Which is the better reproduction? Sergei Prokofiev 1937 chessmen vs. USSR 1920 Soviet Series

I just discovered that two reproductions which claim to be from 1937 and the 1920s respectively are in fact the same design. So now I have three questions:

1. What year is this design originally from?
2. Which of these two chess sets are a better reproduction?
3. Does this particular design have a name?

Okay, I’m actually going to answer the second question myself based on the 1937 photo, but I’m curious about your perspective as well; and I’m curious if you know similar sets of around this time that show some variance.

—

The first reproduction is the Sergei Prokofiev 1937 Russian Chessmen by Frank Camaratta.

The Chess Antiques website also shows a comparison between the reproduction and the original:

A fair reproduction, although there are a few fairly significant differences which I will describe in a moment.

—

The second reproduction is by The Chess Empire, which is called USSR Timeless Series on their website, and USSR 1920s Soviet Series on Etsy.

This definitely seems to be the same design, so I find it curious that they are both attributed to a different decade. I trust that the first reproduction is indeed of the 1937 match, but it’s possible that the design did originate in the 1920s. It’s interesting that the 1920s reproduction is more accurate to the 1937 set in certain aspects.

—

In terms of accuracy to the 1937 original, I think both reproductions get different elements right.

Things that seem more accurate in the reproduction by Frank Camaratta:

• The pawn seems to have an obloid head rather than spherical, which is done right unlike in the reproduction by The Chess Empire. I do think the base might be a bit too wide.
• The queen doesn’t have a protruding rounded top; the finial should come just right above the edge of the crown, which it does.
• The manes of the knight blend a bit better into the body rather than having a sharp delineation as in the reproduction by The Chess Empire.
• The rook has a tapered ridge from the stem to the crenelations. However, the crenelations don’t seem to be tall enough, and the divisions not deep enough.

Things that seem more accurate in the reproduction by The Chess Empire:

• The third ridge of the base above the thick band is fairly smooth, whereas in FC’s reproduction it protrudes more than in the original. In fact, the stems in the FC reproduction are a bit smaller at the bottom than the base, making them more distinct elements. This does not seem to be correct.
• The finial is larger than in FC’s reproduction, which better resembles the original.
• The ears of the knight are fairly short just like in the original, whereas in FC’s reproduction they’re elongated.
• The manes are straight rather than curved as in FC’s reproduction. However, the manes are too horizontal, and the original does not have this abrupt vertical cutoff to all the manes.
• The teeth of the knight are small, and the chin fairly flat—unlike in FC’s reproduction.
• The ridge at the top of the base of the knight is thicker just like in the original; in FC’s reproduction this ridge is very thin.
• The rook has taller crenelations which is accurate, but it doesn’t have the tapered ridge below the crenelations.

I also want to add that in the reproduction by The Chess Empire, the pawn seems to be the worst; its head is spherical rather than obloid, yet it tapers a bit at the bottom, which the 1937 original pawn does not do. The base is also way too narrow. This makes sense in terms of the hierarchy of the pieces, but an idiosyncrasy of the 1937 set is that the base of the pawn is wider than the rook’s. I also think the base of the queen is a bit too wide, and the base of the bishop perhaps a bit too narrow.

—

Despite The Chess Empire getting many things right, I actually prefer the reproduction by Frank Camaratta. I’m quite close to purchasing it, but the muzzle of the knight just bothers me, with its thick chin and long teeth—as well as the elongated ears. I like the head of TCE’s knight more. I would like for the finial of the bishop to be a bit larger as well. Do you think I could request these customizations?

—

What’s your take on these reproductions?

I think you should wait at least 1 week before purchasing - I suspect this design will tire quickly in your eyes

I’ve been eyeing the 1920s version for weeks now. Why do you think the design will tire in my eyes?

Well - then it might be the set for you! I don't mean to discourage if you enjoy it. I just personally feel that reproductions of old soviet era chess sets rarely capture the simple elegance of the originals. I think it's most apparent with the Bishops and Pawns in these examples. But again - it's not my call and I was just offering an opinion when you requested

The repros in your examples are close - at first. But I think they reveal themselves as "chunkier" than the originals and that's why I think they will tire

I wonder if any of the reproduction makers have a physical original set or if they're loosely going by images... the proportions and details seem pretty far off for my taste...

The CE bases are just a complete miss, the Camaratta bishop, knight and rook must be a joke (I'm speaking of the accuracy of reproduction).

They should call it "design based on" instead of "reproduction", then it would pass. But reproduction means you make the exact same set, which they both fail to do.

