Could it be that this is an old reproduction and the wear from handling has given the charka the appearance of being genuine when it is not?
As the guidelines suggest a little "heat" (my own term) in the discussion is to be expected sometimes. The points that have been made have been great though.
.
Russian Silver miniature - Help on Hallmarks?
-
Silver Guy
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 1:18 am
- Location: USA
Wow... This must be the "twilight zone"... Just when I'm cooling down, someone comes back and turns the heat back on...Qrt.S wrote:Hey, hey, gentlemen please calm down, this a debate, in not a duel. I’ve been away for a few hours and therefore I’ve been silent,
Soon you will notice something. “The more you learn the less you realize you know. It’s a cruel world we are living in. When I was 20 years, I knew everything worth to know at least I thought so. Today I know much more, but I also know how little I actually know.
Peace!
I think if you go up to the beginning of the thread and read all the posts in succession, you will find that I have been calm, cool, and collected at all times, except toward the end when I felt like I was beginning to get belittled, pushed around, and offended by another member.
I have also been exceedingly polite throughout - saying "thank you" and "please" over and over again and showing gratitude for peoples' time and efforts, when warranted...
I never said the piece was real. I called it "complicated" and "beautiful" and said I thought it was high quality... I even said "I'm not arguing that this is original - I have no idea - it may, or it may not be...."
And where exactly do you think I was "arguing" and that I "won't listen"?
Was it because I was asking "why"? As in, "why do you think it's fake?"
Or said in other ways - why exactly? Why precisely? Tell me because I want to know...
Since when has asking "why" become a reason for belittling someone else? Isn't this forum for asking "why" and for getting educated? To become smarter about the field... Another way to get knowledge, not just from owning books or visiting a museum...
Okay - in response, I got a little bit of help, true, but mixed in with what at times sounded to me like messages that are not in-line with the aims of a forum built for education (and I'm paraphrasing here): "it's fake, believe me because I know" or "why ask experts if you know everything" or "yu da man and expert" or "go read books and learn to be like me."
Anyone who thinks those are good responses needs an attitude adjustment...
finally, un-like how you describe it, I didn't come to the forum to get an opinion on whether this object is genuine or fake. Go read my original post again - in my original post I was saying I had difficulty figuring out the marks and needed help...
No one has all the perfect knowledge, not even you guys who hold yourselves out as "experts." And there is nothing wrong in asking: "why" or "explain why you feel that way." People who don't feel like responding, just shouldn't respond - they should check out of the forum or participate only in posts that interest them.
The purpose of the forum is to share knowledge. To do it in a responsible and helpful a way as possible. And to do it all in a nice way that doesn't offend anyone. The purpose is to encourage others to collect silver, to learn about it, to appreciate it. Not to judge, not to belittle, not to be condescending - none of those things help the field of collecting, and no one has the right to be that way, not even if they are a Faberge expert or the curator of the Hermitage...
Having said all that, I'll end with saying thank you for the information you did provide in your Numbers 1, 2, and 3. As for the photo - what you are pointing to are dents and damage to the material. Thanks again.
.
-
Silver Guy
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 1:18 am
- Location: USA
Hi - I think that's a good point, and something I asked in a previous post... Could this be something that was reproduced in the late 19th century, or early 20th century...silverly wrote:Could it be that this is an old reproduction and the wear from handling has given the charka the appearance of being genuine when it is not?
As the guidelines suggest a little "heat" (my own term) in the discussion is to be expected sometimes. The points that have been made have been great though.
.
Hi Silver Guy -
as a collector with some tactile sense you will maybe value and apprechiate my special offer to you:
6 stirrupcups/charkas, silver gilt, enamel, 88 zolotniki like the original - unfortunately stamped Moscow instead St. Petersburg (who cares?), like new in box from a Polish dealer/manufacturer. Condition: untouched. If you like you can order the enamel in different colours or get the eagles more ore less oxydiced. More has more Bling! You know, what I mean...
As you can see they are in much better shape than your example.We experts call this: museum´s worthy!
If you are interested, let me know....
Very kind regards
Postnikov
.
as a collector with some tactile sense you will maybe value and apprechiate my special offer to you:
6 stirrupcups/charkas, silver gilt, enamel, 88 zolotniki like the original - unfortunately stamped Moscow instead St. Petersburg (who cares?), like new in box from a Polish dealer/manufacturer. Condition: untouched. If you like you can order the enamel in different colours or get the eagles more ore less oxydiced. More has more Bling! You know, what I mean...
As you can see they are in much better shape than your example.We experts call this: museum´s worthy!
If you are interested, let me know....
Very kind regards
Postnikov
.
