Authentic or fake Faberge? Cigarette Case

[chris1]

Is it original or fake?

I want to confirm because for me looks like the original

Silver cigarette case engraved crown in one corner

[AG2012]

1.Maker`s mark is overstuck with fake Faberge mark (red arrows).
2. One would expect better artistic quality from Faberge

In my humble opinion the cigarette case cannot be attributed to Faberge

[chris1]

Thank you for your answer ...
After careful viewing also I think it's fake. Now also I have no doubt

It's a shame, I thought I would be able to buy a good product Faberge for little money

[AG2012]

You should see what`s done !
1.Transposed marks (genuine marks cut out of e.g worthless spoons and inserted into more lucrative pieces- compare with ``duty dodgers`` in UK).So, you have genuine marks in faked objects.
2. New partial gilding (partially covered with wax and then electro-gilded)
3. Overstuck marks or fake marks.
etc.
My advice is not to start with Faberge.
Best regards

[chris1]

I live in Poland ...
Someone sent me a photo of a proposal to buy this object
That's why earlier I wanted to get more information.
Now I know that this is a false object
thank you

[Qrt.S]

The vast majority of so called "Fabergé-objects" for sale on whatever internet-sites are up to more than 90% fakes. I support AG2012´s opinion. Moreover, there are other things indicating that this cannot be an authentic Fabergé object.

[Dad]

Hi, All
I believe it's original punches. Let's it be my "minority report" ))
I believe you know that it is the moscow's Fabergé + the retailer in this case. This mark is often in this period.

[AG2012]

In short, this is what I think: genuine marks are the assayer, 84 and Moscow St.George. Maker`s mark is deliberately overstruck with ``Faberge`` mark.

[Qrt.S]

The problem with the punches are the following. It is a bit unclear where assayer Lev Oleks was and did 1891-1892. Different information in different sources. Correct what is possibly wrong regarding his working periods in the table below:

Oleks, Lev Fjodorovich Л·О
Moskva 1889-1890
Moskva? 1891-1892 or where was he??? See P#2121, note the strange years?
Moskva 1893-1904
Kiev 1905-1914
Moskva 1915-1917

In addition, The assayer's punch Л·О with the year 1891 or 1892 has been found on faked objects now and then. Until clear evidences are shown regarding Lev Oleks doings during the mentioned years, I consider this hallmark at least dubious....if not spurious....

The Fabergé mark is faked. I will not fall into details why it is because I rather not discuss faked marks here. Fakers read these sites too and I have no intention to "teach" them what is incorrect in a faked mark/punch. Moreover, the quality is not Fabergé-quality as already mentioned, not even close to it. This does not mean that the box wouldn't be "genuine" but it is made by somebody else (the over stamp).
Finally as always, this is a personal opinion only and by no means an "amen".

[Dad]

The problem with the punches are the following. It is a bit unclear where assayer Lev Oleks was and did 1891-1892. Different information in different sources. Correct what is possibly wrong regarding his working periods in the table below:

Oleks, Lev Fjodorovich Л·О
Moskva 1889-1890
Moskva? 1891-1892 or where was he??? See P#2121, note the strange years?
Moskva 1893-1904
Kiev 1905-1914
Moskva 1915-1917

In addition, The assayer's punch Л·О with the year 1891 or 1892 has been found on faked objects now and then. Until clear evidences are shown regarding Lev Oleks doings during the mentioned years, I consider this hallmark at least dubious....if not spurious....

Dear Qrt.S.

You write every time since old : Oleks didn't work in Moscow 1891-92. But every time I try to convince you: it is mistake. The attribution shouldn't be based on absence of information. Lev Oleks worked in the Moscow assay office in 1890, and in 1891, and in 1892, and in 1893, and in 1894, and in 1895 and etc.

I hope this illustration from the Moscow book (1891-1892) will help you trust to me )))
This reference book was formed in 1891 for 1892. The book in a free access in an Internet.

[Qrt.S]

OK, OK Dad, i have forgotten it, sorry. It so many thing to remember nowadays and I'm getting older and older every day :-(((. I shall now correct my lists. Anyway, then the assaying mark is most likely authentic, but the master's mark is still a fake.

[Ubaranda]

Lev Oleks was in Moscow in 1891-92. I believe these marks are not fake.

[Goldstein]

What do the "experts" explain now? Maybe the OP had thrown the case in the trash...

[dognose]

Hi Goldstein,

Welcome to the Forum.

Are you actually asking a question? .....Or just sharing with us some images from a book.

Trev.

[Qrt.S]

@Goldstein
Are blind or what? Take a good look an compare the cases and especially the quality.

[AG2012]

Not much difference except for two-color GOLD and sapphire.

[Goldstein]

Due to the unfriendly reception I waive a further discussion!

[dognose]

Hi Goldstein,

Did you expect that your opening jibe would get no reaction?

Perhaps you may be interested in the later posts in this topic: http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic ... 46&t=21991

I'm sure we all hope we have not heard the last from you and our welcome still stands.

Trev.

[Qrt.S]

You surprise me dear AG2012

Not much difference except for two-color GOLD and sapphire.

??? The shown cigarette case has nothing to do with Fabergé. It hasn't even "visited" Fabergés workshop but is is a rather good "copy". As stated many times earlier "... the vast majority >90% of so called "Fabergé-objects" for sale on the markets and especially internet ones are fakes!"

Unfortunately we have learn that even in books fakes are sometimes shown...

[Qrt.S]

After carefully consider this case...
It more or less "decided" that fakes should not be discussed and I rather not do it. However, there are no rules without exceptions. So this cigarette case is most likely "genuine" but not made by Fabergé in Moscow. It is a copy for the following reasons in addition of those already mentioned by AG2012 earlier:

1. Fabergé did in fact over-struck on in particularly enameled objects (e.g. made by F. Rückert) but he would never have allowed a struck that left the original mark visible, not even partly like in this case. That would have been totally unacceptable.
2. The frame of the court supplier mark has an octagonal frame i.e. cut corners. I cannot recall seen that earlier on authentic Fabergé objects, not even on his mass produced objects from Moscow.
3. The maker's mark "K. FABERGE" has as well a frame with cut corners never seen before on authentic objects but yes on fakes.

Summa summarum for the second time; an authentic object with genuine hallmarks but a faked maker's mark. The book Goldstein is referring to can be thrown into the waste basket where is thrown another well known book already...

Kindly read carefully the link Dognose is referring to. It contains valuable information. Here it is http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic ... 46&t=21991