Reproduction sets

[rascasso]

re: chesspy vz. lichess Dear brethren, I have some interest in this subject - on account of the first major repro set issued, the Lewis chess set copies. I understand the discovery of the Lewis set in its time created such enormous interest in these pieces that large quantities of reproductions in the most various materials were fashioned to sate the hunger of the public for their own Lewis set! andthis interest continues - even the House of Jaques in London has been selling Lewis repros! Considering the difficulty of visiting the British Museum - or the Scottish National Museum now - these copies have been of enormous benefit for a lot fo people, and some of the repros are even very appealing for workmanship and/or material. This Gaudi emanation set discussed has not made a singular historic piece available to the many - it is a high price luxury adornment in very expensive material - of dubious taste (the board) - to cash in on a neorich socialite section of society - that is if it sells. A perfect waste of good mammoth tooth. From an artistic point of view, it wd not make any difference if it was fashioned in ceramics, sea tang or painted horse manure. This set has no pedigree, no inherent reason to be except to gratify the tired eyes of those who've got almost everything - it is a high end version of souvenir trash, and does nothing to bring Gaudi closer to the public, on the contrary. Generally speaking, a repro is what it says - a reenactment of something created before. It may be useful if the original is gone or unavailable, but it will always lack the je ne sais quoi - authenticity, patina, mystics, the hallmark of the original artist, what have You. That is not dependent on the quality and value of the material used - mammoth tooth or resin, this just changes the cash value. If You walk though a town entirely reconstructed on the old lines - like the old town center of Warsaw, destroyed in WW II and reproduced afterwards - You will sense quite strongly where lies the difference. Best reegards to chess collectors galore, and a Great years End to all (polishing their chess sets, no doubt...) Nicholas

[knight_knight_zzz]

Well, Guy, I just did the google search, with "Sidney Plantation", and I got basically a bunch of (what appears to be) non-applicable stuff. However, when adding the word "ebony" (my own "duh") with "Sidney Plantation", one arrives at the following website to which one must register. (I don't want to register). http://www.tradekey.com/product_view/id/25199.htm The set, 320517812820, appears to have been made in India(?) I see many sets on ebay and chess related website that advertise ebony. I wonder where everyone is getting there ebony from. I guess that maybe merely doing a search of "ebony" on ebay or better yet, the whole internet would help. Let's see... Well, it seems like ebony is surprisingly readily available if one wants to go 1/2 way across the world. But it also seems to be available here in the USA, if one does a google search "ebony suppliers" or "ebony wood suppliers". Interestingly enough, a number of sources appears to be in S.E. Asia (including India, Pakistan, and I think China.) but I also see "West Africa". But I thought that ebony is much more difficult to come by due to "deforestation" and/or "over-harvesting". Guess I am/was wrong. Or maybe there is still ebony out there, and "plantations" are being developed to grow this apparently sought-after wood. In addition, I suspect that the cost of ebony has generally risen at a higher/faster rate than many other woods. Well, I am open to any other discussion about the general topic of ebony... (as well as, of course, that particular set, 320517812820. John, VT.

[chesspurr]

I have seen a few reproduction sets, including an Indian Upright . Weighted nice feel , good to play with, so it is hard to find fault with such pieces. An old chess friend from Dublin told me not so long ago,that he was delighted with his Indian Staunton type purchase . I guess I suffer from a collectors disease,in most cases even good honest and very reasonably priced sets, are not for me, unless they are no longer made, and have some age to them. A curious thing is that these makers dont use some super Grand master events,to promote these decent looking playing sets. One look at those chessmen used at the Corus tournament, makes one wonder why something better is not offered for these super stars to play with. If I remember correctly according to Ray Keene there are 250 million people on this planet who can play chess to some level of ability .

[knight_knight_zzz]

