What chess set is this?

I recently got into researching and documenting chess sets—in particular ones with historical significance. It got me wondering what chess set I gifted my wife some years ago. I don’t even remember where I got it; I believe second-hand from a chess store in Montreal.

It seems to be a contemporary design, but I haven’t come across it on any of the major chess set providers. Does anyone recognize what chess set this is?

If it helps narrow things down in terms of the quality, while the carving is clearly skillfully done, I noticed that the ebony king, queen, bishops, and knights all have a cracked base…

I don't recognize it, but the knights are so ugly so they might deserve a place in the 100 worst chess sets in the world.

I rather like the knights, with their dragon-like manes and front bit that looks like a horn. Not a very refined and polished design, but I think it has its charm.

Surely most of the Knubbel sets, stubby Jaques Anderssen chess sets, 1950 Dubrovnik variants, Lund chess sets, Philidor chess sets, and 1800s Dutch sets take the first 100 spots of the worst sets based on the knight designs?

Ahh funnily enough I just found the set while browsing Antique Chess Crafts! It’s the Preston Series Luxury chess set.

Thats a nice looking set! The finials on the kings look really nice and I dig the pointed looking bishops

Thanks! Yeah I like the somewhat oversized heads and finial proportions. The top of the rook contrasts nicely, with it being so flat. All in all not a radical design by any means, yet still quite distinct.

@WandelKoningin Your set also looks very much like this one from Royal Chess Mall and named 'Napoleon'.

Definitely the same set! Thank you! It’s nice to know the different names.

Get a life!

Surely most of the Knubbel sets, stubby Jaques Anderssen chess sets, 1950 Dubrovnik variants, Lund chess sets, Philidor chess sets, and 1800s Dutch sets take the first 100 spots of the worst sets based on the knight designs?  WandelKoningin

All down to taste ! Still one would have to dig deep for the real chess sets in your list .

Oh certainly! I find the knights of the antique Dutch sets very charming, and I would love to get a Knubbel set at some point. Some knights are arguably ugly, yet quaint and compelling.

Below is the New Colombian set by Chessbazaar and Royal Chess Mall respectively. The Chessbazaar knight is arguably more beautiful, or at least more realistic; but the RCM one has really grown on me. One of the stranger knight designs, but quite compelling.

What’s funny is that I showed a friend and went, “OMG look at this goofy knight!”; but I keep coming back to it and appreciate it more and more every time I see it.

Woah! That's fighting talk, Lighthouse!

Thank you for the information! You don’t happen to know where the design comes from, do you? Apparently they were never used in Colombia. I guess it might be a relatively new design with a somewhat arbitrary name.

For anyone who might be interested, I discovered that the set I acquired is not actually the Preston one.

I found four different versions of the same design, and decided to document some information on them and compare photos. I noticed some minor differences between some of the knights. For example, the Preston set by House of Staunton features knights without wrinkles behind the jaw. What’s curious though is that the photos on their website sometimes show them without wrinkles, while in other photos they do have wrinkles, but they’re lower down and further from the jaw than in the other three sets.

The eyes of two of the sets also seem different, with a line below the eyes rather than above. Based on the HoS photos, however, this seems to be a feature that emerges in certain lighting conditions. I didn’t quite see what makes that line appear in some of the photos, but I concluded that the eyes are probably the same in all four sets.

Another difference I noticed was in the bottom two triangular shapes that are part of the manes. My wife’s set features knights with a shorter triangle, with the one above it making contact. This feature can be seen only in the Preston set by Antique Chess Crafts and the Napoleon set. So I narrowed my wife’s set down to those two. I figured I would weigh some pieces or possibly the whole set tomorrow to verify which set it is, as each one has a different weight.

Except I was wrong. I checked an old email account and did a search on ‘chess’, and found some Google Chat messages from 2021 where I sent my wife the description of Antique Chess Craft’s Preston set. So I’m quite confident that’s what I bought; I never knew there were different versions.

I assume now that the differences in the design of the knights may be some variability in the carving process, rather than features that distinguish each set. I suspect the artisans just make sure that the four knights for each set sold roughly match.

I’m intrigued by the fact that I apparently purchased the heaviest set of the four, totaling 2,700 grams. That’s significantly heavier than the other three sets, and it’s the heaviest I’ve seen since I started paying attention to the weight of sets—admittedly only about a week ago. Can anyone tell me if this is unusually heavy? I thought most sets at these proportions come in at 2,000–2,200 grams.

And can anyone tell me what is the ideal weight range, or is it simply a matter of preference? With the two Savano sets that House of Staunton offers, I was surprised that their more expensive and more luxurious set was actually a bit lighter than their cheaper one (77.2 ounces compared to 87 ounces), so I figured perhaps 77.2 ounces (2,189 grams) is considered more desirable. Although, if that’s the case I wonder why you would go heavier as that would likely cost more.

Weighting is actually down to one's preferences, and to the way you want to use your chess set.

If you need a set for blitz or fast playing, the pieces shouldn't be too heavily weighted - because they'd slow you down.

For normal tournament / club playing I'd personally prefer single or double weighted pieces (and the definition varies as per manufacturer), whereas for slow games or display sets at home I want them to be as heavily weighted as possible.

Weighting can be a problem in the long run because it amplifies the risk of pieces cracking, especially in precious woods like ebony, rosewood, ore padouk.

Mark, the NOJ company eg sells pieces with single weighting or even unweighted ones for several hundreds of dollars. I would never even consider unweighted pieces for regular playing, but that's a personal preference that varies from player to player. Weighting itself is not a quality indicator per se.

The versions your listing of your Preston / whatever set are, by and large, immaterial. That's a so-called "fancy Staunton set" that follows no specific historical pattern (unlike eg 1849-50 Morphy Staunton and many others), so the makers are free to make as many variations as they like.

See post #18 here: https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-equipment/whats-the-story-behind-the-colombian-chessmen

Yes Matt , One can put it down to No class , Or sense of having no history or taste ?

Mind you i hate modern day Rolex 's give me a old Omega seamaster from the 60's

Thanks! I read this thread and for some reason attributed the New Colombian to Bhupinder Singh. But he designed the original Colombian in 2011 then. I can’t find the New Colombian on the Antique Chess Crafts website, so it doesn’t seem to be associated with Singh. I noticed Mandeep Saggu designed several pieces with those characteristic holes at the bottom of the manes. I suppose it could be his take on the Colombian, although I don’t see it attributed to him on the Staunton Castle website.