No problem, I am not sure how you mean/see it but I would say they are individual. Here are all the three marks (sorry for the poorer quality but there is not daylight to get good photos).
Regards,
Juke
LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Re: LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Hi!
No problem, I am not sure how you mean/see it but I would say they are individual. Here are all the three marks (sorry for the poorer quality but there is not daylight to get good photos).
Regards,
Juke
No problem, I am not sure how you mean/see it but I would say they are individual. Here are all the three marks (sorry for the poorer quality but there is not daylight to get good photos).
Regards,
Juke
Re: LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Hi -
Dispite my bad feelings and doubts - your spoons look very authentic!
Regards
Postnikov
Dispite my bad feelings and doubts - your spoons look very authentic!
Regards
Postnikov
Re: LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Hi!
Well it is not always easy to evaluate and reply the threds based only on the pictures, it is nice when you have the silver items in your hands. Thank you for the discussion and I am sure people appreciate your knowledge including all the other threds here on the forum.
Regards,
Juke
Well it is not always easy to evaluate and reply the threds based only on the pictures, it is nice when you have the silver items in your hands. Thank you for the discussion and I am sure people appreciate your knowledge including all the other threds here on the forum.
Regards,
Juke
Re: LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Hi, the sphinx is back in town :-)
The discussion above is very interesting and even if Juke thought that I wrote "fake" in hurry, i didn't. I still think the Russian cup is a fake. Moreover, like Postnikov mentioned, I am not eager to teach fakers of what's wrong or right. Therefore my rather blunt answers "fake" and that's it. I also mostly share Postnikov's opinion of what he states in this thread.
Anyway, there is not much to add to this discussion but I'd like to tell you that the troiniki (triple) assayer's punch has exact measures. There are tree different measures and they are not approximate values! The are 1) 16x 5,5 mm 2) 12x4 mm and 3) 8,5x3 mm. Please use a caliper and measure. A digital one is preferable.
About the assayer Lev Oleks. In Postnikova (#2121 and #2122)it is stated that he marked 1890-1896. But Postnikova is written quite a many years ago and more researching and new findings have been made. FYI: There are quite many other questionable statements in Postnikova too e.g. take a look at Minsk. The latest information from another source from the year 2000 states the following regarding LO:
Lev Oleks assayed 1889-1890 Moscow, 1892 Moscow, 1895-1904 Moscow, 1905-1914 Kiev and 1915-1917 again in Moscow, There is no 1894, now make your own conclusions. But as Juke stated, the Russian marks aren't easy and there is no complete and/or fully correct "list/catalog/whatever" in the whole world to rely on. We just have to live with that.
The discussion above is very interesting and even if Juke thought that I wrote "fake" in hurry, i didn't. I still think the Russian cup is a fake. Moreover, like Postnikov mentioned, I am not eager to teach fakers of what's wrong or right. Therefore my rather blunt answers "fake" and that's it. I also mostly share Postnikov's opinion of what he states in this thread.
Anyway, there is not much to add to this discussion but I'd like to tell you that the troiniki (triple) assayer's punch has exact measures. There are tree different measures and they are not approximate values! The are 1) 16x 5,5 mm 2) 12x4 mm and 3) 8,5x3 mm. Please use a caliper and measure. A digital one is preferable.
About the assayer Lev Oleks. In Postnikova (#2121 and #2122)it is stated that he marked 1890-1896. But Postnikova is written quite a many years ago and more researching and new findings have been made. FYI: There are quite many other questionable statements in Postnikova too e.g. take a look at Minsk. The latest information from another source from the year 2000 states the following regarding LO:
Lev Oleks assayed 1889-1890 Moscow, 1892 Moscow, 1895-1904 Moscow, 1905-1914 Kiev and 1915-1917 again in Moscow, There is no 1894, now make your own conclusions. But as Juke stated, the Russian marks aren't easy and there is no complete and/or fully correct "list/catalog/whatever" in the whole world to rely on. We just have to live with that.
Re: LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Hi!
Just a short comment to Qrt.S to clarify what I meant, with hurry I just meant that you were not available at the forum for a time not that you would not have considered the original question of the cup as a fake. As both of you considered the cup a fake I am sure you are right.
