Adding weight to pieces

What I'm also asking myself, how does the lead stick to the pieces? If you just pour it inside, will it somehow blend with the wood? Otherwise the lead might fall out if you lift the pieces, because I cannot imagine, how the felt alone will hold the lead.

As I noted, Jaques weights were screwed in, so the pieces have a thread. That thread will serve to hold the lead in.

Okay, now I understand what you mean by thread. But this would mean I would have trouble holding the pieces inside without glueing them, if you look at the photos of the inside of my pawn.

I use a white glue (Elmer's) or an epoxy, both of which will bond fairly well to the metal.  If the weight is flush with the bottom, and the felt is glued over it, they stay quite well unless you play against a piece-slammer or drop one on the floor (which should never happen with wood pieces.)

What I meant is, I cannot glue a piece of lead, if I melt it into the pawns base. I could put the glue in the base, before the melting process, but that would most likely burn the glue. I don't think that glue goes conform with high temperature.

You could always widen the top of the inside of the hole , so that it forms an inverted cone. That way the weights can't slip out. I've seen this on an old chess set.

Using a drill press, drill a pilot hole down through the center of the lead and into the chess piece, countersink it, drive in a wood screw. You could do this with a pre-formed lead disc too; make the hole in the base of the piece slightly bigger than the lead disc and you don't have to worry about expansion and contraction of the wood causing it to split, and it eliminates the hassle of messing with molten lead too.

I wonder if the porous wood would be enough to hold onto the lead.

You mean if you poured it in there molten? I don't know, but I doubt it, at least, I doubt it would hold it under significant stress; it might hold it well enough for the purpose of weighting a chess piece. Either way, it is easy enough to just hog out the hole in the bottom (i.e., make the bottom of the hole a little wider than the top of the hole) using e.g. a chisel or a Dremel, and then the lead will definitely be going nowhere once it solidifies.

I'm in the process of 3D printing some nylon pieces, and have allowed a small recess in the CAD drawing to accept, what will ultimately be, lead shot coated in epoxy and 'dribbled' in. I can use my old shotgun ammo (of little use, my wife has left me now) which won't need melting.

We often talk about 'weight'. In an earlier post I spoke about a life-threatening procedure whereby I cut some rubber-impregnated cork I laser cut for the bases of some cheapish plastic pieces I 'weighted'. They are particulary dissapointing! Too much weight too low down - quality pieces feel balanced when you pick them up as well as being weighty - stay away from discs in the base. It's better if the heavy material is in a column extending at least half way up the piece.

I sloshed a crucible of molten lead into an opponents face once! That was a memorable victory - but the smoke....

That's an opinion, of course. I'd like to see an example of even one chess piece manufacturer which weighted their pieces this way. The standard method with regard to solid Staunton chess pieces (e.g., solid wood or solid plastic) is to add weight in the base only, because this has the most stability. Here is an example from a vintage English-made Staunton set (this was also the Jaques of London method):

Now, if your pieces were made of entirely hollow plastic, it would probably be best to first make them solid before adding lead weight, i.e., fill the head and column with epoxy, let it harden, then fill the base with epoxy and lead shot (I'd use the smallest diameter lead birdshot you can find, e.g., #12, as this will give you the most weight for a given space).

I would expect that filling only the base of a hollow plastic piece with lead would feel weird, but not because it would be too bottom heavy, but rather because it would be heavy, but still sound and feel cheap/hollow when you thunked it down on the board.

That is exactly what we're talking about, though.

I know, and I also said it might hold it well enough for that purpose. That means that simply relying on the pores in the wood would probably not create a very strong bond; it might be enough to hold the weights in place forever given normal usage, or it might not. On the other hand, there is an alternative which is guaranteed to hold the weights in place forever (as long as the wood surrounding the weight never breaks). Just shape the hole in the base for the molten lead like this:

Or any other shape which accomplishes the same thing. This creates a blatantly obvious mechanical lock on the weight, guaranteeing it will never come out without breaking, melting, or carving it out. I prefer a guarantee to a "maybe", especially when the guarantee is so easy to get.

My hunch is that molten lead is too thick to soak into the pores of such dense woods as boxwood or ebony, especially in the relatively short time that it take for it to solidify. If the surface of the wall of the hole were rough, that would create some grip, though I don't know how strong, and a good, sharp drill bit doesn't make a particularly rough hole anyway.

Another thing you could do, if you had a coarse tap of a large enough diameter, is to thread the hole after drilling it. This would also mechanically prevent the weight from falling straight out once it is hardened, but would allow it to be "unscrewed", either intentionally or unintentionally due to creep over time (like in that picture of the pawn in my previous post).

I've just smashed my ebony and boxwood 6" set with a club hammer on the doorstep with the neighbours looking on, and you're right - the lead does not extend in a column in these fine old sets in the manner I suggested for plastic or 3D printed pieces.

Hang-on there's a police officer at the door....

That is a great idea, but I think most people don't have the tool to do that.  I wonder about a straight shaft with glue in the bottom.

No pieces from any company, wood or plastic, new or old, have weights extending into the column, because it defeats the purpose of stability (i.e., it raises the center of gravity, which would make them easier to tip over). However, I'm more than happy to be proven wrong on this matter; just give me an example of a commercially manufactured chess piece with weighting material extending into the column.

The classic Drueke Player's Choice pieces are the archetype for weighted plastic pieces (they are also where the still-used terms "double-weighted" and "triple-weighted" came from), and those didn't have weights extending into the column either (again, correct me if I'm wrong).

ClavierCavalier

Well I won't be able to will I! I was merely suggesting that when retro-fitting lead into plastic pieces my personal preference would be to extend the lead into the column. The reason for this is because plastic pieces, even solid ones, can be so light that if you just put lead discs in the base they feel funny, unbalanced.

Next time I think I will drill a 6mm hole 2/3 of the way up and a recess for a larger 'disc' at the base. Hopefully that will address the strange feel.

Chess pieces are supposed to be "unbalanced", i.e., bottom heavy. That gives them additional stability due to a lower center of gravity. If they were "balanced" (i.e., balance point at exactly half their height), they wouldn't be as stable. It would make them better for e.g., juggling or twirling like a baton, but not for playing chess.

In any event, you can weight your pieces any way you want, obviously; I'm just pointing out that the following statement ...

"It's better if the heavy material is in a column extending at least half way up the piece."

... is a bizarre approach to weighting chess pieces, just so that anyone reading this who may not know how Staunton chess pieces have always been weighted, doesn't get the idea that your plan is the conventional/accepted method of doing it. The standard method, which has been used since the Staunton design was introduced in 1849, can be seen in the picture of the broken pawn in my previous post.

By the way, plastic, such as ABS, has a density which is practically identical to the density of ebony and boxwood (the two traditional woods used for making chess pieces). The density of boxwood is 0.95 - 1.2 g/cm3; the density of ebony is 1.1 - 1.3 g/cm3; the density of ABS plastic is 1.06 - 1.08 g/cm3. This means that a solid ABS plastic chess piece of a given size (volume) will weigh about the same as a solid boxwood or ebony piece of the same size, so the idea that plastic is "lighter" so it needs a different weighting method than wooden pieces, is false.

I have to admit that I am beyond the point of caring what you think anymore! You have proven yourself beyond any doubt to be an opinionated, obnoxious 'know-all' who would do well to refer to my original post. In that post I admitted dissapointment at having put too much weight too low down in some cheap plastic chess pieces. I thought it might be worth mentioning that it hadn't worked for me in this instance and that.... well I'm not going to repeat myself for your sake.

Goog night

That would only be relevant if you were the only other person who has read or will ever read this thread.

You have proven yourself beyond any doubt to be an opinionated, obnoxious 'know-all' who would do well to refer to my original post.

So says the fellow who has only made "smartass" replies to my posts thus far (posts #95, #98, and #100). "Opinionated" is comically ironic too, given that the point of contention here in the first place is you presenting an opinion as a fact. On the other hand, I haven't been posting opinions in my replies to your posts. I've been pointing out facts regarding the long-standard method of weighting chess pieces, and the reasons for that method.

As for "know-all", I wish I did. In any event, you're not using the term correctly. "Know-all" only applies to people who purport to know more than they actually do (i.e., an ultracrepidarian), so you'd have to first establish that I've been dispensing false information before "know-all" can apply. And you don't get to redefine the word "proven" either. You seem to have difficulty distinguishing opinions from facts.