Reproduction and Real Jaques of London Chess Set

Thank you. That's pretty much what I meant by "knock-off."

I was talking about the original Jaques set, not their repro of the original set.

you are welcome. this is the cheapest I can find in ebony:

https://www.schachversand.de/e/detail/material/1167.html

but the set is easy to find even here in Italy:

http://www.prismascacchi.com:8080/prismascacchi/PrismaScacchiNews/Scacchi_e_scacchiere/FMPro?-db=articoli.fp5&-format=foto_grande.htm&-lay=cgi_scacchi_e_scacchiere&-op=eq&Codice=324&Codice=325&Codice=326&-lop=or&-recid=33924&-find=

No. You said:

I do not see any real resemblance between the Old Club Staunton and the Jaques set.

Yes, that's what I wrote but when I wrote "the Jaques set" I was referring to the original 1960s set because I was answering your question "Then is the Old Club Staunton a knockoff of the sixties Jaques?"

I know we want the reproductions as close to the originals as possible.  I see a couple of problems with that and the Jaques sets.

First, the Jaques sets varied and differed a lot between themselves.  The apparent reason is there were individual carvers with their own characteristics and the pieces would reflect their differences.

Second, I have found that a lot of the newer reproductions made by the better companies and, yes, being in the higher price range due to their higher quality, actually are better than the originals.

Now, understand that this is from a player's perspective.  I want my sets to handle, look and play well.

For instance, the HoS Fischer-Spassky series is really nice in form and playability.  I own one in Golden Rosewood.

Last night I played with my HoS Marshall Series, Rosewood set on a 2.5" wood board and it was very, very nice in both looks and play.

Both of these sets, along with my favorite of the HoS sets, Players Series in Rosewood, are all reproductions of Jaques sets from over the years.

Looking at Carl's offerings on this site and hearing what people that have one of that company's sets have written about them, I believe they have a high quality as well.  Yes, I have come to believe you get what you pay for with a reputable company like The House of Staunton, Official Staunton and Jaques.  I understand tha the Jaques ones might be higher priced due to the name and reputation, but I am confident those sets are of a high quaity.

From what I have seen and read, Chess Bazaar, the House of Chess also offer quality products at a lower price.  Note, I am not saying they are not nice sets from these places.  They are a lot less expensive and the wood, design details, workmanship and finish all reflect that they are less then the higher companies' in both total quality as well as price.  But for the price, they are nice sets.

This still makes no sense to me.

What set were you saying bore no resemblance to which other set?

Wise are those who learn that the bottom line doesn't always have to be their top priority.

Alan, what do you mean by these philosophical sayings?

Please be more straightforward.  What are your thoughts and opinions on some of these other companies and the products they sell?

What do you think of the sets The House of Staunton sells?

What do you think of the current Jaques products?

What do you think of the sets Carl and his company sell?

What do you think of the quality of some of the lower priced places, particularly in India?

And, what do you think of the Noj sets?

Also, what do you think of Jonas and his Best Chessmen Ever sets?

I know that you professionally fix and repair chess sets, both antique and modern.  I would personally like to hear your take on these sets.

Hi Eyechess,

That is far too many questions for me to answer on this forum. But thank you for asking.

I should perhaps explain my previous posts,

Carl (it seemed to me) posted a self aggrandizing post so I chided him with a Biblical quote. He then posted in exchange a modern philosopher's quote, I replied with a quote from the same source contradicting, (rather neatly I thought) his previous. It is all a bit of good natured fun as I am sure Carl will agree.

I will however answer your last question. Antique chess sets vary from the sublimely beautiful and historically important to sets which were made very cheaply. The prices these sets realise at auction is dependent on many factors, rarity, condition, and something je ne sai quo. I just fix them and never comment on other collectors tastes in sets.

Oh, I am not trying to corner him in any way.

In an earlier post I said that I feel some reproductions are better than the originals as far as details and finished product.

As time has progressed so has technology.  Today's manufacturing machines an tools have been improved compared to the older tools of yesteryear.

I know that Alan has a professional relationship with CB.  I would hope that he could give us his opinion of chess sets out there.  He has repaired those manufactured sets as well as the antiques.

I also do not see this as a competition where there can only be one winner, no matter what.

