Az, he isn't going to hear you.  What is clear is that stationmaster is unable to engage with what other people say, believes that everyone else is some kind of shill for evil fake chess set sellers and that its his job to go on ad nauseam trying to rescue innocents from bad guys who don't sell through ebay (which is pretty much everyone else on this site) and doesn't care or can't tell whether what he says is either true or internally consistent.  Thats not a scenario that is going to be influenced either by rational engagement or shouting.  We aren't dealing with a member of society here.  

"Having a new design in hand, Jaques turned to his brother-in-law and entrepreneur, Nathaniel Cook, for advice."

This is not quite correct. In fact, Nat Cook married into the Jaques family later.

As Cook was Staunton's editor (Staunton had a regular chess column) at the ILN during the period leading up to the launch of the set and after we can be reasonably sure that it was largely Cooks design. Cook was setting Staunton's positions in the paper and of course, was well used to the already established book icons, on which the pieces are modelled.

Staunton did once claim to be the designer of the set bearing his name in one column (In the ILN)  but only as referencing a correspondent and one can assume if he had, in fact, had anything much to do with it he would have said much more to that effect.

His reference to the so-called Edinburgh pattern as being designed by a 'Lord John Hay a few years previously' is not born out from any other source. The Edinburgh chess club site has little to say on this point (last time I looked).

The popularity of the French Regence set design on the continent was the main contender but was really not suitable for club play, the pieces often being similar (pawns, bishops queens etc).

There was a Spanish design by a famous artist which made a brief claim to fame but wasn't really in the running for long.

Cameratta made up most of what he claims on the HOS site from whole cloth and his worde must be read with caution.

^^^ You entitled to your opinion Sm. However hopelessly incorrect you are.

I have known Frank for more years than I care to remember and always counted my fingers after shaking hands with him.

^^^ You certainly seem to be close friends with Rosey Palm and her 5 sisters.

Simply hilarious!  Thank you for the laughs and corrections to the Staunton story, Alan.

Stauntonmaster...It would be extremely entertaining, if you would post some of your treasured sets, so we can understand better why you believe reasonable facsimiles have no intrinsic value.

Azbobcat and many others are quite correct in contradicting your comments about what constitutes the "best" playing set and why it should be considered such.

The bottom line is that you go for what you can afford and most appeals to your specific tastes.  You did make perhaps a telling comment with this statement:

"The difference between me and these rogue sellers is: I try my best to dissuade the customers from buying fake copies of chess sets highlighting the catches and defects whereas these rogue sellers are moving hells and heavens to persuade people to buy their junk."

My question is...What are you selling?

 Btw.....Just try to get what "you think" might be a good price for a vintage set,or almost anything of value these days.Not gonna' happen too fast!

Just for laughs I though I'd post some pictures of  my "fake" set I got from HOS. It is NOT exact reproduction of the Jaques set but rather a set with a few minor tweaks both for looks a feel . This is the Collector Series with 4.o king.

This is the  Collector's Series made in Boxwood and Rosewood.

Like Jaques set it came with a Paper Certificate, unlike jaques it also came with a brass Plaque that also came with the Paper Certificate.

A closer look at the pieces. Gee, they have a very distinct Jaques look but with a few tweaks to make it more pleasing to the eye. Again it was never intended to be an EXACT reproduction.

Part of the reason I bought this set is because of my Parkinson's I needed a set that would be very hard to knock over. The bases on this set are nice and wide and th set has really nice graceful lines. And yes tipping the king over was indeed very hard -- one might say the King is self righting. 

At the time I bought this set in 2009 it came with the Red Burl coffer, weighs a ton.

Here are the Rosewood pieces in the Bottom of the Coffer....

And the Boxwood pieces in the top half. There is 1 inch thick foam between both layers to prevents them from getting smashed

My previous attempts to photograph this set were under artificial lights, this time I did it under natural lighting out on my porch. The Board is a Custom Made board. The squares are each 2.5 inches. The Dark Squares are Purpleheart , the Light Squares  are Curly Maple, the Boarder is Rosewood, The Corners and  Delimeter are Spaulted Maple, and the Accent Inlays are Bloodwood. The Border is finished in a High Gloss poly, while the playing surface is finished in Satin Non-Gloss. To insure that I do not smash the board when trying to pick it up are put it down I it customized with 4 rubber feet to absorb any shock due to my erratic movements.

