The Knight size for the CB set is a bit odd, don't you think ?
NOJ set have a beautiful wood grain, with almost a 'raw' finish. HOS and CB have a more polished aspect.
I particularly like the lower jaw of the HOS.
I'm not very found of the Queen's hat of the CB set (to pointy/high)
The 3 sets are very nice but my preference goes to the HOS set.
@Bfighter4935: Have you actually tried the Noj Dubrovniks? I can understand that someone would prefer the HOS set based on photos alone, but I have a very hard time understanding how anyone who has actually seen and played with all three sets in real life wouldn't pick the Noj over the other two.
The choice between HOS and CB, on the other hand, is very much a matter of taste. I agree that the CB knight is a bit too big, especially next to the undersized bishop. Still, the too small pawns compared to the remaining pieces and the too heavy weights of the HOS set is a more important factor to me, which is why I slightly prefer the CB set.
When comparing wood grains, keep in mind that the Noj set is made of different woods than the other two sets (maple and walnut vs boxwood and sheesham). The Noj set is much more polished than the others, at least in the literal sense of the word (i.e. much smoother and more shiny).
Hands down NOJ is the best although pricey. Their finishing is second to none for this set and the walnut and maple wood also makes it stand out even more and looks very rich. No arguing this point it is the best duplication of any Dubrovnik and if I may suggest if any manufacturer is reading this. If you want even to come close and compete first get walnut and maple wood, next be prepared to give it many coats in between sanding of finish that is very time consuming. If you do not do those two things you will be an also ran and not come close. Of curse you have to get the carving down also especially the knight.
@Bfighter4935: Have you actually tried the Noj Dubrovniks? I can understand that someone would prefer the HOS set based on photos alone, but I have a very hard time understanding how anyone who has actually seen and played with all three sets in real life wouldn't pick the Noj over the other two.
I never had the chance to play with those wonderful sets in real life, but I must admit I find the shape of the HOS more 'classical' : very small details like below the top of the Rook, or the Queen's hat make the design more consensual. But you also said they are too heavy.
On the other hand, I am very sensitive to nice wood essences. Here NOJ set wins hands down, 100% agree. It seems that the chessmen came straight out from raw wood and I love that.
Only with the photo, it's a close tie from my point of view. But If I could see them in real life, I might give you reason by choosing the NOJ.
To be honest I think will never spend more than $100 for a set, so the NOJ is clearly out of my budget. But it's not because you cannot afford a Lamborgini that you don't want to drive it! 
I'd like to add a new question to this discussion that I haven't seen mentioned or addressed yet. My apologies if it has been. HoS is now offering their Dubrovnik 2.0 set in a wood combo that includes "Tasmanian Blackwood" for the dark pieces. It is darker than sheesham, and one of the most expensive versions of the set at $399. HoS seems to be the only vendor making pieces with this type of wood. Does anyone have experience with Tasmanian blackwood? Other than price, how does it compare to other types of wood that are used for dark pieces?
I'd like to add a new question to this discussion that I haven't seen mentioned or addressed yet. My apologies if it has been. HoS is now offering their Dubrovnik 2.0 set in a wood combo that includes "Tasmanian Blackwood" for the dark pieces. It is darker than sheesham, and one of the most expensive versions of the set at $399. HoS seems to be the only vendor making pieces with this type of wood. Does anyone have experience with Tasmanian blackwood? Other than price, how does it compare to other types of wood that are used for dark pieces?
For that price I would pay a bit more and buy a Noj Dubrovnik II in the stained brown.
I'd like to add a new question to this discussion that I haven't seen mentioned or addressed yet. My apologies if it has been. HoS is now offering their Dubrovnik 2.0 set in a wood combo that includes "Tasmanian Blackwood" for the dark pieces. It is darker than sheesham, and one of the most expensive versions of the set at $399. HoS seems to be the only vendor making pieces with this type of wood. Does anyone have experience with Tasmanian blackwood? Other than price, how does it compare to other types of wood that are used for dark pieces?
I have one of their Capablanca sets in the Tasmanian Blackwood and like it a lot. I've been planning on buying a Dubrovnik and I'd definitely get it in the Tasmanian Blackwood.
Concerning the Chessbase Set v2.0 I'd like to ask if there is any experience concerning the different shapes of the Knights. It seems that it is not given (based on available images) that the Knights are of similar height with the Bishops. Also the S-shape of the Knights back seem to vary between round S and almost Z-shape. I think the CB-Knight of post 153 is really a little bit strange in size and backshape - but you cannot find anything similar on their homepage. But even there are variations from Knight equal to bishop in height and Knight equal to Bishop minus ball. First I thought that the only scale K/Q/B for smaller sized 3.6" sets but this seems not to be the case.
I just took delivery of a CB Dubrovnik Set. Love the Sheesham and playing with them. Beautifully weighted. I can understand why the Dubrovnik pieces were a favourite of Bobby Fischer.
I know, I repeat myself, but also here it appears to me that the knights are way to tall. Looking at historical images it seems as if one could almost draw a straight line in height from K -> Q -> B -> N -> R -> P where the bishop is maybe slightly taller than that. The CB knight seems more like a robust punk - especially with the more pronounced haircut. Don't get me wrong - I like CB quality in general and have also some sets from them but this on isn't their best in my opinion.