Regards,
Juke
Just a short comment to Qrt.S to clarify what I meant, with hurry I just meant that you were not available at the forum for a time not that you would not have considered the original question of the cup as a fake. As both of you considered the cup a fake I am sure you are right.
Regards,
Juke
Re: LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Hi Juke -
just found the correct assayer and town markfor the year 1894. Skovronskij Aleksandr V.
Oleks was 1895 on duty.....
Regards
Postnikov
just found the correct assayer and town markfor the year 1894. Skovronskij Aleksandr V.
Oleks was 1895 on duty.....
Regards
Postnikov
Re: LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Correct, and that is what I said in my answer on Tuesday 28.9.2010 at 3:32 pm. Please scroll the screen to the beginning. And next time the matter popped up was on Sunday 3.10.2010 at 6:08 pm, please check.
Re: LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Hi!
Well this is going to be a long thred but interesting.
Skovronsky is mentioned in the PL for 1894 so this is not new information, there are in PL mentioned several assayers in Moscow for a particular year so Skovronsky don't exclude Oleks as a possible assayer for 1894. Assayers in Moscow in the 1890's:
- A.Romanov 1886-94
- Lev Oleks 1890-96 (according to Qrt.S 1889-1890, 1892, 1895-1904. Also as we all know Lebedkin was in Moscow 1899- so would have been the same time as Oleks)
- Vjurst 1891-94
- Artsibashev 1891-96
- Skovronsky 1894
etc.
I have understood that one of them was the main assayer but everybody seems to have had their own marks. I think this is not clear yet, however I understand that if there are some new information that Oleks would have only assayed 1889-1890, 1892, 1895-1904 in Moscow so we can accept this as it is. But what would he have done the years missing? How did they come to this conclusion as PL principle was to include only those years she found an assaying mark by the assayers. It would be interested to find out how they came to this conclusion and how PL did accept the missing years. For me the matter is purely academic, the spoons don't have big value for me.
I don't know if we can get further as I guess the knowledge on Oleks has not been clarified more in the source that Qrt.S have but we can accept as it is.
Regards,
Juke
Well this is going to be a long thred but interesting.
Skovronsky is mentioned in the PL for 1894 so this is not new information, there are in PL mentioned several assayers in Moscow for a particular year so Skovronsky don't exclude Oleks as a possible assayer for 1894. Assayers in Moscow in the 1890's:
- A.Romanov 1886-94
- Lev Oleks 1890-96 (according to Qrt.S 1889-1890, 1892, 1895-1904. Also as we all know Lebedkin was in Moscow 1899- so would have been the same time as Oleks)
- Vjurst 1891-94
- Artsibashev 1891-96
- Skovronsky 1894
etc.
I have understood that one of them was the main assayer but everybody seems to have had their own marks. I think this is not clear yet, however I understand that if there are some new information that Oleks would have only assayed 1889-1890, 1892, 1895-1904 in Moscow so we can accept this as it is. But what would he have done the years missing? How did they come to this conclusion as PL principle was to include only those years she found an assaying mark by the assayers. It would be interested to find out how they came to this conclusion and how PL did accept the missing years. For me the matter is purely academic, the spoons don't have big value for me.
I don't know if we can get further as I guess the knowledge on Oleks has not been clarified more in the source that Qrt.S have but we can accept as it is.
Regards,
Juke
Re: LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Well Juke, somehow you lost me know. But let me put it this way. First of all we are far out of topic regarding this thread but if this is accepted by our admin, I shall continue otherwise a new thread should be opened, Juke, you have the questions, haven't you?
Anyway, do not keep PL as your only bible for Russian maker's marks or hallmarking. It is undoubtedly a very good book but it has its weaknesses. A lot of recearching has happened since this book was written. Unfortunately PL contains also inaccurate as well as missing information here and there. It is also correct as Juke mentioned that Postnikova put more stress on known goldsmiths than unknown. However, some of them are known today.
Here are the Assayer's in Moscow assaying office as from 1880 to 1900. Depending on different sources some variations according to the working periods may occur.
