Reproduction and Real Jaques of London Chess Set

A good 5-axis CNC mill could reach every spot on a knight without issue, though polishing and finishing would still need to be done by hand. They can also function as a lathe and seamlessly transition to milling operations, so you could do both the base and the head/neck as one piece, in one shot, and still get the smoothness of a turned base. This video shows a 5-axis mill transition from milling to lathe turning while making a knight (one with a crude design) at about the 29-second mark  - https://youtu.be/frFfJPEdroU

A 3-axis machine, which is less capable than a 5-axis machine, of course, would be unable to reach certain areas, such as between the ears, the front teeth, etc., unless you designed a convoluted scheme of repositioning the piece being carved several times, and programming it after each new position. At the very least you'd need to reposition it once, i.e., flip it over, which would leave a few areas uncarved that you'd have to deal with manually. With a 5-axis machine, no repositioning is needed for it to be able to reach every area.

No doubt you can reproduce mechanically some object in 3D with these machines, but you miss the point entirely that the allure and need I say attraction with hand carved chessmen isn't the perfection of uniformity, but the quite the opposite! 

I haven't missed any point, because you just brought up an entirely different point. The point is that it's entirely possible to make knights on CNC machines, which was in response to a couple of people saying it wasn't possible. As for the new point that you just brought up, it is your opinion, not a fact, and it's an opinion that I don't share. I prefer perfection, without regard to how it's accomplished.

People who make chess sets already strive for perfect uniformity, and they have for hundreds of years. They use tools such as calipers and other measuring tools, lathe duplicator jigs, and custom cutters made in the profile shapes of the pieces they are turning to accomplish that. So you're saying that you prefer it when they fail at their goal? If you really like the opposite of uniformity, you shouldn't be buying any chess pieces made in a factory, you should find some that are 100% whittled by hand with a jack knife. Then they won't even have the uniform roundness and smoothness which is inherent to turning pieces on a lathe.

Guess what?   I don't care about your opinion.

I agree wholeheartedly. If you must have exactly uniformed pieces, I'd say your best bet is plastic. Of course we like uniformity. What army is not uniformed? But an army is also made up of individuals. And I appreciate the individuality of my pieces.

Your tacit concession on the matter is noted.

There's no such thing as exactly uniform pieces; it isn't even possible short of Star Trek replicator style technology. However, most people want their pieces to at least appear uniform at a glance, and you get that from nearly all factory-made plastic and wooden sets.

>Of course we like uniformity. What army is not uniformed? But an army is also made up of individuals. And I appreciate the individuality of my pieces.

How do you appreciate it? By looking at them very closely and noting the ever so slight differences? By measuring them with calipers and noting differences of hundredths or thousandths of an inch? By weighing them on a jewelry scale and noting tenths or hundredths of a gram differences? If you have chess pieces with blatant/obvious dimensional differences among the like pieces, then you either have a mix-n-match set, a homemade set, or the manufacturer screwed up royally and hopefully you got them at a discount.

Or maybe you have an antique Jaques set.

In pictures I've seen of antique JoL sets, the pieces look uniform enough to me. Do you have a picture of one with blatant/obvious dimensional differences among the like pieces?

Maxim, yes there are differences that you can see with the naked eye by putting them side by side, esp with the knights. Whether you'd call these "blatant and obvious" is debatable though I suppose.

Of course this is not really relevant, you could always put variations into your 3D models if you could be bothered. You could even do some sort of statistical analysis on the variations within the set you're copying and then write a computer problem to put appropriate random variation into your models.

All seems a bit pointless though, it would still just be a reproduction.

Yes, there are a lot of pictures of them in this very thread.

>How many have you touched, or owned?

None. I'll repeat myself:

"Do you have a picture of one with blatant/obvious dimensional differences among the like pieces?"

Blatant/obvious differences are noticeable in pictures.

Prof. Sir alan Fersht says in his book, Jaques and British Chess Company sets P 15, commenting on differences in knight carving in some antique sets.

"Either individual workers were going for speed rather than quality or, as often speculated, knights from different carvers were pooled and taken at random by those assembling the sets."

And then on page 31, commenting on the bishops in set #1708,

"The bishops are not uniform, having features of the early and late 1850s - yet another example of Jaques' making up sets from bins of pieces from different carvers and turners. All the boxwood pieces have the identical toffee-coloured patination, showing they belong together.

Yeah, I mentioned that earlier. If you have to look closely, side-by-side, to see the differences, I'd call those slight/minor differences, not blatant/obvious. And typically, it's only the knights in which you can notice any dimensional differences with the naked eye at all, due to the nature of hand-carving. The rest of the pieces from a set made in a factory are turned on a lathe, and they are, for all intents and purposes, uniform. There are a couple of people saying they don't like uniformity, so shouldn't they prefer a set that looks something like this?

> Of course this is not really relevant, you could always put variations into your 3D models if you could be bothered. You could even do some sort of statistical analysis on the variations within the set you're copying and then write a computer problem to put appropriate random variation into your models.

Or, you could just rely on the fact that all CNC machines have a limit to how tight of a tolerance they can achieve, so it isn't possible to produce two identical items anyway. If you want to "appreciate the individuality" of the pieces, just get out your calipers and enjoy the slightly different numbers you get when you take measurements.

It's also possible that pieces were replaced later on down the road by one of the owners of the sets. Having "identical" patina doesn't conclusively prove anything. 150-year-old "patina" on boxwood doesn't necessarily look any different than 140-year-old "patina" on boxwood.

In any case, a factory putting pieces which are blatantly different in the same set is very much the exception, and would warrant an exchange or refund if the customer demanded it. And if you did want blatantly different knights or bishops or whatever, in the same set, you'd just need extra 3D models for them.

MaximRecoil 

utterly boring and off topics! take the off topics anully retentive pedantics elsewhere ..pleaee !! 

ya he is supremo restorer, but im advised Camaratta is supremo knowledge of Jacques 

No, it isn't. My posts pertain to methods of manufacturing Jaques reproductions (see the thread title), and all of my posts have been relevant replies to other people's posts. I've introduced no topics of my own to this thread.

> take the off topics anully retentive pedantics elsewhere ..pleaee !!

Negated by your false premise.

No concessions.  Just acknowledgement of differing opinions.  You seek the unattainable while I'm satisfied with something more realistic.  Beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder.