Antique Ivory Chess Sets

@CandelaLight, elephants will go extinct because we fail to protect them with effective measures. Banning the trade in ivory antiques is not one of them. Effective measures cost money and would require proper funding of animal protection measures in the countries involved. Elephants are hunted by poachers backed by organized crime. The poachers are funded, the protectors are not. Funding the fight against poaching to a level enabling it to compete with fully equipped armies of commercial poachers would also require a deeper look into the system of corruption in the African countries. That is all very complicated. But as we live in a world that embraces simple solutions, we ban the trade of antiques. In my view this is a moral bankruptcy declaration, because it sends out the message that we do not care enough to do something effective. The ivory ban is a fig leaf that is supposed to hide the real dilemma. It is a pity that environmental protection organisations in particular are so easily satisfied with symbolic but inefficient measures. I myself am a member of Greenpeace and as such am deeply disappointed.

It is estimated that there are still around 400,000 elephants in Africa and the number of elephants is falling rapidly. The main reason is poaching for the illegal ivory trade. The commercial trade in ivory has been banned internationally since 1989, but the number of elephants is falling year after year. The ivory trade is a multibillion dollar industry and the European Union is one of its main players - through the export of ivory to the Asian market. That undermines the ban and fuels illegal trade.

Any commercial market for ivory offers the possibility of illegal trade, as it is difficult to control whether a piece is legal or not. You cannot tell whether the ivory comes from a warehouse or from a freshly killed animal. At the height of the poaching crisis, more than 100,000 elephants were poached between 2010 and 2012. It is estimated that 20,000 are still killed each year for their ivory alone.

That in Europe almost nobody wants ivory anymore is also a result of the media education. In large parts of Asia, on the other hand, it is still a sought-after luxury good and is popular as "white gold". Destroying ivory supplies, as countries like Kenya, the US and China have done since 1989, sends a clear message that buying ivory is unacceptable. And such signals are important. Recent experience has shown that the legal trade in ivory does not curb poaching, but instead sends the message that ivory is still a very interesting market. Since China completely banned the ivory trade in 2018, demand has fallen sharply. But Japan is still interested. The illegal trade continues to flourish.

But of course it is best if each individual, aware of the consequences, simply refrains from using ivory (this also includes members of Greenpeace). They are now trying to achieve this in the schools of Japan through education and information for the youngest.

Hopefully the next generation in the world will be a bit wiser (not only when it comes to elephants and ivory).

@CandelaLight most of the things you are saying are correct and shared by me. I do think, however, that what you say about the Chinese demand is only an incomplete story. It is correct that purchases from vendors within China have dropped significantly after the introduction of the ban. But at the same time the purchases from Chinese travelling abroad have increased by 25%. The overall balance is far less positive as is usually suggested. What mainly happened is that the market shifted from mainland China to other places in Southeast Asia, e.g. Burma. And there is one other aspect on which I am disagreeing, as you are missing the point, I think. I am exclusively talking about ivory antiques! You are right that it is difficult or even impossible to tell whether the raw material used for an ivory product comes from a warehouse or from a freshly killed animal. But in this case we are talking about new ivory products that were made in the present. We are not talking about antiques. You certainly can tell - in the majority of cases - whether an ivory chess set was made in the 18th or 19th century or in 2020.

@EfimLG47 Thanks for posting the video of the Bertram Jones set!

@CandelaLight It is not commercially viable to fake an antique chess set. You need to add patina and set up the turning lathes to old specification. The dye formula for cochineal red is also lost. Even so, there is in the UK going to be a register for antique items of historical and artistic value and chess sets could be added to this. Anybody wanting to break the law will make a black market modern set. The risks are high and so, therefore, is the price. $15,000? I do not endorse criminality and have no wish to see modern sets produced. I think much of the demand is medicinal for powdered ivory/horn and for elaborately carved figurines rather than Staunton design chess sets.

An update from the U.K. On August 17th the Supreme Court declined to grant right of appeal to representatives of the antiques trade. The Court ruled that the Government was entitled to enact legislation with the primary aim of discouraging activities by citizens of other countries regardless of the impact of the law on its own citizens. In other words, suppressing dealing in antique ivory objects without compensation could be done in order to reinforce disapproval of poaching and trade in modern ivory for medicinal or other purposes. As a consequence, the U.K. ban is expected to come into force later in 2020 and once it does it will only be possible for anyone who does not already own an ivory chess set to either inherit or be gifted one, unless antique chess sets qualify for registration as works of exceptional artistic and historic value. 

Truly a parade of abominations here. I think most people, myself included, would like their sets 100% cruelty free. And as you all buy, sell and spread ‘appreciation’ for these ridiculous things it only contributes to demand which in turn drives the need to ‘harvest’ raw materials. So congratulations on playing a role in this: YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM

@pineconehenry - you are entitled to your own opinion, of course, but assuming that the (very limited) trade in antique ivory artefacts is of any significance or even has an impact on the current situation of the decreasing elephant population is at best naive in my view. From what I hear, the ivory ban in the USA had no measurable impact on the population (something even the strongest opponents of ivory trade tend to concede). Even the Chinese trade ban had only a small impact (at least it was targeted at the right market). I go so far as to say that the introduced trade bans, as far as they extend to antiques and even fossil ivory, are even counterproductive, because they have at best a symbolic character. But symbolism, however well meant, will not help any elephant. It even harms, because it distracts from the real problems. Lack of funding for local protection organizations, corruption in African countries, a radical reduction of the habitats due to increasing demands of a growing human population, an uncoordinated approach and a lack of political will to efficiently stop the Asian demand for new ivory etc. are the real problem. And anyone who shouts "Hurray!" at symbolic acts and gives the impression that something significant has been achieved is in my view a much bigger problem for today's elephants, than any collector of antique ivory chess sets could ever be.

