That's interesting - I didn't see those pics.
Reproduction and Real Jaques of London Chess Set

It seems to be the standard stamp for the time period.
This is a picture of mine and underneath a picture taken from Tim’s site of a set from a similar period showing the same stamp type:

People, for the record, the Jaques London stamps were two independent stamps — “Jaques” and “London,” and applied separately. When you’ve seen a couple of dozen of them, this becomes obvious. Here’s a screenshot of the pertinent page in Dr. Fersht’s book on Jaques:

I recently stumbled upon the worldchesshoff website, which details the various design iterations that chess sets have undergone through the ages. Somewhere under the 20th century playing sets section, there was this beauty:
Now, on the website this set is identified as a 2016 House of Staunton Marshall Series set (king size 4.0 "). Does anyone here own this or have the low down on it? I just came across it and thought it was stunning.
Picture source: https://worldchesshof.org/exhibit/staunton-standard-evolution-modern-chess-set

The reason why I'm asking about it is that the Marshall set from HoS has gone through at least two designs that don't look anything like the above set at all. The one that is currently sold under the name Marshall series costs around 300 USD and is not even close. I've also found this picture, which I think shows an older HoS Marshall set:
Again, I don't think this looks anything like the set pictured in my previous post. In fact, the more I look at it, that set looks like a modern iteration from Jaques. Anyone else agree on this? Maybe they've mislabeled it on the website I quoted.

HoS changes their designs every so often. Here is the Collectors 3.75 I have.
Here is the one they sell now.

I recently stumbled upon the worldchesshoff website, which details the various design iterations that chess sets have undergone through the ages. Somewhere under the 20th century playing sets section, there was this beauty:
Now, on the website this set is identified as a 2016 House of Staunton Marshall Series set (king size 4.0 "). Does anyone here own this or have the low down on it? I just came across it and thought it was stunning.
Picture source: https://worldchesshof.org/exhibit/staunton-standard-evolution-modern-chess-set
My HoS Marshall Series 4" Kings in boxwood & ebony from 2005. Looks a bit different as well.

I recently stumbled upon the worldchesshoff website, which details the various design iterations that chess sets have undergone through the ages. Somewhere under the 20th century playing sets section, there was this beauty:
Now, on the website this set is identified as a 2016 House of Staunton Marshall Series set (king size 4.0 "). Does anyone here own this or have the low down on it? I just came across it and thought it was stunning.
Picture source: https://worldchesshof.org/exhibit/staunton-standard-evolution-modern-chess-set
I thought it looks maybe like one of the HoS Morphy designs. Slightly angular bishop and quite sturdy king and queen. Not the Morphy I have because base is different.
Anyway, the HoS site is extremely slow and I don't have the patience to wait to check. Seen that article and it's a good read.

A Marshall set from UK currently sold out
https://www.officialstaunton.com/products/marshall-edition-4-4-ebony-chess-pieces-mahogany-box

I recently stumbled upon the worldchesshoff website, which details the various design iterations that chess sets have undergone through the ages. Somewhere under the 20th century playing sets section, there was this beauty:
Now, on the website this set is identified as a 2016 House of Staunton Marshall Series set (king size 4.0 "). Does anyone here own this or have the low down on it? I just came across it and thought it was stunning.
Picture source: https://worldchesshof.org/exhibit/staunton-standard-evolution-modern-chess-set
I have three HOS Marshall sets. One ebonized, one rosewood and one bud rosewood (padauk by the looks of it). The knights of two of the sets differ slightly. The knights of the third set are very different from the other two sets. The rest of the pieces are identical. The bishops pictured in post #4646 do not look like the bishops in my sets. My sets look like the ones in your post #4649, allowing for variations in the knights. I thought I had pictures of all three sets but I've changed computers recently and it looks like the pictures went into hiding.
I think HOS changed manufacturers a few years ago and many of their designs changed considerably. I haven't looked at the HOS site lately so I just went over to check it out. Their current Marshall set is nothing like mine. It looks like every piece is shaped differently. The difference that annoys me most is the shape of the stems. The older HOS Marshall sets all have hourglass shaped stems. Their new Marshall set only has the curve at the bottom of the stem. The tops of the new bishops also irritate me because I bought my sets specifically for the bishop's shape and style. Now the set is just ugly to me.
I don't think Andy or Barney, or even Aunt Bee would agree.Not to mention Opey or Floyd the barber.-

I don't think Andy or Barney, or even Aunt Bee would agree.Not to mention Opey or Floyd the barber.-
You forgot Thelma Lou and Helen.

@Retired_Account What a name!
https://www.easyliveauction.com/catalogue/?searchTerm=Jaques&searchOption=3
I couldn’t get comfortable with the appearance of the label. Alan Fersht’s website has categorised quite a few Jaques Staunton labels and this one seems to be a mix of content and an entirely new border.
I’m curious to hear from the more weathered auction hunters if you would have bid on it.
Nobody finds that set looking awfully new? Aside from the shine (ok you can clean up any set and make it shiny) there is no noticeable damage or and dust residue in the rooks that is always hard to completely get out. And the label. Box looks aged yes, label really doesn't. Then put an antique book in the picture to enhance an antique vibe. Hmm. Hope I am wrong. Please let an expert look at the set when it arrives.
I don't think there's anything suspicious about that set. I've had Jaques sets where the pieces look shiny and the labels look new. I believe it's just that they've not been played with. That set looks like a great buy to me.
Of course it's possible that my sets were modern fakes!
Any comments/insights on the letter Q in the Jaques stamp? Looks a different letter type than in confirmed Jaques pictures. ( the Q here gets "dissected" more from the right side as opposed to from the bottom in all stamp pictures I saw from originals)