Chess collecting the real truth !?

[chesspurr]

As a CCI member I am fortunate as I have visited a number of homes of collectors and spoken to these people in their private domain. What is often stated here on these threads is a complete contradiction of what I have heard in private discussion. One group member here once sent me an image of a " Sutton Coldfield clock " and asked what it might be worth . My reply was perhaps in hindsight too limited, or blinkered, as I gave an Ebay valuation. Such a valuation is complete nonsense , and when he stated he would not even consider selling the item. Of course he was very correct, and his clock appears to be rarer than I was aware of, and it is a lovely item. Yet perhaps it is possible that in his eyes the Clock is not to his liking and he would be willing to sell it off, to purchase something else. So what I am trying to say is that we all will have collectables with some value, but we are often unsure of just what this is. In many cases it is these items that we might or would be happy to sell on at a profit. However when I spoke to some people in private, they had affections for chessmen that perhaps they might not have felt comfortable making public. To me this is a complete mystery, but of course I am not one of these collectors. A few weeks ago, my youngest daughter sent me an Email offering an opinion on a Ceramic chess set owned by a Dutch collector friend , she had viewed it when looking at my Picasa Album visiting Holland. She described the set as " so cute " , so I passed on the mail to my friend, and he was delighted to hear this. Did I give my daughter a term in the " Tower of London " for not praising any of my sets , not on your life, to even hear a young person say something positive about collecting was........... Music to my Ears ..... A short time after writing a piece for the Chess Collector " My passion for chess collecting " I received a favourable Email or two , but one collector suggested I was harsh on a massed produced 1950's Chad Valley Plastic set, you see he admitted the crime of owning such a set, and actually liking it. He was dead right,and it certainly got me thinking alot more about how we collectors might really view things. Perhaps there are more collectors who might be willing to discuss chessmen if they could break the chains of confinment on what they might believe we want to see. We have in our group one collector who I have nothing but admiration for, he has created a fantastic Album, which is honest and well worth viewing, because it is from the " Heart " chess set collection , by Duncan. The way this Album is developing is wonderful,and offers a nice contrast to the other excellent Picasa sites, and is encouraging us all to offer our more modest fare for all to view. Most of us will happily concede the value of our collections does concern us, and will happily accept good news on any sets we have should the value increase. However it is not in many cases our primary reason for collecting in the first place. This is my opinion of how I view my private contact with some collectors at least.

[chesspurr]

Well well, a victory , but was it a truly a deserved one ? ;) The real truth is that we collectors are influenced by each other. Even in our Picasa links I see myelf being influenced by fellow " Picisans " , as recently I have being purchasing " Dice " ]:) Some time ago Floyd ( Lichess ) kindly mailed me a most defenite collectable ( sadly unsigned, but that isssue will get sorted out at Cambridge ) . The robust and highly enjoyable book of the CCI thirteenth Biennial congress at Boca Raton Florida. Like my good friend John I treasure gifts and Floyds was most appreciated. On page 159 there is a chapter which not only was a great pleasure to read, and study, but it sent my favourite message to all CCI members ...." Have fun " Designing chess sets for the Zen of it. By Gene Zelazny, and I very much enjoyed his view and the way he communicated it to the readers of this fun book. This is why I figured out those Door knobs were rescued from the garbage can, and I confess to being guilty of looking for chess creations in many a shop when waiting for my Lady to purchase her essentials as I stand like a " frustrated Penguin " waiting patiently for release from my temporary prison . A burning question I have is where Gene,s inspiration came from, perhaps he sneaked up to Vermont and had a look through windows....and saw " Door knobs " Recently I humbly confess to going to " Collage " as I am having a hell of alot of fun with photos and cropping etc. The divine inspiration came from recent books on Jaques but with a humerous twist. ;) My eldest daughter was thrilled with my May 2010 British Chess co " Shonagh pattern " replica set .

[candylab1]

Hello John, Not only could you sue your doctor, looking at that set I think there may be enough for criminal charges. The door knob set is growing on me. I think it could easily provide enough fuel for a couple of Vermont winters.B-) Mick I'm currently 0 for 5 on chess competitions so will look eagerly for the next one.