Hi, all. I was tempted to use the MATERIAL Plastic Chess Sets thread for the following "discussion", but decided instead to use this "Reproductions sets" thread here. I consider myself a chess collector who might just be in the "middle of the pack" as far as quality, costs, and types of chess sets. I like antique Jaques Stauntons sets as well as Selenus sets and Gieslingen sets (and even some reproductions of some of those s tyles!) As a chess collector with eclectic leanings, I do not turn an eye away from even mass produced chess sets such as the relatively newly released "Super Mario Brothers". In fact, this past weekend, I picked up (ok, I even paid for it) such a plastic chess set at a bookstore called "Borders Bookstore". It was the first time I saw a set with that theme. Too bad I paid more for it than I needed to, as when I arrived home, I checked what the set was going for on ebay as well as other Internet websites... and I saw sets that were about $10 less expensive. At the moment, on ebay, this set ranges from $35 - $100. One seller warns, "YOU WILL NEED TO BE QUICK THIS GAME SOLD OUT FAST LAST YEAR." Heck! I myself didn't know it was even available last year! See/click onto: http://cgi.ebay.com/SUPER-MARIO-BROTHERS-COLLECTORS-EDITION-CHESS-LICENSED-/390242612690?pt=LH_Defau... Well, regardless, there are two aspects of this particular chess set that I would like to talk about and perhaps get some input or opinions from all of you. Ok, at least some of you. Frankly, I'd settle for even just one response. 1.) Existence and/or Quality of the coloration as it affects the visibility of detail of the molded chess pieces, and 2.) Will/would any possible future (30? 50? 100? yrs from now) "copies" of this " s tyle" of mass-produced set be considered "reproductions"? 1.) When one compares or contrasts plastic mass produced sets (which usually have TV or Movie or Computer Game Cartoon or other themes), one sees that one of the main differences is coloration. On the one hand, we see chess sets such as The Simpsons, South Park, Disney (Characters), Kermit / The Muppets, Peanuts, and Super Mario Brothers. On the other hand, we see Transformers, Disney Pirates of the Caribbean, and Harry Potter. An (ebay item) example of the latter group is: http://cgi.ebay.com/Pirates-Caribbean-Chess-Set-Collectors-Edition-/260474695537?pt=LH_DefaultDomain... To me, (and of course, we are each entitled to our own opinions, and appeal is in the eye of the beholder), the multi colored sets are more appealing, better eye-catching, and more revealing of the detail of the underlying figure.) Sometimes, though, we can see a set made and marketed in BOTH s tyles of painting / coloration. An example is "Shrek". Mere Two tones: Click onto: http://cgi.ebay.com/NIB-DreamWorks-Shrek-Chess-Game-/360034089418?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item53d... {Relatively) full coloration: Click onto: http://cgi.ebay.com/SHREK-COLLECTORS-EDITION-CHESS-SET-metal-tin-/220664072293?pt=UK_Toys_Creative_E... Two final sub-notes here. (A. Is the quality of the plastic pieces themselves - in such well-colored chess sets - different than the quality of the plastic in mere two-toned or significantly less colored chess sets? In other words, is the plastic of one generalized set more durable than others? B.) Generally speaking, do the two-tone chess sets actually have more detail in the molding than the multi and relatively well-colored chess sets? If so, then maybe the effort and time and money in designing and manufacturing of the sets goes into the molding, rather than into the painting? Or would the opposite be true? I have not looked closely, and at the moment, I do not know. I have not examined that aspect. I will leave that further possible "discussion" to others who might want to explore that. 2.) IF a "reproduction" chess set is a later copy of a (much) earlier-made chess set, AND the if the earlier chess set (generally) had a much better overall quality, THEN isn't it possible that such current-day, mass-produced plastic chess sets will actually be (even) more sought after by the chess collectors of the future? On some side notes and issues (possibly/probably already discussed ad infinitum in other or even this thread): Just because something is machine-made and/or mass-produced in a factory, does that make it less "collectable" or appealing to at least some chess collectors? In fact, if we were to look at mere numbers as a characteristic of collectability and/or desirability, then wouldn't the relatively high numbers of mass produced Simpsons Chess Sets likely outdo the highly collectible antique Gieslingen Chess sets? Sure, the price is a tad different, as are the (generally speaking) financial abilities of the buyers and collectors. How many Simpson Chess sets have been made and sold? How many Geislingen Chess Sets were made and sold? I acknowledge that hand carved/turned / age / quality / and amount of detail / rarity (and a host of other characteristics) or attributes can and do affect "collectability". But depending on a number of other factors, even "Reproductions" - including those that are mass produced by machines - can be and are "collectible". Colored Plastic Chess Sets. Gotta love them! Take a look at the numbers involved in reproduced Plastic Staunton Chess Sets! If that does not make them desirable and make them "collectable" and even a "collectible" (and furthermore, readily playable!) then I don't know what does! (Yes, ivory or bone or wood or metal or stone are more appealing to me even.) However, "long live plastic!" (Heck, I just may get my wish, given the slow decomposition rate of many plastics!) John, VT.

