Reproduction and Real Jaques of London Chess Set

anybody have an idea about good jaques replicas easily available in Europe? the only one I am aware of is this:

http://www.regencychess.co.uk/dunoon-series-ebony-staunton-chess-pieces-45-inches-p-885.html

You're right Lou based on the pics you posted.  I think the next 50 CB will make will be a slightly different knight.  The chess piece has to buy them from someone. If they are OOS now after drastically reducing their price it iwll no longer be +$50 more but more than likely $300 more.  Just my guess. I have a club set I bought for $34.50 which is my favorite set. 4" King only double weighted and ebonized/boxwood. Cheap but a great set to play over games etc.  

Remember the quality from a chess venofr in the past is no guarantee what the future chess set brings.  Sounds like a financial disclosure doesn't it but it is so true.  

I like what I bought here.  I have had great communication with CB in th elast couple weeks. They are even making me a special set I iwll get in about 1 1/2 months.  Love this hobby

Now I have to study a bit so I am not such a chump at the next tournament. 

Would be niice if someone made a Pinney set that was lacquered like in the old days. Seems HOS no longer makes it in the lacquer finish which is very surprising since that would be the most popular.

Mike, I spoke with Steve at TCP. He's getting ready to release a new, improved version of his 1849 set that he says will be even closer to the original than his current set, which has been priced at $399 for as long as I can remember. I think the $799 retail was to draw attention to what other vendors (HOS, etc.) were selling their Jaques repro sets for.

He mentioned the set will be available in regular boxwood and bloodrosewood, in addition to the traditional antiqued boxwood. He's also working on a 3.75" version as well.

My original picture of the TCP knight didn't do it justice. I was able to use a capture program to grab a close up view.

I am signing up for the TCP 3.75 version!

Why do you say that? They obviously had second thoughts about doing the original prototype design (which still features in their advertising) and went for a more simplified knight. Possibly difficulty of carving and/or time required played a part in this decision. But, having made that choice, they still sold out quickly and most posters here don't seem that bothered by it. Thus, there doesn't seem any pressing need for them to change it again.

A Knight is a Knight geez, why all this fuss about a Knight.?

9kick9 wrote:

"A Knight is a Knight geez, why all this fuss about a Knight."

Lou wrote:

Hand carved knights are labor intensive. In some fancy sets the Knights alone can account for half the price of the set. It's also one of the first places (along with selection of woods) where mfg's cut corners to reduce costs. As such, as a general guideline, the quality of the knight can be a good indicator of the overall quality of the set.

You could say the same about many things — why the fuss about a high-performance sports car when a cheap second-hand car is still a car? Why the fuss over the Mona Lisa when a painting of a woman is just a painting of a woman? And so on.

Hi Lou
Did Steve give you a time frame for the release of the 1849 set with the new improved Knight?  BTW, IMO the present Knight looks more like the circa 1860s Anderssen Knight rather than an 1849 version.

GNM, prototype within 3-4 weeks. He hopes to have the set ready for the Christmas season.

The fuss is because the whole point of a reproduction is accuracy.  If we didn't care about the details of the design we'd just buy a modern (possibly superior) chess set for a lot less money. 

Only my guess. 

Isn't bloodrose wood the same thing as sandal wood?  

I can't buy another set in the same price range. That's the only 1849 set I will probably buy.

When I get ready to add sets I will go after different sets as the BCC set or sets. I do like the variety.  http://www.britishchesssets.com/The%20British%20Chess%20Company.htm

NO, it isn't red sandalwood (or it shouldn't be as it is now illegal to import). I think the industry is using the terms 'budrosewood' and 'bloodrosewood' to decribe any number of woods with reddish hues, most of which are in the genus Dalbergia (Wikipedia lists hundreds of species), but African Padauk is often mislabeled as a bud or blood rosewood.

Unless a vendor specifically lists the species (most don't know), we'll probably never know for sure.

Kudos to The Chess Store! They've stopped using the terms 'bud' and 'blood' rosewood and have begun categorizing their reddish/brown sets as either rosewood, golden rosewood, African padauk, or red sandalwood (remaining old stock).

