Reproduction and Real Jaques of London Chess Set

Ah ok, Ty for the explanation.

I wish the Stauton have more refined knights.

For a great book on staunton

Hi Jack Burton,

Thank you for your kind words.

The world of serious chess collecting generally means deep pockets it is true and most collectors would be charry of playing an old set in the rough and tumble of a congress or club so IMHO there is definately a place for good reproductions for serious players and casual alike.

I have quite a lot of information about making ones own chess set on my website chessspy.com.

Regarding the Amritsar Ivory Works chess set shown above, I do not like the rather peculiar varnish on the set otherwise it is a good attempt.

I post daily about antique chess sets on my facebook page under my name Alan Dewey.

I see you have shown two of the registration stickers above, these in them selves are an interesting study, they conferred protection for three years against anyone else copying the design and as late as the 1940s Jaques were still trying to protect their Staunton design see Jaques v Wood (They won and then lost on a retrial) The second of the two stickers you show has the #5 the wrong way round but the very first batch of stickers had the 'S' year letter (1849) missing, I had a set of this very early vintage (first 80 sets) through the workshop recently and the knights were definately meant to be of the horse which drew Selene's (goddess of the moon) chariot across the sky. It has a very down turned mouth gasping for breath and is an exciting design. There seem to heve been about 8 different knight heads in the first year or so of manufacture and research is ongoing as to weather or not this was just due to the carvers 'settling in' or some sort of decided policy of Jaques. After a few years they settled down to a more or less standard design for the knights, appending famous chess players names to these slight variations avails us nothing I'm afraid, neither improving scholarship, aiding reseacrh or helping identification.

Wow Alan Dewey posted here! Very cool. I love your website and thank you so much for sharing chess set history. Thank you sir.

Hi Bronco,

Well thank you in turn Sir.

I am avaliable through email, social media and my website.

I also play chess on gameknot and have just started playing here on chess.com.

I am pleased to number amongst my friends Jon Crumiller and Prof. Sir Alan Fersht, not to mention many other chess set collectors (whom I have collected over the years LOL) And so I might well be able with some help to field most querries about antique chess sets.

Hi Jack.! The Dubrovnik is a Staunton design without the Religious symbols. It uses the European Bishops with different color tops which I like but, some dont. It really boils down to personal tastes. There is a plethora of Staunton type designs to choose from which is a good thing.

Wow, Alan nice to have you here!  I have read pretty every page of chessspy.com and watched all the videos on the youtube channel.  It's pretty much what sparked my interest as a chess collector, and especially my interest in Jaques sets.

I have pretty much given up worrying so much about the Knight pieces in the reproductions too.  There are so many variations, and who knows when another might turn up?  As long as one is reasonably close you can put any small difference up to the invidividual carver, just as it would have been so long ago.

Could you perhaps provide us with some commentary regarding the upcoming revisions to the 1849 reproduction available from Chess Bazaar?  After Dubrovnik-mania has settled down, I am thinking it is going to be the next big thing in the chess collecting scene.

Wonderful thread going here and I just want to post a plug for the ChessSpy.  Alan has made a number of repairs and turned some missing pieces for me.  His work is outstanding and If you're unfamiliar with his web site, please avail yourself!

 My pockets aren't quite so deep as to afford an antique Jaques set of chessmen, but it appears there are some quality reproductions available. 

An earlier comment regarding stamping the King certainly would be fraudulent misrepresentation and misuse of the original marks IMHO.

So many beautiful variations of the Staunton design for the eye to behold.

It really looks like the same set used during the Championship match in Reykjavik and there's some related information on this site here.

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/bobby-fischers-favorite-chess-set

I've seen reproductions available from Jaques and HOS that resemble this.  The following link mentioned an auction for the original chessmen and board used during the Championship that sold for over $67K.

Jaques provided the original chessmen for the 1972 match in Iceland.

http://icelandreview.com/news/2011/04/05/objects-fischer-spassky-duel-auctioned

And another article on this auction with a photograph.

http://en.chessbase.com/post/fischer-spaky-board-fetches-record-sum/21

Apparently there were two chess sets used at the 1972 World Chess Championship.  This set for the 3rd game only, and another set for all the other games which is in the possession of the Chess Memorial Museum in Reykjavik. 

Link to the Philip Weiss auctions site for the sale of this lot mentioned.

https://weissauctions.hibid.com/lot/5945855/1972-chess-set-bobby-fischer-and-boris-spassky

That is one nice looking set.! Ficher was a stickler on pieces & boards & if it met his approval you know its great.