As long as nothing effectively stops illegal poaching, all arguments about the trade of ivory will just be circuitous. 

what do you think about chess sets carved from the skeletons of wooly mammoths lying beneath the siberian permafrost?  they are dead and have been extinct for over 40 000 years. i wouldn't want a new one or an old one. it seems it would not affect anything by having one, new or old. difficult to argue either way on moral and/or ethical grounds but i guess this is one of those actions that define who you are. not judging, just saying.

Discussing about morality is difficult and I would hope that the definition of who someone is were taking into account the complexity of the topic and were not based on a single aspect alone. Nevertheless, I think the debate is good and valid and I actually approve of all measures taken against the poaching of elephants. I just don't see the point in merely symbolic acts, when so much more would need to be done. It would be really helpful if we stopped criminalizing the wrong people for a short term feeling of success, when tackling the real problem in the long run seems too much of an effort. The discussion really boils down to the question whether it is possible to approve of antique ivory and at the same time be against poaching of today's elephant population. For me, the answer is a clear "yes".

Just to add that there is a visual test that distinguishes between mammoth and ivory by comparing what are called Schreger lines. Alan Ferscht has a good explanation of the test here: https://www.fersht.com/chess/ivory/index.html

 

 

 

 

NEVER buy ivory sets.Ivory can be found from elephant tusks.Hunters kill elephants just to sell ivory and get rich.

If this is mammoth ivory then,it's ok

 

 

EfimLG47 - Anyone can cite abstract statistics and regulations when in dubious moral standing, but that will not distract from the true issue: there is no cruelty variance in an animal killed for ivory in 1901 or 2020, it is all barbaric and shameful. Your knowledge of regulations as well as the extent and nature of your ‘collection’ suggests you may often find yourself the precipice of legality and your citations of ‘statistics’ only betray and attempt to appease a guilty conscious. Very little of non-archeological ivory is obtained without extreme cruelty and lasting damage to biodiversity. You have perpetuated this, stop pretending to be part of the solution. And honestly, the chessmen showcased here are remarkably ostentatious and hideous, an indignity to the game and the creatures cruelly put to death for your collection.

@pineconehenry - accepted, the elephants from which the ivory was taken most likely did not die a normal death, but were killed. But they did die. What exactly does it have to do with today's situation? In fact, how does it improve today's situation if we got rid of all the antiques? Would it save a single elephant? If not, what do you suggest doing? Rid the museums of all ivory artefacts? Remove all the historical instruments with ivory parts from conservatories, concert halls, churches etc.? And while we are at it, the churches did some abominal things in the past. Shall we close them down? And what about the US monuments which were built on the blood and tears from innumerous slaves, like the White House, the Capitol etc.? Shall we tear them down? Would it make today's world a better place? I think instead of focusing on the past, you should do something in the present. And if everything you are doing in the present is getting rid of the past, nothing will change. Celebrating yourself for your higher moral standards, does not make you part of the solution either, if it is all you do. In fact, it is highly hypocritical. I am actively fighting for a better world. I am actively fighting against animal cruelty in many different forms. This does include fighting against elephant poaching (even though the possibilities to improve and to influence the situation are rather limited due to the various issues I have mentioned in my last post). But also by fighting against animal testing, fighting for higher standards in the agricultural keeping of livestock and many more. I am raising money for social projects. I am housing refugees from Syria and Afghanistan in my own house. And no, it is not because of my guilty conscious for having ivory. So, get off your high horse and stop judging others. Rather start with yourself.

Well next to your litany of commendable though unrelated humanitarianism, my high horse is looking more like a well-mannered donkey, and onward we shall go: My dispute, or disgust has always been with the pieces. You wanted to talk about it? Here we are. While I digress from socio-political commentary I can’t help but expressing revulsion with people who will play a game with the last remnant of something that died of inflicted misery and wretchedness. The implications and imperfections of this philosophy are complex and constantly evaluated, personally, for myself. But maybe your right in the end, and I think a bit of the truth lies here: this forum has been running for 2 something years , with 36+ posts - most of it negative feedback, contentious or near contentious debate. All the other forums regarding contemporary sets and pieces run for years, hundreds of posts, zero negativity. Beautiful stuff. The future is in the numbers: nobody cares about ivory. And as the international regulations normalize all these things will end up in museums, or in the fire. But you’re right, I should have let it go because I’ll be riding this well-mannered donkey right into untold stratum of forgotten chess.com forums.

@pineconehenry - Apologies for my litany. The majority of my collection consists of antique wooden sets. I offer pictures of two of them as a truce, an 18th century Dutch set and my own reproduction of a 19th century German Staunton set.

PS: I personally prefer donkeys to horses, lots of character.

I bet in times to come people will find it unbelievable that chess pieces in the early 21st century were made out of wood, much less plastic (oil). How could people have been so ignorant/savage to inflict such cruel violence against the earth, stripping it of its resources and defences and helping climate change to run rampant!

You get the point. Virtue signalling is an annoying trait and is sure to recoil upon those who practice it when their actions are judged, in hindsight, to be barbaric when compared to, as yet, undetermined future standards of "civilised" behaviour.

The sets presented earlier were made and presumably acquired at a time when it was legally and morally acceptable to do so (despite some sly insinuation from certain parties that those who acquired them were somehow fringing on illegality).

Enjoy them for what they are.     

Just to observe that it is completely optional whether or not to view a set of forum posts clearly labelled antique ivory chess sets. If it upsets people to click on the link then there is no compulsion to do so. 

My chess set is made out of plastic

.