Reproduction and Real Jaques of London Chess Set

Sort:
EZY1981
chessspy1 wrote:

This is clearly a Jaques set and genuine. I am probably the only person in the world who could copy an old Jaques to that very high standard and I didn't do it.

So Occam's razor must be wrong in this case.

I am trying to find out the history/provenance of the set. I can guess that Jaques made this as a special order for one of the better retailers in London who wanted it for a specific customer.

Why Oak? My best guess ahead of the facts, is that the wood came fron a sailing ship with which the customer was associated or one of his family, father grandfather etc.

The wood pieces do have the correct weights, screw in with insertion marks and they are all of an equal quality to Jaques production at that time. Imagine trying to get one of the, admittedly, fairly talented Indian makers to reproduce a set like this down to the last detail. even to old baize on the wood side. It ain't going to happen. 

So in this case, and with the greatest respect,  Jon C is wrong.

 

yup, i also think he is wrong, its definitely a Jaques and in my opinion, not from two sets.  and youre right Alan, its almost impossible to replicate.  I like the notion it may have been and probaly is a one off set! 

chessspy1

 Yes, some of us on this thread have tried to get the Indian (and in some cases Chinese) manufacturers to make a very good copy of an early Jaques with varying degrees of success or lack thereof depending on who is judging the result.

Non have entirely achieved the very high standards the old turners met. I am not sure why.

I like the big form tools the Indians are using now. This method, (very broad form tools) is one I used when I was running a small components factory way back in the mists of time but as my work, more recently, (as in the last 30 years or so) was more of the one-off type I didn't think it would be cost effective to use the time involved in making form tools (although I do use some on odd occasions).

I did over the years make probably 100 or so copies of various sets from the so called Pepys style sets to very good sets in the German Edel style. 

Bertram Jones and his son Bill also made copies of various sets, including Pepys type ( which Bill called 'onion sets') and of course lots of Staunton sets in ivory (we are talking of a time from about 1940 to about 1980) Bertram was making as many as 3 Staunton ivory sets in a week for 8 GBP total, it took him 1 day to carve all 12 knights heads. (although I must say, he was a terrible carver and Bill wasn't much better as the picture of an ivory flame finial in Bill's first book. Notes From the Turning Shop shows. However his client was happy and that is all that mattered I guess).

Bertram's Stauntons also sold through Macys here in the States and occasionally do show up on ebay and in auctions. They do not look much like Jaques sets.

I guess if someone out there had perfected a way to make exact copies of Jaques sets, down to screw in weights, 4 pronged insertion marks and old wool based baize. Getting the patina right on the boxwood side, (particularly difficult, as even speeding up the aging process by dipping the pieces in Nitric acid (very dangerous, don't try it) doesn't leave them quite right without a lot of post dip processing. I have discussed this aging process with various other restorers in different areas (eg flute makers and the like) but everyone agrees that as soon as you compare the 'new' to the genuine the difference is visible.

So, to sum up, if it is possible, we would never know, but I doubt it.

When I was restoring in Portobello Road I worked for Garrick Coleman (and others) for many years, he also took in restoration work for a well known American dealer, which also had to pass through my hands as there was no one else.

azbobcat
GM4-U wrote:
chessspy1 wrote:

This is clearly a Jaques set and genuine. I am probably the only person in the world who could copy an old Jaques to that very high standard and I didn't do it.

So Occam's razor must be wrong in this case.

I am trying to find out the history/provenance of the set. I can guess that Jaques made this as a special order for one of the better retailers in London who wanted it for a specific customer.

Why Oak? My best guess ahead of the facts, is that the wood came fron a sailing ship with which the customer was associated or one of his family, father grandfather etc.

The wood pieces do have the correct weights, screw in with insertion marks and they are all of an equal quality to Jaques production at that time. Imagine trying to get one of the, admittedly, fairly talented Indian makers to reproduce a set like this down to the last detail. even to old baize on the wood side. It ain't going to happen. 

So in this case, and with the greatest respect,  Jon C is wrong.

 

yup, i also think he is wrong, its definitely a Jaques and in my opinion, not from two sets.  and youre right Alan, its almost impossible to replicate.  I like the notion it may have been and probaly is a one off set! 

 I too believe this is a one off set. Is this a Jaques set, yes, maybe no. This just could have been a Masterpiece (ie. a piece of work by a craftsman accepted as qualification for membership of a guild as an acknowledged master.). of one of Jaques apprentices which may explain why the Jaques Logo is missing from it usual position. Ie this is a genuine Jaques set but one carved by one of Jaques apprentices under jaques' strict supervision. which may explain the Jaques stamp on the BOTTOM to signify that it was a set crafted under the Jaques supervision and of a quality that it passed Jaques' standard for excellence. If this was a Masterpiece created by one of Jaques' apprentices it is a one of a kind and probably worth a ton of money. 

IpswichMatt

Azbocat, see post 3191 for a response to the apprentice theory.

Bidding is now at £1100, 7 hours to go...

EZY1981

perhaps it was a promo set, then given or sold on to someone ? 

chessspy1

It had a Jaques London stamp. which has been scrubbed, so the apprentice and other ideas don't really wash.

lighthouse

 

The seller has gone from not having a clue to being a Expert on Jaques chess sets ?

