Reproduction and Real Jaques of London Chess Set

This is what I have against Veneer Boards: As I pointed out they use cheap particle board for their core. Particle board is SOFT and as a result the corners are subject to being damaged. To prevent that I bought brass corners. Some of the better boards use Plywood, and the veneer is a little bit thicker.

Yep. TRUE!! My sister gets a lot of junk picked up at yard sales, and she trues it into works or art. Somebody as a challenge bought her and OLD -- day unknown -- tea table to see what she could do with it. I think he paid $3.00  for it. It was in really BAD shape. To start with the veneer in places was worn thru, and in others it had acquired the crepe paper look. The first thing she did was to remove by hand and chisel the veneer, what she found underneath was 1/2"  SOLID MAPLE!! Not pine or plywood but solid maple.  I was there when she was about 1/2 way through with the process and the the table looked dreadful, but by God when she finished with it that table  it could great an expensive home.

Compare that to my computer desk. It has an Oak veneer -- I'm sure you have all seen that crap --  but what do you find in the unfinished edges?!? Cheap grade PLYWOOD.  That said, I would prefer that if someone is going to make a CHESS BOARD they they use some good grade PLYWOOD rather than that CHEAP PARTICLE BOARD for the core. BTW roaches the LOVE the GLUE in particle baord!! Ask me how I know.

Re the set used between Fischer and Petrosian in Buenos Aires 1971, as shown in the black and white photo above, it looks very much as if is the same set that was used in the Capablanca-Alekhine 1927 match: https://www.worthpoint.com/worthopedia/jaques-congress-chess-timer-alekhine-capablanca

Just to set the record straight. These 1849 sets and all that have followed since are a result of vikram singh of chess bazaar and Alan dewey collaboration. There is a very well known American collector posting on face book forums claiming he is the originator of the concept of reproducing the jaques 1849. I understand this respected collector has been absolutely pinnacle In almost all the sets that have followed since his house of Staunton business launched, however it is not right or true that he was the first to offer a jaques 1849 , this concept of making a antiqued jaques 1849 4.4 inch set was chess bazaar and Alan Dewey and this is fact and pre Eminence is clear here on this topic created years ago. 

oh no, here we go again...

I have set #3 of the mentioned set you are talking about, certificate et all.  I can't even sell it for 1/2 what I paid for it. The sets that came after, most are so much better there is no comparison. 

My Corky Staunton from Official Staunton beats it by miles and miles. 

Since then CB makes the 1849 much better, probably different carvers they hired. I think they call it version 2. 

CB may get the credit for the run on duplicating 1849 sets but it was a poor reproduction as the knights were atrocious, not even close.  The heads of my knights were off in the box, the workmanship was so poor. Just facts, not a knock on any dealer. I give honest reviews whether they are good or not, 

Actually, Frank Camaratta was the first to reproduce the 1849 set.  However he did not call it 1849.

Frank furthermore is credited in the engineering of the modern-day set for sure. Before he came around the craftsmanship was so poor. He also implemented the extra queens added to the set. 

Interesting. What did he call it? I know he released the "New" Cooke set which is a good repro with 3 1/2" King (I bought one) but I didn't know he did a 4 3/8" set before Chessbazaar.

Any credit to Jaques of London?  Didn't they continue to sell the original Staunton design?  The originator selling reproductive of it's own original?

Oh no the mysterious Corky Staunton is back!

Yes,
I really like the set forked. 

Actually in in the 2000 era, Frank Camaratta wholesaled sets to Jaques.  I know this because he had come out with a design he was going to sell at HoS as the Millennium Series set.  He had pictures of the set in a directory he let me in on to look at his sets just before he released them.  The file name said Millennium in it.  He changed it to the Marshall Series because he had wholesaled that exact set to Jaques where they called it Millennium and charged a lot more for it.

When I asked him if the sets were different and how could he explain the price difference, he told me the only difference was that he made sure the sets he sold to Jaques had a higher quality wood than the ones he was retailing.  But the sets were carved and finished identically.

Of course Frank has stopped this wholesaling for quite awhile now.  However, in the early days of his House of Staunton, he was creating the Jaques sets.