Oh yeah, I just noticed the tapering collars in the originals, which are absent in both reproductions.

Yeah, I think you could be right. I’m primarily just looking for a cool Soviet set, but there are many beautiful features of the original that neither reproduction replicates. I just noticed the tapering collars in the original which looks really nice. And neither reproduction gets the knight right at all. I like Camaratta’s manes a lot more than in the knight of the Botvinnik–Flohr reproduction (which looks a lot like The Chess Empire’s USSR 1920s manes with the sudden cutoff), but it’s still not it. The Botvinnik–Flohr set is another one I have been eyeing, but the knights are the main reason for not getting it (well, and the price).

Eventually I gave up on finding a reproduction which checked all the boxes and reached out to Porat. I think if I was to select a reproduction it would be the Staunton Castle one. I wish the King's finial looked like a flame and was the opposite color though. I think you could probably commission Mandeep from SC to make this change if you thought it was a good idea.

Who is Porat? And did Staunton Castle do a reproduction of the Botvinnik–Flohr set? I thought they only did the Soviet 1970 reproduction.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-equipment/review-of-porat-jacobsons-smyslova-set

Porat Jacobson lives in Berlin and makes (presumably among other things) chess sets.

http://www.utpic.de/index.html

this is his Website and he also has an account here on CC named "utpic" (he posts in the thread I linked earlier).

Ohh right! His Smyslova chessmen are the most compelling set I’ve ever seen. I sent him a message on Facebook a few weeks ago, but he seems to be inactive. I will mail him soon to inquire about the price of his set.

I actually acquired a Soviet set last week with bishops with teardrop terminals and knights with their tongues sticking out (or maybe they’re teeth; I prefer to think of them as tongues), but Porat’s set is far more beautiful. I love those Xenomorph-like Novgorod knights. Actually, everything about his set is beautiful and super compelling.

Yeah I like his set a lot as well, but the one you got also looks pretty nice. I'd like a Porat set as well but I'm afraid to ask him for the price, I have a suspicion as to where it may be at and my wife would kill me

Yeah, I’m afraid about the price as well—even more so since I would like to request if he could do the dark side in purple heart. But it’s the set I would like the most. Not that I’m not still going after an original BFI, BFII, ferocious knight, Egyptian, and Baku set. But the Smyslova would feel like my most prized set I think. If I could get it in purple heart on a purple heart chess board, that would be a dream come true!

#13: Wonderful set, really. Always mind it is not bishops' mitres, but elephants' teeth that make the piece 'slon' (elephant) in Russian. With kings' finials that give it modesty and disarmingly good-natured horses. Let me kindly ask, could you post the black side, please?

Sure! I actually found a similar set on Etsy and compared the two sets in Chuck Grau’s Facebook group (Shakhmatnyye Kollektsionery: Soviet and Tsarist Chess Sets) yesterday. Here are two images I shared, with my ’50s set on the left, and the ’60s Etsy set on the right.

Here are the black pieces (again, my set on the left):

The ’60s set has more nuanced and legible mouths on the knights, and so it becomes clear that the interiors indeed show teeth rather than tongues. But I’m going to insist my knights are cheeky and are sticking their tongues out!

Oh by the way, I thought the design of these sets was quite unique, but I spent last night categorizing different Soviet sets on Etsy, and I found 28(!) sets of this particular design. Well, two of the sets deviate a bit, with different knights and smaller finials on the bishops (ehm elephants!), so arguably I found 26 of these sets. According to Chuck they lack a name, so I’m calling them (Soviet) Droplet sets, due to the finials looking like droplet impacts. I even found a set with droplet finials on the kings! Such a cool feature.

You picked up a really nice set

Probably it would upset a lot of collectors - but if this was me I'd probably try to refinish it or something. Maybe not...

Yeah I’m actually considering doing that—and more. I was thinking about sanding the bishops to make the finials a bit smaller and have a smoother transition, and sanding the queens’ finials down a bit so they’re less prominent (more harmonious with the kings) and have a better separation between the crown and the finial so it looks less “muddy”.

And then I was thinking of staining the white pieces chestnut like the ’60s set I showed above, or maybe a lighter but warmer brown, and giving the black pieces a really dark chestnut finish like the set below. Normally I’m not a fan of a glossy finish, but the set below looks amazing to me, and I think the glossy effect goes well with the droplet theme.

The red set below is also fun though.

Or I will keep the set as it is; the brown color with the brown board is also growing on me. I haven’t decided yet. I will have a better idea of what I want once I see the set in person.