Reproduction and Real Jaques of London Chess Set

Then all my comments are consistent. If by ‘set you quoted’ you mean ‘set I posted’, yes, I believe that this is from the same batch of sets that the one used in the 1972 match was from (ie, it is a 1960s Jaques set). The reproductions sold today by places like House of Staunton and Jaques are made in India and are not exact reproductions of the original.

The reproductions sold today by places like House of Staunton and Jaques are made in India and are not exact reproductions of the original.
--Andy

An exact reproduction of one of the most historically important Chess sets ever produced, the Chess set used in the legendary 1972 World Chess Championship, featuring Robert J. (Bobby) Fischer (USA) and Boris Spassky (RUS).
--House of Staunton, http://www.houseofstaunton.com/the-reykjavik-ii-series-chess-set-and-board-combination.html

Well, fool that I am, I am going to take the word of HoS and JoL over Andy's.

That's not a good idea. I'm not saying Andy is right or wrong but HoS and Jol have made these claims many times. They don't hold up in comparisons to the originals they are supposed to replicate.

Then I need some compelling evidence that HoS and JoL have falsely claimed the authenticity of their reproductions of arguably the most famous chess set in modern times.

It would also be nice to know what authority Andy brings to this party.

Here's just a quick comparison. I had to reduce the resolution of the pictures but much better pictures are available on the vendors' web sites and on britishchesssets.com.

The HOS bishop and knight are noticeably different from the original. The JOL set was going to take more time than I have so I only copied the knight, which is also noticeably different than the original.

To diverge a little, the HOS Marshall set now ships with knights that look nothing like the Marshall knights as defined by Mr. Camaratta. Maybe that's one reason they are discontinued. Many people here have been debating the likenesses of the various Dubrovnik replicas, which are all different from the originals.

Gomer: Thanks for your effort, but I'm not following. What original set is being compared to what modern reproduction? Is the reproduction claimed to be "exact"?

It might be simpler if your threw in some links.

I can see that the knights, though not much else, are slightly different.

Whereas the pieces Andy posted for what he claimed was the real Fischer-Spassky set, were fairly different across the board -- the knights radically so -- from what HoS and JoL certify today as exact reproductions.

Are HoS and JoL committing fraud in their claims of exact reproduction?

Why is this not a scandal? They are charging over $700 for the nice wood versions.

Here are 2 pictures of the set used in the third game of the 1972 Fischer-Spassy match:

One of the things I notice varies a lot is the roundness of the Bishop tops.

Notice that in these pictures they are not as round as a lot of the sets that are reproductions.

Also in the comparison of some of these sets, the Queens' crowns vary with the crenelations being higher on some and lower, showing more of an exposed dome, in others.

However, Jaques sets varied amongst themselves depending on when  they were made, exact date or year not decade, and who the artisan was that made the set.

So, the Fischer-Spassky 1972 set might be a 1960 Jaques product or one that was made at a different time.

Eyechess: Thanks for the decent photos.

I could only find low-res versions from that photo shoot which has the kings and queens on the wrong squares.

So is the real answer that the Fischer-Spassky set was from a JoL line which varied so much that the current "exact reproductions" fall within the range of sixties JoL without being exact for the specific set used by Fischer and Spassky?

If so, it's screwed up IMO. If I was going to shell out $700+ for a Fischer-Spassky I would want it to be, you know, exact.

Then there's the question of why the "exact reproductions" look more like the Deluxe Old Club set than the actual Fischer-Spassky.

Or visa versa.

Yeah, that's the problem with the reproductions. There are variations in the original originals, variations in the continuations of the originals, and variations in the copies. I've decided that I won't buy any more "reproductions" because so few of them satisfy me. I'll just buy sets I like for their own merits and not because they are supposed to be a repro of something.

In my pictures, the first set is an original 1849. The second set is a HOS Collector that the HOS description says is "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."

Maybe I'm being too strict on the definition of "replicate" but I see other differences. The thickness and curvature of the stems and the chamfered versus non-chamfered bases also stick out to me. Anyway, it is awfully hard to find something I would call an "exact" copy. Thechesspiece had a set that was good. I think the latest version from officialstaunton is better and may be about as close as any one will get.

