Soviet sets comparison: ’60s Shkolnik II, ’70s Shkolnik III, & ’80s Shkolnik III

Sort:
Avatar of WandelKoningin
I spent some time yesterday taking photos of my two Shkolnik sets and my stepson’s. I need to find a way to avoid perspective distortion and control the angle and lighting so that each set is photographed in exactly the same way. But either way, some interesting differences between the sets!
 
The kings
My ’70s Shkolnik III set has a shorter yet sharp king finial, which is something I’ve seen in the Shkolnik I sets as well (although even shorter there); and my stepson’s king from his ’80s Shkolnik III has a longer but blunted finial.
 
The queens
The white queen of the ’80s Shkolnik III set has a rather small orb finial, whereas the black queen has a larger orb—akin to the queens of my ’70s set.
And of course, the queen of the Shkolnik II set has that amazing thorny crown (and an even larger orb finial). Is it called a finial? I thought there was a different name for that part, but I can’t find it.
 
The bishops
Also worth mentioning, perhaps, is that the bishops of my ’70s set seem to have more slender miters—or at least this black bishop does. I’ve noticed that the shape of the miters and the size of the finials can vary a bit within sets. The ’80s Shk-III bishop looks a bit more like the ’60s Shk-II bishop, although the latter has a smaller finial than in the Shk-III sets.
 
The knights
The ’70s Shkolnik III knights have more refined manes than the ’80s knights, but with more shallow detail. As a result, the manes of the ’80s knights look more legible at a distance. This difference is a lot more clear in person; although in the photo below, the light catches the manes of the third knight just right to illustrate the difference. I think it’s an instance of iterative design improvements.
 

For some curious reason though, the ’80s Shkolnik III set comes with two distinct pairs of knights; a black and white pair that looks almost identical to the knights from my ’70s set (manes aside), except with more upright ears (see the fourth knight above, or the second knight in the photo below). The other pair looks more refined and anatomically correct; a nicer jaw design, a slightly shorter muzzle, and more refined ears that point backward. Oh and curiously, the second white knight has its nostrils hanging too low! Such a strange nostril design as well. It’s quite a goofy knight in general.
 
 
I don’t know why this set has two dissimilar pairs of knights. Although I enjoy the more stylized knights of my ’70s set, I really like those more figurative horses! I’ve been looking for another Shkolnik III set that has them, but so far they remain elusive.
 
Heights
The kings of the ’60s and ’80s sets are both 3.74" (9.5 cm) tall, whereas the king of my ’70s set is just 3.15" (8 cm) thanks to its shorter finial. The other pieces don’t show a significant difference in height, although I guess the Shkolnik II knights are a bit smaller. Maybe the bishops as well? The Shkolnik III set does seem to have a more gradual and consistent height difference between the pieces.
 
Weights
I also took time to weigh all the pieces. The results:
  • ’60s Shkolnik II: 432 g / 15.2 oz*
  • ’70s Shkolnik III: 391 g / 13.8 oz
  • ’80s Shkolnik III: 420 g / 14.8 oz
*This was the approximate weight before I started filling the pieces with tungsten putty to increase the weight. I’m awaiting another order of tungsten putty so I can fill the final 5 pieces, but right now the set weighs 599 g / 21.1 oz. That’s a weight increase of 38.66%! 😃

That’s all for now! I have one more peculiar thing to report about one of these sets, but I will present that in a different post.
Avatar of BobbyStaunton

It is fascinating to see the design evolve and 'settle' in with your photographs. Perhaps there were a few complaints about chipped coronets on the early queens (or broken pawn heads) that warranted some changes. The later pawns remind me of helmets. The later rooks have fewer crenellations. For no particular reason, I seem to enjoy the 70s knights more when compared to the others.

Avatar of WandelKoningin
BobbyStaunton wrote:

It is fascinating to see the design evolve and 'settle' in with your photographs. Perhaps there were a few complaints about chipped coronets on the early queens (or broken pawn heads) that warranted some changes. The later pawns remind me of helmets. The later rooks have fewer crenellations. For no particular reason, I seem to enjoy the 70s knights more when compared to the others.

I’ve never seen damaged pawns, but yes, queens without those thorns on the crown are not uncommon. In fact, my black queen lacks them; I unfortunately didn’t notice that in the photos of the listing. I see no signs of the thorns having broken off though, but I guess the crown has since become polished through use. Or the thorns just wore down through use.

Avatar of mjeman

"avoid perspective distortion and control the angle and lighting"

1) Photograph from further away, with a longer focal length if possible to reduce cropping. Trying to fill the frame with a wide angle lens maximizes perspective distortion. Do the opposite.

2) Tripod and lightbox with flash

Avatar of WandelKoningin
mjeman wrote:

"avoid perspective distortion and control the angle and lighting"

1) Photograph from further away, with a longer focal length if possible to reduce cropping. Trying to fill the frame with a wide angle lens maximizes perspective distortion. Do the opposite.

2) Tripod and lightbox with flash

Thanks! Yeah I was thinking of buying a digital camera, so I can adjust the focal length. And get better quality in general; my phone camera is not the best.

Avatar of Guest4623879584
Please Sign Up to comment.

If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.