I personally know Frank Camaratta and remember when he did the contracting/wholesaling for Jaques as well as having his own business, The House of Staunton.  He would tell me that the higher priced Jaques sets were of a better quality wood and even manufacture from the ones he sold.  The differences included picking the pieces of the best wood quality and even selecting the best pieces to put together a complete set, something that was not done in such a demanding way in his lesser expensive sets.

The way I see it, there are a limited number of things that make up the quality of a chess set.  You start with the woods.  They must be properly aged.  Then the pieces of wood chosen to make a set comes into it.  As an example, I just bought a HoS Fischer Spassky set in Golden Rosewood, and I can attest that the cuts of wood used in that set is a lot better than lesser expensive sets made of the same material.  Of course this set originally listed for $400 in Golden Rosewood otherwise known as Sheesham.

Then there is the design.  Some designs require a lot more work done on the pieces.  Look at the Noj version of the Dubrovnik versus the CB one.  You can see the differences in the Knight designs as well at the other pieces with different numbers of collars on the pieces and other detail differences.  No one, even those that love the cheaper set, disagrees that there is more detail in the design of the much more expensive set.

Then there is the workmanship, especially in the carving of the Knights.  It is quite obvious the difference in the more expensive sets versus the lesser ones in details of the pieces.

Then there is the finishing of the pieces.  Laquering and buffing of the pieces also makes a big difference.  The better finished ones take a lot more work time than the lesser ones.

So, I was just asking Alan what he thought of the quality of the pieces from the various sellers.

I agree that sets can be made for less money and still be of a good quality for the price.  A high price does not always mean better quality as a lower price doesn't always mean shoddy or cheap work.  But with the integrity of the producers being equal, the lesser priced piece will take less time and perhaps be a lesser quality material than the higher priced one chosen from the best wood and given a lot more time in manufacture.  Understand that the more skilled carvers will also charge a higher price because of their ability to produce a nicer, higher quality work than the lesser skilled carvers.

Carl has given his opinion of other company sets.  He has said there is a place for the lower priced options for people that want a set that looks nice and plays alright.  There are a number of people on this forum that really like their CB sets even though they also own the much more expensive versions as well. 

I was just asking Alan for his opinions with no harm intended.

I believe he answered your questions.

Everything has beauty, but not everyone sees it - Confucius

Everything has beauty, but not everyone sees it - Confucius

Thanks alan, (alleenkatze)

however have you ever seen an 'Ugly Uhlig' set? :)

Confucius may have been wrong :))

I don't know why you’re finding this so hard to understand. You asked if the Old Club Staunton was a knock-off of the 1960s Jaques. I essentially answered ‘not in my opinion’.

But, to be as explicit as possible: I do not see any real resemblance between the Old Club Staunton and the 1960s Jaques (which was used for the 1972 Spassky—Fischer match) beyond that of any two Staunton sets, thus I do not think the Old Club Staunton is a knock-off of the 1960s Jaques.

And, if the people behind the Old Club Staunton are claiming that the Old Club Staunton is a reproduction of the 1960s Jaques, then I would say they did a very bad job in copying the 1960s Jaques.

I hope this is clear enough.

There have been numerous attempts at replicating the Grandad 1849 Jaques set, I wasnt aware until today that the even House of Staunton' first attempt was their Collectors Series.. here is the description from their listing - 

"Crafted to replicate the design and proportions of the original Staunton pattern Chessmen, registered by Nathaniel Cooke in March of 1849 and first manufactured by Jaques of London in September 1849."

here is an image of that set that we also retail but not as a reproduction. 

Here's the old man's opinion... Carl has gone to great lengths, research and developement, and has taken a real genuine interest in creating sets as close as possible to the originals by and through his own high expections and use in materials, carvings, quality control, and requesting our various opinions. Further, he has also demonstrated and acted as a gentleman over time and proved he can not only dish it out, but can take it too. High quality of course in itself deserves a premium, plan and simple. He's also put up with a lot of BS and critque here, so give the gentleman a break and give him his due. Keep up the good work Carl.

Disclaimer: We have no sale affiliations what so ever. Just is what it is.     

It is. I'm just boggled at your claim of "no real resemblance" when the contrary is obvious.

I don't know what the Old Club makers claim. I would like to know, but apparently no one here knows the history of that set or even if that set has a coherent history beyond being a generic name for Jaques knock-offs.

The knight looks a lot like the CB version 1849 Set

the CB set i received number 34 or 35 (since sold it on) had this shaped knight (below) hence my comment of similarity. 

yep it seems to have !! ;)