All in all, it's frustrating.

And here are a couple of pictures from the HoS site.  This is the Golden Rosewood one they have on Clearance.  I bought one of these because $149 is a lot less expensive than $400 - $600.  I also wanted a brown set to go with a Maple and Mahogany board. 

I have not read and do not know the origin or the exact name and model of the set used by Fischer and Spassky in 1972.  I suspect most others also don't know.

Reproductions are just that and not duplicates in pretty much all instances.  In my experience though, Frank Camaratta has come as close as possible in a lot of sets to duplicating the originals.  Look at the Liberty Series, for instance.

As mentioned, I own the HoS Fischer-Spassky Commerative set in Golden Rosewood.  It is a very nice set all on its own and my friends and I have enjoyed playing slow time control games with it immensely.

I know that some want the closest duplication of the original 1972 set for collection purposes and perhaps even playing reasons.  If I were that way, I would use the pictures of the original sets as a standard to compare the ones for sale.  And I believe the HoS set is among the best in that, from what I have seen and read from others.

But how hard is it, really, to make a decent duplicate?

If I order two wood sets of the same model from the same outfit will they vary as much as the Fischer-Spassky reproductions?

I agree with both of the last 2 posters, other than me.

ipcress, with today's technology I also think it should not be that hard to make a decent duplicate.

I know that Frank used to send pieces from the original sets to his producers to copy.  Now, with the computer lathes and 3d imaging of today and with 3d printers I think a pretty darn identical duplicate should be able to be made on all the turned pieces.  And all the pieces except the Knights are turned.

And with the 3D imaging and printers out there, I imagine it should be doable to duplicate the Knight carvings, even in wood.

Gomer, I also gave up trying for the duplicates and just went for sets that I liked the way they looked and played.  I actually decided on the HoS Fischer-Spassky set over a CB set, because the HoS set was on Clearance and at such a major discount.  I knew that a set priced at $400 would have more fine work in it than a set retailing for $125.  And I wanted a lighter shade of brown for a board I have.  It was just a nice coincidence that it was a Fischer-Spassky reproduction.

Yes, the Collector, Marshall and Player Series sets do not look as identical to the ones they are trying to "replicate".  But they are nice sets onto themselves and that's what matters in my book.  I currently own a Marshall and Player set in Rosewood.  I sold my Collector Series set years ago because I did not care for how fragile the pieces looked.  It kind of scared me.

Sometimes they don't even replicate themselves. In the picture below the left knight is from an ebonized Marshall set I bought a few years ago. The right knight is from a rosewood Marshall set I bought this spring. The middle set is from a blood rosewood set I had to buy when they hit the clearance page, just to complete my Marshall series. My favorite is the right knight but it's about even with the left knight. I do not like the middle knight. I debated returning the set or trading it for another but it was my last chance to get a blood rosewood Marshall. The color of the blood rosewood is nice and I don't notice the knights much OTB so I decided it's a keeper. (But I still don't like that knight. It's not a Marshall knight.) They are all nice sets, I just like some more than others.

Wow. And to make matters worse, none of these resemble an actual vintage JoL Marshall knight. And I say that because I own such a set. I'll see if I can get a pic posted.

Here's a pair of vintage Marshall knights:

The middle has an under bite.

Quote

"And with the 3D imaging and printers out there, I imagine it should be doable to duplicate the Knight carvings, even in wood".

Along with another collector I looked closely at scanning knights and getting them auto carved. The conclusion we came to was that the technology is still many years away from being able to produce a finished knights head from a scan file.

I might also point out that my purpose in entering the repro fray was to cause better playing sets to be offered at more reasonable prices than had been generally available before. I think in that I have been successful.

Not all sets will suit every player we all have our favorites and that is also to be expected.

Alan.....Do you remember a small manufactuer that used the name Unique Staunton?

was it by any chance Arisocraft Exports ? ...now known as Aristochess ?