Reproduction and Real Jaques of London Chess Set

https://www.ebay.com/itm/VINTAGE-DRUEKE-CHESS-SET-PLAYERS-CHOICE-3-58-KING/332591888278?_trkparms=aid%3D444000%26algo%3DSOI.DEFAULT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D44039%26meid%3D12751fedeccc48edb3ff6d0e7e040961%26pid%3D100752%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D3%26sd%3D332591885485%26itm%3D332591888278&_trksid=p2047675.c100752.m1982

I've got an "as new condition" Drueke mini set that I bought at "The Village Chess Shop" in 1981.It's called The Little Jewel.Got the box(perfect shape) and still have the business card from that place.I realize this is not a large collectors set,but it's really nice to have,aside from my big sets.Fine for study.

Thanks for the memories. If truth be told looking back, God were they UGLY sets, but I remember they could take a beating !!!

Once again this Stauntonmaster is not telling the truth.

First-rate, informative post, Robert.  Thanks!  Just one note, the link gives me a 404.

Re: rcmacmillan's link.

If you think I'm gonna click anything on that page..... And, it just get's worse if you look to the obvious spam on that page.

I dunno what's worse on the internet these days. Ignorance, Smartphones or intention.

Anyways, slashdot.com is where to understand.

 Here's link to an article on William F. Drueke from the same Pioneers site.

Excellent, Robert.  Thanks again.

Very nice article. I always enjoy the commercials from old days.

Personally I own some Saitek catalogs from the 90's and I love to come back and read them very often.

Many thanks for the corrected. A wonderful pdf read. Thank you.

I love Duncan's article.

Packed with information and extremely well researched and written.

I call BS on you. Let's take your post and break it into parts:

"Staunton design is the only suitable design for playing chess." FALSE!  *ANY* chess set is suitable for playing chess.

"Other designs are not suitable are just for fun and decorative." FALSE! So an IVORY Staunton set is useful for everyday play, just the same as the $35 PLASTIC set?!? A pure IVORY set is more for decorative use than any other thing, though both the $35 Plastic set and the IVORY set can both be used for fun. I don't think I would be carrying my $10,000 IVORY set to any chess tournaments.

"Hardly in any tournament nowadays soviet style chess sets are used." QUESTIONABLE!! Since there any NUMBER of "Soviet Style" sets on the market which range from the truly ornate to a Soviet Style Staunton it is hard to determine what you mean by "Soviet Style" unless you post a picture of said set.

"That is why world chess federation has approved [Staunton Pattern] it. FALSE!! The reason that FIDE has approved the Staunton Pattern has more to do with uniformity rather than "suitability of design" Mind you that there are TWO Staunton design patterns that FIDE recognizes as suitable for tournament play: The "Western Staunton" design pattern which is marked by the "Christian Cross"  that sits atop the King; and the "Eastern Staunton" pattern which is marked by a ball  finial that is usually the opposite side's color. A typical example of this is the Zagreb Staunton pattern that is still widely used in Eastern Europe. 

azbobcat is totally right. Any decorative set can be used as long as the size/proportions/shapes allow to distinguish any piece from the others. Staunton set is recommended but not mandatory.

Here is an extract of the FIDE rules regarding equipments:

2.2. Height, weight, proportions
The size of the pieces should be proportionate to their height and
form; other elements such as stability, aesthetic considerations etc.,
may also be taken into account. The weight of the pieces should be
suitable for comfortable moving and stability.
Recommended height of the pieces is as follows: King – 9.5 cm,
Queen – 8.5 cm, Bishop – 7 cm, Knight – 6 cm, Rook – 5.5 cm and
Pawn – 5 cm. The diameter of the piece's base should measure 40-
50% of its height. These dimensions may differ up to 10% from the
above recommendation, but the order (e.g. King is higher than
Queen etc.) must be kept.

2.3 Form, style of pieces
Recommended for use in FIDE competitions are pieces of Staunton
style. The pieces should be shaped so as to be clearly distinguishable
from one another. In particular the top of the King should distinctly
differ from that of the Queen. The top of the Bishop may bear
a notch or be of a special colour clearly distinguishing it from that of
the Pawn.

full documentation here

Yet once more, this Stauntonmaster is wrong in many things he writes.  Here he is writing his opinion and making it sound like fact.  Please note that this is HIS OPINION and not fact.

" For over 150 years only Staunton design has been used in all chess tournaments"

On the contrary. FIDE Didn't adopt the Staunton design until 1924

In 1924, these pieces were selected as the official set by the World Chess Federation;
presently, for about 600 million players in over 120 countries, Stauton pieces are
the choice of set.

^^^^Stm, I am glad you saw fit to correct your poor, extravagant and incorrect previous post in view of the incontrovertible facts which anyone could google to know the truth.

Perhaps you would like to troll through your previous posts here and correct all your many mistakes.

Even just one mistake or lie per post, (and some of your posts have many such errors) would take some time, but think how good you would feel by apologising to this community for your foolish comments and perhaps making yourself look a little more sensible in the process.

If someone likes something it's up to them to decide how good it is...Hysterical posts S.M.....though I always get a kick out of you! My library has a book called "The Art Of Chess"....It's filled with absolutely stunning sets,from older times to current.....Personally,I could care less about what's accepted and only care about what appeals to me.I like the Staunton pieces(have a few nice sets there)but I love the Soviet and Euro sets too.I don't have anything in my small-ish collection (17 sets) other than tournament style pieces/sets, but I'd never be critical of anyone who likes that stuff.

"writing loads and loads of nonsense" ROFL.  The process is already ad absurdum.

