Quality in craftsmanship and design. If you're just getting a plastic tournament set or a modest wood set, it doesn't matter. If you're going to spend a wad of dough on a nice set, though, there's no reason not to get Staunton.
The main reason they're the be all and end all for the cheaper sets is advertising and sponsorship.
So you can tell what the pieces are. Who wants to spend time figuring whats what on a Simpsons or Star wars set, before you've even made a move.
If your paying for the Staunton brand, then yes they're pricey. But most sets for next to nothing are the Staunton shape. You don't need some flamboyant rosewood, ivory, whatever pieces to enjoy chess. Cheap plastic ones will do on a cheap roll up vinyl board.
I just got one! and they are nice. I don't see why another company couldn't do it as good, just not a big enough market I guess. there are other sets that are as good but don't seem to quite capture that classic look. They aren't super flashy.
I got mine CHEAP on ebay from The House of Staunton for about a third of what they sell for on their online store.
Look them up on wikipedia. They designed the pieces, and hold patent on them.
silentfilmstar13 wrote:
Quality in craftsmanship and design. If you're just getting a plastic tournament set or a modest wood set, it doesn't matter. If you're going to spend a wad of dough on a nice set, though, there's no reason not to get Staunton. The main reason they're the be all and end all for the cheaper sets is advertising and sponsorship.
I'd have to agree there. My plastic Staunton "Collector" set is very disappointing. Each knight has bad die/molding flaws on the top of the mane and the quality is no better (actually worse in some cases) than other plastic sets I've seen.
This can only really be answered historically. Maybe you know this but in the 19th century people played with all types of set. This caused a lot of confusion and cotroversy amongst players and the British champion Howard Staunton designed a standardised set hence the name Staunton. For all tournament chess this was the design adopted. It makes sense really as this is the standard design in all competitive play throughout the world. No matter where you go you can imediately recognise the pieces and they have the same feel, it also helps in recognising a position in diagrams if they all use the same symbols etc.
A more interesting question might be 'why does white have the first move?'
Which are you referring to Muggles? Staunton pattern pieces or House of Staunton pieces?
lol I don't know Goldendog....i had another forum post about 'fancy chess sets' and people kept mentioning Staunton and how good they were:) just wondered why!
and why does white move first???? lol
when he said "sets" I thought he meant The House of Staunton. 
because not all staunton sets are pricey
I asked him what he meant because it's good for him to be clear on what he is asking about. He wasn't quite sure.
Not all staunton sets are pricey, and even not all HOS sets are pricey. Again, it helps to be clear.
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconValley/Lab/7378/staunton.htm
The increased interest in the game, particularly in international play during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, brought about a renewed demand for a more universal model for chess pieces. The variety and styles of the conventional form begun in the fifteenth century had expanded tremendously by the beginning of the nineteenth century. Some of the more common conventional types popular during the period included the English Barleycorn, the St. George, the French Regence (named after the Cafe de la Regence in Paris) and the central European Selenus styles. Most pieces were tall, easily tipped and cumbersome during play. But their target sin was the uniformity of the pieces within a set. A player's unfamiliarity with an opponent's set could tragically alter the outcome of a game. By the early decades of the nineteenth century, it was all too clear that there was a great need for a playing set with pieces that were easy to use and universally recognized by players of diverse backgrounds. The solution, first released in 1849 by the purveyors of fine games, John Jaques of London, sport and games manufacturers, of Hatton Garden, London, England, was to become known as the Staunton chess set after the Shakespearean scholar, author and the world champion, Howard Staunton (1810 - 1874).
Although Nathaniel Cook has long been credited with the design, it may have been conceived by his brother-in-law and owner of the firm, John Jaques.
The first theory is Mr. Cook had used prestigious architectural concepts, familiar to an expanding class of educated and prosperous gentry. London architects strongly influenced by Greek and Roman culture were designing prestigious buildings in the neoclassical style. The appearance of the new chessmen was based on this style and the pieces were symbols of "respectable" Victorian society: a distinguished bishops miter, a queen's coronet and king's crown, a knight carved as a stallion's head from the ancient Greek Elgin Marbles and a castle streamlined into clean classical lines, projecting an aura of strength and security. The form of the pawns was based on the 'Freemasons square and compasses', however; another theory reflects the pawns form is derived from the balconies of London Victorian buildings. There were also practical innovations: for the first time a crown emblem was stamped onto a rook and knight of each side, to identify their positioning on to the king's side of the board.
