Reproduction and Real Jaques of London Chess Set

My first problem with the horse on the picture is that jaw will brake in less than a month, at least in my house.

I do agree with you, there is a lot of the personal taste on the deal. I have mention this here. As I have say before if it turns out that CB set is 100% true to the original, Then I will find another set to become fan of.

Furtunally We can agree, i hope, base on the collection of pictures that CB horse is not historical at all. It is an abourtion of design.

Please understand, I don't have anything againts the company or the people behind this. If it was designed by Jesuschrits and produced by Jaques himself, I would have still say it is a really ugly set.

It is not that I don't like it. It is that I really really dislike it. And the second "really" is becouse it is staining the original 1849 name, leading people to think that... well you already have read all this stuff from me.

So back to the point. The horse in the draw is ugly, but as you mention it shows quality in the craftmanship, asuming the wooded rendition of it resamblpes the detail we see on the picture. I would be worried about litle parts breaking like jaw and ears. And this for me is another flaw on design, as it is not as playable as it should be.

Sure... wanna talk about the new watch from Apple?

Still some quivering going on with that horse it seems.  Actually the CB knight has a noticable resemblance to the 1849 registered image.  Maybe not so slack jawed, but an interpretation not hideous IMHO.

Nice reviews on their site means some satisfied customers, so it really doesn't matter.

Pay £3,000 for the Jaques 1849 reproduction or perhaps find the real thing with the knight variation that pleases you and your pocket book.  God bless.

No idea at all, which was my original point. I can't see where anyone said anything resembling such a thing.

Speaking here as just a layperson, not a wood carver or a historian of chess sets, I see nothing wrong with the look of the knight that was posted (I don't like the fake aging, but that's another matter). To me, it looks very close to the Jaques knight from your website (assuming that was one of the original pieces and not one of your recreated pieces). I can't understand what you have against that knight, especially when you seemed to have no problem at all with CB's version of a Jaques knight, despite that looking like no Jaques knight I've ever see a photograph of.

I think theere is more to this.

Let me ask you a question, comparing to the original 1849. WIch of this CB 2 offers you think is closer to 1849. The one they sell with Alan imput or the one they offer under the name of Staunton?

Have a look atthis 2 sets and tell me what looks closer to the original sets on the pictures:

http://www.chessbazaar.com/new-reproduced-1849-staunton-pattern-chess-set-in-ebony-antiqued-box-wood-with-king-side-stamping-4-4-king.html

http://www.chessbazaar.com/the-staunton-series-triple-weighted-wooden-chess-pieces-in-rose-box-wood-4-7-king.html

My point here is that the one that is branded as 1849 is so off the original that basically anything that is Stauton design will be as 1849 as the one that is marketed to be the 1849...

So I am here comparing 2 sets from the CB catalog and claiming that the Staunton series set on their catalog is closer to the 1849 set than the one on their catalog name the 1849.

Anyway. even closer to the original are the offer from thechesspiece.com, unfurtunally out of stock at this moment, and it was way less than the 3k price tag you mention.

Other option that seams to be very promising is the one GM4U is working on. It looks like it will be righ on the momney.

I mean, after I saw the OP on this forum I have try to reach AIW several times. I have sent messages on their facebook page, and so on, so far unsucesful. So I am really happy about the fact that GM4U is going to bring that set up to the market.

This is reportedly an 1849 original Jaques of London set.  Looks like the "Type 2 Cook" just above:

CB were the ones that posted a lot of promotional material on their site about how they were producing an accurate Jaques 1849 set (which they've since stepped back from) and they were the ones that posted detailed "blueprints"  showing the knight they were going to deliver. As well, Alan posted pictures showing the prototypes with the same knight, so obviously people who wanted a accurate 1849 set were disappointed that the knight changed so dramatically at the last minute. Sure, there were variations in Jaques' original 1849 knights, but none looked anything like the CB knight. So, it's not nonsense or snide to ask why the last-minute change to a standard knight.

Having said, I think that htdavidht is spending far too much time and effort going over and over the same ground.

