Reproduction and Real Jaques of London Chess Set

Does anybody know a reproduction set that the knights look similar to the one above?

RC, I know the photo with the turquoise background is a little blurry, but don't you think it's the same knight as in the photo below it?

Ok, the photo above is much better. If you look carefully at both photos you can see two stains. One on the knights eye and another on it's ear.

    First, let me say I'm sorry once more. I'm obviously not communicating the way I should or want to. I completely agree with you and Alan Dewey and many others that there is no such thing as a definitive Jaques 1849 Large Club Set Knight. I do have my favorites though (the one's that I think are better looking) and all I'm trying to say is that I don't think they have been reproduced yet.

   Second all I was trying to do in my posts today was to say that I don't think any 1849 Jaques Large Club Set knights had holes carved in their eyes for pupils, like later sets. 

   Third, I never meant to make Carl mad. I didn't even know he was online when I posted my remark about "Stop Buying" which I now wish I never posted. I actual love the new "Official Staunton" 1849 set and believe it is the best set by far, for the money. If anything I think Carl has brought great sets at reasonable prices. All I was trying to do was attract people to the forum before I posted Jon Crumiller's measurements. 

   Fourth, I never meant to offend you, RC. I admired your comparison post of the "Official Staunton" 1849, 1851 and 1870 sets a very great deal. In fact that post inspired me to research what the true specifications of a Jaques 1849 Large Club Set were.

Thanks for the advice about writing online. I obviously need to learn to tone it down. I was actually shocked by some people's reactions but in hindsight it was my fault not theirs. 

Uthor.... I admire your passion and being honest its only fair to tell you I also came to this forum gunz a blazin an a yellin ......and I was very quickly but politely put in my place!¬  welcome to the collectors club a place to learn and grow .." we're always watching out for you"   

Thanks, Carl. I'm sure glad you're back, as everyone else will be too!

Look, you have beaten this subject to death a thousand times over. In spite of what you say in post "#2263 above, you don't want an 1849 knight that looks "similar." You want an exact reproduction of the knight shown in #2262, which, I might point out, is Sir Alan's #8 knight. What would happen if an older one shows up, and it is different? Would your standards change?"

I am a long term friend of Professor Sir Alan Fersht and he is and has been in my experience totally honest in his approach to identifying his sets and their provenance and or dates. However the #8 on his set was/is a bit difficult to read and may or may not be the earliest set known after all. The honour of owning the earliest known Jaques set goes for now to Jon Crumiller (Also a valued friend) depending on ones reading of the smudged and damaged #8.

However Prof Fersht has said (quite rightly in my opinion) that the very early knight carvings varied (even within sets he says). So there can never be as the writer above said a definitive 1849 set.

In my opinion there are a lot of well made and lovely repro sets out there most of which with a few glaring exceptions at very sensible prices well within the reach of most players. So yer pays yer money and takes yer choice.

I would like to take partial credit for forcing down the price of good sets but I suspect it is mainly market forces at work.

However, that said, if I have any influence on the actions of other manufacturers I would like to suggest that they implement a policy of lifetime replacement guarantee of any split or damaged pieces. My wife and I have just adopted this policy in our spinning and tapestry bobbin  making business and it has been received with some acclaim. We expect to get a lot more business as users switch from cheaply made imports to our products because of this. Which incidentally are a good deal more expensive than the poorly made imports. I anticipate that the extra business will more than cover the time spent replacing broken and damaged bobbins.

Would someone explain a few things to me about these chess sets?

1. Before Camaratta's codex, what were these different set variations called?

2. Jaques was the preeminent set maker of this style for many, many years.   Were there any companies that seriously competed with Jaques and when did they compete?

3. We see a large number of variations in piece design, specifically Knights and Bishops.  Yes, there are other variations on the other pieces but not so much, in my opinion.  When these designs changed, did Jaques change the name of the set they were selling or did they keep the same name?

1) The so called Cameratta codex is a flawed and almost useless misconception of listing the changes in the production of Jaques chess sets which simply adds another layer to the description of a set without adding any thing useful. Sets are still now as they have always been described by the main set parameters, king height, base diameter and any particular unusual feature such as the 'drop jaw knights heads found on somr Jaques sets. It is thought by some serious researchers that Jaques may have 'put out' some of the work to various carvers and turners when demand was high. Also these same carvers and turners came and went as suppliers over time so some (for example) drop jaw knights heads may well be from a later period as Jaques sent out work.

2) Yes Ayres and The British Chess Company to name but two. There were many others later including B.H. Wood who was sued (at first successfully and then the next year unsuccessfully for using the Staunton name. Jaques still pursue anyone using the Jaques name however.

3) For the definitive work on the origin of the Staunton design of chess pieces see my article on the design of the Staunton chess pieces.

To summarize,  Chess set icons were standard in book diagrams from about 1818. Nat Cook(e) who was editor of the London Evening News from about 1845 published Howard Staunton's chess column in his paper (and later Staunton's book) simply took these print icons (except the pawn which had already been used in an early book) and applied them to bases and columns to create a pleasing height difference (As pointed out by Anton Edel in Germany) This took care of the problem of the clubs of the day using their own set design giving the home team a good advantage. (Howard Staunton refused to play with Regence pieces in Paris in 1841 and insisted on using his own large St George set with which he was most familiar having been a founding member of that club.

 This is very good information, thank you.

There obviously are a good number of piece design variations produced under this "Staunton" label.

When manufacturers are making and then selling reproductions, we must simply look at the design of the specific set we are considering.  If we like some of those aspects then we will be happy.  If we do not like some of the details we will refrain from getting or liking that set.

The collector will moreso look for sets made, the company that manufactured it, and the era or time it was made. 

Of course, there are variations in piece designs even in the same set.  So getting a reproduction of a particular set will still come down to what the consumer prefers.

Today's chess set manufacturing is much more automated and produces a very high consistency of design and quality between pieces.

In my opinion, I also find the sets currently manufactured to be of a higher quality and consistency for play, which is why I buy chess sets.

I personally would much rather own a newly manufactured reproduction than an original set.  Sure, you can and will find some of those original sets to be exceptionally great in play.  But then we have to deal with the high cost of those sets.

"Today's chess set manufacturing is much more automated and produces a very high consistency of design and quality between pieces."

This is incorrect. From what I have seen the Indian makers use form tools to get good consistency but still turn by hand.

I mean they use hand held tools on simple wood lathes for the most part