The second theory is Jaques, a master turner, had probably been experimenting with a design that would not only be accepted by players but could also be produced at a reasonable cost. In the end, he most likely borrowed and synthesized elements from sets already available to create a design of sheer brilliance. The key was the use of universally recognizable symbols atop conventional stems and bases. Moreover, the pieces were compact, well balanced and weighted to provide a playing set that was as useful as it was understandable.
Our belief is that it was a combination of both theories with the synergy of Mr. Cook the entrepreneur and Mr. Jaques the artisan.
Further to the design, the ebony and boxwood sets were weighted with lead to provide added stability and the underside of each piece was covered with felt. This afforded the players the illusion that the chessmen were floating across the board. Some ivory sets were made from African ivory. The king sizes ranged from 3.5 inches to 4.5 inches and the sets typically came in a caron-pierre case, each one bearing a facsimile of Staunton's signature under the lid.
Jaques then approached his brother-in-law for advice. At the Patent Office, on March 1, 1849, Nathaniel Cook, 198, Strand, London, England, registered an Ornamental Design for a set of Chess-Men, under the Ornamental Designs Act of 1842. At that date, there was no provision for the registration of any design or articles of ivory, registration was limited to Class 2, articles made chiefly of wood.
Mr. Cook was the editor for the Illustrated London News where Howard Staunton published chess articles and convinced the champion to endorse the chess set. The advertisement possibly written by Mr. Staunton published as follows:
"A set of Chessmen, of a pattern combining elegance and solidity to a degree hitherto unknown, has recently appeared under the auspices of the celebrated player Mr. STAUNTON. A guiding principle has been to give by their form a signification to the various pieces - thus the king is represented by a crown, the Queen by a coronet, &c. The pieces generally are fashioned with convenience to the hand; and it is to be remarked, that while there is so great an accession to elegance of form, it is not attained at the expense of practical utility. Mr. STAUNTON'S pattern adopts but elevates the conventional form; and the base of the Pieces being of a large diameter, they are more steady than ordinary sets." Illustrated London News, September 8, 1849.
Staunton not only endorsed the product for Jaques of London but promoted it to an extraordinary degree including the lambasting and derision of any other design of chessmen then proposed. This may have been the first time that a celebrated name was used to promote a commercial product. The Staunton as it became known, became available to the general public on September 29, 1849. The Staunton style, was soon the standard on which most tournament playing pieces have been made and used around the globe ever since. The low cost to produce the Staunton set allowed the masses to purchase sets and helped to popularize the game of chess.
The Staunton set obtained the stamp of approval of the World Chess Federation, when in 1924 it was selected as their choice of set, for use in all future international chess tournaments.
For over a century and a half, this style has been cherished by players around the world. The superiority of the design lay in its well-balanced, easily recognized pieces. Such was its success that it will be the style of choice for play to this day and for many years into the future.
---- Sources:
House of Staunton
Jaques of London
Bill Wall
Book: Master Pieces, by Gareth Williams
Book: The Art of Chess, by Colleen Schafroth
The Origins of Chess
http://www.goddesschess.com/chessays/stauntonpawn.html
Men of Staunton - or are they?
by Barry Martin
(Chess Magazine October 1994)
Howard Staunton's mighty contributions to chess should not camouflage the fact that a remarkable climate had already been created for the game prior to the great man's rise to glory," (1)
In the 18th and early 19th centuries, players - and also writers - such as Stamma, Sarratt, Lewis, Walker and Philidor, (2) amongst others, had already excited a popular enthusiasm for chess that had gone far beyond mere idle curiosity. Indeed, Philidor's classic book L'analyse du jeu des Echecs, 1749, was published in London, while Philidor himself feted at Parsloe's club in St.James (founded 1774), where he was the incumbent master of chess from February to May each year, and it was to him you went to learn about the game. Philidor was also the first player referred to as a Grandmaster by George Walker and others. In Bell's Life, a popular Sunday paper in which Walker had a chess column, the term 'Grandmaster' is met for the first time on February 18 1838 when it refers to William Lewis as 'our past grandmaster'. (3) The term is used more commonly towards the end of the 19th century in respect of chess players, but its origins are from an entirely different source - that of Freemasonry.
