mikkitobi wrote:I assume these fakes are NOT usually made of silver?
blakstone wrote:Konstantin Maximovich Kolpakov, son of Vilnius assayer Maxim Grigorievich Kolpakov, was born in 1842 and graduated from the St. Petersburg Assayer’s School in 1860, upon which he was appointed an assistant assayer in St. Petersburg. His first appointment as a full assayer was to Kiev on 21 Jun 1862. However, within months, on 10 Sep 1862, he was transferred to Kaunas/Kovno, replacing disgraced assayer Feyodor Ivanov, who was found to have been smuggling gold articles which he then illegally marked. Kolpakov remained at Kaunas/Kovno without interruption until the 1896 re-organization of assay office personnel.
Leizer Pinchusovich Scheinker was born in 1850 and recognized as a master in the Vilnius Jewish Goldsmith’s Guild on 9 Jun 1874. He was registered at the Vilnius Assay Office from 1877 to 1900 and is recorded as having four apprentices 1883-1889.
This seems to be definitive: Kolpakov was assayer at Kaunas/Kovno 1862-1896, while Scheinker was registered at Vilnius 1877-1900. But I concur with what everyone else has said: the dodgy look of the marks and questionable workmanship are evidence enough that the buckle is not authentic.
Ref: Edmundas Laucevicius, Lietuvos auksakalyste : XV-XIX amzius [Lithuanian Goldsmiths, 15th-19th Centuries], (Vilnius: Baltos Lankos, 2001), pp. 382-383, maker #II.952; p. 408-409, assayer #13.
Qrt.S wrote:Mikkitobi, kindly take a look on what I wrote about the marks on the tora pointer.
In addition, there are undoubtedly some similarities with Simbirsk town crest. However, Simbirsk is rather far from Lithuania much closer to the Ural mountains. But Kaunas/Kovno is in the neighborhood. Its mark looks a bit like this one. Moreover, Konstantin Kolpakov seems to have assayed in Kaunas too 1865-1896. This is a problem because Kolpakov is mentioned to have assayed in Vilnius 1882-1894 or 1882-1884. He cannot have assayed in two places at the same time. Something is wrong. Where did Schejnkner work and where and when did Kolpakov assay?
Nonetheless, I think I share Zolotnik's opinion, the marks are more than dubious.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests