Reproduction and Real Jaques of London Chess Set

I have a few questions for you fellows that know more about the set specifics, costs and other details than I.

As sort of a disclaimer I am just a guy that plays Chess and has learned to like and appreciate the better quality sets both for looks and play.  I have never had any interest in buying antique sets or any other set as a collector. 

Here are my observations to kind of set the scene of this post and questions that follow.

The standard of Elite Chess set design, in the vast majority, since 1849 has been the Jaques designed Staunton sets.  I believe that most of the World Chempaionship matches have used Jaques sets.  The Jaques Staunton design has become the standard against which sets are compared and used.

I know that before Frank Camaratta began his company in the 1990's, there were very few, if any, quality Chess sets available to purchase in the United States, and most likely internationally.  Frank did bring the quality Chess set to the forefront, no matter who says what.  So his company, The House of Staunton, did become the standard bearer of quality Chess sets.

I first got to know Frank in 1998.  From then until 2003 or so, I would speak with him on the phone at least 3 or 4 times a year about Chess sets, both those he was selling or going to sell and others as well.  Frank would tell me of sets he had commissioned to be made that were not yet on the market anywhere.  And often times he would tell me of set designs he was looking to have made, even before he went to his manufacturer(s) to commission the work.  I'm sorry, but this is a fact and I still remember exact discussions about exact sets and belatedly boards, and even the Chess clock he designed and patented, the Excalibur GameTime.

I bought at least 4 sets from Frank before he started the extra Queens practice in his sales.  I remember buying extra Queens for those sets.  And I distinctly recall talking with him when he started this.  Frank is a Master Chess Player and he definitely took the viewpoint of the player in this.  As an aside it was this same attitude that brought about his Signature Traditional board with Green dyed Sycamore and Bird's Eye Maple woods and squares.

I also know that antique sets can become quite expensive.  I believe the 1849 set that Frank owns and used to send to his manufacturer for his latest set, is something over $10,000.

So, why would someone like Frank have a set priced so high?  Is the high cost in the research and development?  Is it in the materials, for instance only the finest, finest woods or something?  Is it in the cost of manufacturing?  Is it just because he thinks he just wants to charge that much?  I'm serious about this.

At $3500, he cannot expect to have that many buyers.  After all this is a reproduction, not an original.

Do you think Frank might be looking at this from a player's point of view and has the weighting system and lozenges and all that jazz in the set because it will play better?  I do know that when Frank has had any kind of hand in the design of the set, the balance, handling, feel and playability of the set is better than any competitor.

Is it possible that the sets Frank has had made feel and play differently than ones other companies sell whose pictures look almost identical to Frank's sets?  The collector would be less motivated to make sure the Chess set plays and feels good in the hand.  He might play the occasional game with a set, but not enough to make the feel matter.

I haven't talked with Frank for over 10 years, so I don't have any kind of communication link to him at this time.

Please understand that I mean these questions in all sincerity and respect.  I have my own price sensitivities for the sets I buy and play with.  I certainly have no desire to buy a Jaques or Frank's more expensive sets.  His sets priced from $150 - $500 play just as well as the more expensive ones, in my opinion.  Well they do at least for the money I want to spend. 

So, what do you fellows that are more expert than me say about this?  And please keep the personality likes and dislikes out of it.  There is no need to be negative, insult or otherwise denigrate others.

And as a note to make my point, I do appreciate Carl and his company.  His sets do look good.  I do think that people in the business really have no place in trying to make a person look bad because they charge more for a product than that person thinks they should.

I was at the Chess Bazaar web site just now.  And I see they have their 1849 set as a 2.0 version.  It looks nice.

So, Alan is this set closer to your original specifications?

What do you Jaques Reproduction experts think?

Ron,

As you address me directly I will answer in the same way.

There were several variations to the Staunton design in the first few years of production, including about a dozen different knight designs.

Once a set of samples are sent off for reproduction it is out of the hands of the 'designer' (I put this in brackets foir obvious reasons as copying is what we are talking about.)

To answer your more general question. In India (or China) where all of these modern reproduction sets are made (Except NOJ) labour costs are less than $10 per DAY. wood costs are relatively low as the boxwood used is not buxus sempervirens (European box) but a cheaper substitute. There are many black or dark woods called 'ebony' and I assume a similar situation applies there as to cost.

The cost of making a 'high end' repro cannot be more than double a resonably good set and of course the 'design' input is also similar so paying more than $500 for a good Staunton set is not in my opininon justifiable.

Of course re-sellers of sets can put the price point where they like and I suppose if very few of these extraordinarily expensive copies are sold it is just possible they may be sellable at a premium in 100 years or so. (I doubt it).

My advice to anyone with money to burn is to buy a good genuine Jaques set. Garrick coleman and Tim Millard are the top two sellers of these real Jaques sets and often have sets a $1000 -$3000 You can be assured of your set holding it's value over time it is a very good investement IMHO

Thank you, Alan.  This is exactly the information I was seeking.  I find comfort in what you say because I have never spent more than $508, exactly for any Jaques reproduction and that is only one set.  The rest have all cost me less than $280, believe it or not.

