Reproduction and Real Jaques of London Chess Set

RC take your photo of Fersht's set and make a hard copy of it.

Measure the Queen and do some math to figure out what percentage is needed to multiply the current height of the Queen to increase her to 3.25".

Then increase your hard copy buy that number using the copy machine.

Then measure all of Fersht's pieces.

Bingo!

I also have a photo of another Jaques 1849 set that matches those dimensions.

By the way, Jon told me when he measured he rounded to the closest 1/8" so he could be off by let's say 1/16" on some pieces.

I've heard that the 1849 HOS exact replica set matches the numbers I gave you except for two pieces.

The two pieces that don't match are the Queen and the Bishop and they are 1/16 of a inch taller.

I'd say that the dimensions I gave you for the pieces that were made with tools (not the knights) are within 1/16" for the early 1849 sets.

They may have changed them sometime later in 1849 but I would have to find some evidence of that.

The #8 set are the oldest and in my opinion the best looking.

They are the definitive 1849 Knights!

By the way the knight in the photo with the turquoise background I believe you wrote about before. I'm not sure it was you but who ever it was thought that knight has a hole carved in the eye. It does not, that is just a dark spot. If you look through Jon's photos you can find the knight and see that it is definitely not a carved hole. I'll see if I can find the photos again and post them.

You're absolutely right RC! There are no definitive Knights. I'm was just giving my opinion.

https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipMUZ9pf2HaSeRAIJ3jctMhmQYhgyzZ18YAv79Kx_-_yyRNv9vJYFPjFLJi-h1v8rA/photo/AF1QipPO9BPxjN2VQiySMuDDxoyTBH81OFtJp1YnSc2K?key=RmZ0a2ctOC14T3hnMm5XRWhJaC1qTTl6bl9GOHJR

I certainly could be wrong, I thought I saw two stains on the knight . One on the eye and another on the ear and then I thought I saw those two stains again, making it the same knight, but I don't know you might be right.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry here. This is a staggering number of posts for the sake of clearing up which measurements are 'correct', stress intended, given that the differences can only be infinitesimal. I do not claim to know what other people do with their chess pieces, but I play with them given the chance, and otherwise they stay in a simple beech box. If I have to squint my eyes and stare at two ever so slightly different knights to even be able to see the differences, no one, and I mean no one, will see those differences in play.

I'll also throw in my 5 pence and say that I would be loathe to see Carl leave these forums. I really like some of the designs he has been coming out with, and given more money I would buy both the Leuchars overstamped and the other set as they both look like chess eyecandy to me. Irrespective of whether the bishop's collar is .0001 mm too thick or not.

I largely agree. We ran into this problem in reproducing the Tal set. We soon discovered there were differences among the original pieces. So in reproducing the set, we aimed for something that fell within the range of variation we could observe in the photos. This means that there are many correct solutions to the problem of reproducing historic chess pieces.

 

I watch for old Jaques sets on ebay - not really planning to buy, but might do so one day. It occurs to me that with these reproduction sets in existence that unscrupulous or just ignorant sellers might be passing reproduction sets off as original.

Does anyone know if this happens? There's a set on ebay UK I'm watching now which is from the 1930's and looks to be in remarkably good condition.

Beautiful new sets! Congratulations Carl. Raising the bar again and again!

You have made me regret some previous purchases. I know where to go if in the future I want to expand my humble collection.

sure it happens. With vintage Jaques sets, you have at least some markers that help establish authenticity such as the JoL King Stamp, the unique weights/baize, the paper label on the box, etc. But if you pay close attention you'll notice a lot of the vintage Jaques sets offered are composite sets (ie cobbled together from different sets) and/or have extensive restorations/replacements. And it's also not unheard of for sellers to misrepresent sets as Jaques. As always, caveat emptor.

I've also seen reproductions offered as vintage non-Jaques sets, albeit less frequently. I recall seeing a modern Saggu replica (w/ Saggu stamped on the King's base!) offered as an "authentic 19th century British Staunton". 

 

Thanks for that Frank. Guess I won't be forking out until I have a bit more knowledge and wisdom 

If you asked Alan Dewey he'd tell you to buy from a reputable dealer in antique Jaques sets. If I were in the market, I seriously would consider this one.  http://www.antiquechessshop.com/staunton/

As to Ebay or Etsy, like Frank says, it's caveat emptor. If you come across a set that the seller doesn't appreciate the value of, you can score big. I picked up a large club Probably Ayres set for not much more than a hundred bucks, and a gorgeous 4" Lardy Fisher probably played on for two bucks a piece. Two bucks. (When it became clear what happened with the Fischer set I offered to give it back.) But if you play the Ebay/Etsy game for more than a hundred bucks or so a set, you have to have some idea of what you're looking at notwithstanding the seller's labeling, and you  have to be willing and able to take a risk. If you're not confidant you know what you're looking at, then you don't know what you're looking at, and you should stick with reputable dealers. I would.

Thanks Chuck, appreciate the advice. These sets come up on eBay from time to time from £500 to £1000 or so, usually buy it now rather than auction. I think I'll just continue to watch and not buy for the forseeable future.

BTW thanks for pointing me at Alan Dewey's website, some really good stuff on there!

For many years during WW1 and a few after the sets were coming from Japan. They are advertised in the ACB of the time and look exquisite.  They were sold by Helms through his chess business.  None ever showed up so far. Why you have to ask. I have heard too many times your Staunton set can't be identified but it has to be from England.   I do believe some of these are from Japan. After all how many manufacturers in England were making Staunton sets in 1917 besides the ones we already know?  

Apparently there is no way of telling if the set was made in Japan or not.   Too bad Helms isn't alive to ask him how many 100's of these sets he sold.  Someday someone will find a set in pristine condition with the packing slip and the mystery will be solved. 

Alan Dewey told me he has never knowingly seen a set from the early 1900's from Japan but we all know there were no Jaques sets being imported for quite a while because of the war. 

Do not have my copies available to me right now ,maybe someone else can. THe sets usually were advertised on page 2 and 3 and of course the pictures back in the early 1900's are not very good in the ACB. I do believe the quality was high but that is just conjecture on my part.

Hey cgrau, I was taking a look around this antique chess shop. Really nice. If I was ever going to shell out good money for a nice set, I'd probably do so for an original. Ever since I was bit by the vintage/antique bug, I've lost all interest in new stuff. New sets can be nice, but the old stuff's got soul.

I hear you Up. There are some excellent reproductions out there, and you can acquire three of them for the cost of one original. Collecting original Jaques sets is a very expensive hobby.

Well maybe, but the alternative is to just waste your money on things like food and heating and paying taxes and stuff.