[dancing_with_volves]

220844986481

Compared to the miserable crap offered by a number of con men operating from China, the quality of this item seems to be quite compelling.

[chesspurr]

John,

Your posting woke me up as what ever we may think on the positives or negatives of any Chessmen in any style. Regardless of the material , there will always be a few views to consider.

1. The view of the buyer as the set is first received and enjoyed.

2. The view of the owner as opinion from others is received. What is it worth, is it even collectable at all.

3. The view of the buyer to the " market when the set is being sold by him or herself ".

4. The private view of the buyer to his / her friends who wont be buying the set .

People can use this site or others to praise or be severly critical of sets, even ones they own .

One day they might wish to sell such merchandise to others who " just might know a little more than they do about them " , and what they are worth too.

Even if a set is supposedly worthless to some, they might do well to remember that even their friends  might wish to sell  such sets themselves.

If any set is in any collection regardless of its quality it is a collectable, and perhaps it might be best for .....

any " ashamed owners " to hide the item rather than heap misery on the less fortunate who cannot afford quality fare as it is so often an opinion anyway .

If we use cost of purchase as a standard then the fun can start when judging a set, should it be  repro, or real one !

On any given day a set can sell for a Pound ,a Dollar or a Euro, what might such an item fetch a year later , double, ten fold .

:^O

[d-baron]

One aspect I don't ever recall mentioned (perhaps it is implied and that part just goes 'over my head'?), but I think highly relevant, is nostalgia.

The first couple even few sets I picked up that were probably the beginning of what I have collected were sets that either I originally owned, wanted to own but somehow never managed to acquire, or that I remember being available when I was young.  The Lowe Renaissance set is an example of the first set I ever owned and eventually replaced due to nostalgia, the Drueke American Design I bought because I always wanted one but never managed to obtain, and a couple of others I remember using for play when I was young.

Some day, someone like us, now, is going to come across a Mario Bros set for sale on FutureBay and buy it because he has fond memories of it when he was a kid.  And so on and so forth.

I sometimes wonder if, for a true collector, nostalgia doesn't play a bigger role than any other in establishing desireability, rarity, price one is willing to pay, etc.  (I say true collector because there will always be those who collect simply for what they consider is an investment, perhaps the more accurate word in that case is investor, not collector.)

[corptaxman]

There must be many reasons as to why anyone collects anything, including chess sets. In my case, in my other collections, eg vintage pencils,  I have tended to specialise first (Eversharps) and only then to widen out - although I try to stay within a number of parameters even so. Chess is different - perhaps because so many sets have unknown origins, but it is difficult to specialise in one or a few makers unless you have considerable funds and patience.

I tend to rule out 'modern' sets for a number of reasons: imagined lack of 'beauty'/craftsmansip or whatever. But when it became possible to make almost anything into a chess set, in large numbers, I lost interest - although there are exceptions. Maybe nostalgia comes into this aspect: my cut-off date is really about the date of my birth, without having realised it previously!

Value/cost etc is a tricky subject. It rarely features in whether I would like to have a set, but I do allow it to influence whether I buy a set - with some notable exceptions, I don't like to pay much, if any, 'over the odds' and that requires an appreciation of 'value', recognising that today's value is transitory.

I have become more interested in discovering the 'story' behind a set - it often makes having it more fascinating, and, occasionally, can be the prime reason in buying it.   

As I said, at the outset, many reasons! I'm sure we all have varying ones - or the same ones in different order/priorities.  

[knight_knight_zzz]

All, including Guy, Keith, Duncan, and Kristjan,

On a much more serious note (than my very recent, windy, and somewhat silly chat posting):

I believe that there is at least some degree of merit with respect to each of your points of views regarding relative quality of chess sets, “collectability”, personal preferences, the meaning of “value” (whether it is in financial investment terms or nostalgia-related - or other – terms), etc. etc. etc..

1.)    I think, Guy, that I tend to agree with (what I sense is your disdain) for the “better than thou” attitude seemingly displayed by some chess collectors, as reflected by chess sets in their own collections and their expressed preferences. For example, (from another quote from another collector)….“the miserable crap offered by a number of con men operating from China” seems on the surface (in my opinion) to be filled with a real potential bias. While I myself should not totally discount the fact that there ARE con men out there, one cannot also rule out the influence of culture. I am not sure if my Chinese wife would appreciate the seemingly harsh words directed toward her kinsmen. There are, I suspect “con men” operating in probably most - if not every - country, so perhaps we should just widen the circle to whom we all can point fingers.

