Reproduction and Real Jaques of London Chess Set

Leuchars were mostly known as a manufacturer and retailer for high end boxes and other fancy goods I think. Chess sets were only a very small part of what they sold.

Here is a good link http://www.antiquebox.org/leuchars/

British Chess Co. only seem to have made sets for about 15 years

http://www.fersht.com/The%20British%20Chess%20Company.htm

 Would this not devalue a antique chess set as it's no longer original adding lead weights? or is this quite common to find / To bump up the price !

 Hi Chris,

I've never weighted a complete old Jaques and it would be pointless to re-do a cheaper non-Jaques I guess.

I have been asked however, and refused to do it, not particularly for moral reasons but because gripping the already finished (and patinated) pieces, even in a soft vise would be risky and if there is  say, a 1 in 10 chance or even a 1 in 20 chance of damaging one then it is almost certain that the set would be damaged.

Jaques weights were screwed in with a 4 pronged insertion tool and the marks are usually quite easy to see if you remove the baize.

Hello Alan ,

Thanks for your input on this , When I was a kid used to collect stamps  like most kids  back then There was the  fake penny black stamp which people would pass of as the real thing .

So it seem this can Happens in every world were there is a intrinsic value .

I find using a Jaques unweighted set better for training with "ie opening study / middle game /end game .

Did you ever see a original Dubrovnik 1950 set in your wandering As this is such a rare chess set ?

There is something in that Knight design which keeps drawing me back to it .

Hi Alan, 

Of all the Staunton set you've seen, do you have any favourites?

Hi Chris,

I used to see a good range of sets when I was in Portobello Road. Garrick Coleman got most of them offered to him but I picked up a prize or two on occasion.

I don't remember a Dubrovnik though. 

Hi Lawrence, 

I have seen so many Jaques sets in my time it is hard to pick a single one out. My Mrs. bought me a nice early Jaques 3.5" weighted for us to play with and I have the only known Jaques stamped bone Staunton which is a bit of a treasure. But, no favorites. However I do wish I owned the Leuchars overstamped wood Jaques it has really early knights heads looking just right for having dragged the moon goddess  Selene's chariot across the sky  as they are shown in the Elgin marbles of course, but you all know this stuff.

Hi Alan,

The Dubrovnik was Bobby fischer favourite set he even had a rare set one from the 50's  

Locked away !

http://bestchessmenever.com/blog/files/fischer-about-dubrovnik.html

He rated it as the best chess set he ever play with even over Jaques .

This set  from the 50's seems like a grail .

Hi Chris,

Yes, I do know the Dubrovnik set. If Fisher hadn't mentioned it I should think it would just be a footnote in chess set history. It isn't particularly memorable in my opinion. 

I'm at a loss about the popularity of the Dubrovnik set.  It's a simple design, minimal carving, pretty substantial uniformity, and everything I've read indicates a TON of them were made (presumably because they were cheap and easy to make).  Also, I'd note that Fischer doesn't seem to have been in his right mind during the interview blub pointed to by lighthouse, above.  

Alan,

You're way too modest when you said:

"... I have the only known Jaques stamped bone Staunton which is a bit of a treasure."

I am pretty sure it's not just a bit - it will probably valued way more than a bit. I agree with you with the Leuchars. It's my favourite Jaques knight too. 

Hi Lawrence,

Having a vanishingly rare set is something of an enigma. Better to have one of 4 or 5 well documented sets I think. Take as an example the ivory and Oak Jaques set on ebay ATM. I have never seen such a thing. It has several drawbacks which will affect the price. 1) half the set is ivory. (impossible to import for now). 2) The Jaques stamp on the WK has been pretty thoroughly scrubbed, it is barely visible. 3)  No one AFAIK has ever seen a Jaques set made in Oak or any other mixed wood and ivory.

It should be somewhere between 5K -10K IMO but I doubt it will go over $2K 

@jcousins1:

The simple design and minimal carving is a large part of the point of the Dubrovnik set for those of us who like it. I love the Dubrovniks for their elegant, secular and not overly ornamented design, their light weight, their balance and playability, for not being as obnoxiously large as most other premium sets, and for the extraordinarily smooth and polished finish. I've seen a few (but not many) sets I like slightly more on photos, but I've never encountered another set I've liked nearly as much for actual use. It's about how they feel at least as much as how they look. I couldn't care less what Fischer thought about them.

The Bobby thing got my attention and I bought my first Noj Dubrovnik in 2010.

The set plays exceptionally well.  And it is my favorite of well over 30 sets that I own.  In fact I now own this Dubrovnik II set in the original Walnut, Red Maple and Brown Maple.

If you only want a set to look at then I am sure the various Jaques and Soviet designs are fine.for that.

But, this set is the best to play with as far as I know and from the testimony of others.

And Bobby Fischer has nothing to do with it.

I'll weigh in here: I was stationed in Germany during the Cold War. There are many, many sets

sets that were would-be Dubrovnik copies, and/or Dubrovnik inspired. Some were pure junk, and others were a dream to play with. The HOS Zagreb '59 is an example of a Dubrovnik Inspired set. When I went to the 29th World Chess Olympiad that was held in Novi Sad, Yugoslavia (this was before the war that tore Yugoslavia apart) all you saw were Dubrovnik inspired sets. When we traveled down to Dubrovnik itself all you saw were the more classical Dubrovnik sets. What you did not see were the classical Western Staunton sets. 

I like the NOJ sets but they are way out of my price range, and at that price I bet they are properly weighted and balanced. And while I have never played with one of these sets, my bet is HOS' Zagreb '59 and / or their Dubrovnik copy are *probably* properly weighted.  I know I would prefer either set over some of the sets I played with in Europe, that said, there were some sets -- mostly Dubrovnik inspired -- that were truly a joy to handle.   

Surprising that there are so few vintage Dubrovnik sets on eBay. Apparently some people like these sets - as evidenced by the posts above and the fact that people make reproductions - so I'd have thought there would be lots of people selling the real thing

The thing is Matt ,

The real Dubrovnik set is very rare which is the 50"s set

there say there is only six  set still around .

And would go for sale at deep pocket prices ,

Put it this way, I would not say No to one as I really like the 50's design  knight .

The next best thing is the One by NOJ & not cheap .

Only 6? That is  rare, I wasn't aware of that

Jon Crumiller Jaques didn't sell white=ivory / black=wood sets. These pieces are from (at least) two separate sets.

Occam's Razor

This is clearly a Jaques set and genuine. I am probably the only person in the world who could copy an old Jaques to that very high standard and I didn't do it.

So Occam's razor must be wrong in this case.

I am trying to find out the history/provenance of the set. I can guess that Jaques made this as a special order for one of the better retailers in London who wanted it for a specific customer.

Why Oak? My best guess ahead of the facts, is that the wood came fron a sailing ship with which the customer was associated or one of his family, father grandfather etc.

The wood pieces do have the correct weights, screw in with insertion marks and they are all of an equal quality to Jaques production at that time. Imagine trying to get one of the, admittedly, fairly talented Indian makers to reproduce a set like this down to the last detail. even to old baize on the wood side. It ain't going to happen. 

So in this case, and with the greatest respect,  Jon C is wrong.