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.

[chesspurr]

Jim, Whilst on my short vacation i read and re read x 10 the latest Jaques Book. I saw something rather interesting, it appears that if sets in boxes in the " revised dating system " are wrong because of poor quality control, or the previously thought idea of people matching up sets, like dealers of ill repute then we collectors have a dilemma. 1. How does one decide if a set is a genuine original Jaques product, or a messed up set due to later modifications like replacing lost pieces with other Antique chessmen? 2. Who plays " God " in the role of deciding what is what, regarding the dating and authenticating of genuine or otherwise correct sets ? I now see a situation happening where my confidence is in danger of collapsing regarding Jaques Staunton sets, because at present one view is taking complete control of things, in my personal opinion of course. I have seen little to accept that the original creators of the Codex, developed after Michael Mark's pioneering work, has developed to simply wipe it out . Nor have i seen any " reason for a complete removal of the system, nor an explanation why it was done, nor an excuse for the complete retraction of creditation offered in the original book by the Author to Frank Camaratta. Sometimes things simply have to be said, even if they have a cost...... I as a CCI member will happily pay such a bill, because one simply should .... do the right thing regardless of the outcome.

[cousja01]

Guy, I think Alan F might agree with me that after "catergorizing a set" the viewer of the set should check the felts, the patina on the boxwood pieces and the matching of each piece. (Each bishop should be nearly identical etc. etc.) If you're buying from a collector or dealer, ask if any work has been done to the set. Next, if there is a box, see if it is the proper type, material, and if it has a label or the remanants thereof. Guy, you need to have a bit of faith. Sometimes "one person" can get it right. The fact that he's only one man is of tertiary importance. Newton - at first - told us the laws of physics. He was mostly right (Einstein was more right) but the point that remains is the same. As far as "Genuine Jaques" I am going to make what may be a contraversial statement. I'm of the opinion that 99% of the time, a set that is not stamped Jaques is not a Jaques. There are a few exceptions; sets that are identical to a known, stamped, Jaques. I make this statement because most of the time, when someone selling a set says something is an "unsigned Jaques" they're dead wrong.

[chesspurr]

James, Faith is based upon trust, so if the research work done, comes to a conclusion, which differs from a previous published position, and removes credit from an original contributor, then " in my personal opinion " such a situation asks questions, like why has this happened? In my collection i have a set classified as a Broadbent, Alan's book states 1927, yet Frank says it is a later set of the codex clasiffication. Now two years later Alan has removed the name Broadbent, and its is now a 1927 set, or a 1925-1935 ?! We are not talking of a " Salem witch hunt on Alan here " it is simply a proper set of reasons why such a change has taken place. In my personal opinion, true research should always be " Inclusive " and not the " exclusion of sources" if one does this then it is most likely that in extreme cases like this codex removal ........... the research building will collapse all because a wall was knocked down. In my communications with fellow collectors there have been two positions on the codex removal. 1. It was a bad idea because it is not replaced by something better. 2. The Author has been defended because of who he is rather than the quality of the revised work, by rather fewer collectors. Also i have been accused of having personal bias, and even doing a joint project on BCC because i have a vendetta on Alan . One can only hope that when the work is published the person will reconsider his position. No collector i have communicated with has supported this codex since the book was published, but one CCI member did state to me that it would be a big improvement " before the publication " Michael Mark in his chess collector review of the book and mentions Frank Camaratta's work, yet the Author completely removed him from the credits list. This is an open forum, we have free speech to voice our opinion, all our group requests is some civility in stating our position. I liked the first work, but question the revised publication, and i repeat, that my confidence has been seriously eroded in what is the true picture of Jaques because of what appears to be........... exclusion rather than inclusion. At least i have given a straight forward reason for my position here. Doing research for any publication is not easy, and in my view one needs all the help one can get, from reliable sources of course. I agree with what you say re identifying pieces, but patination can match beautifuly, from differing sets, felts can be swapped etc. Non signed sets could have been " illegal workings in the factory " so as to offer unearned bonus revenue to the loyal craftsmen. We can offer reasons and counter opinion but we were not there in those long gone times, so we do have to offer some speculation, when stating a case. -- Edited by chesspurr at 07/20/2010 1:36 AM PDT

[chesspurr]

Error. No collector i have communicated with has supported this codex REMOVAL since the book was published, but one CCI member did state to me that it would be a big improvement " before the publication "

[chesspurr]

This evening i read for the first time in a few years the reflections on the Staunton design by Robert Stoller. Here is an extract from that " Coprighted publication in 2002 for chess collectors international " . To my certain knowledge based on over a dozen years of trading with Frank A Camaratta Jr, I can attest that the " Camaratta codex " is entirely mr Camaratta's creation and does not represent any system created or employed by the Jaques firm itself. Nevertheless the Camaratta Codex is not only an extremely useful organisational tool and mnemonic device ,it also encapsulates a substantial amount of chess history. I trust now that this visible evidence can be cross checked by interested parties, and Franks position is now fully appreciated. Robert Stoller was was very instrumental in aiding myself in early BCC research with his friendly guidance, and for that i am in his debt. I have posted in the Chess Collectors International thread a suggestion for our hard working editor .

[cousja01]

Hi Guy, I think your points re: replacement pieces are valid, but a bit counter-productive. I think if we told collectors: "Two keys to determining the "corectness" of a set is to examine the boxwood patination and the felts on each piece. The patination should match among all of the boxwood pieces, and any oddities suggest replacement pieces. Moreover, the felts of each and every pieces should match in color and wear. Any major difference in patination or coloring/wear of the felts suggests the piece in question is a replacement. However, it is possible that a set with a replcement piece could not be distinguished upon those factors alone." I think we need to move forward with this discussion to see if anything useful can come of it. I invite Alan F to return to this thread and to comment on my earlier post regarding a newer hybrid caterogization system. Alan, you've done all of the heavy lifting thus far, but your input here would be invaluable to coming to a consenus on a standardized system of categorizing Jaques sets. (If you think one necessary; if not, just say so and I'm happy to move along as well.) Best, James

[chesspurr]

James It is 7 am in the morning here, and i am removing the last pieces of the " Sand man from my eyes ". Here is a public album from a fellow Picasian's site. http://picasaweb.google.com/PeterArmit/BigBrotherLittleBrother?authkey=Gv1sRgCIKhoMvR9ZSDUQ Here is the way forward in Jaques research, get as many collectors of Jaques to offer such quality research albums as this of their sets. The photos could be standardised, with every collector offering his chessmen in a standard position, on a level surface, with measurements . They could offer comments on the base width, the shank height , the kings cross, the box, the label. I have a Broadbent in wood, so does my friend from Holland Joost, as do you according to your Picasa site, and it is in Ivory. At present if we all met up in a bar with our sets and a camera we could have quite simply by a mile have the best published site on Broadbent in the world. We could examine our sets for real in the flesh, take images of all our sets together, and form a joint opinion. Even in differing locations such research is possible if the parties want to aid each other. This is the way forward, " many hands make light work "

[cousja01]

Hi Guy, I think you have an excellent idea there. As Alan F said, there are a lot of variations, but if we plodded along, one at a time, based upon what sets we have access to, we could go "a page at a time" and really make something comprehensive and eminentley useful. So, where do we want to start? I'm working on getting a copy of Adobe Photoshop, which will allow me to remove backgrounds from photos and insert a solid color which will make the detail of the sets "pop." Once I've got Adobe and figure it out, we could do a few test photos and start from there. What do you say? James

[chesspurr]

Hi James I have no problem with such an idea, as it is not too difficult to offer fresh images for research ideas. The problem of course is getting enough people to aid such a project . Recently i was involved with 5 other collectors in researching a well known maker. The joint effort produced very interesting results , and we all benefited from the exercise. We all of course owned sets from this manufacturer. One day i sincerly hope an article which gives us all a creditation is published. Over the years i am pretty certain that Alan and Frank have compiled lists of collectors with Jaques sets and may be in regular communication with these collectors . We do not have anything like the tools both of them have to work with. When this group was first created there was a regular refrence to having a data base, but nothing came of it. Of course there was also a mention of this... knowledge is power. Perhaps this is why the idea of a group data base failed.

[chesspurr]

James On our Picasa albums you will find a number of collectors who have examples of Jaques chessmen. Each of these fellow Picasians will i am certain be happy to offer additional images if asked. We could even via yourself construct a group Picasa album of our sets, and to appease both views offer the descriptions of both the codex and the dating system . The merits of both systems could be debated and as we both agree, the building of this might take some time, but some good just might come of it . We could offer very detailed information from Library sets to Club sized ones, all it would take if for the many to get involved. Example 1. Base diamater. 2. Shank height 3. felting 4.Kings crosses. 5 Bishops mitres, ball knops. 6. Rooks castellations. 7. Stamps. 8. Knights. 9. Queens coronets. 10. Boxes . And so on, but the important bit is it includes sets of all sizes, materials, and age . Here is a question that might be answered in the future, we have been informed that the sets 8,9,and 10 as having been discovered, but that still leaves 1-7 .... I wonder what type of Knights these sets have, or had if they have disappeared ? I also wonder if any silent members of this group might like to openly contribute to this proposed project. Of course since it would be public any party could benefit from the results . Research of this depth would restore my confidence in Jaques as the cross checking of the results against Bob Stollers 2002 publication would be darned interesting . Then we have improved research work done by Frank to consider, if it ever gets published of course.