HOS no longer offers the Collector Series in Boxwood and Rosewood, the pieces came not only with a Paper Certificate, but a Brass Plaque as well  Add to that custom board in shades of Cream, Browns, Reds, and Purple-Red, and all stored a in HEAVY Red Burl Coffer. FAKE?!? I think NOT!!!!! HOS one upped Jaques with what is a unique set of pieces, plaque, paper certificate, coffer, two queens for each side, and then I tied  together with a custom board that complements the pieces. The entire set -- Pieces, Coffer, Plaque, Certificate, and Board -- makes this literally a one of  kind set. In 50-100 years from now I could well see set this entire set being sold at auction for quite a lot of money. In that same time frame I could easily see a Chess set collector killing (not literally speaking) to own this set.

Oh, this is wrong.  If this guy would not use absolute terms like never, he would be alright.

There are some reproduction sets that are, objectively, of a higher quality and nicer than the originals.  To wit, I have handled both an original Jaques set and the Frank Camaratta, $3000 reproduction, and there is no doubt that the reproduction is of a  higher quality build and finish than the original.

Nice set and especially that board....Good job!

Although generally speaking the old Jaques sets were of fairly high quality I would not rate the build quality of them above what the modern day Indian makers are doing, with one or two small caveats.

First, the woods used (nowadays) are not for the most part European boxwood, (Buxus sempervirens) or Macassar ebony (although it is questionable if Jaques used this exclusively even though they seem to have claimed this) but are reasonably close locally available substitutes.

The changes Jaques made over the years and different styles of Jaques knights heads make deciding what an 'origonal' Jaques looked like. The only known overstamped Jaques/Leuchars wood set is, however, a good contender. 

Prof Sir Alan Fersht the renowned Jaques expert said they were the most ugly knights he had seen!

 Just a burning question Stauntonmaster (Because enquiring minds want to know): This will I warn you require you do a bit of "time traveling": IF I were to put some ORIGINAL BRAND NEW Jaques sets (that is the "time travel" part) and put them next to several modern day Staunton Sets, would you be able to pick out the those sets made by Jaques, and those made by HOS et al? Indeed if I were to place several Modern Day EXACT Reproductions of some of Jaques early Staunton sets and a NEW Staunton set  (time travel ) would you be able to pick the ORIGINAL Jaques set from the Modern Day EXACT reproduction?  Finally could you PLEASE tell us all what makes an ORIGINAL Staunton Jaques set so much better than say some of the modern sets now being produced? To wit: During those years when Jaques was a company known for quality before it became an ancient whore trying to live off its glory days, Jaques many several different styles of Staunton sets some with vastly different styles of knights, so is one Jaques set to be preferred over another Jaques set? Many of the sets that he created were for some of the masters of that time.

If we spring forward to today, should I prefer tp use a WESTERN Staunton set; or an EASTERN Staunton set??  And please don't insult my intelligence that an Eastern Staunton set such as the Zagreb style set does not handle well, I use to play with one when I was in Europe.And while we are at it tell me should I prefer some ancient Jaques set over a Modern HOS "Empire Series" set?

Here is the TRUTH Stauntonmaster: Unless you are referring to one SPECIFIC set made by Jaques -- say the 1849 set -- even sets produced by Jaques itself took on different looks even over the short space of the first 5 years of production, though each one was still a true Staunton set. So why are you so hung up on Jaques sets -- vs -- HOS, CB, OS, et al ?  There are some EXCELLENT sets made today  and many, many bad ones as well. Yes many of the sets sold today by none other Jaques itself are highly over priced junk and you are paying for the name, not the quality. Here is the next TRUTH: a WELL CARVED, properly weighted, set in which the there is a lot of attention to minute detail is some thing that is a joy to handle and play with regardless of who makes and sells the set. There is no such thing as a single design, as even sets produced by Jaques during it first few years alone varied quite a bit, yet each one was a genuine Jaques set. Some styles become associated with particular Masters: Staunton, Marshall, Anderson, etc, etc., etc. Most of the sets sold today, except the very low end sets of which there are many, are vastly superior to much of the stuff produced by Jaques. New designs, finer attention to detail, and a vastly different selection of woods other than Boxwood and Ebony to choose from. IMHO HOS' Marshal set in Plastic is probably the finest plastic set on the market. I can't say how many sets I have sold: I meet someone, they use my set they like the feel, I tell them where they can get one. The only other plastic set I liked was.  Druke's "Fire Plug" set -- UGLY, but damn near indestructible. We are luck to be living today, as you have available many exceeding lovely well crafted sets to choose from, at a whole different set of price points.