---
1880-1883 AK Unknown assayer
1883-1893 ВП Vasilij Petrov
1883-1894 СШ Sergei Shostak
1886-1887 HK Nikolai Korbitskij
1886-1894 AP Aleksandr Romanov
1889-1890 ЛО Lev Oleks
1891-1894 PB Rudolf Würst
1891-1898 AB Aleksei Vasilijev
1892 ЛО Lev Oleks
1892-1894 HC Nikolai Stradomskij
1894 AC Aleksandr Skovronskij
1895-1904 ЛО Lev Oleks
1896-1904 CM Sergei Miljutin
1896-1908 AC Aleksandr Skovronskij
1896-1912 МФ Mihail Falejev
1897 HB Viener/Viner Nikolai
1897-1898 AA Anatoli Artsibaschev
1898-1914 ИЛ Ivan Lebedkin
1899-1900 KT? Konstantin Tumsky
1899-1916 CO Stahij Orlov
1901-1904 MP? Mihail Romanov
...
I think this will do for now. I apologize for possible transliterations faults or typos. A quick look tells me that there are no holes, or are they? If there are holes, kindly remember that hundreds of thousands of documents were destroyed around the turn of the century . This is the best we have available.
What comes to what did the assayer when he was not assaying. Actually I have no idea but an assayer was a skilled goldsmith. When he assayed he was not allowed to fabricate by himself. Probably he sat in his silver workshop and made things during such years while he was not an appointed assayer. This happen at least in St Petersburg.
Huh...your move...
Anyway, do not keep PL as your only bible for Russian maker's marks or hallmarking. It is undoubtedly a very good book but it has its weaknesses. A lot of recearching has happened since this book was written. Unfortunately PL contains also inaccurate as well as missing information here and there. It is also correct as Juke mentioned that Postnikova put more stress on known goldsmiths than unknown. However, some of them are known today.
Here are the Assayer's in Moscow assaying office as from 1880 to 1900. Depending on different sources some variations according to the working periods may occur.
---
1880-1883 AK Unknown assayer
1883-1893 ВП Vasilij Petrov
1883-1894 СШ Sergei Shostak
1886-1887 HK Nikolai Korbitskij
1886-1894 AP Aleksandr Romanov
1889-1890 ЛО Lev Oleks
1891-1894 PB Rudolf Würst
1891-1898 AB Aleksei Vasilijev
1892 ЛО Lev Oleks
1892-1894 HC Nikolai Stradomskij
1894 AC Aleksandr Skovronskij
1895-1904 ЛО Lev Oleks
1896-1904 CM Sergei Miljutin
1896-1908 AC Aleksandr Skovronskij
1896-1912 МФ Mihail Falejev
1897 HB Viener/Viner Nikolai
1897-1898 AA Anatoli Artsibaschev
1898-1914 ИЛ Ivan Lebedkin
1899-1900 KT? Konstantin Tumsky
1899-1916 CO Stahij Orlov
1901-1904 MP? Mihail Romanov
...
I think this will do for now. I apologize for possible transliterations faults or typos. A quick look tells me that there are no holes, or are they? If there are holes, kindly remember that hundreds of thousands of documents were destroyed around the turn of the century . This is the best we have available.
What comes to what did the assayer when he was not assaying. Actually I have no idea but an assayer was a skilled goldsmith. When he assayed he was not allowed to fabricate by himself. Probably he sat in his silver workshop and made things during such years while he was not an appointed assayer. This happen at least in St Petersburg.
Huh...your move...
Re: LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Ahhh! I forgot Juke's question about Lev Oleks. There is an interesting thing about him. You see there is no known documentation verifying that he worked in Moscow assaying office in 1892-1894 only to 1890 and as from 1895- 1904. However, some of you you have seen as well as I have seen some object carrying Lev Oleks marks ЛО and a year mark being either 1892 or 1894. I don't know why it is so but there is one common thing for these marks. They all seem to have this as Postnikov calls it "ant like" St George as the town mark. Could we draw some conclusions of this mystery? What Lev Oleks did between 1891-1894 I haven't the faintest idea, sorry for that. Does anyone have?