By the way, Guy, I think it must have been a long sleep when you mentioned waking up – as my last posting on this thread was WAY back in September, 2010…! 😉

2.)    Upon further examination of your (Kristjan’s; a.k.a. “Dancing with Volves”! 😉 ) comparison and contrast between one set - such as the one you mention (220844986481) - and the following set which I think you did not actually identify (but the likes of which you were probably referring):

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Collectible-Chinese-Antique-Style-Chess-Game-Set-W-Lea-/380318935748?pt=LH_D...

….. I can agree, Kristjan, with your relative comparison of such sets, though it is possible that others might not agree.

In the set you mention, (220844986481), I think – for example - that the detail is better, the color is better (of course), and the size is (debatably) better, if one believes that larger is better. I am not sure if the opposing colors complement each other, but they sure seem to be eye openers, eh? 😉

Since your words, Kristjan, were few in number and sparse as to actual explanation, I have made some assumptions about what you meant.

Actually, Kristjan, perhaps I should thank you for placing some life back into this thread. And if I also try to read between your lines, perhaps you are essentially in agreement with the thinking that there is a wide range and variety of the quality of plastic or composite chess sets that come into the public eye (whether it is from China or not!) So…………. Thank you!

Although I do not always agree with your stance on things, Kristjan, or always understand exactly what you are trying to say (due primarily to the relative briefness of words used), I think your website is generally great. It is there that you shine!  

3.)    Duncan, I think that many of your recent comments on this thread generally ring true. I suspect that for many chess collectors out there (and as a reminder to many of us on these ebay threads as well as in the CCI circle), nostalgia probably plays a larger role - than some might want to admit - in chess selection (at least when the first impulse hits us).

However, I disagree with you in your apparent definition of a “true collector”. (What exactly do you mean by “true”? There seems to be an insinuation there that there are “untrue” collectors out there…. and that if one collects chess sets purely for investment, that that person is not a “true” collector. Why would that be the case?

A “chess collector”, I believe, is a person who collects chess sets – regardless of the motivation (even if the collector collects just for financial investment).

4.)    Keith, it seems to me that you are among the few that seems to have a mature and wide (and encompassing, rather than dividing) viewpoint of chess collecting. While you acknowledge personal preferences and choices and actions, you do not seem to discount the validity of why others might collect.

I especially liked your statement, “I have become more interested in discovering the 'story' behind a set - it often makes having it more fascinating, and, occasionally, can be the prime reason in buying it.” I too have a tendency to like the stories behind the sets (as well as the maker and the last or the list of collectors of that set.)    

To all: My own reasons for collecting chess sets (as mentioned more than once in a number of threads) are myriad.  Occasionally the reasons overlap for a particular chess set or several chess sets. My reason(s) for wanting or collecting a particular chess set are one or more of the following: nostalgia, beauty, ugliness, material used, quality of the carving, rarity or uniqueness, silliness, monetary cheapness on my part, financial investment, and even special or unique traits of the creator/artist (superficial, ain’t I…?...)

I seldom see a set that I would not want in my collection – especially if it is a gift. I like sets that range from my mass-produced plastic Mario Brothers (as mentioned by Duncan) to my hand-carved bone Gieslingen (whose description was clarified to me by - I believe - our fearless leader Robert Van Der when I had misidentified it as a Dieppe). My metal Fisher-Spassky Commemorative (Enfield) chess set and “Rocco”- designed and created Brass cubes chess set are as cherished as my Club-sized Ivory Jaques Staunton chess set (even with its replacement molded white knight.) I even highly value my composite material Watergate (Nixon) chess set by Macott Direct. And the (likely fake) “jade” chess set, which was brought back from China by my adult daughter, is a keeper – forever!     

I would not even deny the placement of a Religious, plastic or composite material Christmas Theme chess set right near an Erotic composite material or wooden or metal chess set (if I had both - but unfortunately, I have neither!) However, since (believe it or not), I tend to be organized in where I place sets, I would probably place each in a separate area.  I suspect that I would like each set rather equally, but each for its own underlying meaning or traits (or features!). I like “religion” (and find cultural influences interesting). Despite some of the destructive influences and faults of mankind, I like discussion of religion – including with respect to chess sets!) But for some reason, 😉 I also like erotic chess sets.    