[knight_knight_zzz]

To all: I find it interesting what a (copied and pasted) definition from an Oxford on-line dictionary says: http://www.askoxford.com/results/?view=dev_dict&field-12668446=collectible&branch=13842570&textsearc... “collectable (also collectible) • adjective 1 worth collecting; of interest to a collector. 2 able to be collected. • noun an item valued and sought by collectors.” It seems that we can in fact pick and choose which definition pleases us most. And there is, of course, no law that requires collectors to keep with their past (or publicly perceived) historical views on things. Furthermore, of course, there is no reason why a collector cannot legitimately change his/her mind about things. The following questions could reasonably be asked: 1.) Is “ collectable” time sensitive? 2.) Might the mindset of what is “collectable” be a generational one? 3.) Is it possible that “collectability” could also be a cultural one? 4.) Is/can socio-economic status (be) related to what is “collectable”? 5.) Might there a correlation between “collectable” and – basically, financial ability? 6.) Can the determination of “collectability” be influenced by self-interest and/or altruism? 7.) Are there times when even “mass produced” sets could be considered “collectable”? 8.) Is “collectable”, in fact, a relative term and “in the eye of the beholder” (just as what is "nice" and what is "beauty"?) I believe the answer to each of the above is “Yes”. I think I can expand on why I believe the answers to be “Yes”. However, rather than expounding on each one, why not have some (all?) of you contribute your thoughts on this topic? However, I feel compelled to expand and comment a little more about Floyd’s initial and second responses. I still have hope and still believe that Floyd’s (Lichess) first response was actually not intended to come across as I think it seemingly did. I think that his heart and love of collecting and sharing – as well as the many years of (essentially all) of his personal interactions with me - have been “in the right place”. I do not think that he has a “better than thou” attitude. As I had suggested in an earlier posting, I think that what he may have really intended to say is that “…they are nice but not really very collectable…” by some collectors. (addition and boldening of the last few words are mine). Floyd’s historical tendency for inclusiveness, openness and non-judgmental stance of what chess collectors collect somehow did seem to not coincide with his initial comments. In his subsequent clarification posting in the ALPSCO thread, Floyd added some words to further explain his initial words. He said, “…one must inform her that although I and some others might like the set, it is not going to be universally looked for, desired and "collectable". (Boldening of the word “universally” is mine), In clarifying his position, I believe that this better defines his position – but it also confirms the obvious: OF COURSE specific chess sets are not going to be UNIVERSALLY looked for, desired, and “collectable”. However, if molded / plastic mass produced chess sets are collectable (a claim Floyd had definitely made in the past – and more than once) - then the chess sets (which the initial questioner described, and at least one of which he has in his own collection) is undoubtedly collectable at least to some chess collectors – and not necessarily just to “low end” or beginning chess collectors. Perhaps it is in the phenomenon of “upgrading” that a previously “collectable” might no longer be seen as desirable. Then again, it is possible for some collectors (but I would hope to make it absolutely clear that I am not referring to Floyd) to “pooh-pooh” (denigrate or make potentially disparaging comments as to degree of desirability about) certain chess sets in public, but then quietly and undercover seek those same sets for a relatively low price! Any thoughts, y’all? John, Vermont.

[chesspurr]

