Calvert set, 3.6" c1830

There are some sets that arrive beautifully wrapped (as did this one), and the game is to work out which carefully bundled pieces are the knights… because we all know that, usually, at least, it is the knights we collectors want to see first. They define the quality of the set.

So it was that I rummaged through the little paper parcels, secured (often over-secured) with sellotape (“sticky tape” for our American cousins). A-ha! This one had that odd, asymmetrical shape. My careful fumbling gave way to impatient tearing.

And then, like a butterfly emerging from its chrysalis, out came a black knight.

A serious knight.

A knight of sweeping curves, sharp lines, and glorious surfaces. A knight which, I feel certain, the carver finished, stood back from, and quietly wept — knowing he would never better it in all his remaining days.

Okay. Maybe a touch of hyperbole.

But you get the point. These are seriously good knights.

Naturally, I did not stop there. The remaining pieces were liberated from their papery confinement and gathered together on my desk. They did not stand there with an air of nervous expectancy over how I might judge them; rather, they stood with the quiet assurance of pieces long accustomed to admiration.

This was a set that had already been admired for nearly two centuries.

And yet, they posed a question.

Are we from the Calvert stable?

The answer, I think, is a fairly emphatic “yes”.

Whilst the knights themselves are not immediately familiar from other Calvert sets, the form, proportions, and overall quality feel entirely consistent. After John Calvert’s death in 1822, perhaps even before, different craftsmen must surely have contributed to the carving of the knights. Whoever made this set upheld the Calvert reputation with some truly outstanding work.

As an interesting comparison, I placed the bases of this 3.6-inch set against my stamped 3.3-inch Calvert.

First the knights — identical base diameter. Then the kings — the same.

The queens? Again, the same. Piece for piece, footprint to footprint, the measurements align. Surely not coincidence.

Whilst one can never be entirely certain when attributing an unstamped set, I am 97% certain* this one emerged from the Calvert workshop.

*I also checked with Jon Crumiller (who else, given he has the largest Calvert collection I know of). His own inclination is that the set is from the Calvert workshop. So perhaps I am closer to 99% now.