The set I got from HOS was a STEAL -- you might have noticed the date of 2009 which was the height of the Great Recession. That set as I recall was almost a $700 set which I picked up for about $500 and change + Plus they threw in the Coffer, itself as almost $200. HOS no longer sell the Boxwood and Rosewood set. The Board was made around 2010 I worked with the person who made it and it was a joint effort to design. I suggested the effect I was looking for, and suggested the woods, and he would come back and say, "Have you thought of this?" He had a CAD program so we could try different woods colors, etc., before we settled on the final configuration. Normally almost an $800 board I got it for $500 and change... and that was 8 years ago!!! Sorry Stauntonmaster, most of the stuff sold today my Jaques, is overpriced JUNK, and the REPRODUCTION of their ORIGINAL set is vastly over priced. For the money I'd rather buy something from HOS, OS,CB that is NEW and ORIGINAL and pay a fraction of the money for an ancient OLD copy of an original.

"Sir Fersht"?  ROFL

As you are aware we all make different choices in conversation at different times. I am sure Alan would not respond to a leading question like yours with anything negative. He is very smart after all very smart.

Having no particular preference in a set style and remarking in a humorous manner about a particular piece is by no means contradictory. 

Thanks for the insight ,

When playing chess with a Real jaques of London Chess set you holding history in your hands .

A time line ?

Even my six year old son is draw by the magic & charm of this old chess set /  a witness in time !

As in it's day Jaques was  never a cheap chess set to buy & still not cheap today .

Not forgetting the many Wars there have lived out .

Really Sm, What do you expect from capitalism?

The market will decide in the long run. 

Do bear in mind that cheap sets have a place in, for example, playing downtown blitz.

 So, just to be sure, given a time machine and I could place before several ORIGINAL Jaques sets that were NEW and several NEW REPRODUCTIONS   mixed in with those NEW ORIGINAL Jaques sets you would would be able with out any identifying marks such as stickers, king markings, company imprints that say Jaques of London, you would be able to pick the ORIGINALS from the Modern Day REPRODUCTION?!? I call BS on you. An EXACT REPRODUCTION would be INDISTINGUISHABLE from the Original. Now could *I* spot an Original set made back in 1849/50 from a REPRODUCTION made TODAY?! The answer is YES -- The ORIGINAL would be well worn ie it would NOT appear as NEW. But it would be IMPOSSIBLE to tell a NEW ORIGINAL set -- vs -- and NEW EXACT REPRODUCTION. 

And compare a chess set produced by Jaques, with genuine Art may be just a wee bit of a stretch, though to be sure there are artistic elements involved. And knowing something about both Science and Art, there have been many, many pieces of Art that have been so thoroughly duplicated, down to the exact brushstrokes, that many forgeries have hung in prominent art galleries not knowing they had a forgery. They are so good that the forger has to leave a slight clue that they and only they know about so they can tell the ORIGINAL from their only work.

Unlike a DaVinci, Matisse, Monet, Degas, Renoir, et al, an ORIGINAL Jaques Chess set hardly falls into the same category, if anything many of the better quality Staunton Chess sets produced TODAY are closer to being defined as Fine Art -- vs -- Jaques Original sets which by today's standards are in fact rather crude looking sets.

From a HISTORICAL perspective Original Jaques sets are extremely desireable, but from an artistic point Jaques' sets are rather crude looking sets, when compared to many of the intricately detailed sets that are produced today.  

I see Sm is trying to be stupid (perhaps amusing would be his choice, boring, more likely ours) about workers having Uni degrees in Victorian Britain in the mid 19th century we will let that pass.

However, my wife and I did a blindfold test several years ago to see If I could tell modern copies from old Jaques sets by feel alone. I either got them all right or missed on just one. The test is down in old picasa albums somewhere.

 ^^^^ I agree

I’ve never seen a modern replica- do they use baize or felt on modern replicas? If they’re using felt even I would be able to tell the difference blindfolded and maybe even by smell!

Why are we arguing about this stuff?  You all realize that a person is entitled to their own aesthetic preferences, and everyone has a different budget/price-point.   I own many early Jaques sets, and in my OPINION, based on my OWN PERSONAL TASTE, I prefer them vastly over modern copies.  Some people may hold the OPINION that owning the original is a waste of money, and owning a nice copy is better because you are more likely to play with it and can use your money on other things. 

What does bother me are many posts here seem to be vendors/manufacturers advertising their wares or attacking the products of competitors.   

Alan D: I agree with you, if you have touched and looked at enough sets, you can pick out the copies pretty easily - and they DO HAVE A SMELL - 160 year old polish, the smell of cigar and pipe smoke, etc. leaves an "old" smell you often encounter in other antiques.  Especially since the baize is a fabric, it tends to hold odors.  Open a mahogany Jaques box from 1870 and take a good deep smell...its there.