Hi John I have no problem with all of your points , and of course agree that being judgemental is too limiting when one reads words written. However in the few years this group has existed there is no doubt in my mind that there are two schools of thought . The collecting school and the value school, and since this is an E bay group , comprised of persons who enjoy searching for bargains , so value has to be relevant in some shape or form. Of course there will be collectors who collect and invest at the same time. The problem I have is this value business is taking over, and crushing the collector who wishes to buy for the love of it . Auction houses refusing to take cheaper lots , the " meek acceptance " by the CCI of daft and non helpful laws on Ivory sold after WW2. Collectors in this group on occasion being crucified for having a worthless item, but simply wishing to discuss it. My view is this process is being encouraged over here in Britain , because of the way Antiques and collectables are being viewed by our media. This group is like a form of Chess Collecting Radar, and each of us will receive signals and interpret them in differing ways . Of course we need sellers of chessmen, and buyers too, and upgrading is a natural process . What intrigues me now is that the Pyramid base of chess collecting is being eroded badly . Some collectors are for bizzarre reasons affected by perception that even admitting to owning a common item is a crime. Now there is a danger that more and more collectors will feel encouraged to abandon starting at the base of the Pyramid , ignore chessmen like say the " Rose " set all because some stuffed up pompus ass wants additional attention by using arrogant seeking arrows to kill off interest in such fare. I received a private communication suggesting that the CCI meeting content was top heavy,nothing on future collectables, and I tend to agree. If even here in this group one cannot get any worthwhile discussion on lower end sets, except from the same few members is it suprising. Perhaps some eminant people might ask a few sensible questions, like where is the benefit to the CCI and chess collecting in general to being harsh and cynical to starter collector sets? Well I reckon even investors might want to take note of this , destroy the base of collecting, and you risk serious damage to collections which will affect their value. An example a collector has a " club set of Jaques chessmen " ( mixed pieces of the same maker ) and is told its only worth £50.00, fine it might even be true , however if one say's nice looking club set, good patina , its history ..." enjoy " . Please tell me as a passionate collector which sounds nicer and is actually true. Our CCI editor Jim is doing alot to promote lesser collectables in our magazine , and I hope to support his good work on every occasion possible . In the Picasa links there are seeds being planted by a few collectors who are posting images of many differing kinds of chessmen, with very accurate information on them . This is in my view offering a token resistance to the " Value Juggarnaut " crushing everything in its way . If we can allow both schools of thought more equality , by at least sending out more diplomatic collecting signals every collector wins. Collecting is not a competition , nor is it an essential activity , it is in reality a luxury, but also a living for full time dealers. You are dead right John, this discussion is not about attacking a few written words by any group member, no its about collecting , what we do, we want, and what we see happenning . The Internet has changed collecting forever , and if we are not careful it might change us, a little too much, and the pleasure we get from doing it. Just yesterday I purchased a 20th century " repro Spanish Pulpit set " the Red felt is staying on the set , and for me its the best example of the set I am going to get.

[knight_knight_zzz]

Hi, Guy (and all). I find myself essentially agreeing with your thoughts. I also think that overall, you have explained yourself very very well, and that your points are pretty clear (even though you seem to be getting? as longwinded as me!) ;-). If I myself were to take a critical eye and be judgmental, I would have to point out (suggest) that one can define (better describe) what one means by "value". Although I think we can assume that your multi-use of the word "value" is related to monetary value, the word can have other connotations and meanings. As a whole, I think that we are generally so used to thinking of "value" in terms of economic (financial/monetary) value, that there is a temptation to forget about other "value". I think you would agree with that.. that "value" can have meanings other than "monetary". In the end, though, I think we all "get your message", as you were pretty up front about what you yourself think. Ah, the miracle of the written word. Both a blessing and a potential curse... especially when at least those here come from different cultures, countries, understanding levels, personal backgrounds, levels of self awareness, and abilities and willingness and/or time to express themselves in writing. John.

[acf1515]

Hi Guy, Just one comment: "...suggesting that the CCI meeting content was top heavy, nothing on future collectables," As far as I know, no-one volunteered to talk about more mordern sets! It's the same with the magazine; I can only publish what people are prepared to write. More modern sets have been discussed at previous meetings, so it's not a taboo subject for the CCI. I suppose it's the old adage: "You can't please all of the people all of the time" Cheers Jim

[chesspurr]

Fair comment Jim , At least one can comment openly at Cambridge, as it will be my first meeting . We wont have any Zombies there I hope . 😉

[dancing_with_volves]

I can only agree with Mick's statement #2.

[knight_knight_zzz]

Dancin' Kristjan. Does this set please you a little more than those referred to in Mick's # 2...? Yes, all the pieces are there, though at least one pawn is hidden... in addition, there is at least one poorly done replacement section of at least one piece - example: lower section of the white knight to the right. But I hope this set brings some better feelings from you. Now, please be honest and straight-forward, rather than diplomatic... :-) Dr. John (Vermontian) Jekyll.