Once more I like to ask this one question - is there any indication which knight comes with which Dubrovnik set from CB? Look at this one:
https://www.chessbazaar.com/limited-edition-1950-dubrovnik-bobby-fischer-reproduced-chess-set-in-stained-crimson-box-wood-3-6-king.html
The knight is definitely smaller than in the set of Bamboo58.
There are some features which I would attribute to variations. Namely the queen's top, the carvings on the knights, rook proportions. That's all fine. However, the proportions should appear like "the Daltons" ( https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Daltons_(Comicfiguren) )
I mentioned already that I own two CB sets. I love them and they are perfect. Namely, Old Vienna and 1972 Fischer, Spassky. But this one knight which is way too large imo drives me nuts. Otherwise I would have bought it already. No doubt.
btw. As a customer I was also totally happy. With quality and service. So would also recommend this company.
What is interesting in this group is the tendency of historicity, the need to faithfully reproduce the past. Someone else's idea of a chess set. Just like western music. It must be played a certain way or it's "not right". Historicity as played out in the West is uniquely a western thing.
Maybe the ? is why is there such a demand for a repro chess set of year's gone by !
because some Old chess set's have a DNA of it's time , A class of it's own not this modern day branding .
In my opinion I want an accurate reproduction because I can then have the quality playing of the original. If a copy was different but had the same or better playing quality, I am all for that.
For instance there is the Official Staunton reproduction of the Piatigorsky set that was modified in size and proportions to be more practical and legal for today’s playing. I own one of those re-sized versions and feel no motivation to buy the larger original or larger reproductions that are now available.
The Dubrovnik sets are ones that I want more accurately reproduced. That CB version has the Knights being too big to play as well as the original design.
I finally received my ChessBazaar Dubrovnik 2.0 Sheesham/Boxwood and can directly compare the two sets. In the photos in this thread and on the HOS/CB web sites, I preferred the look of the HOS set. In person, it's not so clear to me. Both sets are really good, but neither is perfect. On the balance - to my surprise - I think I very slightly prefer the CB set. More about this below, but first some comparative photos of the Noj, HOS and CB sets. The Noj pieces are of course by far the best ones, but given the much higher price, that's not a very fair comparison. I'll focus on the HOS and CB sets, and only include the Noj photos for reference.
White pieces (first Noj, then HOS and finally CB):
Black pieces, still in the Noj, HOS, CB order:
Here are the height, diameter and weight for each piece in the three sets (sorry to you imperialists out there for the metric units; I'm too lazy to convert):
Noj:
King: height=90mm, diameter=38mm, weight=39g
Queen: height=77mm, diameter=38mm, weight=34g
Bishop: height=72mm, diameter=34mm, weight=31g
Knight: Height=64mm, diameter=34mm, weight=33g
Rook: Height=53mm, diameter=34mm, weight=31g
Pawn: Height=48mm, diameter=30mm, weight=25g
HOS:
King: height=97mm, diameter=44mm, weight=95g
Queen: height=79mm, diameter=41mm, weight=75g
Bishop: height=76mm, diameter=38mm, weight=60g
Knight: height=63mm, diameter=38mm, weight=58g
Rook: height=57mm, diameter=39mm, weight=66g
Pawn: height=48mm, diameter=31mm, weight=36g
CB:
King: height=92mm, diameter=41mm, weight=64g
Queen: height=83mm, diameter=38mm, weight=60g
Bishop: height=72mm, diameter=35mm, weight=33g
Knight: height=69mm, diameter=35mm, weight=40g
Rook: height=52mm, diameter=35mm, weight=35g
Pawn: height=48mm, diameter=32mm, weight=29g
My largest problem with the HOS set is that it is way too heavy, as you can see from the numbers above. It looks kind of like a Dubrovnik set, but due to the large weights, it doesn't really feel like a Dubrovnik at all when playing.
Neither HOS nor CB get the proportions quite right. The CB set is not too far off with respect to diameters, but height wise, the bishop is too small and the knight too tall. The HOS set has an oversized rook and an undersized pawn. The undersized pawn is particularly annoying. As has been remarked elsewhere in the thread, if you find a board that has the right size for the HOS Dubrovnik king, the pawns will look too small.
With regard to how the individual pieces, I generally slightly prefer HOS over CB. The piece I dislike the most in the CB set is the bishop, which is not only too small, but also has a too tall, thick and rectangular head and a too fat neck. The CB knight is also considerably more crudely carved than the HOS one, but in practice I don't notice this all that much.
A curious difference between the HOS and CB sets is that even though the black pieces in both of my sets are Sheesham, the wood looks and feels quite different. As you can see in the photos above, the wood in the HOS black pieces are much more finely grained. The CB black pieces feel more smooth to the touch (though not Noj level smooth, of course). I don't have any particular preference with regard to this, though. I like the wood in both sets equally much.
The white pieces, on the other hand, look and feel pretty much the same in both sets.
Summing up, I like both sets a lot, but on the balance I slightly prefer the CB Dubrovnik over the HOS Dubrovnik, mainly because of the lower weight and the better proportions with regard to base diameters.