Fake Russian enameled cup?

[Daisy's Delight]

Can any one help with the marks on this cup? I have searched, and am beginning to think that I have a fake.
Thanks,
Daisy

[Postnikov]

Hi -
we don´t discuss fakes on thid site!

Regards
Postnikov

[Dad]

Hi Daisy.

I think, it is an original subject. Hallmarks normal. The assay master Smirnov Aleksander Alekseevich, Moscow 1878-1895. Silvermaster Ivan Yakovlevich Grishin (1892-1901 activ)
Russian letters " И Я Г "

Best regards.

[Postnikov]

Hi Dad -

newest reserches shows that A dot C is not Smirnov A. A. but Skovronskij A., working 1894 and 1895-1908 in Moscow. Postnikova is not always up to date!

Regards
Postnikov

[Daisy's Delight]

Hi Daisy.

I think, it is an original subject. Hallmarks normal. The assay master Smirnov Aleksander Alekseevich, Moscow 1878-1895. Silvermaster Ivan Yakovlevich Grishin (1892-1901 activ)
Russian letters " И Я Г "

Best regards.

Wow, I could not find any info on this, the Russian letters are what threw me. Thanks, dad. This is a great site!!!

Daisy

[Postnikov]

Hi dad -
forgot to mention that the mark of Grischin is ИЯГ. and he did not work in enamel!

Regards
Postnikov

[finnclouds]

Hope you don't mind a site newbie comment: Google finds an enamel spoon attributed to Grishin, sold at an auction in Uppsala a couple of years ago.

http://www.uppsalaauktion.se/objekt96673/syltsked.html

This is, of course, not proof for anything except that his mark has been seen on an enameled item recently. And not perhaps even that as the auction site does not show the marks.

A quick question to Postnikov re forgot to mention that the mark of Grischin is ИЯГ. Wasn't sure if I understand correctly that those initials are indeed how Grishin signed? I hope it's ok to go this far in discussing a possible fake. Thanks!

[Postnikov]

Welcome on board finnclouds -

Please understand why I do not want to discuss fakes and explain why they are fakes! All the experts on this site agreed that we do not want to educate the fakers! We only want to enjoy and talk about real Russian silver.

The spoon you mentioned: here it is enlarged - please note the red rectangles: the twisted wire connections are unprecise, the "edges" are open! No enamel maker would have done something like that! Please try to get an original and compare.
The quality is always one of the several characteristics of an authentic object. Second indication - Grischin did not work in enamel. Third indication: the marks. You really have to work forensic! I do not want to go further - there are more striking details...



Your question about the mark of Grischin: it is not ИЯГ, it is ИЯГ.! See the dot at the end? Every detail is important....

Regards
Postnikov

[finnclouds]

Thanks for the quick reply, Postnikov!

I think I should have used a couple of more "allegeds" in my post to make it clear I wasn't alleging the spoon was real. :-) I've been reading the forums and your informative posts for about three years (from Sazikov to Postnikov, I presume) so I fully understand and appreciate your concerns. Even so , it is sometimes frustrating for someone trying to learn from the masters -- for fully legitimate and honest reasons.

I missed the dot at the end -- took it to be the end of the sentence period. My bad. Blame it on too many kids who don't capitalize.

Thanks again.

[Dad]

Hi, Postnikov.

I will not argue. Though, Postnikova - authority. Anyway, this subject is original.

Set of letters such as you have specified «ИЯГ». The Dot — not the most important thing in this case. There could be variants. Rare enough combination of letters.
We can't assert definitely that the workshop of Grishin didn't work with enamel.
In this workshop worked to 25 masters.

Best regards.

[Daisy's Delight]

Hi, Postnikov.

I will not argue. Though, Postnikova - authority. Anyway, this subject is original.

Set of letters such as you have specified «ИЯГ». The Dot — not the most important thing in this case. There could be variants. Rare enough combination of letters.
We can't assert definitely that the workshop of Grishin didn't work with enamel.
In this workshop worked to 25 masters.

Best regards.

Thank you all for trying to help. There is a period after after the initials, because it is dirty it is hard to see. I am posting the location of the cup itself. I am still confused. I too understand why you don't want to discuss fakes but I still need help for legit reasons.
Thank you.
Daisy


http://b.imagehost.org/t/0528/Russian_cup.jpg

[Qrt.S]

This is not a questions of arguing but questions of facts. How can this be so difficult? First of all dot or not is more than important! In addition, it is as well important is the dot centralized or not, is it big or small or completely missing etc. Just compare the dot's size and location with this often seen damn B dot C Moscow mark who is almost always claimed to be Victor Savinkov, a non existing assayer.....!! But, B dot C can be three other assayers depending on the year but no Savinsky here! Nevertheless, the mark on the object is a big MAYBE! Under no circumstances it is Smirnoff but Skovronskij. But there is a big IF, is it authentic? I have my doubts and I tend to share Postnikov's opinion.

