Take the one set I saw (the one I used to start this post_ - white knights in wood, black knights in plastic. All other pieces in wood. If white knights were in wood (and I am sure many were made at once, why weren't some taken and painted black like the other pieces? But probably the manufacturers had state quotas to achieve for distribution and so cobbled them together as quickly as possible running out of time to handcarve all those knights. The pawns of the set that I just bought are all slightly different - as if they were the first 8 taken from a pile of hundreds (maybe thousands) from a week's or month's production. I don't think it worked like our system, where the nicer the set, the more it could be sold for, or conversely the worse the quality the less likely that it would bought. But I stand to be corrected - I know very little about the subject. Perhaps somebody who lived and played chess in Russia at that time could shed light on the subject.
Where can I get Soviet style chess pieces like these
(sorry, maybe we should close the subject, it is probably boring most readers to tears) ... :-)
I mean here is an older set: https://www.etsy.com/listing/653862826/antique-pre-1917-russian-tournament?ga_order=most_relevant&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=antique+chess+set&ref=sr_gallery-1-1&frs=1 the finials are bone. Bone is generally already a replacement for ivory for this kind of thing. Plastic was used after that a replacement for parts previously made ivory and bone. Replacing these ornamental parts with wood doesn't make much sense. If the designers wanted them to be wood they could have done that in the 19th century. Plastic makes more sense simply because it looks more like ivory. Those parts weren't "supposed to be" wood. I wasn't there, but I hardly think all wooden set would be considered more bourgeois than sets that had the finials made from a different "ivory" material even if it was the newest kind of faux ivory known as plastic. If anything the sets with the special finials would be the one bourgeois ones. I already said plastic was a new thing in the 1950s, https://www.quora.com/How-did-people-in-the-1950s-manage-before-plastic-was-made wood and metal toys were common. Legos were wood before 1947. Perhaps someone older and Soviet will comment with experience, but it's my understanding that it took a while from plastic to find its modern place as "cheap." Plastic knights to cut cost do make more sense because you don't have to carve them, and people always say that was the reasoning behind plastic BCC knights too.
(your call. I did post about it and seemed ignored, posted again, but then the original question was asked and answered long ago.)
tmkroll - not ignored at all! Point well taken, thanks for input - makes a lot of sense.
Here's my copy of this set. 1950's. 4 inch Kings. Placed on a Drueke board of 2.25 inch squares.
Wow UpcountryRain what a beautiful set, in mint condition!! From the fifties to boot! Great photos too. It looks as good as new but with a natural patina that betrays it’s age. Probably the best set I have seen of this type. The knights are particularly well detailed, quite rare. Did you refurbish it at all or did you get it like that?
Seeing it in this shape, if I was Russian CF this would be the standard tournament set I would have chosen - the “Russian Staunton” so to speak. (And it doesn’t seem to appear on the video cgrau sent link to!). It is elegant, simple, robust, modern, very Russian and perfect for everyday play.
utpic, how the set looks is how it looked when I first got it. If was one of my first Soviet sets. Although it's not a set that you see in tournaments, here it is in a pic I lifted off google. The players in the pic attest to the age of the set.
Indeed! Botvinnik looks really young here (30, 35?) and he was born in 1911. Who are the other players?
I am not that knowledgeable in Soviet chess history so I will leave the revealing of identities to our resident experts.
As for my set, I was happy when I found it and am still happy when I take it out to play through a few historical games.
utpic, whether or not you already have a Soviet set, there's always room for one more. Just saw this. Can't complain about the price.
https://www.etsy.com/listing/705934265/old-wooden-soviet-chess-1960s-popular?ga_order=date_desc&ga_search_type=all&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_search_query=soviet+chess&ref=sr_gallery-1-4&organic_search_click=1
Hey UpCR thanks for thinking of me! :-) I'm expecting the set I bought quite soon, I'll post a pic or two. Mine is a bit older - the seller claims it was one of the earlier batches in the 50's and is completely out of wood (this one, like the one that started the thread, have plastic black horses). Talking about room for another set - it was only this set that I intended buying but I got attracted to the "Latvian" set, and saw one in the red and black (from the 50's as well) without any chips or broken finials or collars and I just couldn't resist.
And today, to make it worse, I saw another set - this one here, which I bought a reproduction of about a year ago, from Chess Bazaar. https://www.etsy.com/listing/705187907/antique-old-vintage-unique-wood-turned?ref=user_profile - and my heart sank because like all the CB Russian copies, it is a far cry from the genuine thing and I completely regretted having bought that CB set. Really there is no reason to buy reproductions of Russian sets with so many beautiful specimens still available.
utpic, I know what you mean. I can't remember the last time I bought a reproduction. Ever since I was bit by the vintage/original bug, I have lost all desire for repros.
I asked the supplier I bought this set from (the one I was looking for in this thread) about, what seemed to me, a replacement pawn. He said it wasn’t and went on to elaborate on the natural variation within old soviet sets, esp. the “Latvian” one. This he said is because each piece was turned one by one, individually. That really is one of the crucial differences. I mean look at this set of pawns! : 
(supplier photo - I asked about the 2nd full white pawn on the left).
It amuses me when I remember my first view of a Russian set. That was two years ago before I knew about this forum. It was the Latvian Repro on C Bazaar. I found it stiff and badly proportioned and dismissed it as a poorly made (and conceived) copy. I didn’t look for pics of originals to compare because the set did not arouse my interest and I didn’t know about Etsy. But now, after seeing many of these sets, and despite the praise coming from many imminent and knowledgeable members of this forum, which I read on another old thread recently, my humble opinion hasn’t essentially changed. UpCR we definitely belong to the same camp!
BTW does anyone know, by looking at the photo of the pawns and being familiar with similar sets from that period (50’s), how the black pieces were treated? Painted black and varnished? Or is it a shellac?
OK fair enough. But there is another factor that I have started to consider that has not been mentioned yet. It is hard for us to picture it because we are used to normal western economies but let us not forget that USSR was fully communist. From what my friends here from the DDR (East Berlin) have told me, as well as what I have read, even in the eighties (and I imagine it was even more extreme in USSR and especially so in 50-70s) - factories were nationalised and goods were distributed using 'ration' system. When a store would get stock in, word would go out and within minutes out of nowhere queues would begin to form outside the shops or warehouses in question. Price was hardly a consideration, things were virtually handed out for nothing. The general decline in reproduction standards was across all industries as resources and worker motivation dwindled. Perhaps in addition to this, things like wooden finials were considered "bourgeois" and a luxury item - which had to be eliminated, whereas plastic was in keeping with the lifestyle of the common proletariat. Just a thought.