The Camaratta Codex is it valid ?!

[chesspurr]

Alan this morning i read your replies to Michael's question regarding the Camaratta codex. On your Picasa link. Jaques and British chess co chess sets. This is the first refrence as to why the system was abandoned in your latest book, and since i have both of them in my research library at home, what you stated was of great interest to myself. For the record the Jaques and British chess co chess sets, was a suprise gift from a CCI member. I have taken the time to read some chapters in great depth, and did note within seconds of opening the book that the Codex might be contested , and then noted it was gone . Today I cut and pasted the question and your replies to Michael and sent them to Frank Camaratta. http://picasaweb.google.com/Fersht/JaquesBCCChessSets#5403879973529908738 His reply in part , as i have taken the " extreme Diplomatic route here " . .I never told anyone not to use the Codex. It was originally developed by me, in writings for my website and in conversations with my good friend Robert Stoller, and used on my website and in my writings, and referenced by Robert Stoller in this three part publication on CCI. I told Fersht that he was free to use or not use the Codex as he pleased. You can of course mail Frank yourself if you choose to do so, in case you doubt my word, as i am sure Frank will copy me in, should he reply to you. Your site is extremely high profile and on that album you have a mean average of over 300 viewers, and having checked the H O S site , i note even today that the names of the knights are still in use. Here in this discussion group we barely have 30 regular viewers, but at least they may choose to note that your account is contested by Frank . He has given me his " Blessing " for posting this thread . Even back in 2007 Bob Stoller called my Jaques Ivory a Morphy set , and when i exchange research mails with Frank we both use the codex names for the sets . So i have set up this thread to see if you can offer some alternative reasons as to why the codex of your first book was then abandoned in your second publication . Also since our group has at least a few sellers of things on Ebay, they might whilst staying silent , at least have the opportunity to understand which of your publications is best used for describing Jaques chessmen.

[cousja01]

Hi Guy, I'm not exactly sure - or in the loop - regarding your points about the "disappearing Camaratta codex." I do want to say a few words regarding the "codex" approach and the "dating" approach that Alan F. has adopted. I like the codex because, in a single word, I can get an idea of the major aspect of a set. "Anderssen" knights are easily recognizable, as are the bishop's mitres, and with some variation, the rest of the pieces. So if I am told that a set in an Anderssen, I know generally what it looks like without even seeing the set. (So long as the person telling me also knows the codex.) The dating system is equally useful. For example, saying a set is circa 1900 also evokes a certain series of design aspects, knight appearance, etc. I think where dating falls short is that is requires a precision that the "codex" does not. The codex merely orders sets in a purportedly chronological progression and occasionally attaches a date range to the classification where sufficent data exists to say the extreme date ranges of sales/production of that style of set. Using a dating system, however, raises several issues. Because the "date range" or "date" is the classification category, we need more data to support any conclusion as to what sets fit into that date range. Also, we know that set styles overlapped in terms of sales dates and possible in production runs. So, in a dating system, if I were to say, "A set, Circa 1855-60" we might have a set with a dropped-jaw or one without. Finally, I note your (Guy's) comment about a Jaques 3.5" currently up for auction. (You were mad about the photos) That set has a label with the date "1910" handwritten onto the top portion. Was that the date the set was purchased? The date it was manufacturerd? The date it was gifted to a close friend? If it isn't the date the set was made, how can we know the set wasn't produced in 1908 and it took two years before it was sold... and really, does it make a difference at all? It's a "Marshall" style. Best to all, James PS: Professor F, my critique is not intended to be personal in any way. -- Edited by cousja01 at 07/14/2010 7:02 PM PDT

[cpe1991]

Guy and James The “Codex” is useful for many purposes, and I will continue to use it when appropriate. But, there are problems when applying it literally to the vast range of Jaques products. My comments were in http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/Fersht/JaquesBCCChessSets#5403879599819704178 for everyone to read. “Frank Camaratta wrote to me that it was just a private classification between him and RS and was not meant to be published. It is quite useful for many knights but there are far more knights than are in the classification and there are not sharp demarcations between sets. You can often find bishops from one classification with knights from another in authentic sets. This is because there are not strict time lines. Different types of knights were made at the same time by different carvers. You even see mixtures of knights in the same set, with the same felts and patination, showing that Jaques were quite sloppy in making up sets from different bins of pieces in stock. This is common in the sets in the 1850s/60s when there were many sty1es of knights, and even occasionally in the 1880s/90s.” The real difficulty is that knights were not produced strictly according to date sequence and there were periods with several different sty1es in parallel. I can conceive that we could get a comprehensive system of naming knights, requiring more names than the 17 in the codex. But, the real problem is in classifying whole sets since you sometimes see, for example, “Lasker” knights with “Hartston” bishops. There are indeed drawbacks both to a purely dating system and a pure sty1e system. Any ideas for the best way forward? Alan

[chesspurr]

Alan I have an " extended version " of a mail from Frank, which is not in agreement with your statement. In fact he requested that i placed IT on my " far lower profile Picasa site " his edited reply. This was done last night, in Staunton sets 2 again heavily edited as per his request. This morning i received a mail from R Stoller offering support to Franks mail . My actions have been taken on the request of a " founder CCI member " as we are supposed to be a group of friends, because Frank is very unhappy about your very public comments to hundreds of people many unknown on the Internet. The Codex itself is a complex issue, as i agree with James there are many ways of offering positive and negative opinion on how to date chessmen from any system. In my personal opinion its removal has caused confusion, and taken Jaques research backwards. However perhaps if one had a more expansive view on a more proven alternative then i am sure all research based collectors would be most interested to hear it. I do not pretend to have deep knowledge on Jaques, i have left tht research to others,and try to rely on it. I will freely admit that the works of past and present CCI members including yourself Alan, have influenced my thinking, and the way i have been researching since 2006, when this collector group was formed. -- Edited by chesspurr at 07/15/2010 12:07 AM PDT

[acf1515]

Guy, I can't see where on your picasa site you have posted Franks comment! Is it a private album? I think the Codex was a great step forward at the time, but I feel that research has moved things on and as Alan says it does not cover all the options that we now know about. I have taken a "dating" approach to my work on the Jaques ISQ sets, but I am finding that some aspects of the sets gets mixed up. (ie: A late 19th C case on a 20th C board!) Both systems have their limitations and people should utilise either method as required. Cheers Jim

[chesspurr]

Jim Frank requested i placed an " edited message " on my Picasa . http://picasaweb.google.com/chesspurr/StauntonSetsAndTypeOfIvoryBoneAndOtherMaterials As you will see it is simply stating his disagreement with Alan's own public Picasa postion. He requested this so fellow Picasians could decide for themselves as to which version to believe. I have no problem with any system being critisised, but do believe that if such a system was used in one publication, then it confuses people if no proper explaination is given to the purchasers of the revised works. Since Frank claims the system is still valid from his point of view, and he has not stated in a published foremat why, it is possible he might have himself improved research information, for us to see in the future. Alan's first book clearly used the system, and collectors purchased this work, and now its gone without any proper explanation, and what has been stated by Alan is contested by Frank.

[acf1515]

Hi Guy, Thanks for the link, but I still do not see Frank's edited message? All I see in the link are pictures of your sets along with your comments! Cheers Jim

[chesspurr]

I wish you would excerpt and publish this as a response to Michael and the other readers on Picasa -- Edited by chesspurr at 07/15/2010 1:39 PM PDT

[chesspurr]

Jim I hope my new Picasa posting makes more sense. My comments are in fact Franks regarding the codex, but he declined to post anything on Alan's site. Today i was asked to post this. I never told anyone not to use the Codex. It was originally developed by me, in writings for my website and in conversations with my good friend Robert Stoller, and used on my website and in my writings, and referenced by Robert Stoller in this three part publication on CCI. I told Fersht that he was free to use or not use the Codex as he pleased. I wish you would excerpt and publish this as a response to Michael and the other readers on Picasa.

[cousja01]

Hi Alan, I think we should take the Camaratta Codex and update and streamline it. The names are evocative of an appearance, and the variation of major/minor pieces and the date range of production can all be incorporated into each category to give a collector a full understanding of what he can/should expect when he's looking at a Paulsen or a Hartston. Using a stylist system of categorization will require a different approach to disseminating the system. I think if you'll give me a few minutes to explain what I am an envisioning, you might agree with my approach. Let's take the Hartston as an example: Hartston knights changed slightly during their era of production, but the major pieces changed moreso. Thus, FAC Codex has a "Pre-Hartston" (In your original book, Figure 26 you label these 1885-90, 1890-1900). I suggest readers of this post grab their copy and look at the two sets to see where I'm going. So, in the new system, there are two photos, one of each style of set and a paragraph as follows: "Hartston, Circa 1885-1900: Hartston sets begin to mark the transition into the stockier, less detailed sets of the 20th century. Early Hartston knights vary little from their later counterparts, however the major pieces of these sets evolved greatley during their run. Figure 1 (Referred to AF's 1885-90) shows major pieces with distinctly curved and tapered shanks on the major pieces while the set in Figure 2 (AF's 1890-1900) has stockier, straighter shanks. Bishop mitres can vary. Early sets retained a full ball finial while later sets had steeper mitred with cut finials. Moreover, one should note the enlarged and hyper-stylized maltese-cross's that appear on later Hartston sets, and in Figure 2" So, with two photos, and a paragraph of text, we've given the collector a really good guide. The can use the date range given in the codex subpart to check the labels and box for correctness and they can figure out if what they are looking at is an early or late set of that style. What do you think? Best, James

[chesspurr]

James Clearly you know a heck of alot more than i do on this subject matter, but what you say makes complete sense to me . Am i correct in assuming that you can identify every type of Jaques set in Frank's codex, and rename it under Alan's updated system.Thus in effect being able to yourself offer a reliable variation of the codex to satisfy all Jaques users. The idea of having a detailed and reliable photo of a correct set, for each and every variation of either the codex or the dated system is very interesting. This then enlarged to cover both Ivory and wooden sets, weighted and unweighted, plus of course all of the sizes from Club down to the Library sets. Then we would have something to really appreciate as the research material would have a consistancy . The 20th century Jaques is an area that Frank has admitted to me, may need additional research, and Alan has stated on one thread here in this group,his interest in Jaques post 1920 is minimal. There are plenty of Jaques collectors out there, and if the many rather than the few became involved in a joint research project, such a task could be possible. Frank sent an Email to varied CCI members months ago proposing joint research for varied projects before CCI meetings. For some reason this idea did not receive the necessary support .

[cousja01]

Guy, I have a pretty solid handle on FAC's Codex, all that would remain would be to "meld" it into Alan F's dating system and develop the new system. I'm a very visual person, so I envisage one page for each style, a few photos on each page showing known variations and closeups of the important parts (mitres, crosses etc.) The problem is, I don't have one of every variation. James

[chesspurr]

Alan, Here is a puzzle. Your posting no3 of 12. The real difficulty is that knights were not produced strictly according to date sequence and there were periods with several different sty1es in parallel. I can conceive that we could get a comprehensive system of naming knights, requiring more names than the 17 in the codex. But, the real problem is in classifying whole sets since you sometimes see, for example, “Lasker” knights with “Hartston” bishops. There are indeed drawbacks both to a purely dating system and a pure sty1e system. I read and reread your opening remarks, in Jaques and British chess co chess sets in case i missed something, and noted no refrence whatsoever to the Codex, or even Frank Camaratta at all. So if as you have just stated.... " there are indeed drawbacks both to a purely dating system and a pure style system " This remark further confuses me, are you already admitting that your revised dating system of classification has drawbacks? Tim Millard has a nice looking Ivory set described as an Anderssen, is his description of the set reasonable? http://www.antiquechessshop.com/468.htm I note as a dealer he is using data from your older publication.

[chesspurr]

I am off for a weekend break . However here is the E mail I received months ago, and it suggested mutual co operation on chess related issues. This could have perhaps resolved the issue of the codex itself. This is also my personal view of how to get research right . Franks proposal mail. Team: These discussion Group are fine for some topics, but rather cumbersome for others. What do you all think about the idea of having roundtable debates or workshops on pre-selected topics at our future CCI meetings? We could pose several research areas well ahead of time and interested parties could attend and participate, bringing with them any materials they thought might add to the debates/discussions. Best, Frank This was received on the 3rd of December 2009. Very high ranking CCI members were of course copied in including yourself Alan . Note should any group member wish for me to forward this mail,to them they can mail me at guy.lyons@ntlworld.com This i believe was the way forward, and it could still be. Of course Frank asked me in private why he was denied membership to the Antique collector group, and i explained to him that it was for two reasons. 1. He was a dealer. 2. There were -personal reasons for his " exclusion " i also explained to him that i supported his inclusion. Many hands make light work even in the field of chess research.

[cousja01]

Guy, Interesting email. I'm not sure why everyone want to do this work in groups. Granted, it can be easier, but things can get "cliquey" and of course, no one can be sure who will have something useful to contribute. I hate to think that important or interesting information is kept from an otherwise good work because a group choses to exclude a member, or doesn't inform them of what they are doing. Open forums sound nice to me if someone is willing to start something and then solicit contributions (with credit offered of course). Best, James