Also, what is your expert opinion of the CB 1849 2.0?

Hi Alan

thank you for your input, it is very informative however may I just add that the labour and raw materials have increased exponentially over the past 4 years or so. I will an example/ insight to just one of our repro sets, the 1849 ebony set: 

Last year we paid AIW £225.00 / SET ! on top of that cost there is the landed cost to consider, for example the courier charges of say 50 sets with UPS or FEDEX insured tracked, there is also the VAT/Duty to consider on importaion, in the UK the VAT element is 20% ...so this landed unit price is actually around the £280.00 mark.....when buying direct from India, companies such as mine have to purchase a MOQ (minimum order quantity)

The days of low cost labour from India have long gone, nowadays the top hubs charge a premium for quality workmanship and I wouldnt expect any less from them. 

cheers Carl 

Carl, I agree that in a hotly contested market profit margins are slim.

That does not mean that Indian carvers are being paid wages commensurate with USA or GB. It simply means that the fat profits are being made over there. I should think at these prices for copy (CAD-CAM) lathe produced pieces that an enteprising USA maker could compete IF they could get the wood at a comparable price. That leaves the knight carving which needs to be solved.

2010 India labor was $1.46/hr.  2013 I found this chart which is the latest I could find in a short time. http://www.asiabriefing.com/news/2013/07/comparison-minimum-wages-in-china-and-india/

I am sure it is 20% higher than the chart by now. As you can see it is still substantially lower than China which insures China will not be taking any business away from the carving of chess sets from India in the near future. But I do have a feeling the wages in India will be going up significantly in the coming years as well as the last couple years as they catch up with the industialized world. 

Interesting I did not know India uses a cheaper boxwood. I am guessing it is this (Box wood (Gardenia latifolia))

 But then Europe doesn't carve too many sets anyways. So does Europe export their top quality boxwood to India for carving the finer sets? 

Alan, did CB use the better boxwood when they made your signature 1849 set?  I only saw the ebony part listed and not what type of boxwood used.

Only has this Material: Ebony wood (Diospyros ebenum)/ Antiqued Box wood .  

BTW what is the difference in the boxwood the hardness? 

Absolutley, I agree that in comparison to the west's hourly rate, India still falls far short, however you may know with working with Vik, the top carvers are not on what is considered low hourly rates, they can and do demand a much higher hourly value for their work. I know for sure that one of our suppliers adds between 10 and 15% only to the end product. One of those 1849 sets can take up to 40 hours work to completion. 

Interesting about the lathe! 

Whoah! This thread...

Wouldn't it be funny if the manufacturer of the set that HoS commissioned offered it to OS as well, but with conventional weighting, while the final details with this new weighting method of HoS's was being resolved?

This could explain why Carl released his 1851 first, and why he is willing tho drop it just because FC (the competition) is asking nicely. HoS would be furious and put a lot of pressure on the manufacturer as well.

After all they use the same manufacturers, right?

This "theory" was concocted by a sleep deprived brain, and I'm sure there's nothing to it, but it was just a funny thought. Good night.

Yes we do use the same manufacturers as I have pointed out many times. What I do believe however is Frank had possibly commissioned the design early last year and within that time the 1851 that I had sent an image of ( from Alans site) to one of our manufacturers was a clone of Franks originals that were with the manufacturer at that time, they may have modified it ever so slightly and then sent me a prototype of the new modified version......

after speaking with Frank, this seems very plausible. So  for those reasons I decided to pull the 1851, however if there is no public acknowledgment from Frank, then I will renege on my offer! 

There is a need for this open acknowledgment from Frank, it is so it correlates with what I am saying openly on here.......

Do not hold your breath Carl.

It seems to me that owning a genuine Jaques set of 19th c vintage has a certain cachet that any copy Staunton cannot.

1) Before about 1930 Jaques made their own sets right there in London (AFAWK)

2) For all the doubt about JJ1s involvement in the original design he did bring the Staunton pattern to the fore and (Quite cleverly) got the top chess player of the day to promote it. Staunton was, you will remember at the height of his powers having just beaten St Amant in Paris a few years earlier (He insisted on using his 4.4" St George set in the match, ostensibly because of his dislike of the Regence style which was in use there. (Howard Staunton was co-founder of the ST George club in London and this also argues against an earlier date for the SP design introduction an idea which a very few researchers still cling to)

3) A genuine Jaques set will hold it's value over time perhaps increasing over inflation becoming a family heirloom and a darn good investment. One which can be used and admired.

4) For all the fluff about modern set makers, (Apart from NOJ) they are all peddling the 'same old same old' and are therefore unlikely to become valuable as antiques. Antique values are a strange thing and if my 25 years as an antiques restorer in Portobello Market taught me anything it is that antique objects rely on rarity and something which is rather trickier to predict, public perception.(Consider for example the popularity of black (Ebony ware) just after Queen Victoria's death, And some of the products of empire like butterfly wing trays. There are I suppose collectors of such things but they are few and far between and the price/value of such items is so low as to be hardly worth selling). I would not temp the fates by trying to predict what will happen to chess ephemera after the inevitable 'busting' of the game by computer but as long as people play and perhaps even if they do not. (How many adults play checkers now?) I think that in our lifetimes at least good antique sets will be admired and used,

This thread grows more interesting every day.

