yep it seems to have !! ;)
I'm less certain of that. I just see GM4U selling his chess sets. With whom is he competing? With CB fans or "agents"? With the silent HOS? When I hear directly from the other middle men then I'd say it's a competition. Until then it seems more like a commercial.
yep it seems to have !! ;)
I'm less certain of that. I just see GM4U selling his chess sets. With whom is he competing? With CB fans or "agents"? With the silent HOS? When I hear directly from the other middle men then I'd say it's a competition. Until then it seems more like a commercial.
You have a valid point! ...and I am really sorry if its looks like a commercial and I promise after I list the up coming 1851 Jaques reproduction, then I will leave you fine people be. I came here to show that my company is capable of making credible reproduction sets, those that you can clearly recognise as a Jaques....I also promised that I would offer the first few batches to chess.com members at cost, which I have done, if you check our site now you will note the 1849 ebony repro is at its full RRP £750.00 ...so a few on here got a bargain. So please bear with me a little while longer as we are soon to launch the 1851 set and it is an incredible set!
thank you
>>> I'm less certain of that. I just see GM4U selling his chess sets.<<<<
Looks like you haven't noticed CB agents selling and fielding questions on their 1849 repro on this thread ?
The first three pages of this thread is where there was a genuine discussion of the 1849 design.
After that this was nothing but a discussion thread for the CB version of the 1849.
Ideally Alan Dewey should have set up a separate thread for discussion of his 1849 reproduction.
Scroll back and you will find Carl entered this thread, roughly midway, around pg 40. Until then it was really a Chessbazaar thread.
We really need an active and non biased chess.com staff moderating these threads. Even Carl/Official Staunton should ideally have a separate thread for his products.
GM4U, I apologize for being short with you. Things seemed to have taken an ugly turn - or I interpreted it that way - and my feathers got ruffled. I should learn to take it easy.
LuftWaffles, point taken. I got caught up in the excitement and that clouded my judgment. I guess I am just naive.
Rishi, I'm not quite sure what the policy is on advertising wares here at the forum and I am too lazy to find out. With that being said, however, I would appreciate leniency for equipment producers or retailers in this category or, perhaps, create a separate marketplace category. That way there would not need to be secret agents, members would not be accused of shilling, and producers could speak openly like Carl has been. I wouldn't mind reading through all that. Chess equipment is really the only reason I visit chess.com anyway.
Maybe such a thing violates some policy or what have you, and maybe it sounds naive, but I already admitted to being naive.
I agree that Carl and others should be able to tell us of new products they have to offer.
This is a Chess Books & Equipment forum and I come to chess.com over 90% of the time to check out this forum.
Also, when Carl introduces things he has given members of this forum a chance to gat the product at a substantial discount. I would not mind if all the sellers would do this.
Everything has beauty, but not everyone sees it - Confucius
...
however have you ever seen an 'Ugly Uhlig' set? :)
Confucius may have been wrong :))
Even an "Ugly Uhlig" is beautiful to its mother.
http://www.ncwoodworker.net/pp/showphoto.php?photo=67788
Like a skilled surgeon you have rescued the ugly and restored dignity to the undesirable as well as the beautiful. Thanks ChessSpy!
GM4U, I apologize for being short with you. Things seemed to have taken an ugly turn - or I interpreted it that way - and my feathers got ruffled. I should learn to take it easy.
absolutley no problem, I am certain I have upset plenty on here in my time!! haha :)
It is. I'm just boggled at your claim of "no real resemblance" when the contrary is obvious.
To illustrate my answer, I (badly) combined images of the two sets. From this, you can clearly see the differences:
Pawns: the Old Club Staunton (OCS) pawns are much squatter, with shorter stems.
Rooks: the OCS rooks have concave stems and medium height crenellations; the Jaques rooks have straight sides and tall crenellations (more than half of whose height falls below the top surface of the rook).
Knights: the manes of the OCS knights follow a curved line, flaring out at the bottom, and they also continue to above the eye on the top of the head, while the manes of the Jaques knights has a much straighter line and finishes much earlier on the top of the head. The top of the head of the OCS knights dips between the eye and nostril and then dips at an angle in front of the nostril, while the top of the Jaques knight follows a much straighter line. The OCS knights have a much bigger chin and a taller head.
Bishops: the OCS bishops have much more rounded heads, smaller knops, and shallower mitre cuts than the Jaques bishops. The mitre cuts are also at a different angle.
Queen: the OCS queen has a much more pronounced and narrower top to the coronet and a smaller knop than the Jaques queen, and the sides of the coronet are flared, whereas on the Jaques queen they are straight. The stem of the OCS queen also flares out very noticeably below the collars.
King: the sides of the top of the king are flared on the OCS king and straight on the Jaques king, and the stem of the OCS king also flares out very noticeably below the collars.
In summary, to my eye, all the distinguishing small details of the Jaques set are absent from the OCS set, and the similarities between the sets are those that one would find between many Staunton sets.
In summary, to my eye, all the distinguishing small details of the Jaques set are absent from the OCS set, and the similarities between the sets are those that one would find between many Staunton sets.
First you said, "I do not see any real resemblance between the Old Club Staunton and the Jaques set." You are now backpedaling.
Second, your image looks like a Jaques set, but it is certainly not the Fischer-Spassky set, which we were discussing.
Here is a better image of the Fischer-Spassky reproduction set with a Jaques certificate.
http://www.hayneedle.com/product/jacquesfischerspassky35inchesssetmahoganybox.cfm
You can see that the bishop and knight are much closer to the Old Club set than the set you are quoting.
Andy is talking about the Jaques set circa 1960's that was used in the 1972 World Championship in Iceland between Spassky and Fischer as I believe he has already stated.
Andy is talking about the Jaques set circa 1960's that was used in the 1972 World Championship in Iceland between Spassky and Fischer as I believe he has already stated.
Then Andy is confused, because he also slapped down my claim that F-S was based on the sixties Jaques:
It wasn't based on a 1960s era Jaques, it was a 1960s era Jaques. Jaques did not make a new set for the match, they just supplied what they had in stock at the time.
He can't have it both ways.
Again, my claim is that the Old Club Staunton sets are knock-offs of the Jaque Fischer-Spassky set.
The Old Club sets are way too close in resemblance to the J/F-S to be generic Staunton sets that just happen to be similar.
Then again, maybe it was the other way around. Jaques copied an existing Old Club set with some extra Jaques flair for the Fischer-Spassky.
I don't know. But the sets are related.
You guys are wonderful for all your minute detail on the Jaques and Dubrovnik lines, but does anyone know where the Old Club came from?
You guys are wonderful for all your minute detail on the Jaques and Dubrovnik lines,...
Agreed. Many times things have been pointed out that I would not have noticed otherwise.
Then Andy is confused, because he also slapped down my claim that F-S was based on the sixties Jaques:
When I wrote that, I was assuming that you meant the actual set used in the 1972 match when you referred to ‘the Fischer-Spassky set’. If that was it what you did mean, then all my comments are consistent and you are the one who is confused.
Then Andy is confused, because he also slapped down my claim that F-S was based on the sixties Jaques:
When I wrote that, I was assuming that you meant the actual set used in the 1972 match when you referred to ‘the Fischer-Spassky set’. If that was it what you did mean, then all my comments are consistent and you are the one who is confused.
I was speaking of the Fischer-Spassky and what I assume are faithful reproductions of it.
What do you think I am talking about?
Do you really believe the set you quoted was the Fischer-Spassky set?
I'm pretty close to considering you intellectually disingenuous here.
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.
just seen this! ...thank you so much it is very kind of you! :)