[dancing_with_volves]

Yes, this looks good. I am wondering how to date these sets. It seems to be that they were made throughout the 19th C. but I have no idea how to tell earlier from later. The partially faded brown colour is nice.

[knight_knight_zzz]

First, Guy... I do realize that we/I have recently digressed in this thread. Although I would not mind seeing continued discussion on this thread about issues such as "collectability" and "collectable/collectible", I think that doing so might be like beating a dead horse to death. I hope you do not mind me continuing some discussion with respect to the good question/issue that Kristjan just brought up (in reference to my posted picture in message #24 of this thread). I think it allows for easier continuity of thought, rather than jumping from thread to thread. However, if you, as originator of this thread, really want to copy it for the Selenus thread, I do not mind, ok? Kristjan: Interesting sub-topic of discussion you raise, namely, "I am wondering how to date these sets. It seems to be that they were made throughout the 19th C. but I have no idea how to tell earlier from later." I think that my somewhat faded (as you mentioned) dark brown and white Selenus set (posting #24 of this thread) is older than sets such as can be seen in current eBay item up for bid, 220608877765. The one up for bid - a red and white set - seems to have a strong German influence, as seen (I think) in the carving of the knights. While the knights seem, in a sense, more rustic or "crude" (not said in a derogatory way), there is something about this particular red and white set that seems less refined than my brown and white set. The seller describes his red and white set as late 19th century (late 1800's). I think that my set is earlier. I do not know if, generally speaking, the red and white Selenus sets were made later than brown and white Selenus sets. However, in this comparison, I think this red and white set (220608877765), was made later than the Selenus set shown in posting #24 of this thread. Ok. Now let's look at some other Selenus sets and dating. If one looks at Jon Crumiller's website, one sees a number of Selenus sets. I would like to have you focus in on two. 1.) In the first Selenus set I have selected from his website, which is very similar to mine, (http://www.crumiller.com/chess/chess_pages/german/GermanSelenusSet.htm), he describes it as late 1700's or early 1800's. (Saying something might be late 1700's can be more appealing or "nicer' than saying it is early 1800's.) Regardless, I think we would be safe to say it is likely - at the "latest" - from the early to mid 1800's. 2.) In the second Selenus set I have selected from his website, namely, (http://www.crumiller.com/chess/chess_pages/german/SelenusIvoryChessSet.htm) I see that he has described it as approximately 1880's. Personally, I think that such sets were made up into the early to mid 1900's. I used to have one of these sets; based upon the more "robust" (relatively speaking) Selenus carving - especially the knights - as well as the patina, the screw-in nature of the sections of the chess pieces in such a Selenus, and the newer appearing green felt bottoms, and finally, the flat, sectioned box for individual chess pieces, I believe(d) my similar set was from the early to mid 1900's. As most of you know, similar sets are made in India to this day; they are, of course, replicas or reproductions (depending how one defines those words). I personally think that these replicas/reproduction are "collectable", but maybe not as appealing (due to their newness or currently mass-produced nature) to at least some chess collectors. On a side, personal, and of course biased note, I believe that a chess collector is no better or worse if he/she collects new sets or old sets. I believe that there should not be a "better than thou" mentality if a collector likes old or antique sets rather than new sets. I DO understand the appeal of older sets, sometimes their exquisite carving, and the history behind them. (I, too, DO succumb to that feeling and perception about old / vintage / antique chess sets) ..... which leads me to another Selenus set which I would like to revive for view... 3.) Now, this following Selenus set can also be seen in the "story board" feature to the left of these discussion threads. I placed it there (it seems like) eons ago, though the posting itself was certainly not antique or even vintage. ;-) Now, I think this particular pink and white set (with the duck-like knights) is from the late 1700's or the early 1800's. Why? In part from a reference in Victor Keat's thick reference book (yes, I know there is some debate about his own expertise and accuracy...), "Illustrated Guide to World Chess Sets". I really like this particular set due to its relative rarity, the carving, the coloring, the patina, and the seemingly delicate aspects / features. Here it is: http://groups.ebay.com/servlet/JiveServlet/download/1500039642-1600745104-1609262542-1600108859/Copy... 4.) I do have another Selenus set (I think it is Selenus). It is the small set on the (possibly? matching) boxboard. My wild guess is somewhere in the 1800's, but the boxboard may be earlier. Go and look at the story board if interested. John (with the "h"), Vermont.