I think Alan is right about the general trend in collectibles.  That's why I only buy sets because I like how they look or feel and never worry about making money off them.  These are consummables to me, like buying a new phone.  I use Jaques style designs as guides because they please me, but I'm happy to buy a robust wood set for 100-200 dollars that modifies the original Jaques styles in ways I find good or acceptable.  If I ever want a full-on replica, I'll just save up for an antique Jaques.

Carl...I own the OS 1849 and 1851 sets they are truly beautiful,I hope you will continue selling the 1851 set and as a matter of fact I would like to see you produce the 1851 set in ebony/boxwood...

Just to clarify and expand a little on my comment about Howard Staunton using a large St George style set as his regular play set prior to being sponsored (bought) by Jaques to promote the new Staunton design.

As we know almost all major clubs of the early to mid 19th c had their own set design, this must have been quite a home game advantage in matches. Imagine being able to take your favorite D+D set to a congress!?

The list of club design sets is. St George, Dublin, Edinburgh and Regence CC Paris. I am sure there were others in both Btitain and on the continent.

However there is some indication that the so called St George pattern was either already in use (when the St G club was founded) and was  what was regarded as a 'normal' set or became so wildly popular that many lesser size cheaper sets were made in the same style. They were still being sold retail as late as 1941.

However This design was no doubt what HS had in mind when he critisized the sets in general use in his chess column in the London Evening News, as obscuring the pawns and having too many collars and being designed by a turner not a player. He also said the Edinburgh set had been designed "a few years earlier" (than 1849) By a Lord John Hay. We do not know which LJH this is and do not know if he was a player. (Remeber that turning (in particular ivory turning) was a 'gentlemens passion' at that time, Ornamental lathes had just become cheap enough for 'a gentleman' to afford and instal in his library. Anyway Howard said it was 'tippy'.

The Regence design hugely popular in Europe (France in particular) and thanks to American Francophiles like Benjamin Franklin also in the USA. But the pieces often look similar, (queens bishops and pawns)

And so then the desperate need for a standard design. Which incidentally copied the already standardised print icons (1818) the same as we use today.

I agree and this is what I do with my sets.  If a set doesn't play well, I don't want it.

The "problem" I have had is finding a set made or sold by any company other than Noj and HoS that feels as good as they do.  Of course Noj is not in the Jaques reproduction business, which I think is good for Noj.

Carl claims that Frank only bought sets the manufacturers designed and made with no input as to how it is made.  Well, I beg to differ.  I remember Frank telling me, numerous times, about a set he was considering have made.  Then he would tell me about talking with his carvers and directing them which wood to use and other details of the set.  There are a number of sets that Frank designed as reproductions.  I have personal knowledge of him commissioning and having input into his Collector, Players, Professional, Liberty, Marshall, Renegade and Zagreb '59 sets.

And, I buy my sets for playing purposes.  If I am not going to use the set to play with, I don't keep it.

Yes Ron, Frank recently emailed me a list of the sets he claims to have designed? All I ask is proof of those claims? copyright, drawings with original speifications etc?  The only set I know he designed (knight) is the collectors series, which is now available via other sources, although AIW make the ones for us nowadays. He may well have named sets such as renegade, Marshall and others you list, but its a far cry from being the designer. In my 20 year experience I have aided in designs with input and ideas however the prototype almost always comes from the carvers...unless you specify wth an image and ask for changes with additional drawings of what modifications you would like to have done to an existing design. 

As for quality sets, it is safe to say that is what Official Staunton does very well, supply quality sets for a decent price. 

Just for the record, and so you understand - we may well be selling sets that HOS sold ( where offered first) -presently HOS have at least 8 designs that I initiated a few years ago with one of our manufacturers, we marketed the likes of these designs FIRST....and yes now HOS have renamed them and are retailing the same......it is how our business operates. 

here (below) is a prime example of a set that was made especially for one of our sister company's in 2010......we were given a letter of authority to register with the copyrights office this design and four others as limited editions,with exclusive rights to retail/wholesale and no other company had set eyes on these new designs, they were created under JS Arts by Mr Pal and Janail Singh gave the sole exclusivity to my company.  I still have the registration certificates ad letter of authority------ I named the design below The Andalusian Set- Now of course the set has been copied by others and sold under different name.

Alexandra Kostenuik posed with the Andalusian set we sent her, this was part of a deal that I and her husband Diego struck, it was an add on to the sale of chessking which I owned and Diego wanted. 

http://chessqueen.com/tag/andalusian-chess-set

Carl, this might disappoint you but the only thing that concerns me is a good quality set that is well balanced and weighted while looking good and playing or handling nicely.

As I said, over the years I have not been able to find any company selling a set that handles as well as a HoS set.  And HoS does sell a number of good sets at fair prices.

I am always on the lookout for a nice set that would complement what I own and play with.  That is why I have looked at your Official Staunton sets as well as Chess Bazaar and The House of Chess sets.