Reproduction and Real Jaques of London Chess Set

No not at all Ron, the collectors on here have praised our repro sets and some of our mid range sets too, there are many reviews on here with detailed descriptions, images and good quality content....you may have read some ?

cheers

Ah, but I am not a collector.  I want sets to play well, very well.

To date, I have seen 2 models that play exceptionally well.  Those are the HoS Players Series and their Fischer-Spassky, also known as Pawn Sacrifice, sets.  Both are superlative to play with.

This is why I sent you that message asking for a substantial price break on your Fischer-Spassky set.  I wanted to see if the set you sell plays as well as the HoS one.  But, I certainly do not care to spend too much money, and I did give that college student his set already.  And I don't need, that much, to see how well your sets play.

Yes Ron there are also reviews on here from " non collectors" who also want their sets to play well, very well..... I guess? 

you may have read those informative reviews too ?

cheers 

Interesting as all the recently posted thought and opinions are, lets just de-mystify the actual process of 'designing' a good repro set.

First one takes measurements of the set. This can be done from a from a front on picture, if the parallax distortion is not bad. (Professor Sir Alan Fersht, (a personal friend) takes excellent photographs of his sets with very high end equipment. Anyone could copy an early Jaques set from his excellent pics with very little distortion.

So, print an exact copy of the set, life size.

Make thin card or modelers ply profiles.

Turn the pieces. (We have taught several people to turn a chess set in a weekend from scratch. (OK not Jaques quality but still playable)

Use European box and good quality ebony.

Carve the knights... I could show anyone how to do this in a day of instruction.

All the pieces are polished on the lathe apart from the knights which do require some hand finishing. (Not the many hours of hand work earlier claimed. The carvers at Ayres for example made 48 knights heads a day)

Or make one of each and send them off to India to be reproduced, (good luck). This is the extent to the 'artistic' input required.

As far as making variations of Staunton pattern sets to 'improve' them well then, if you have some talent in this department or even just a personal preference to a certain 'feel' of the set go right ahead.

However as far as I know and have seen, non of this is beyond the ability of the average person.

Hi Alan

do you have any full repro sets you have made yourself ? and would you not consider making a very limited number of say 25 sets? I think they would be extremley collectible! 

Especially if the set was individually number (1 of 25, etc.) like limited edition art prints, and came with a certificate of authenication signed by Alan.

Hi Carl & Lou,

That is a big ask. My 'history; as a chess set maker has traditionally been to reproduce rare collectibles to act as place markers until a genuine period set can be found. Often I made sets from pictures which it is not possible to own, for example

I collaborated with a German carver to reproduce the Sofonisba Anguisola set.

I copied the Embriachi set shown in Gareth Williams Masterpieces page 30

Of course over the years I have restored and made many hundreds even thousands of pieces for antique sets. Munich style, Indian (So called Pepys sets) Muslim, English bone and so on.

As for Staunton pattern, Jaques did it best up till about 1930 and now the modern Indian carvers in Amristra are more or less unequaled. I would not like to try my meager talents against them. Although if anyone knows of a video of one of these modern masters carving I would like to see it.

Here are links to antique Staunton sets for those with enough money to buy a top priced imitation set...

http://www.antiquechessshop.com/staunton/

http://antiquechess.co.uk/STAUNTON.html

I have no commercial interest in promoting either of these sites and do so simply because they are the best retailers of genuine antique sets.

Beautiful stuff. Some of those sets are just breathtaking.

Yep Tim and Garrick ..some really nice sets there!

Thank you Bobby 

Alan, I understand and agree with what you say, particularly regarding antique sets, reproductions and the value of each.

Do these antique pieces have the exceptional balance and feel to them when playing?

And if they do, do you think this balance and great feel of the piece in the hand comes from the design in conjunction with the weighting?

As I mentioned, the sets Frank had made in the late 1990's, until he sold the business, were really nice.  And those designed sets continue to handle and play exceptionally.  For instance their Fischer-Spassky sets are really good.  I also bought a second Players Series set a little over a year ago and it is identical in handling with the one I bought from Frank in 1999 (I gave that set to a young man who just made USCF Master, and his father had passed away about 5 years before).

Now if it's the design that makes the sets so nice, then Carl's reproductions should handle and feel just as nice.

I still wonder what Frank has in his latest 1849 reproduction set to make it so expensive to buy.  Buying an original is in the same price range.  And the original will hold its value.  The reproduction is, well a reproduction and cannot realistically compete with the value of an original.

Carl, if you would get a set like the one HoS sells as their Jaques 1940 reproduction perhaps with a slightly larger base diameter to fit better on a 2.375" - 2.5" board, I would be happy, if you know what I mean.

For me, the playing ability of the earliest Jaques sets comes secondary to the historic appreciation. 

