 US, and for as much as triple that, all depending on condition, peripherals, timing, and luck.

For the most part reproductions are not valuable/collectible especially modern mass produced Indian sets from Chessbazaar or HOS. If you're looking at actual vintage and antique sets it can still be a bit of a marketing ploy. The so called Washington set is not better than other sets of that period but collectors who want an example of every major type will want one... but in that case it's sort of weird because if more collectors want it, it actually is more valuable. When it is a real, accepted name, then some of the "branding" actually works. When it's not it irks me. For example Barleycorn is a similar English type. A while back a collector who blogs tried to classify all of the different available types of Barleycorn sets, and lately, misreading his blog, some eBay sellers keep calling plain Barleycorn sets "Barley twist" apparently to try to set them off from other sets, make them seem like something unique. "No, this one is a Barley *twist*, you don't have one of those" Extreme examples of this are things like fake sets in the Mackett-Beeson chess collecting text, etc.

There are two sources of prices for things that people collect: what the collector will pay, what other people will pay.  There isn't necessarily any rational basis for either of those prices. The focus here is mostly on relatively low-priced retail Staunton pattern or Eastern European sets with a smattering of antique Jaques and similar sets, the other types get very little attention at all (barleycorn sets for example, I don't recall the last time anyone mentioned one before today), if you look around the auction houses you'll find a different world of chess piece collecting with quite different prices and quite different sets.  For example there is a set that I would happily buy a reproduction of, but I just could not come at the USD7k that the last repro I saw was priced at.  If I were richer, I might pay that. Thats not a statement about value, its a statement about preparedness to pay.  

Thanks for the thorough responses. I think if I were collecting chess sets I would try to purchase old sets that have been played a lot and show wear. It seems that it indicates a lot of people used them so it is like an abstract historical value. Probably pre-ww2 sets are valuable as well, right?