Reproduction and Real Jaques of London Chess Set

I practice gold-free kintsugi with my vintage Soviet sets. It would be politically incorrect to gild one.

The knights in the Jaques sets with ears pulled back, open mouths like someone stuck a needle in their butt, and popped wide-open eyes like they're waking up after New year s eve, I've always found between bearable and unsavory. They either look like they're shouting out a battle cry or being tortured. 

I prefer the later look, not only JL but of others, a more serene, serious, "I just spent a lovely romantic moment with a mare knight" kind of look. Ok now bomb on my post but thank goodness I don't have to play all my life with knights that look like are shouting obscenities at me.

It's a battlefield. It's a war horse. I like it.

Other pieces aren't as descriptive, you might say, but I'd say the knights are arguably one of the things that makes chess unique, the invention that makes chess stand out as a game. I think it somehow makes sense that they are represented in this slightly more lifelike way. Then again, this just might be me rationalizing the tradition that I'm used to.

As far as anyone knows, regarding Jaques knights at least, the registration document which was lodged at the time the set was designed or shortly thereafter shows the definitive and correct knight. Supposedly following the horse which pulled Selene's carriage across the heavens, it is exhausted and gasping for breath. a comparison of these heads can be found in Prof Sir AlanFersht's book or in his website online.

Jaques went on to either employ several different carvers over the years or out-sourced the knight carving. There were many skilled carvers working in London at the time, each with his own idea of how a knight's head should look.

It is not possible to classify all the slightly different styles of knights heads as we have no idea how many there are and in some cases like the 'drop-jaw, are so different to the almost standard square faced knight that one wonders if they were made by an outside sub-contractor at times of high demand and may have been re-introduced at different times over several years.

It's a sophisticated game of skill and concentration. I want my knights to look focused, like they're taking an exam not like they're being crucified and and jabbed at with spears. For example, the bow-down head, when arranged in initial position and faced toward king and queen, it symbolizes they respect their superiors. I like that. And when an opponent makes a knight move and leaves it with its head facing me, and I can see its black nostrils, eyes that look like hard-cooked eggs, and mouth open with teeth in sight and possibly a foul, green mist breath coming out, what is this, celebrity death match?

That violent knight look gets old. To all you folks still living (chess piece wise) in that mid-nineteenth century,  Good morning, you just woke up 168 years later, STOP thinking of chess as war but as an intellectual contest of the beautiful human mind.

Mr. chessspy1,

Hi. I'm happy the knight design has changed over the years and decades, especially after the world wars. Even the religious symbolism was banned in the sets of many non-christian, communist nations. Because chess is a universal game, so why should the pieces have religious symbols? Perhaps they shouldn't. After the wars, there was an atmosphere of peace, of reconstruction, of "can't we all just get along" vibe in the air. So I'm glad they adopted this idea of new chess set. And it all seems to hold well to this day because FIDE allows it. The national championships of the old Yugoslav nations are conducted with that type of chessmen. And the knights in those sets are the appropriate, in my sincere opinion, new world design, with no longer the exaggerated features of old "war-type knight" jaques mentality.

So thanks for stopping by to comment. I have seen your videos on YT channel and I respect you very much.

 Hi JC,

Thank you for your thoughts, however Robert is correct in saying that a discussion of different knight styles is better discussed elsewhere.

We do wander ourselves upon occasion ourselves. 

Was chess originally a war game? The current thinking is yes. Chaturanga used the 4 parts of an Indian army AFAIK.

Chess was 'Christianised' in the 15th c when the 'mad' queen, double pawn move, en passant and other alterations were introduced as standard and the royals, bishops etc were named. 

Yes, of course master, whatever you say. Well I have nothing more to say about the imperfect jaques knight or the flawed, weak design Nathaniel Cooke put out 168 years ago. Times change, things stay buried for a reason, and only angry children try to dig up them broken old toys. 

Goodbye.

Oh well. I kind of liked that the discussion took a somewhat different turn. Let me continue.

Chess is indeed an intellectual contest, but it can also be ruthless. I'm actually more the calm, analytical type myself - I'm much stronger in classical time controls and correspondence relative to other players, and I tend to blunder disastrously under pressure. But I still think that at the core of what chess is, in the world and in the minds of the chess players, lies this fierce contest and all the emotional turmoil that players do experience at the board. For me, one of the purest chess moments is one that you all know: The devilish joy you feel when you see the look on your opponents face as he realizes what you already know - that he missed something and his position is now lost.

I think the fierce knights of old are still relevant today, and I much prefer them to other more serene-looking or flamboyant knight designs. Some more minimalist designs I can also like.

I hope this is not too far off topic, after all the main topic of my post is the Jaques knight.

The original Jaques design is perfect and has therefore never been bettered.

You might disagree, but you'd be wrong.

Ah, JC, 

You say goodbye but do you really mean Au Revoir?

Many are called but few are chosen

JC thinks, that there was an air of reconciliation after the two wars, as a justification to suggest that chess symbols should be somehow universal.

He is wrong of course, after both world wars there was extreme resentment at the loss of life. Many thought, senseless loss of lives, hence the resurgence of socialism 

However, one of the reasons we have a somewhat royal style to these Jaques Staunton pieces is that they were styled after the already standard chess book iconography. The pawn used in books was not thought suitable as it harked back to a much earlier Maltese chess design, so a common furniture finial shape of ball atop collar on a tapered stand was used. It has been suggested that some influence of the symbols used by the free masons can be detected (ie, square and compass)  I cannot see it myself and think this can be discounted.  

So, I guess that the question we should ask ourselves, is :-

Will these fake Jaques copies ever command the prices of the real thing? 

Do they have any value except as good playing sets? That is to say, are they collectable and will they be traded in later years as genuine Jaques sets are now? 

Will for example an early HOS fake ever have any resale, second hand, price approaching it's initial, (inflated) cost?

Will these 'drop-shop' fakes ever be worth anything on the second hand market?

Does a good modern box help such a set sell?

Would it be worth more if paired with a suitable modern board?

My concern is whether people will start trying to pass them off as the real thing on ebay etc

Chessspy1,

I have a red sandalwood Staunton style set that I think will hold its value, based solely on the rarity of the wood.

If the CITES ban on rosewoods is effective, once the old stock is used up and most new sets are "stained," the facsimile sets may hold their value, or even appreciate in value based solely on the quality of the wood.

Hi Matt,

I doubt if they can be passed off as genuine. The turning is generally not as sharp and ofcourse no one has attempted the screw in weights yet so that is a real telltale albeit difficult to get at. Incidentally, the Jaques weights were screwed in using a 4 pronged tool which left indents in the lead.

I don't know about rare woods, maybe they will increase in value. Pink ivory wood is considered one of the rarest woods in the world as is a wonderful dense turning wood similar to boxwood. Some of the very rare furniture woods are not really suitable for small turnings, consider the damaged finials on many pieces of antique furniture. How would these woods fare in the rough and tumble of congres or casual play?

Hi Alan, I've been lucky enough to buy a couple a older Jaques sets (both from around 1862-70) recently and I was amazed by the quality of them. However I've never seen a repro set in the flesh, I've only seen photos, so I can't make a comparison. Thanks for giving your opinion on this. 

Hi Matt,

Yes they are rather special aren't they.

I spent 25 years in Portobello market as a restorer and did a lot of restoration of old chess sets for Garrick Coleman and various other dealers including Frank C. Getting replacement pieces to look just right was pretty difficult and time consuming but there were compensations when a museum quality set came in for fixing. I also restored for the 'big 3' auction houses in London and went to all the specialist chess sales. It was a good time for me.

I would welcome the opinions of the experts on here with regards to a set I've seen. It's a 4.5 inch King set, and below I've shown the label and one of the Knights. I have Alan Fersht's book and it shows this label, but says underneath "1860-62 slide lid box, after son joined in mid 1859". This box is a hinge-lid box, not a slide box though (as you'd expect for a big set like this). As for the Knight, I don't think it looks like any of the pictures in the book.