If I want a very well playing chess set I will purchase a new set which is able to draw on the 150+ years of testing and advancement in chess set designs, and I'll save a lot of money in the process. 

Going further, it is precisely the inferior aspects of the earliest Staunton sets which interest me.  The Pawn collars are perhaps too thin and delicate, the Queen has too few points on her coronet and looks incomplete (and she is too small), the Knights had considerably variation and sometimes looked a bit...odd.  If the sets from the 1849-1852 era were identical to modern designs I would probably not have spent so much time reading about them.

Any time there is an attempt to "improve" a reproduction by making an adjustment here or there for better playing ability it ceases to be a reproduction.

I have asked Chess Bazaar in the past if it is possible to buy unfinished sets without weights, felts, or finishes.  Just the wood as it has come off the lathe. It is, but you have to pay a premium because the set has to be specially made (or perhaps wait until the next batch is being done and ask to have it set aside).

My idea was to do the rest of the work myself.  To replace the ebony Knight heads with boxwood (unless Chess Bazaar can do this), use baize instead of felt, and do a more intense antique finish, possibly install screwed in weights, and add the registration stickers to the bottom of each piece.  But truthfully, I am in no position financially at this time to begin such a project.

I'll add another note: Alan is right about the Knights.  For too long I focused on the photos available on Sir Alan Fersht's site of his 1849 set, and considered it the standard for all reproductions.  But I've seen some photos of othe 1849 sets since then and of course there is a lot of variation.  One could still consider Sir Alan's set to be the standard since it is the earliest known, but I am no longer that picky.  There are other things to consider far beforehand, such as those I have listed above. 

Frank Camaratta's 1849 set, taken from an article he wrote located here: https://chesscollectormagazine.sharepoint.com/Documents/On%20Collecting%20Staunton%20Chessmen.pdf

So you are into the collecting aspect of the original Staunton designs, and this is alright.  There certainly is room in this Chess set world for those that buy sets to collect and those that buy them to play with.

I also observe that it is the mid 20th Century Jaques sets that have been kind of recognized for their playing ability.  Note that the set Fisher and Spassky used in their 1972 match was a Jaques from about 1960's vintage.

I agree that taking 100+ years of experience, testing and advancement into account to produce the best playing set, only the right and sensible thing to do.

And yes, these sets are quite a bit less expensive to buy and own as well.

From what I have read on this forum from experts like Alan, Jack and others I now think the design of the pieces lends quite a bit to their balance, heft and handleability during play.

Take for instance the unweighted designs of the Soviet, Russian and other European sets.  They have their broad bases which incorporate into the design to make the set stable on the board, even without weights or with minimal weights.

And now that I think of it, the Players Series set from HoS, which is a Jaques reproduction patterned after sets from the turn of the century, 1900, has broad bases.  And that set is still one of my top 2 or 3 favorite sets to play with.  And because it does have the innovations from the late 1990's designing, it plays and holds up well while still being inexpensive.  I have said time and again, and people that play with or own the set agree, that this set is overlooked and underrated.  Right now, they have the Rosewood version listed at $179.  The Ebonized and Golden Rosewood in this set are both at $139, full retail.  With at least 10% off, which always can be had at HoS, that makes this set very affordable for a nice wood set.  In fact, I waited for a sale and bought my Rosewood version for something like $143 including shipping.  And this set easily competes with and plays as well or better than sets costing 2.5 - 3 times more, easily.

So yes, getting sets that play well is more affordable than those for collecting purposes, if you collect originals.

I also understand and see what you like about those early Jaques sets, Jack.

Clearly from the above there is great interest in very good reproduction Staunton sets.

If I were to make a limited edition run of sets there are a number of ways I could go. For example there are many good pictures avaliable of Jaques Staunton pieces like here

http://www.fersht.com/chess/earlyknights.html

I could, make each set for it's intended owner from pieces picked by him/her. Or make them all the same but numbered (say up to 15 or so)

To be clear this would be a project for later on in the year as I have a backlog of restorations to work through and the price of each set regardless of king size and other choices would be close to $1500

I would use old snooker baize and stamp the kings DEWEY ASHEVILLE if that was what was wanted in each case.

What do y'all think?

Interesting

What size would you consider ?

The idea is very thought provoking.

I would certainly be interested. Feel free to contact me if and when you want to flesh this out a bit more. I would prefer unique sets specific to each customer's choices. but a limited run of a single set might be attractive as well. I'm already pretty clear on what I would want (a club-size set from around 1850/51). The price sounds eminentky reasonable as well.

Count me in. My opinions and preferences seem to line up with Frank's. I'd appreciate being updated as things progress if updates aren't posted to this forum.

Thank you all for your input.

I will consider any style, size and variation. To the client's specs.

Updates and responses will be posted here.

I expect to have the decks cleared by Autumn 2016.