Royal Chess Mall
Sort:
You guys kill me.
cgrau wrote:
You guys kill me.
Your opinion is the utmost important here.
cgrau wrote:
You guys kill me.
Glad you're back. We're just having fun watching our favorite vendors attempt to clear the bar with their most accurate repro of the limbo dancing Tal knight :-)
QtoQlevel3 wrote:
It has some age to it and the bishop replacement looks like it came from the Grossmeister set, nonetheless, a fabulous entry for any collector to enjoy as well as myself for eye-candy on this thread. Many thanks, sir for providing this thread with such cherished archival photos. It is well appreciated!
I am pretty sure the replacement bishop is from a later version of the Tal set.
Mohan_Kumar_Chess wrote:
cgrau wrote:
You guys kill me.
Your opinion is the utmost important here.
That's very kind of you. Thanks. RC and Jorge have been doing a great job explaining the history. Is there anything in particular you'd like my opinion on?
rcmacmillan wrote:
@sound67, @zagryan, neither of you were around when Chuck Grau and his buddy approached NOJ about making the Tal set. That's not criticism, just fact. At the time (2016) No original Tal set had been seen in the wild, unlike now, when several 1950's originals have been uncovered. So it makes perfect sense that the more recent attempts at a reproduction have gotten closer and closer to the original. One interesting thing, though -- the knight in that set on the cover of Tal's Life and Games bears a lot more resemblance to the NOJ set than the EraRetro and Maximum copies. I own both the NOJ and the Maximum sets, BTW. That's not to say that the ER and M copies aren't accurate -- just from a different original set.
I think that the NOJ set remains the most accurate reproduction, particularly with the knights reworked to account for the three modern photos of a surviving set that came to light only after NOJ went to market. Those photos demonstrated that we were spot on with all the pieces but for the facial details we could not discern in the historical photos. The ultimate model for our knight was the very knight in the photo you mention, and we believed that would be the image by which people would judge its accuracy. In fact, our research revealed variations in the sets in the old photos. We always resolved those by following what we saw in the Tal photo on the cover of his famous book. That is the version of the set we sought to reproduce, and that is why we named it the Tal set.
I have to respectfully disagree with Jorge's claim that the Tal book photo shows drill holes in the eyes when blown up. I acquired from Almy the highest resolution version of that photo that's available, and of course we blew it up. Doing so even with that higher resolution photo didn't reveal eye details. There simply wasn't sufficient evidence to do anything particular with the eyes other than what we did.
As to the design sketches I sent Gregor, it's correct that the graphic artist put eyes in. But the truth is that he was only guessing. He was looking at the same photos we were, and wasn't basing his sketches on his observations and measurements of an actual set. He guessed one way. We guessed the other. Turns out he was right and we were wrong. NOJ has corrected the mistake.
Mike's 1940's set was an amazing find that just popped up on Etsy one day. While it has some of the key design elements of the 1962 Tal set that we reproduced--namely the backward leaning knight, the crosses on the kings, the cuts in the bishops' miters--other key ones are missing--the Jaques-like coronet on the queen, the thick, heavy bases, the hefty stem on the rook. Since the design significantly changed by the time Tal played with in 1962 the set we reproduced, and the one Tal played with in 1962 is what we named the Tal set, I consider Mike's set to be a proto-Tal set, the set from which the Tal set evolved. It is incredibly significant in that regard. One could reproduce Mike's 1940's set, but it wouldn't be the set on the cover of Tal's book.
Finally, I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that the later versions of the Tal set reproduced by other companies have come closer to the actual design. With all due respect to Chess Bazaar, and I have great respect for them, their version is a complete train wreck, barely recognizable as a Tal set. Sorry, Chess Bazaar. Your 1940 Championship set is a fantastic reproduction. This one isn't. Kate's set is terrific, and I own one. The first one she sold, however, was quite inaccurate. It was clear that they had largely based it on a 1950's Grandmaster set, except for the knight, for which they had the benefit of the newly discovered photos you mention. Mike gave Kate feedback, and I did as well, sharing much of my research with her. They adapted their design and they now have an excellent reproduction, but I can't rate it any better than NOJ's, especially with facial details added to NOJ knights. Royal Chess Mall's version, as someone else perceptively wrote here, is a copy of a copy, and not a very good one, even if it's cheap and better than Chess Bazaar's. The silhouettes of the pieces don't align well with the originals, and the rooks in particular are way off base. It's a poor man's copy of the Era Retro set, but not as accurate. I'd go for it only if price mattered way more than authenticity.
@cgrau
Could you please post a link to all the high resolution photos of the Tal set available, especially the one you acquired from Almy.
@cgrau; Say, Chuck, did you use the Renaissance wax/polish on your EraRetro set? The pieces look outstanding on your thread on that set! Great job on those closeup photos of the knight piece! Kate and her husband are talented carvers! I too have a small container of that Renaissance wax and will probably use it on all of my Tal and custom wood sets from now on. It works well with plastic sets too.
Hi Jorge, that’s just the original finish. Two things struck me as I looked at the lineup picture you just reposted. 1) The bishop’s miter should be narrower and symmetrical above and below the x-axis, not an inverted tear shape; and 2) the slope of the knight’s head should be positive, not perfectly horizontal. Thanks for reposting. It helps jog my memory.
sound67 wrote:
rcmacmillan hat geschrieben:
Actually, it’s all subjective anyway. Most of the Soviet sets were made with prison labor and are remarkably inconsistent in production values.
As I said before, variations wrere the NORM on those vintage sets, so any "perfect" rendition in and of itself makes no sense. I find the NOJ knight crude and unelegant, and I donÄ't think it rresembles the historic photos of ONE more than the others.