[knight_knight_zzz]

Kristjan, regarding the "Selenus" set (220608877765) I mentioned in my previous posted message... On second thought, those knights remind me of knights I have seen in some Barleycorn (or I should perhaps be more selective in my terminology) - "Old (Early) English" - sets (such sets with the Serpentine / Sea Serpent-like knights were, I believe, made in Germany?). Don't those knights seem like Old (Early) English knights? Makes me wonder if the knights are original to the Selenus set seen in 220608877765. John. PS: Also, any comments / responses / further discussion to my previous (longwinded) posting would be appreciated.

[chesspurr]

This is purely a personal opinion, but it is based upon talking to numerous collectors of varied levels and exchanging views:- One collector once said to me that we should allow collectors to make mistakes, it's a learning curve. In principle he is correct, but unfortunately there are problems with this view. The biggest problem is that the buying and selling of chessmen has changed so much in the past decade. The Internet is here to stay, and buying online is becoming more and more common place. New collectors can buy collector books, rely on expertise of known high profile persons, trust auction houses, antique shops, Ebay sellers and Chess specialist sellers . However there is no shortage of criticism of each and every type of selling source in private, and that includes the information contained in publications. Even a Collector can face a private investigation of his listed set on the Internet - Why is he selling it ? Where did he get it from ? Why is it listed with poorer photos? Yet even with so much more information out there its not enough to get " trust ", in fact as we gain more knowledge the suspicion increases . The word perfection becomes a weapon against collectors who might buy for love, history, or just to have a nice decoration. Has the Internet made some collectors at least, very nervous as a " digital image " shows up unseen restoration, or mixed patination? Could it be that many collectors will in fact never go public with their collections, not because of privacy or shyness, but simply because the 21st century has opened their eyes, and of course some very " dead Dealers " have a lot to answer for, as they have realised that their sets have flaws, and the assumed expertise they relied upon, or even thought they had, is wanting ? To even convince some collectors of a genuine position, collectors of perceived lower status almost have to offer " D N A " evidence to even get a listen, to their point of view. Yet some called experts who have no idea at all how to even attempt to research properly, or honestly ( spending the proper time necessary ), can be given the title of " Prophet ", and even worse if they admit to not knowing, then you can even forget becoming a chess " Columbus ", you are sailing not sailing a seaworthy ship of discovery. You see, if they don't know, how on earth could you possibly know ? So by taking the lid off the Jar of Snakes, we are reducing the value of some sets, whilst increasing it on others, but at least the collectors know the position, as do today's sellers, especially those who are chess collectors. Even selling by private means has a huge risk today, as one image of a dodgy set can fly about Cyberspace in an evening, and the reputation of the seller be in tatters. Continuing to pass off poorer sets in a devious way not only hurts the new collector, as now he or she can find out far more quickly than ever before of the damage done, but the insult to the intelligence done is far harder to repair, if the old excuses are offered. To prove my point, I showed a dealer recently who purchased on Ebay a selection of Club chessmen, including some Jaques pieces. I explained to him in 30 seconds why the stamp on his Jaques-like Rook was not of that company. He accepted my view in less than 20 seconds, all because of he himself examining the profile of a genuine rook by Jaques. Yet I would be willing to take a bet that over 80% of this groups membership would not notice the difference, but a true passionate Jaques collector would. That dealer knows full well that he has a responsibility to buy better than ever before, as the known knowledge is increasing so rapidly, because of the Internet. Love it or hate it, ignore this change at your peril. One could also take this view, the more collectors that join us the greater chance of increased price stability, the fewer the less chance of this happening. Ignore the wide base of the collecting Pyramid, and you risk the welfare of the pyramid itself . Just about the saddest thing I ever heard was from the Collector who sold me my Morphy Jaques Ivory set and Faked up box. " Jaques collecting has been corrupted " What was far sadder was my understanding of the real truth, at the time of our telephone conversation , you bought the set and box and its your problem. You see he pleaded ignorance . Trying to imagine how many collectors might give up collecting, after going through such an experience is food for thought .

[chesspurr]

Good morning John,

I thought that this thread might be a better place to reply to your posting on collecting views.

Stories behind chessmen are very relevant, in fact if I am not mistaken this is exactly what I have been trying to tell in a limited way on my public Picasa site since the Summer of 2007. I distinctly recall offering small tales on the captions for selected sets for a good reason.

The idea was to try to " talk to the collectors who viewed my site " . To encourage more people to join us in offering our chessmen for public viewing .

I believe that I was indeed the first collector to introduce this idea.

The quote on the Royal chessmen in the opening page of myself and Mick's work on British chess company , taken from a posting in this group that I recall making . See the British chess company thread , " the White knight " an early posting .

I certainly do not believe my actions are original either, as it is pretty clear that going back for centuries, a set and its owner were never parted all due to a " bond ". Such collectors would have told stories about loved sets countless times, and even remembered some games played, won or lost.

Perhaps " true collecting " could be termed as supporting the cause based upon a passion, and such people who believe they are from this fold, would defend chessmen rather than make harsh public judgement .

Floyd in this group once said that he saw something in every set, whilst I cannot agree with him in total, I would willingly offer his view alot more support that calling sets " garbage ".

What saddens me is this destructive trend of public judgement on so many sets....

" sets that I have in my collection " being discussed without making any refrence to the cost, the material used, the availibility.

One posting back in 2007 actually advised the Staunton collector what " not to collect " and this was in my view divisive , just as the actions above are.

A Jaques Ivory will cost thousands of pounds, and a so called poorly made sets peanuts .

Does a person on a far lower income, expect a Castle when he buy's a home for a limited income ?

Yet when he lives there, it becomes his Palace, why should we risk destroying that belief, all because we might have something better ?

Surely the ideal of being generous by omission of negativity on sets one dislikes is far more productive, why " rub the noses of the less fortunate by ramming such views down their throats ".

Real division is more often caused by collecting for investment or pomposity , than the love for a joyous hobby. The views of these people have " far too much place in out collecting world " and if I am indeed offering division then it is for a darned good reason.

One mission that I have is to " defend the right of any collector to call his or her set collectable.

Even if the " cost is to make an enemy of every collector out there who disagrees with my views. I will defend my chessmen to the death .

If this ideal was proven to be contrary to the CCI ideal, then I would resign my membership .

Jim ,

You have my permission to post this " complete posting " in a future CCI collector magazine if it has any relevance .

One observation that I recall, back in 2004 making was that when I viewed the Rochford " stunning site " and the excellent Slotboom one, they simply offered the viewer " Paradise " no negativity at all.

One day my collection may have to be sold, and when it is , I sincerly hope a future buyer or buyers, get even a quarter of the pleasure that I am getting from having these sets in my home.

There is a world of difference between collecting for investment, and collecting for love, in my opinion anyway.

What is shown today on the Internet is a " form of publishing " and it is essential to offer balance by offering a set of alternative views to those of the investment in collecting lobby.

I have no issues with collectors who are investors, but am concerned with published negativity, which might effect the value of sets in my collection, and those of my friends.

Imagine that your collection was a garden, and a top authority with no knowledge of what you paid for your chess sets, or how you aquired the chess men , employed an " advice Gardner tidy up things " .

Looking at some information on the Internet might persuade collectors like myself to " recoil in terror at Weed removal "

By the time the job was finished every set was " gone " and the friendly advice might be " dont worry sell off this rubbish , and buy one set with the proceeds.

It will be perhaps a " smaller example " of such a set in the collection of such an authority.

Make no mistake I almost panicked when I first read investment type collecting advice, but realised that

it was not intended for collectors such as myself.