Reproduction and Real Jaques of London Chess Set

That's his A list. You should see his B list, pieces that just didn't make it to the A list. Most of my sets are on his B list.

@magictwanger thank you very much. @MCH818 I really like your sets and setups. Even the Anderssen one but I can understand why you returned it. The thing about "antiquing" is that even with original sets the antique shades have a large variance. I have sets that fall in the more brown side like this one from Official Staunton.  

I also have the more tea colored ones like SC offers but like you I tend to like the slightly lighter shades of antiquing. The only one I didn't care for was a CB set that had an orangey fake tan shade to it.

I have both the C.B. set,as well as a "Limited Edition" 1849 Antiqued set from O.S.

I had ordered a lower priced Staunton set from O.S. and since I'd placed my order on Christmas Day,at the time,O.S. offered to upgrade it to the Limited Antiqued version(which was almost double the price)at no extra cost!

Super nice gesture!

I also was a bit bummed by the very dark antiquing when I received my HOS Anderssen. But then I started thinking of it as “butterscotch” instead of white, and I like it. The mind is a funny thing...

Very sharp eye @Magictwanger.

Haha! My Lardy is on the A and so is the Chavet. I still don't have that Chavet though.

Thanks! I know what you mean by the shades. I thought the shade of the Anderssen set Frank has on his website was acceptable. It is only slightly darker than other reproductions Frank offers.

Here is the Anderssen in an antique finish.

Here is the Cooke in plain boxwood.

It is hard to tell sometimes from photos. Perhaps the batch was lighter in the beginning when the photos were taken or other factors could impact the result.

I agree. I tried to get used to a distressed set before when Mandeep sent me the distressed version of the 3.5" Morphy set. I just could not love it. It was substantially darker than Frank's Anderssen, but I think it sealed the deal for me when it comes to anything except plain boxwood. I think I might have been able to get use to the antiqued/distressed finish if I received Frank's set first. Oh well.

I think an antiqued finish is fine for others and I can certainly understand why some would want it especially for reproductions of old sets. It just isn't for me.

Woah. That's pretty dark. I feel it's a bit too much faux antiquing when the "light" pieces are blending in with the DARK squares of the board. Not enough contrast between the two side. Below is a set where the opposite is happening. The dark side is not dark enough!

Woah is right. It somewhat reminds me of the HoS offerings where the dark side is ebony and the light side is padauk.

I know that Chavet set well. I see it every time I search for Chavet sets on eBay. It rather have the one you posted over the green one.

@Pawnerai the dark pieces from that Chavet set look to be very similar to the "antique" shade of The Chess Empire. 

I got kinda' lucky when one of my "orangey" C.B. 1849  Staunton pieces developed a crack a while ago.....They redid the entire set of white pieces and the newer ones came in perfectly....No more orange-ish coloration....At the time,I felt that this was one time where the overall inconsistency from C.B. worked in my favor.

Btw, I love the subtle antique finish of my O.S. 1849 Limited Edition Staunton set and LOVE Official Staunton as an overall company!

Who else decides to give a customer something worth twice the price,out of simple goodness of heart?

Too bad I've sworn off anymore new chess sets......I own enough.-

Hey @Magictwanger - you and I are very much aligned here.

Firstly, you note: “ I love the subtle antique finish of my O.S. 1849 Limited Edition Staunton set” - I haven’t seen it in real life but I love the look of that set from OS and I have loved it ever since I became interested in this fine game. I know antiqued finishes can divide opinion but I do covet that set from a distance.

I also note your point about suppliers sometimes going above and beyond expectations.

Given the recent delay in receiving my excellent Shera replacement set (and I do highly recommend it) - I did ask CB if I could retain the flawed Shera set - …. quite openly, I thought that I could try and strip it back myself or even have back up pieces if damaged or split in future …

The CB team politely said no to me keeping the damaged set but that I could purchase it at discount … fair enough, that is a logical commercial offer from them but I declined - as I now have a perfect set … and it will be returned to a location near where I live - at no cost to me except a short drive to return it … but it felt like a reasonable option for CB to make a gesture (but of course, I am biased.) 🤔

Nonetheless - I get their position and respect their decision.

As things re-settle and quality and consistency return - we are all fortunate to be able to access sets from numerous suppliers around the globe. 👍

Who doesn't like Powderdigit? ...Such a nice contributor to this forum.-

Btw,aside from good taste in chess pieces,he's quickly becoming a devastatingly good player.

Just sayin'....

Thank you and very kind words Magic - but … “devastatingly good” is a bit rich 😊- struggling to break through and hold 1200… but I do love playing… puzzles at 1500-1600 is moving in the right direction.

Needed to keep you motivated.

Yes. Thats the set I have as mentioned above. I was disappointed at first with the antique look. But if you look at the list of original Knights posted above, the 1855 to 1860 Anderssen knight is similar to the reproduction. 

I'll chime in on the antiquing discussion by saying that new boxwood used for an 1849 reproduction looks completely inappropriate to me.  No matter what you think about the different antiquing jobs looking too yellow, too orange, too dark, or whatever, to me they all look better than plain new boxwood.  I have the Staunton castle distressed Morphy set and when I look at it it is a convincing repro of an old chess set.  I know not all of them look that good but if you are trying to repro an antique you should try to make it look like an antique IMO.  Again just my opinion, in contrast to some of the others posted here.  To each their own.  

I don't see anything wrong with the job O.S. did with the antiquing of my Limited Edition 1849 set......Guess that's just me,because I was blown away with the first glimpse of it.....Still am.

Here's what I'm talking about.  Images of a real antique vs my Staunton Castle distressed Morphy set.  I'm not saying it could pass as the real thing, but when you look at it, it evokes the "feel" of a chess set used in the mid 1800's.  That's the whole point of a reproduction IMO.   It goes beyond the "shape" of the pieces.  I could probably convince a non-chess piece fanatic that my set is 170 years old (maybe if they were not too bright )