I think you will find that bud rose and blood rose are two different woods. I noticed that blood rose is much deeper red and it doesn't seem as grainy as the bud rose which I believe is African Padauk. I noticed the bud rose wood is quite orange in color then of course will turn darker red if left out in the sunlight. 

Lou, please keep us updated on TCP release of the set with the improved Knight

Comparing the CB 1849 set with Jaques originals:

In each set of pictures, pick out the original Jaques piece that most closely resembles the CB reproduction.

Queens: (1925-37?)

Rooks: (1885? - 1939?)

Bishops: (1880-85?)

Knights: (Harrwitz 1852-55?)

Pawns: (?)

Lou wrote:

Comparing the CB 1849 set with Jaques originals:

In each set of pictures, pick out the original Jaques piece that most closely resembles the CB reproduction.

The Harrwirtz Knight looks the closest to the CB 1849 Knight

I bought the CPs Original Staunton last January. I was specifically looking for a chess set similar to the 1849/50 Jaques Staunton, and found the one offered by the CP to most accurately replicate the original design holistically (within reasonably pricing). I would say that the pictures on their site understate the quality and craftsmanship the set conveys in its physical presence. My intention was to use the set with my kids, but it’s too luxurious for regular gameplay. It’s more of a display set, really, or for special occasions. Some have noted that the pawns have large ball tops. On the pictures, I agree. The pawns look a bit weird in profile. In real life this is isn’t really noticeable. I would even say the pawn design comes off rather well on the board, and the ball top size makes the pawns present, comfortable and easy to move around. The same goes for the Knights. Although they are not exact replications of the “Cook” Knights, they seem to follow very similar design patterns, more than other replications on the market, and design-wise they stand rock solid on their own merits. The ebony pieces are jet black. That is, I can with some effort, in the right light, while squinting my eyes, see a hint of dark brown in one of the Rooks. The ebony pieces are very impressive, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the ebony in this set has a darker and more consistent color than ebony used in more expensive sets available out there.

That being said, upon further inspection, there are issues that are not conveyed by the pictures. The antiquing process used on the boxwood pieces leaves tiny moles on the wood, more on the larger pieces, fewer to none on smaller pieces. I don’t believe this is specific to the CPs antiqued set, as I have read about similar findings on antiqued sets from HoS as well. In addition, some of the boxwood pieces have natural but unflattering spots, and it seems that whoever carved the piece have tried to scrape the spot away. A few pieces have noticeable dents. I think some of these pieces should not have made it through inspection. Lastly, the Knight and its base are not glued together very well. One of the Knight’s base was loose upon arrival, and it dropped off the day after. I got a replacement for this one, which arrived in two pieces. 

Dealing with the CP regarding these issues has been a real nuisance. I ordered the set in late January, and in an attempt to speed up the replacement process for the broken and faulty pieces in February, I bought four additional boxwood pieces for fifty bucks. Sadly, when they arrived in March, a few of these were in worse condition than the ones they were supposed to replace. Steve, the owner of the CP, promised to replace these as well, but made it very clear on multiple occasions how inconvenient this was for him, despite being company policy. He failed to send the replacements as promised in April, May and June.  During this period our initially friendly correspondence turned gradually into quarreling, as he claimed to be sick and therefore unable to arrange for the shipment despite dealing with other customers in the same time frame, and that my email was caught in the spam filter. Last I heard from him was in June, when he promised to send the pieces the day after. By now, I don’t expect to hear anything from him or receive anything. This have, to put it mildly, somewhat tainted my customer experience with the CP and my affection for the set.

All in all, I would describe the set as “luxury on a budget”. It’s too delicate for regular gameplay and too flawed to pass as a true luxury chess set. However, if one in fairness can expect uncompromising quality and craftsmanship for a handmade chess set at $400, is another question. 

Update: scheichxodox asked about the set's weight in post #585. This spurred my own curiosity, so I tested it by weighing the set's container with and without the pieces. My set weighs exactly 2.00kg (~4Ib 7oz). This is 400g below the proclaimed weight, but the pieces still feels nicely weighted. I don't think I would have it any lighter or heavier. It's never been an issue, really.