And finally, since I think I may have pointed out some (I guess I would call it) “imperfections” in one or two or more of you over time, it is right that I do so for myself. I think I have poo-poo’d (a technical use of the word here…) 😉 how some folks seem to look down upon some types of chess set, the newness of some chess sets, seemingly where some of them are made,  and the essentially unavoidable(?) nature of mass-production and reproductions. HOWEVER, I myself have to acknowledge that I think I probably come across as “better than thou” when I begin to (and maybe even often?) sermon to people about how lucky we all are to even to own chess sets at all - let alone enough to eat, enough warmth during the winter, and a protective roof over our heads. While I still think my viewpoint holds validity, I apologize for my own apparent “one-upmanship” and my own “better than thou” tendencies. I think my apology credit card may have just expired.

[chesspurr]

Morning Joihn,

I am posting a detailed " personal view " to your points below, in Chess collecting the real truth thread .

[d-baron]

John, I understand your disagreement, but suspect there really is no disagreement at the bottom line.

My choice of the word true was probably a poor choice of word for what I was trying to say, but I had no better choice come to mind at the time of my writing.  All I was really trying to do was differentiate between a collector who fell under my original topic of nostalgia and a collector who viewed it more as an investment.  I agree with you, they are both collectors, just for different reasons.  My intent was not to judge one over the other, just to differentiate between the possible differences in motive.  My choice of words evidently did just the opposite. 

I guess, as a result, I would be interested in hearing more on this subject from others, no matter which side of the fence they may feel they land.  The question being:  Is nostalgia a limiting emotion, ie: Would/should a collector who collects as an investment be moved/swayed/influenced by nostalgia?  Would it have a place in how they/you collect?  Nothing judgemental, just curious.

[corptaxman]

Perhaps just as relevant here is the question: when do you start to become  a "collector"?

When I first played chess I did have about 8 sets (no Stauntons!) - partly because I played correspondence chess and had them 'out' in use at home.  I doubt I seriously thought of myself as a 'collector': if I saw a set I really liked, and could afford it, I would get it. The reality is that getting old sets was quite difficult then, so there wasn't the opportunity to 'collect' in  the same was as one could with other items.

Then I stopped playing for 25yrs or so, and the sets languished - hidden in the loft or cupboards.

When I saw it was possible to buy a wide variety of sets through eBay and the like, it opened my eyes: suddenly, I WAS a collector - but had I always been? Those first sets were there to be used, but they gave a satisfaction too, beyond being simple tools - or I could easily have bought cheap bog-standard sets to use.

I do break the self-imposed rule, but I generally limit myself to sets I can use in play.  I don't really take to 'outrageous' designs that  just seem to want to be different.  

[knight_knight_zzz]

Keith, (Corptaxman) Good question - which you pose in your first line of your last post.

Is intent to collect part of the "definition" of a collector? Or - as (I believe) Floyd of Lichess said (something to effect of) and more than once... "...3 chess sets make a collection..."

I also wonder - why we are at it - how one differentiates between a collector and a hoarder. Seems like there may be some debate about that one, eh?

Duncan, (d-baron)  Ah, now I understand you a little better. Thanks for the clarification...

Guy, (Chesspurr), Interesting points and discussion you make on that other thread... I think I need to thinks some more about your points before I add my own two or three cents...

Kristjan (Dancing With Volves) Haven't heard back from you (yet.) Vole's got your tongue?

😉  

John, (Drying out... not dying out.... yet... in Vt.) 

[corptaxman]

John, the more I think on it, the less I personally think that simple ownership denotes a 'collector' - despite what the simple word might entail. It's a case of the mental image as compared to the dictionary definition.

To me, intent is important. Although I do use my sets - in that I have a number in actual use from time to time, and vary them, the purpose in getting them was not solely (or probably even primarily) for use: I simply like to use them!

In other words, my own mental view of a 'collector' is one who buys for the pure sake of the items he 'collects'. That does seem to differentiate a pure 'investor' who may only be buying as a hedge against the future or with thought of profit. His sets, I suspect are more of items in a 'portfolio' and less of a 'collection'.

Ideally, I would like to think that a 'collection' also has a theme or themes: ie linked. A simple purchasing of generically-only like items may only be a 'hoard'! I'm not sure how my sets fit into this, as they are quite widespread: hopefully, the segregation into different albums on Picasa, means I have a many-themed mini-collection(s)!