Because it is a possible fake I will not go into details why it is Skovronskij for already expalined reasons.
Dad! There are no variants !The assayers' punches were without exceptions made in St Peterburg's Mint office and distributed to the assayers. They were not made anywhere by any assayer himself around the country. Do you Dad think that the official Mint Office would have made variations, do you really? No, that is out of question, they didn't.

However, I share Dad's statement that we cannot exclude with certainty the claim the Grishin wouldn't have worked with enamel. It is possible but unlike.

But back to the marks. There are other things in the marks that hints fake. This is my humble opinion.

Have a nice evening

Qrt.S

[Daisy's Delight]

Would it be wise to clean this item? Maybe with a silver polishing cloth?
Thank you,
Daisy

[Postnikov]

Hi Daisy´s Delight -

it would be a great help to show the little stopka on a larger photo, where we can see more of the enamel work and its quality. Maybe we can come closer to a final conclusion.

Hi Dad -

what we do here is no know-all nonsense of some members - we really try hard and with the help of all sources and contributors to make enquiries about Russian silver and shed some light on the found objects. Any expert help is very welcome!
As you might know already, Postnikova is not always right - and there are lists where all the major enamel makers are listed.

Hi finnclouds-

There is always the possibility to send a PM to the selected person with all your questions and doubts(re fakes!). Learning is the best you can do before you spend a lot of money on worthless things.

Regards
Postnikov

[Daisy's Delight]

Hope this does the trick. Again, Thank you for your help.
Daisy

http://d.imagehost.org/view/0370/Russian_cup

[Postnikov]

Hi Daisy´s Delight -

Maybe you do not know how enamel clausonné (that´s what you have) is made: twisted wires were soldered in a certain pattern to a surface - for example your stopka (this little things are not called "cups")! Very time consuming and asking for highest precision. After that done, every cell (that is why it is called cell enamel sometimes) is enamelled, than baked in a special oven. Every colour needed an extra baking!! Very time consuming and asking for highest precision. That finished, the surface between the cells was gilded an decorated with a punch. It took several weeks to finish one object! The Russian enamel artists were world famous for their technique and shaded colours( exhibitions on several world fairs, Chicago, St. Francisko etc. -- google is your friend!). Very expensive objects.

Now look at your stopka:

All the "open ends" in the pattern (yellow rectangle).



The lookalike twisted wires, which are not soldered but made by electro galvanisation



Now an authentic stopka:

No "open ends"



Real twisted wires and real punch marks



Sorry for the bad photos - but it is 3 o´clock in the morning

I hope you see some important differences - but you can only see if you know more about "Russian cups"....

Regards and no more dubious purchases
Postnikov

[Dad]

Hi Qrt.S

Where I spoke about variants assayers' punches? I spoke about variants of punches of silver masters.
Russian silvermasters used different punches. And quality of work not at all was as at Сhlebnikov.
Anyway, I consider punches are original, on this photo. You consider their false. This is your opinion. And the true is learned only in live contact.

Text from Ivanov A.N. :

Best Regards.

[Qrt.S]

Correct Dad, you spoke about maker's marks, my fault sorry about that. Anyway, when investigating an object I pay much more attention to the hallmark than to the maker's mark. If the hallmark satisfies me then I look more closely at the maker's mark and make my judgment regarding the authenticity of the object.

Anyway, back to the statement you made that; ...As from 1896.... It is an interesting statement and I like to ask you on which page it is stated in Ivanov? The obligation for goldsmiths to officially register was stipulated in the Edict of 13th February 1700 and I have not noticed that this regulation should have been abolished in any edict or assay charter released after 1700 (-1917). I tried to find the statement from the Assay Charter of 1896 but I didn't. It is very heavy and boring reading so I might have missed it but still I would appreciate if you told me where in Ivanov is it mentioned (green or blue?). However, the main stress should be put on investigating the hallmark and not the maker's mark. If the hallmark turns out to be faked, it means that the object is a fake irrespective of what the maker's mark looks like.

Of course it is my opinion only. Everybody is free to have an own one, no problem with that.

Rgds

Qrt.S

[Dad]

A.N.Ivanov “Gold and silversmiths in Russia (1600 — 1926)”, volume 1, page 17

[Qrt.S]

Thank you, I found it. I was looking in Assaying and Hallmarking in Russia 1700-1946 where it should be. No wonder I didn't find it. However, still I wonder why isn't it stated a single word about this abolition in the Hallmarking book in the respective place of the assay charter of 1896? Well unfortunately there are amazingly many other inaccuracies in Ivanov's books I'm afraid. I'm sorry but I cannot take this seriously until I find it in the actual original charter of 1896. It's in Russian and will take a lot of time....to me. Until then I must consider the statement in the blue book as a random statement only and therefore unofficial.
Have a nice evening

Qrt.S