-
dragonflywink
- co-admin
- Posts: 2493
- Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 10:42 am
- Location: Orlando, Florida
- Contact:
Have to say, especially since your photos are so nice and clear, that the areas Qrt.S pointed out, which you see as dents and damage, also appear to my eye to be casting flaws; and personally see no indication that it would be anything other than a fairly recently made piece. Even without considering the other evidence, would seem highly unlikely that your piece with its supposed 1886 assay date would be copied at least 13 years later by the Faberge silversmith who made the museum piece shown.
Must also say that I haven't found Silver Guy to be unpleasant or argumentative, he simply wants clarification of the comments. He's been nice enough to thank posters even if they weren't saying what he'd like to hear. Some of us are so immersed in our particular areas of interest, spending so many years reading numerous references and handling untold numbers of similar items, that sometimes we do just "know what we know" (until proven wrong LOL), but new members in particular have no idea who we are.....Having seen some ridiculous misinformation spread on other internet sites, can understand wanting to be sure of information offered. There is a difference between being blunt and being rude, and the angry sarcasm really strikes me as completely unnecessary.
~Cheryl
.
Must also say that I haven't found Silver Guy to be unpleasant or argumentative, he simply wants clarification of the comments. He's been nice enough to thank posters even if they weren't saying what he'd like to hear. Some of us are so immersed in our particular areas of interest, spending so many years reading numerous references and handling untold numbers of similar items, that sometimes we do just "know what we know" (until proven wrong LOL), but new members in particular have no idea who we are.....Having seen some ridiculous misinformation spread on other internet sites, can understand wanting to be sure of information offered. There is a difference between being blunt and being rude, and the angry sarcasm really strikes me as completely unnecessary.
~Cheryl
.
-
Silver Guy
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 1:18 am
- Location: USA
I won't even buy your offer if you agree to buy my bridge... (admin edit - see Posting Requirements )Postnikov wrote:Hi Silver Guy -
as a collector with some tactile sense you will maybe value and apprechiate my special offer to you:
Postnikov
.
-
Silver Guy
- Posts: 20
- Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 1:18 am
- Location: USA
Hi Cheryl - thanks again for the information and for being so kind to stick up for me (the only one who did). I'm a bit taken aback at the quality of the discussion on this forum (present company excluded) - quite sad, really and not a good experience. I don't think this is the right place for me (at least not the "Russian" room). Best to you and yours.dragonflywink wrote:Have to say, especially since your photos are so nice and clear, that the areas Qrt.S pointed out, which you see as dents and damage, also appear to my eye to be casting flaws; and personally see no indication that it would be anything other than a fairly recently made piece. Even without considering the other evidence, would seem highly unlikely that your piece with its supposed 1886 assay date would be copied at least 13 years later by the Faberge silversmith who made the museum piece shown.
~Cheryl
.
Hi,
Just to add my two penny's worth.
Discussion such as this is vital to any forum, this kind of debate increases our knowledge and understanding. I'm sure many, including me, have learnt much from it.
Whilst it would appear, without doubt, that Silver Guy's item is of recent manufacture and contains pseudo marks, it should not, in my eyes, be considered unimportant or a piece of scrap, for it is important, indeed very important, as it marks yet another period in silver history.
Some people consider the manufacture of such pieces an outrage, but do we now look upon the output of the Hanau silversmiths of the late 19th/early 20th centuries as an outrage? No, we look upon it as another interesting period of a subject that we enjoy researching. Of course this is only true as long as we can identify the differences between the two. We know the difference between a Hanau reproduction and a 17th century French item because of reaseach and discussion and now accept more and more, the pieces from that time.
So, thanks to Silver Guy, his contribution to the forum is of great importance to us all, without his imput and those of the responders our knowledge would not increase and reaseach would not advance, but guys, lets keep it friendly and enjoy sharing the information.
Regards Trev.
.
Just to add my two penny's worth.
Discussion such as this is vital to any forum, this kind of debate increases our knowledge and understanding. I'm sure many, including me, have learnt much from it.
Whilst it would appear, without doubt, that Silver Guy's item is of recent manufacture and contains pseudo marks, it should not, in my eyes, be considered unimportant or a piece of scrap, for it is important, indeed very important, as it marks yet another period in silver history.
Some people consider the manufacture of such pieces an outrage, but do we now look upon the output of the Hanau silversmiths of the late 19th/early 20th centuries as an outrage? No, we look upon it as another interesting period of a subject that we enjoy researching. Of course this is only true as long as we can identify the differences between the two. We know the difference between a Hanau reproduction and a 17th century French item because of reaseach and discussion and now accept more and more, the pieces from that time.
So, thanks to Silver Guy, his contribution to the forum is of great importance to us all, without his imput and those of the responders our knowledge would not increase and reaseach would not advance, but guys, lets keep it friendly and enjoy sharing the information.
Regards Trev.
.