Fischer has that reputation but he did play the match with Larsen on a cheap plastic Drueke set that was popular at the time .  The same set was used for the Korchnoi/Meking match in Augusta Georgia as well .... 

The Dreuke pieces, while inexpensive, had a good look and feel, and a satin finish.

If they were shiny I bet he would have nixed them (though the Jaques pieces were shiny enough in the Spassky match, being ebony).

There are several researchers and collectors who are interested in dating early Jaques Staunton sets. There are several interesting and some unanswered questions about them.

Regarding early Jaques sets, an interesting study IMHO. here is some of the minutiae which occupies the minds of researchers.

The earliest wood sets had all the knights heads in boxwood, It has been suggested that this may be because the carvers were not comfortable with carving ebony. However the so called 1849 (It certainly predated 1849) Jaques pattern book shows other earlier (than the Staunton pattern sets) designs e.g. St George sets which already had ebony knights.

The Registration stickers which appear on the baises of the earliest sets have some minor print errors which help with dating. look at the two reg stickers above in the thread, do you see that one has the '5' reversed? The earliest batch of stickers had the 'S' year mark missing. Used on only the first 80 sets AFAWK.

There seems to have been several slight differences of knight head design even in the first year of production. It is not known if these were deliberate changes or not, but it seems likely that it was a matter of difference in carving style and some slackness on the part of Jaques quality control. If one includes the ivory sets made also in the first year of production, there may well be as many as a dozen clearly different styles, allowing that the earliest knights heads were copies of the horses which drew Selene's chariot across the heavens and show a 'gasping mouth'.

"This is perhaps the most famous and best loved of all the sculptures of the Parthenon. It captures the very essence of the stress felt by a beast that has spent the night drawing the chariot of the Moon across the sky. As the unseen vehicle was shown sinking low in the west, the horse pins back its ears, the jaw gapes, the nostrils flare, the eyes bulge, veins stand out and the flesh seems spare and taut over the flat plate of the cheek bone".(British Museum).

Others are shown by Prof. Fersht to be of other horses from the same Greek frieze. However, oddly there are some early sets with a 'drop jaw' knight (two distinct varieties one with a long head and one short) which does not appear on the Parthenon frieze. Does this indicate that Jaques used sub-contract carvers from time to time?

Eventually Jaques carvers settled to a more formalised representation of the knight along with changes to the bishop's mitre and rook castelation depth. (They also for some reason changed from 8 points on the queens which is at least logical (8 directions of movement) to 9 or 10.

The Jaques London stamp which appears on only the white king until much later (c 1890) when both kings were stamped was made only in a slightly curved punch to fit the circumference of the bases was also used on the earliest of the ivory kings (underneath the king base presumably because Jaques thought that stamping the foot rim of Ivory pieces would shatter it) until a straight JAQUES and LONDON stamp pair were bought.

Leuchars an upmarket retailer who were chosen (?) by Jaques to be the first retailer of their new sets often erased and/or covered the JAQUES stamp both on the footrim or bases and on the box labels. This seems to have been an acceptable practice at this time.

All these seemingly minor details help researchers date these very collectable early sets.

Any one interested in pursuing this further is well advised to buy a copy of Prof. Fershts book on the subject. (Kindle edition still available)

Thats quite true Reb.! Those guys could play with a Pressman plastic set & still win. My point is its not dignified for GM's of this calibur. Only fine wood sets & boards such as Jaques need apply here IMO.

A really good point polorchess.! It did however set the standard for chess sets. I am very thankful to Mr. Cook & Staunton for setting this great standard. Of course variations exist but, they usually all follow the Staunton pattern set of 1849.

As quality reproductions of jaques sets go is the House of Staunton a good source for purchasing them ?  Are there better sources ? 

Hi Reb,

Watch chessbazaar closely over the next few months for some interesting developments. They also have several good Staunton's and a number of other styles suitable for display rather than competition play.

As almost all modern sets seem to be made in India, a matter of both material and labour costs I am sure, choosing between them is a matter of taste and cost.

Thanks for the tip Alan .  I would love to get a real antique jaques but just cant afford it and my wife would probably leave me if I even tried .... 

Anything from Chess Bazaar is top notch & is as good as anything HOS offers IMO. The choice of styles is a personal choice made by the buyer. Alan.. are you privey to new sets coming from Chess Bazaar in the near future? If so, that is great news.! Thanks Alan.!!