Understand that Frank was one of a very limited number of experts on sets back then.  And yes, he did create and design the specifications of his reproductions.  And back then the carvers in India did not have the knowledge to accurately create these reproductions.

The carvers in India learned of these subtle things over time.  Sure they were and are capable.  And these better carvers learned of the details in reproductions.  That’s why Staunton Castle and a few others produce such nice sets now.  They have the knowledge as well as the skills.  And then Carl, currently of Official Staunton, got in as a retailer in Europe.  Carl is also now very knowledgeable about these set designs.

You should, it is a beautiful set.  

But it's not called the Corky Staunton lol.  That corky dude selling them doesnt even call it that.

It's like he wants people to confuse his name, Stanton, with Staunton.  You shouldn't play into that.

According to his website, he has trademarked the name Staunton Chessmen for this set,w seems hard to believe, but maybe the trademark office actually gave it to him.

It is from Offical Staunton not from Corky. 

I reiterate ... Antiqued 1849 

As far as I know-  Frank did supply Jaques until they screwed him and went direct to AIW. He did offer a set that represented a fine Jaques, this was the Collectors series design and NOT 1849 per se, the design we all tried to perfect, the one with the gape mouth, selenius from Elgin marbles etc. My colleagues and associates at the London chess centre were the first to retail THE COLLECTORS SERIES  here in the UK, they called it a Jaques. Look, no one is disputing his input into the sets we now see and I'm sure we are all grateful to him, but to claim it was his idea and writing on another collectors post who was proudly showing of their official Staunton antique 1849 set is just not right and not true. When I came up with the distressed technique, he also claimed this was his idea and he tried it years ago?  

Alright, The House of Staunton says their Collector Series is a reproduction of the original set, which was made in 1849.

As you know, the designs, especially the Knight designs, varied with the artisans and even the years.

The Collector Series set was the very first reproduction made to such exacting standards.  Yes, many followed that trend over the years, but you must admit that Frank was the first and for a good number of years, only person doing this.

Alan Dewey and Chess Bazaar did decide to call their reproduction, 1849.  However even Alan was disappointed in the inaccuracy of the pieces they made.  He said, on this forum, that CB did not follow his specifications very well.

You admit Frank did a lot in this area.  You used the term, input.  And you said you were sure “we’re all” grateful.  Well that doesn’t read to me that you are grateful or honestly recognize Frank for his contributions, no offense.

Frank began or started this modern era of high quality reproductions.  He did not just give input, he created the thing.  Frank created the codex that is currently used to identify specific designs throughout history.  
If he says he experimented with antiquing, I believe him.  Just because he did not produce and market the process does not mean he never considered it.  I remember talking with Frank at least 4 times a year for over 5 years.  And that was the time he was coming out with his true opus of sets.  I was there when he came out with the Professional Series, the Marshall Series, the Zagreb ‘59, series, the Liberty Series, and the Renegade Series, just to name a few off the top of my head.  Frank would tell me of a lot of things he was considering.

Frank was also the first to offer extra Queens with each set.  I distinctly remember this.

Yes, there were a lot of firsts in the industry coming from Frank.

Ron, you're under the impression that no one was retailing chess sets before or alongside with Frank. You're firm on that? 

My chess interest stretch as far back as 1993 we ran chess tournaments nationwide. My online bussines dates to year 2000 where we were getting huge imports direct from the artisans of amritsar... none of those designs were labelled 1849 jaques reproduction. I understand Frank drew his idea from a jaques 1849 and came up with the collector and Marshall design and offered them as such. 

Chess bazaar made a hash of their first attempt but it doesn't retract the fact they were the first to offer an antiqued 1849 that was meant to resemble the ones we now see everywhere ! Of which none look like a collector set ! So no offense but Frank did not get there first. We were dealing direct to India way way back and I recall we used to buy from Frank and they were shipped by AIW to us in UK. But we used at least 3 other manufactures too all of which had superb chess pieces on offer none were anything like a 1849 but a lot looked like the collector series 

What Frank did was considerably improve on the quality of wood chess sets. I have a crap set from the USCF, the set (called something like the Professional set) was so bad I kept sending pieces back and forth to them and finally gave up and just wrote it off. I have it to this day as a reminder of what Ben Franklin said

The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.