Reproduction and Real Jaques of London Chess Set

Sort:
MaximRecoil
alleenkatze wrote:
MaximRecoil wrote:
alleenkatze wrote:

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

 

Your tacit concession on the matter is noted.

 

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.

 

There's nothing unattainable about wooden chess pieces that appear to be uniform. That's even attainable without CNC machinery. I've already said that perfect uniformity is currently impossible, i.e., it's in the realm of science-fiction.

TemplarsKnights
MaximRecoil wrote:
TemplarsKnights wrote:

MaximRecoil 

and off topics!

 

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.

noting false simply boring jargone from you and so pedantically enforce Go spend time and improv your chess play and leave this off topic nonsense 

MaximRecoil
TemplarsKnights wrote:

noting false simply boring jargone from you and so pedantically enforce Go spend time and improv your chess play and leave this off topic nonsense 

 

I don't speak your unique, made-up version of English, but as for "off-topic": that mere assertion of yours has already been refuted, and you repeating it changes nothing. As for "boring": that's your problem. I'm not here to entertain you or anyone else.

TemplarsKnights

MaximRecoil wrote:

TemplarsKnights wrote:

noting false simply boring jargone from you and so pedantically enforce Go spend time and improv your chess play and leave this off topic nonsense 

 

I don't speak your unique, made-up version of English, but as for "off-topic": that mere assertion of yours has already been refuted, and you repeating it changes nothing. As for "boring": that's your problem. I'm not here to entertain you or anyone else.

I speak 3 language ok no so good but better than you bullshit language jejeje 🤣🤣🤣

Schachmonkey
GenericUser52 wrote:

P.S. if anyone would like more pictures or dimensions/comparisons to the repros dimensions, just let me know!

Very nice close ups and boxhappy.png

IpswichMatt
GenericUser52 wrote:

P.S. if anyone would like more pictures or dimensions/comparisons to the repros dimensions, just let me know!

Very nice! Do you know what year it was made? Where did you get it from? Please post a picture of the label

TemplarsKnights

nice! 

Minarima

 

We have almost identical Jaques sets from the same 1855-59 period, even down to the same handwritten "Loaded" inscription on the box label, which even seems to have been written by the same person:

 null

null

IpswichMatt

Wow Minimara, you're antiquechessshop.com?!

Minarima

No I'm not Tim Millard from antique chess shop.

IpswichMatt

 Ah sorry, saw this and thought it was the same set:

 

http://www.antiquechessshop.com/products/ref1457-jaques-staunton-club-set/

 

but on closer inspection it isn't. It also has "Loaded", written in similar handwriting to the pictures in post 2733

jcousins1

There is an excellent example of two contemporary sets, sold by likely the same retailer, with noticeable variations - the pawn shanks are slimmer, and thicker, respectively, the crosses are slightly different and the collars on the left are more sloped on the tops than on the right.  The knights are even slightly different if your compare the gouges on the cheeks - deeper and more pronounced on the left than on the right.  

IpswichMatt

Here's some Knights from a set currently on ebay which shows some big differences too:

null

 

jcousins1
Can you send a link to the auction? I’d like to see a larger view of that third knight.
Minarima

Here's the link to the auction:

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Jaques-of-London-Staunton-Chessmen-Jaques-chess-set-1855-65-/382235998941?hash=item58ff0a7add:g:k24AAOSw2N1ZyWm-

MySeT
[COMMENT DELETED]
MySeT
[COMMENT DELETED]
Minarima
MySeT wrote:
[COMMENT DELETED]
MySeT wrote:
[COMMENT DELETED]


?

MySeT
Minarima wrote:
MySeT wrote:
[COMMENT DELETED]
MySeT wrote:
[COMMENT DELETED]


?

Nothing important... i just misunderstood something about the link. happy.png

 

UpcountryRain
MaximRecoil wrote:
UpcountryRain wrote:

If you must have exactly uniformed pieces, I'd say your best bet is plastic.

 

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.

My bad, MaximRecoil. I forgot that this was a Jacques of London thread. I am accustomed to Soviet sets and as we all know, in most cases they will be less exacting than the Jacques producers. Here, for example are a couple of Knights from the same set. At first glance they are similar, but it does not take a trained eye to spot the difference. These are the kinds of differences I appreciate.

nullBut your point is taken.