English Staunton set, c1870

It's always nice to find a match to another unknown set in my collection - this particular set is a very good match for my small staunton which came in a bentwood box. The box with the small staunton led me to date that set, and therefore also this one, to around 1870. The kings in this set are 3.66" tall, a substantial increase in size.

Another reason that I like to find sets by the same maker is because it points to the higher liklihood that the maker was an established business who produced their fair share of sets, rather than an amateur or small operation.

I suspect there is some economic, historical, archaeological or other such theory to do with the survival of goods or artefacts as time wears on, and what it means about their prevalence or importance at the time they were made. Obviously we have the examples of Jaques and Ayres, who were large established companies operating over a long time period - and hence why many sets made by these two companies still exist.  The liklihood of a chess set surviving for more than 150 years would be down to a number of factors including how many were made, their price when bought, how well made they were (the latter two factors determining value placed on the set by its owner), and how robust the set is (hence staunton sets doing well, by design).

It follows that, even for sets whose maker is debated (such as "Whitty" sets), the fact that sufficient examples survive is very good evidence that the sets were at least made by a maker of some importance - be that in craftsmanship or volume.  Naming a maker to go with a style of set, without direct evidence linking said sets to a particular maker, can then become a shorthand "labelling" e.g. did Whitty make all the sets attributed to him?  Who knows...but every collector will know what you mean when you say a "Whitty" set (or "Whitty-like" set).

I don't know how many stauntons there are like this one - but I would be prepared to wager that there will be a fair few still out there sitting in dusty boxes at the back of a cupboard, or within a collection.  Perhaps if we find enough we might be able to piece together enough circumstantial evidence to make up a viable shorthand name for these too?