 More BS from the Stauntonmaster. Obviously he does not know  the reason the set he likes to *pretend* to knows all about is called a Staunton  Pattern:

Here is something from the HOS site:

The Staunton pattern was first offered to the public for sale in the Fall of 1849 by the company of John Jaques of London. The original design was registered to Nathaniel Cook in the Spring of that year. The set was named after the self-proclaimed world champion, Howard Staunton, an English Shakespearean scholar. Whether or not the design was actually the brainchild of Cook is open to much speculation. It is relatively certain that the pattern was not designed by the egotistical Staunton, as he never laid claim to such.

A more plausible scenario: if Cook was Jaques' Brother-in-law -as claimed by the family-is that the set was actually designed by John Jaques, a noted ivory tuner and business man, who undoubtedly produced many different pattern sets for various retailers in the area. Complaints from players about the unsuitability of many of the contemporary designs for practical play led Jaques to search for a standard design which could be produced at a reasonable cost. Most of the sets of the period , such as the Lund, Merrifield, Calvert and Saint George patterns, were quite intricate and relatively expensive to produce. Working from an existing popular design, most probably the Northern Upright (or Edinburgh) pattern, Jaques removed those decorative features most susceptible to damage and widened the bases, adding lead to the wooden pieces for further stability. By so doing, he corrected most of the design deficiencies found in many of the contemporary designs and produced a set which was relatively inexpensive to manufacture, thus increasing his potential customer base.

Having a new design in hand, Jaques turned to his brother-in-law and entrepreneur, Nathaniel Cook, for advice. Cook offered to register the design and convince the noted chess personality Howard Staunton to lend his prestigious name to the new design. Since Cook was reputed to be Staunton's editor at the "Illustrated London Times", a convenient business relationship already existed.

What is known is that, on March 1st , 1849, Nathaniel Cook registered an Ornamental Design for a set of Chess-Men, under the Ornamental Designs Act of 1842. At that date, there was no provision for the registration of any design or articles of ivory, registration was limited to Class 2, articles made chiefly of wood.

The right to manufacture such sets was acquired by John Jaques and, having manufactured sufficient stock, he began to supply the retail trade on 29 September, 1849. On the same day, the following advertizement appeared Illustrated London News: "A set of Chessmen, of a pattern combining elegance and solidity to a degree hitherto unknown, has recently appeared under the auspices of the celebrated player Mr. STAUNTON. A guiding principle has ben to give by their form a signification to the various pieces - thus the king is represented by a crown, the Queen by a coronet, &c. The pieces generally are fashioned with convenience to the hand; and it is to be remarked, that while there is so great an accession to elegance of form, it is not attained at the expense of practical utility. Mr. STAUNTON'S pattern adopts but elevates the conventional form; and the base of the Pieces being of a large diameter, they are more steady than ordinary sets." Illustrated London News, September 8, 1849."

In short STAUNTONmaster the REASON it is called a STAUNTON Pattern  was because an egotist by the name of Howard STAUNTON who fancied himself the Worlds best Chess Player promoted it as being the BEST set he ever used. PERIOD!! Without the endorsement of Howard Staunton Jaque's set may or may not have become popular. Had Staunton promoted another design the Jaque's pattern may not have become the "standard set".

As to to your laughable statement that "The modern replica and fake designs advocated by rogue sellers have no value and stupid comments are only meant to mislead the naive customers and deceive them into buying fake chess sets." Some of the reproductions are almost if not an EXACT copy of Jaque's ORIGINAL set, only newer. Some sets are an improved design that tweaks the original design. Indeed there is no single "Jaques Pattern" so WHY should there be one today? We are not confined to sets made of IVORY and EBONY, or EBONY and BOXWOOD, rather sets produced today usually have BOXWOOD for the light pieces, but then can use other exotic woods such as ROSEWOOD, ZERBAWOOD, SANDLEWOOD , etc , etc. etc, other than EBONY.  And as Jaques himself did there is not single "Knight" Design" example the Anderson Drop Jaw Knight, etc. Today we have knights that go way beyond the rather crude knights produced by Jaques back in the 1800s., And you need not go to far back in time to see that the "Western" set designed by Jaques' bvased around a "Christian" theme  (ie the Christian cross for the King's finial ) was totally done away with in the "Eastern" design such as the "Zagreb" design, which when properly carved and weighted handles like a DREAM. And why should design stop there. We now have futuristic sets such as the "Empire" first introduced by the HOS that has only a fleeting reference to a Staunton set. Yes SM there are CHEAP copies out there, but that said there are some truly EXCELLENT sets out there in all types of material including PLASTIC, that cost a fraction of a wood set, such as HOS "Marshall Set" it cost about $27-$30 and handles like a dream.

Do us all a favor and crawl back into the hole you crawled out from, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. If you are shilling for someone or some company at least say so. Stop trash talking, stop with the misleading statements. IF I want an OPINION on buying a set your's would be the LAST one I'd consider. I'd rather listen to someone who actually knows what they are talking about and has experience with a given set, than listen to someone that blathers about anything at all. Not everybody will agree with about the merits of X -- vs -- Y set, but so long as they are KNOWLEDGEABLE about what they are talking about and have first hand knowledge of the set in question their opinion is worth more than your rather uninformed blatherings. My favorite example you gave was about pinching the jaws of a knight to see if it will break. That is PLAIN STUPID!! If you apply enough pressure you can break anything. That is one of the major advantages of the Zagreb set, they are virtually indestructible because they are an even more refined set that Jaques' came out with in 1849.