You keep referring to the un-upgraded knight, as if the upgraded does not exist:
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-equipment/review-noj-slovenia-1961-soviet-championship-tal-black-stain
cgrau wrote:
rcmacmillan wrote:
@sound67, @zagryan, neither of you were around when Chuck Grau and his buddy approached NOJ about making the Tal set. That's not criticism, just fact. At the time (2016) No original Tal set had been seen in the wild, unlike now, when several 1950's originals have been uncovered. So it makes perfect sense that the more recent attempts at a reproduction have gotten closer and closer to the original. One interesting thing, though -- the knight in that set on the cover of Tal's Life and Games bears a lot more resemblance to the NOJ set than the EraRetro and Maximum copies. I own both the NOJ and the Maximum sets, BTW. That's not to say that the ER and M copies aren't accurate -- just from a different original set.
I think that the NOJ set remains the most accurate reproduction, particularly with the knights reworked to account for the three modern photos of a surviving set that came to light only after NOJ went to market. Those photos demonstrated that we were spot on with all the pieces but for the facial details we could not discern in the historical photos. The ultimate model for our knight was the very knight in the photo you mention, and we believed that would be the image by which people would judge its accuracy. In fact, our research revealed variations in the sets in the old photos. We always resolved those by following what we saw in the Tal photo on the cover of his famous book. That is the version of the set we sought to reproduce, and that is why we named it the Tal set.
I have to respectfully disagree with Jorge's claim that the Tal book photo shows drill holes in the eyes when blown up. I acquired from Almy the highest resolution version of that photo that's available, and of course we blew it up. Doing so even with that higher resolution photo didn't reveal eye details. There simply wasn't sufficient evidence to do anything particular with the eyes other than what we did.
As to the design sketches I sent Gregor, it's correct that the graphic artist put eyes in. But the truth is that he was only guessing. He was looking at the same photos we were, and wasn't basing his sketches on his observations and measurements of an actual set. He guessed one way. We guessed the other. Turns out he was right and we were wrong. NOJ has corrected the mistake.
Mike's 1940's set was an amazing find that just popped up on Etsy one day. While it has some of the key design elements of the 1962 Tal set that we reproduced--namely the backward leaning knight, the crosses on the kings, the cuts in the bishops' miters--other key ones are missing--the Jaques-like coronet on the queen, the thick, heavy bases, the hefty stem on the rook. Since the design significantly changed by the time Tal played with in 1962 the set we reproduced, and the one Tal played with in 1962 is what we named the Tal set, I consider Mike's set to be a proto-Tal set, the set from which the Tal set evolved. It is incredibly significant in that regard. One could reproduce Mike's 1940's set, but it wouldn't be the set on the cover of Tal's book.
Finally, I respectfully disagree with the suggestion that the later versions of the Tal set reproduced by other companies have come closer to the actual design. With all due respect to Chess Bazaar, and I have great respect for them, their version is a complete train wreck, barely recognizable as a Tal set. Sorry, Chess Bazaar. Your 1940 Championship set is a fantastic reproduction. This one isn't. Kate's set is terrific, and I own one. The first one she sold, however, was quite inaccurate. It was clear that they had largely based it on a 1950's Grandmaster set, except for the knight, for which they had the benefit of the newly discovered photos you mention. Mike gave Kate feedback, and I did as well, sharing much of my research with her. They adapted their design and they now have an excellent reproduction, but I can't rate it any better than NOJ's, especially with facial details added to NOJ knights. Royal Chess Mall's version, as someone else perceptively wrote here, is a copy of a copy, and not a very good one, even if it's cheap and better than Chess Bazaar's. The silhouettes of the pieces don't align well with the originals, and the rooks in particular are way off base. It's a poor man's copy of the Era Retro set, but not as accurate. I'd go for it only if price mattered way more than authenticity.
Well written.
Mohan_Kumar_Chess wrote:
@cgrau
Could you please post a link to all the high resolution photos of the Tal set available, especially the one you acquired from Almy.
Hi Mohan, my licenses to use them have expired, so I can't offer those exact versions of the photos. But here are the three photos for which I obtained hi-res photo licenses from Alamy.
I have the EraRetro set and it appears to be a very close match to the sets in those three photos. I also like the antique finish of the EraRetro set.
Can you purchase anywhere hard copies of those three photos?
Bamboo58 wrote:
I have the EraRetro set and it appears to be a very close match to the sets in those three photos. I also like the antique finish of the EraRetro set.
You can purchase licenses from Alamy.
Here are four Era Retro pieces from my set side-by-side with their original counterparts. The variances are many.
Upgraded knight from NOJ still looks off, almost like a duck. I think it has to do with the boxy face and the chubby belly.
sound67 wrote:
zagryan hat geschrieben:
Upgraded knight from NOJ still looks off, almost like a duck. I think it has to do with the boxy face and the chubby belly.
My thoughts precisely. How can anyone can construe that these are the closest to the originals pictures above?
@sound67
NoJ set is, was and will always be perfect. Thats what they are trying to prove.
We can't help it. The lockdown is inevitable. We don't have the Infrastructure like the west. At least we have people who listen. Hard times.
sound67 wrote: Meanwhile, I ordered the RCM set in the alternating color/wood combination [Damn that Indian lockdown ].
I made that purchase as well for the antiqued/ebonized set after I read and saw your post #309 showcasing your set on that good looking platform walnut board. I too will have to wait until April 15th to have any movement on that parcel for the nation of India is on a mandatory national lockdown order to prevent any further spread of the infectious virus occurring worldwide. When I get it I will also have the capability to swap armies for a different look on the board.