Not bad for a first time seller !

Just in casy you didn't realise (Come on you realy think I would sell photo's. Ebay has more rules about photos than your local police station does.) thats the only way of showing the extra photos on ebay.
 
I will end all the extra photo's listed 8 hours before real listing so don't forget to save them in your watch list.
I have also found out that compaired to wooden knights "I" (EBAY "I") knights have thinner bases. Thefore I will change the photos on one of the other listing to show the baces are all the same depth in this set. I have a wooden dropjaw knight to compair. This is the listing below I that will put the new photos in dont forget to look before the end of today and before 8 hours of the ebay sale.
 
 
Yes I can even change the extra photos to help to show this set is a genuine rare Jauqes find. Dont forget some years ago set 10 with Luechars Knights looked wrong it was also thought to be an oddity with the leuchars knights.
 
Yes I have read Alan Fersht book's, mine is very worn out though the pages are falling out.

 

 


On 09-Aug-18 at 10:55:39 BST, seller added the following information:

 

 

If the oak side was for a complete wooden set the bases would need to be thicker see new comparison Dropjaw photos here.
 
 
Don't forget to save as watching all the other extra photos as otherwise they will disappear from "your" ebay before the sale as I will end them.
 
chessspy1

Didn't get a very good price. I expect it was the 'ivory' effect.

I think I would become an 'expert' very quickly if I chanced upon such a set.

Hopefully eventually sense will prevail on the ivory ban before the burgeoning elephant populations expand beyond the capacity of the nature reserves to support them. This is already happening in some countries. Ivory Ghosts is a good book to read up if anyone is interested in learning about the (rather bloody) history of ivory and the problems we face now.

lighthouse

Maybe just read VS Naipaul  & rape of India ?

Minarima

Jaques set number 57 is for sale on the swamp:

 

https://m.ebay.co.uk/itm/Jaques-Chess-Set-from-early-1849/192622594710?hash=item2cd9338a96%3Ag%3A628AAOSw519bbKTA&_sacat=0&_nkw=jaques+chess&_from=R40&rt=nc&_trksid=p2380057.m4084.l1311.R1.TR5.TRC1.A0.H0.Xjaques+chess.TRS0

chessspy1

^^^ That does look like a very early Jaques ivory set.

It has the 'correct' curved stamp from the early days when Jaques had not made a straight stamp for the ivory sets so they used this curved stamp which was normally employed on the curved upper foot rim of the wood sets. And of course it says J. JAQUES which is also correct.

I would be a little bit sus about the reg doc stickers unless almost every piece had them. I certainly want to see more than 5 or 6 of them on the set total. (otherwise they may have been 'migrated' in from another early set which had plenty).

The problem of course is finding someone to fix the damages. The law as it stands seems to make this illegal as although it is possible to buy certified antique ivory (old damaged carvings and the like) once the ivory is cut up there is no reasonable way to prove the source of the ivory used to do the repair.

I know there are people out there working on non invasive ways to determine the age of a piece of ivory but that isn't possible as far as I know (yet). 

IpswichMatt

Just seen this on eBay, advertised as a Jaques:

null

 

No idea if it's a Jaques or not - don't know anything about modern sets - but... by 'eck, this set is ugly! Look at the size of the Knights?! What were they thinking?

 

 

chessspy1

^^^ Looks like what Garrick used to call a 'Harlequin' set.

Apart from the subbed in knights there is at least one pawn in the front middle which is a 'wrong un'.

IpswichMatt

I'm not convinced it's a harlequin set Alan, I think this is just a really nasty set. There's some more pics here::

 

 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/John-Jaques-London-Chess-pieces-in-wooden-box-weighted-complete/292674364454

EZY1981

looks like one of Jaques Chinese made sets 

chessspy1

Hi Matt,

How would you account for the difference in colour of at least one of the white pawns?

azbobcat
GM4-U wrote:

looks like one of Jaques Chinese made sets 

Not only is it a "harlequin" set this look like a CHEAP Chinese knock off a Jaques set -- the box is a dead giveaway, and probably made within the last 25 years.

EZY1981

Jaques have their low end sets made in China, this looks like one of them. 

IpswichMatt
chessspy1 wrote:

Hi Matt,

How would you account for the difference in colour of at least one of the white pawns?

I thought it could just be from a different batch of boxwood - but then I have no knowledge of the working practices in these workshops.

The reason I thought it's not a harlequin is that I didn't think anyone would bother trying to match pieces to make up such a cheap set. But then again, those Knights...did someone really design the set that way? "I like Knights best, so I want really, really BIG Knights in MY set..." - this also seems unlikely, so maybe you're right and it is a harlequin set.

IpswichMatt

Here's another eBay set - not a Jaques this time, nothing on the Kings. This set does not have crowns on the Rooks or Knights:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/ANTIQUE-CHESS-SET-weighted-4-inch-king-ebony-boxwood/382538730281

Here's one of the pictures. I would have sworn this was a Jaques, were it not for the lack of markings:

null

 

Here's a Knight from one of my Jaques sets - I think the resemblance is very strong:

null

 

It's not a Jaques, but it's the most Jaques like non-Jaques set I've seen - any ideas who the maker might be?