Chess piece or not?

[dancing_with_volves]

It might not be easy to tell if a single item might be a chess piece. For instance an item that has been frequently listed on ebay: http://www.ivory4u.com/estate2/17cManOnBall.jpg The figure really does look like a chess piece but it might be just a fine individual piece of carved ivory. Here is one more example of the same line: http://www.ivory4u.com/estate2/4511.jpg Some netsukes are designed as chess pieces - in that case, wholes should help to tell. Some okimono figures very much resemble chess pieces. Butrint chessman has been a subject of much discussion. Is it really a gaming piece or just an ornamental detail? http://history.chess.free.fr/butrint.htm Might be a million dollar question :) Ebay item 110052443587 is not a chess figure (although it is a really beautiful piece of ivory IMHO) but what if it had a turned base? Would you buy it as a chess piece in this case? Thins get even more confusing with ancient pieces. Jon collects medieval and earlier gaming pieces (often archeological finds) - maybe he can shed some light on the topic. For instance, what about item 200045952413?

[computojon]

Just some opinions -- The Man On Ball photo looks like a chess piece that someone took the luxury of screwing on an extra puzzleball. Puzzleballs screw on and off, so my guess is that originally it was a piece from a standard puzzleball set. Regarding 200045952413, I haven't seen Hnefetafl gaming pieces like the ones in the front of the second photo, so I don't know what they are. The piece in the back left of the second photo does resemble some of the Hnefetafl pieces that I have. If anyone is interested in medieval chess/gaming pieces, here is a link to my modest collection.

[dancing_with_volves]

The piece in the back left of the 2nd photo seems to resemble this one: http://www.crumiller.com/chess/chess_pages/medieval/SaxonVikingLeadGamingPiece.htm

[dancing_with_volves]

Has anybody seen a John Company chess piece in a form of a palanquin? I am being offered such item but I doubt if it is a chess piece at all.

[computojon]

kristjansander, can you provide a photo? I do know that some sets that are in the typical Indian design are called "John Company" sets even though they are far from it. Here is a real John Company set (click on the first thumbnail photo), and here is another one.

[dancing_with_volves]

Chess piece or not? 230069279428 230069280986

[jvreij]

Hello Actually, I do not believe these are chess pieces. But you never can be sure.

[chesspurr]

jvreij hi joost again i tend to agree with you. if only because i have never seen such pieces before ,and the seller is clearly not a proven chess seller.

[rickofricks]

Into the history question, regarding the piece shown at http://history.chess.free.fr/butrint.htm -- It's tempting to the modern eye to see a chess king in this piece. But if the date is accurate, it's very unlikely that a chess king of that era would have taken that form. Chess kings just didn't look like that until chess was a familiar part of European life; well after 1,000 AD. If a chess king were found from the 5th or 6th century, it's much more likely that it would've been in the style of old Muslim and Persian sets, or no known style at all. But the possibility that an ornamental or practial object, adorned with a cross, which we, 1,500 year later just don't know what to make of? That's actually quite likely. A paperweight (did they have paper?); a sealing wax handle (did they have wax?); a ceremonial object (what were their ceremonies?)... It's an open question. Chess piece pretty far fetched.

[dancing_with_volves]

Are these very fine objects chess pieces as described?

[rickofricks]

Got me. They sure look like they could be chess pieces, but I've never seen any like them. Anyone else got some insight for kristyansander (above)?

[dancing_with_volves]

I rather think that they are not chess pieces. They look like small bust sculptures. I guess that chesspieces of similar quality would have their bases decorated as well. But my knowledge about 16th century ivory is very limited, to say it mildly 🙂

[dancing_with_volves]

Seller Nazam2 has listed several ivory pieces and compositions as John Company chess pieces. Some of them look very much like that. Should one assume that similar pieces were made not for chess sets as well or that they were made as chess pieces and later assembled into figural groups like Elephant with guards etc? I have two examples of them myself and one is really very very similar to a John Company King (I would be happy with them even if they had nothing to do with chess). Jon has one as well ( http://www.crumiller.com/chess/chess_pages/indian/BerhamporeIndianIvoryKing.htm ) and Dermot sold a lot of Pawns without usual chess piece bases in the last year. Thanks i advance, Kristjan

[timdewey2]

Hi all , Perhaps I can shed some light on the Butrint object. When it came to light in the international press ,I got good pics and sizes ,It was very small, only 40mm high (from memory) I made several copies for various members of the chess comunity, even going as far as making a full set , based partially on the 13c set in the Ashmolean ,which I had previously copied for a collector.I even made one for the research team who found it (they had to leave it (the real one) behind). I really could'nt see it as a chess piece , or 5th c, Reasons? Firstly on date it was such a complex bit of turning I don't think it could have been done before 1500. Secondly thr cross on the top was contrasted by the castellations on the bottom , I think it was either a key or just a technical exersise by a gifted turner. set tout.Alan D

[jvreij]

on nazam2 sets: Those pieces with a base on legs seem no chess pieces to me. I guess they would have a plain base (see Keats!). I wrote to nazam2 that I do not think these are chess pieces (1st issue). 2nd issue: I wrote about the fact that all these compositions did have the same pictures, which obviously was a mistake. 3rd issue with nazam2 is: 260088396651 and 260088410434 in which the knights have been exchanged! These are both part sets, and may therefor not be that interesting. I wrote nazam2 about all these issues. But did get no response yet, although it had been more than 24hrs ago. Only thing done is issue 2. there are now the right pictures at all three.