Beauty vs. authenticity in reproductions

I just came across Noj’s 1910 Lasker World Championship reproduction, and realized how crude the knight looked compared to the reproduction I saw before from House of Staunton. But based on the photos of the original set Noj presents, their reproduction seems to be very accurate. I don’t know if HoS reproduced a different version of the Lasker set, or if they took liberties with the knight design in particular, but it made me wonder…

What do you look for in a reproduction? Do you want it to be as authentic as possible, or do you appreciate slight deviations from the original if it results in a more beautiful chess set?

I can imagine generally favoring authenticity, but I also imagine there are cases where some deviations result in a more consistent result that is still in the spirit of the original set. I think I might be leaning that way when it comes to the Lasker reproduction, as HoS’ knight looks like it belongs with the other pieces, while the relative crudeness of Noj’s knight makes it feel a bit out of place with the other pieces.

For reference, here is Noj’s version:

And here is HoS’ version:

One thing that does puzzle me about HoS’ version is that the knight is larger than the bishop. As far as I can tell, the original Lasker set showed a gradual decrease in height of the pieces, just like Noj’s reproduction.

I think Noj tends to focus heavily on authentic reproductions without any artistic licenses when it comes to the design of the pieces. At least, that seems to be the case from what I’ve seen of the Lasker set and the 1962 Tal set. But then, what puzzles me about their reproductions is that they don’t seem to have the same regard for the wood types and finishes honoring the originals. It looks like the original Lasker set was made in boxwood with the dark side ebonized, but Noj—as always—went with maple and walnut.

Which brings me to my next question. How much do you value the woods/materials and finishes used being true to the original? Or do you prefer to go with higher quality materials, or have a preference for particular wood types?

And finally, do you have any regard for the weight of the pieces being authentic to the original? Or would you prefer more weight? If the original is weightless, would you want the reproduction to be weightless as well, or do you prefer to have weighted pieces?

How does the original set look?

I’m not able to find clear pictures, but here is a photo Noj presented on their page.

Of course, it could well be that there are historical examples of both types of knights.

If a reproduction tries to do better than the original, I think it should not do so with artificially aged pieces. Noj in fact does alter the knight a little (because the eyes are not cut in the shape typical of this form, and the mouth is see-through from the side), so it is ever so slightly modernized and so it makes sense they bring it out in different woods (which happen to be their trademark woods, of course).

I would believe the HoS version refers to historical knights. If they borrowed it, they should go the whole way and make an all-star set composed of 6 different sets. If neither is the case, they would have made up a very nice knight design and should go the whole way and design 5 more pieces.

The difference these knights make is dramatic, as the knights are the faces of chessmen, and these two sets' knights are very different, two different moods. Generally I'd expect that a repro presents the original mood.

Can anybody clarify if the piece design is historical or new?

Going on some of your past post's  WandelKoningin A lot of knght's look crude compared to the reproduction . It's all down to taste , I find most repro lack any kind of class ?

You might be right about the HoS knights. I just came across this article which describes both the Lasker set Noj based their reproduction on, and a Lasker variation with more elaborate knights. They still don’t quite look like HoS’ knights, but it suggests that there are historical variations, and the fact that the knights aren’t that far off makes it probable that the HoS knights were based on a historical Lasker-Schlechter set.

When I buy a set I think primarily about the design and what makes it interesting or historical.

i have a 1950 Dubrovnik (designed by Pocek) from Noj and like that Gregor had physical access to an original set when they reproduced it (compared to others that may make a reproduction from photos or copying the Noj.

i have another Dubrovnik from Noj based on Maurovic’s design). In fact, this is based on the original blueprints and is an authorized production so I do not consider this a reproduction.

in support of Chuck Grau’s work, I also have Noj’s Tal set that Chuck painstakingly helped to preserve the design. I feel others may be just copying the Noj set. I also have the same design from Era Retro but these are different sets, I do not feel this is a copy of Chuck’s work.

i have a reproduction of IM Biro’s set. At the time I didn’t realize it was a reproduction of a set that was currently still in production. I felt the manufacturer was deceptive about the design. I have an original IM Biro set prefer this.

As for manufacturers in India, I tend to avoid their reproductions because of various deceitful practices I’ve seen. Fake reviews, not crediting original designer, mixed customer reviews, etc.

3D printed sets are an area of Interest for me now. For this reason, I like the idea of reproductions that try to capture aspects of the original design but create an interesting variation (such as optimized for 3D printing).

I got the impression that the Dubrovnik knights of Noj are more crude than the originals, and that’s often my impression with their reproductions (like the Lasker set). The Tal set seems very accurate though. Do you know more about how accurate the knights are to the original 1950 set? I actually haven’t been able to find any good images of the 1950 set, so it’s possible it was fairly crude and my sense of the set has been biased by more refined reproductions.

I buy pieces that appeal to me aestetically and primarily to play chess with. I don´t much care about how exact replicas they may be (except, of course, for the Lewis Chessmen).