To all... sometimes, a 3-liner will/would suffice, and sometimes not... I will a little experiment. I will try both. First, here goes the long response - since (in part) I have some time on my hands, waiting for Guy Chesspurr
😉 to make his next move in our current email game of chess...
Ahhh, Robert I see what you mean. However, I think that the only real ANRI on that website (when looking at that specific page that has a number of relatively nice carved chess set wood figures) is the Montsalvat.
Hopefully, the following copied and pasted website thingy (a technical word there)
😉 will work for any interested viewers. If not, then they will have to do the google or other search-engine search...
http://www.dp-woodcarvings.com/EC003901.asp
If I were to speculate as to why the huge difference in prices between the medieval sets you mentioned, as well as others on the DP Woodcarving website, I suppose the following would come into play:
1.) Name of company which made/makes the set. (ANRI seems to elicit some more oooohs and ahhhhs by at least some chess collectors.)
2.) Size of the chess pieces. (Do I hear a responding chorus of "of course"(s)?
😉 And in relation to size, the amount of wood needed as well as the amount of carving and time needed for it to be completed.
3.) The quality and the detail shown in the carving.
I notice, for example, in the (non-ANRI) Medieval chess set, which is on sale (AR08010-7 Medieval Chess set - cm 10, wood stained and decorated with gold and silver. 688,00), the face of the queen looks pretty detailed and good. However, the knight's rider and horse seem to mesh and do not show too much detail, relatively speaking. In addition, the coloring is appears much less than the ANRI as well as some of the other (non-ANRI) sets on that website.
4.) The amount of paint or stain used (whether it be "antiqued" or other?.. perhaps this is really insignificant in trying to explain price differences?)
5.) The amount of actual gold used?
For more detail and an explanation of what is specifically meant by certain features/option of staining, etc... click onto the small red word "legend" by each of the sets (where shown).
BTW, the least costly set on that website appears to be the "English Chess Pieces" (300 Euros). While I would absolutely not mind that set in my own collection, the carving does not appear to be as nice as some of the others, such as the Etruscan. (Or is just a matter of my personal taste, and not really a comment on whether I prefer sets closer to connections with Italy than to England? I do, afterall, like Guy Chesspurr as well as his marvelopus picasa work and research, including that regarding the carton pierre boxes, BC sets, and many other topics, of Great Britain. I also also like Jaques Chess Sets as well as the fine restorer work of Alan Dewey. And I can certainly appreciate the professional scientific work of Sir Alan Fersht (as well as some of his research on staunton sets). Then again, I also like and appreciate some American sets (and experts) such as the Austin Cox Alcoa Aluminum sets and the research of expert folks like Frank Camaratta.
Geeze, I just love you all...! Even you, Duncan! ;-)
But I digress once again. And
maybe I should quit while am ahead, eh? (Or maybe behind...) Some of the above statements might be interpreted as some snide remarks... but honestly, I just really like to kid around and tease. Somtimes, mentioning folks by name and teasing is the highest form of flattery. In some circles, it means that I like you. Then again, I just might be looking for that audience to pay attention. I bet that the length of this response has once again turned some folks off... Oh well. One step forward... two step back...
And now to the 3 liner of a response (see the next posting)...
John, Vermont.