Of course there is a 1849 design.

Cooke is a different design. and Cooke, the guy try to copy the 1849 design, so you will see some sets from Cooke that look like the Staunton 1849 design adn you will see some design from Jaques thta sport the Cooke style horse.

I know this migh seams confusing but it is not. To explain this in a simplistic way:

There is 2 guys making chess sets on 1849 one is Jaques and the other is Cooke.

Both of this guys have their own style of designs and both of this guys have in their catalogs their versions of the other guy's design.

So there is the Cooke set, and the Jaques set with Cooke styled horse. there is the Jaques set (this is the Staunton 1849 version we all are talking about here) and there is the set Cooke made that sport Jaques style horse.

Leuchars is a whole diferent design.

So if you are making a Staunton 1849 repro,. We are here talking about a very specific design that the carvers where very consistent to make.

We are not talking about all the sets that where on Jaques catalog in 1849. We are talking about 1 specific design that was on that catalog.

If you like a Leuchars repro. Then CB horse have miss the mark even worse.

If you like a Cooke repro. and here I am talking about an specific design, not talking here about all the sets Cooke sold in his catalog. Then CB still of the mark...

There is nothing on 1849 Jaques catalog that looks like CB horse.

Trowing in a bounch of random pictures some from Jaques catalog and some from Cooke catalog, is at best confusing. Unless you read the notes on the pictures and relice they come from 2 diferent catalogs. However none of the picture in there is the Staunton 1849 design, so that serves to show how much variety there was on their catalog, but not to show how the 1849 looks like.

This other picture shows THE Staunton we want, it is the number 8

It is my understanding that the number 8 is the oldest surviving set from Staunton design on Jaques catalog.

All the previus designs are lost, there is no surviving number 1 out there we can look at. At least this is my understanding about this.

So when we are talking about 1849 set, we mean the number 8 in this picture, no the Leuchars set on the other picture.

What is frustrating about this is that Alan is the owner of the only number 8 that is in the world. So we all kinda expected that his imput would have got us closer to this.

And for the most part of CB work, it was very close, up to the prototype, then everything just went down the toilet and we are left with a random collection of pictures trying to make sense from where that CB horse could have possible come from.

a closer look at knight. 

I think that horse have the head too big comparing to the rest of the set. What is the history behind that design?

Hi David

there is no apprant history it is just the artisans rendition of an older design set. 

Clearly, you don't know what you're talking about.

You seem to be confusing Alan Dewey and Alan Fersht.

rcmacmillan summed it up well in his long post. With all this information from history we can draw one inference, that there is no exact 1849 knight. The knights varied. Like I said before I like all the knights in the pictures that Mr. Fersht has on his web site referring to the early sets. I wish I could afford to have one of each set of knights.  IN FACT....I think who ever comes out with an 1849 set with 2 sets of knights might have a winner.  

I have repeatidly conveyed the idea of a 2 knight set to an India retailer and it goes on deaf ears.  

Let's put this 1K + thread to bed. We are all collectors or just appreciate a nice chess set to play with.  Opinios are like A Holes everyone has one and they all stink. 

GM4U,

Here's my take. First off (I know it's traditional), but I think the queen is too short. With a short queen, the remaining pieces have to be proportioned to her stature, which makes it look like you're using a larger king from another set. If the queen was taller, the remaining pieces could be upscaled, which is what I've done in the "revised" photo below.

Look what happens when we leave the king and knight unchanged, but resize the queen, bishop, knight, and pawn to a more proportioned scale. To my eye, I much prefer the "revised" scaling to the original, but that's me.

With six different pieces, it makes sense to first establish the relationship between the largest and smallest pieces, the king and pawns. For it's the dimensions of these two pieces (taken together) which should be the criteria for sizing chess sets and boards -- not the king dimensions alone, and certainly not only the king's height (what are they thinking?).

Once the dimensions of the king and pawn are established, it becomes an easier task to scale the remaining pieces for a balanced design.

Yeah that is rigth I should pay more attention.

Invaluable information, thank you or taking the time !! :)