Nevertheless, despite this success, Staunton died in near poverty and mystery surrounds the source of the design of the chess pieces. (4) Standard references cite Nathaniel Cooke as the originator whilst others suggest that he collaborated with John Jaques (senior) in 1839. (5) The design was certainly registered by Cooke in 1849 and later that year marketed through Staunton's own chess column in the Illustrated London News. (6) Other sources, including Murray's History of Chess, (7) suggest that Staunton himself designed the set and, indeed, in his "anonymous" column he had the following comment placed on November 17 1849.
"Liverpool Chess Club - Mr.G.S.Speckley hon.sec. departure to China presented with set large ivory chessmen (of the pattern designed by Mr.Staunton)..."
Whatever the truth as to who the designer or designers were, (8) the set has a profound look and beauty which leaves the unmistakable impression that the originators knew what was required of them and how to achieve it. The design is richly wrought and it may surprise readers to learn that there are strong connections with Freemasonry. (9)
The Elgin marbles form part of the east pediment of the Acropolis in Greece which is dedicated to the "Birth of Athena', to the left of Athena herself is the sun god chariot of Helios, rising from the sea after a night racing underground from west to east. Its resurrection each new day as the new sun was considered a miracle in itself. In Egyptian religion, Heliopolis, a city to the north of Egypt, was dedicated to the worship of the sun god Re, and its later priests claimed Osiris (King and Judge of tne dead) was Re's grandson and they switched their worship to him. On-Helios, as depicted in the Elgin Marbles, is therefore linked indirectly with Osiris, the god of resurrection and rebirth. and rebirth. (15) This is in itself of tantamount importance in Freemasonry as is the word "On" which forms one of the most sacred words in the Craft. It is this that attracts the designer(s) of the Staunton chessmen. It is interesting to note that only two of the Helios horses' heads are at the British Museum, the other two making up the group of four are still in Greece. 
It would therefore be in accordance with the spirit in design of the Staunton chessmen that the knight represented those powerful ideas associated with the horses of the Elgin Marbles and not just their looks. It would also suggest that the real designers of the Staunton chess intended the pieces to carry symbolic importance in accordance with Freemason thinking and this in addition to their very visual and practical advantages in the playing of chess. (16)
That Howard Staunton was a Freemason has yet to be proved but this in itself would have been quite usual the day. Indeed many coffee houses in and divans that were centres for chess were also meeting places for Freemason's lodges. (17)
The Staunton Pawn has the same proportions as King Solomon's Temple - in front of which stand the pillars of Boaz and Jachim. (as shown above) The Staunton knight represented the powerful ideas associated with the horses of the Elgin Marbles.
The sun-god chariot of On-Helios - as depicted in the Elgin Marbles and whose link with Osiris, the Egyptian god of resurrection and rebirth, is of tantamount importance in Freemasonry.
(Goddesschess wishes to thank Mr. Frank Menzel of Montreal, Canada for his kind assistance with the transciption of this essay from the printed page to html.)
http://www.goddesschess.com/chessays/stauntonpawn.html
you are conflating two issues:
staunton is a STYLE of pieces. House of Staunton (and other names) are BRANDS of pieces. you can get a staunton STYLE of pieces for $3. or you can get a House of Staunton BRAND of pieces (www.houseofstaunton.com) or other BRANDED set for more.
generally when most people refer to staunton they are referring to the STYLE. and yes, they are the best because they are the most clear :) i've been working on a modernized staunton style, but haven't found an industrial designer to complete my vision :D
I'm an 18th C reenactor in my spare time (yeah, I dress funny an wear a three-sided hat), but I can't enjoy a game of chess at an historical event because I have a hard time playing with accurate pieces for the 1760s-1790s. My feeble skills at the board were learned with Staunton pieces and symbols, and skill take the hindmost, Benjamin Franklin would have worn me out just for the confusion his set would have caused me.
Ever tried to play a game on Chessmaster in the kid's room with their cookie dough sets? The basic Staunton lines of recognizeable pieces are just fine with this duffer!
It muggles wrote:
Why is Staunton the be all and end all in chess sets? And why so pricey??
Huh
It is not ! lol
not the be all and end all, and not pricey either :)
I have worked in chess set production and sourcing in the past. The Staunton design has been made into 100s of variants, all highly recognisable as Staunton to a greater or lesser degree. Many people are still under the illusion that there is a company called "Staunton" who make chess sets.
Most of the well known chess brands source their sets from abroad from a variety of manufacturers and skilled crafts people. They then package them, brand them and import them as their own products.
Why is Staunton the be all and end all in chess sets?
And why so pricey??