www.925-1000.com

Hi,

If this is a genuine old Russian wodkacup, who could be the maker?

http://i55.tinypic.com/25a6sfs.jpg

http://i56.tinypic.com/dxbrpf.jpg

Regards,

Zilverik

Hi -

please try to provide sharp detail photos of the marks - they look strange to me.

Regards
Zolotnik

Hi Zolotnik,

This photo is maybe better. The CC mark looks strange to me because it does not look like a real stamp. What do you think?

http://i53.tinypic.com/2ljg8iw.jpg

Regards,

Zilverik

Hi zilverik -

thanks for the better photo. In my opinon a "contemporary/fake" piece. All the marks are wrong or phantasy.

Regards
Zolotnik

Hi Zolotnik,

Thank you very much. I had my doubts already. Now I rest my case.
Please have a look at my Faberge (?) statue I just posted. What do you think, it is a fake as well?

Regards,

Zilverik

Hi, all.
Zolotnik, It is necessary to be consecutive. If "a small cup" from other theme is the original, nothing prevents to be this "wodkacup" the original. MБ - Borovshchikov Michail (1755-1768) - assaymaster. Sacred George - city mark of Moscow 176(*) (Postnikova: № 1972-1980). The third mark is badly visible. It's the master's punch.
I will repeat: "If to be consecutive...."

Best Reg..

Hi Dad -

Maybe I do not understand exactly what you want to say - but if you doubt that the other Tscharka is not genuin - go ahead. I wrote "in my opinion"! As you know, Russian silver from around 1700 is sometimes very funny marked. For a fake it is made with a lot of knowledge - but from photos you never know....

The other Tscharka - I am pretty sure that it is a fake.

Regards
Zolotnik

Hi, all.
As to me, good marks, good tipical charka.

Hi Child,

Thank you. So, do I understand you right: you do agree with Dad? He said: MБ - Borovshchikov Michail (1755-1768) - assaymaster. Sacred George - city mark of Moscow 176(*) (Postnikova: № 1972-1980. But, what about the strange CC mark? It does not look good to me. Like it was not punched. It that case it is probably a fake and then Zolotnik is right.

Regards,

Zilverik

Hi, zilverik!
I am absolutly agrea with Dad. All marks good, "CC" too.

Hi Child,

Thank you for your opinion. What does the CC stands for?

Regards,

Zilverik

The CC does not look particularly good to me. But if both Dad and Child say so, they have something to compare with and in that case also must know who it is. Who is it? Please tell us Dad and Child? Thank you in advance.

I have done some research on these marks and would like to add to the discussion. First, I show the marks from Postnikova of the Assay mark for Mickail Borovshchikov. Notice that there is no dot between the initials.


Second, are possible St. George city marks for the time period.


Third, only one silversmith working in Russia the same time as Mickail Borovshchikov 1755-1768. Semion Semiginovski, a master in Kiev from 1750-1787. He made church items, drinking cups and used the hammer technique for patterns.


I realize Kiev to Moscow is a long distance. But Semion Semiginovski did not have assayers working in Kiev for most of his career. The first Kiev assayer is listed as 1787. Perhaps more discussion of authenticity is needed.

Some issues to keep in mind when talking about Russian silver marks. The first assayer in Kiev was Ivan Serebrennikov in 1778. Feel free to add this name in Postnikova for #579. He was there for one year only. Moreover, a Russian goldsmith had to register him working in some town. It was forbidden to register in several towns at the same time. Postnikova states that this CC mentioned by silvercollector99 was registered in Kiew. In other words she has found out that he worked/was registered in Kiew. That means that he could not have been registered in Moscow and even less that he would have had his objects marked with Moscow's town crest. Forget about this CC in Kiew. He has nothing to do with this case.

Silvercolloector99 also states and quite correct that there is no dot between the assayer's initials but in the questioned mark there is. Strange, but what might that indicate? Maybe what already has been said about this object, a dubious one with suspicious marks. However, factum est that some assayers did not use a dot especially in 18th century and early 19th even if most of the assayers did use a centralized dot. It has been stated many times earlier that fakers do not always bother to investigate what was the correct marking procedure. Placing a commonly used dot here might be a fatal mistake and that's it!

FYI,
When you have Kiew open in front of you anyway, make some more amendments:
next line below # 582 is assayer Harald Pjotr Beck who marked Х-В and the line below him is assayer Pjotr Dutkin marking П-Д and finally #586 i.e assayer C-O who is Stahij Orlov. The unknown master #615-617 is Igor E. Zavijanov. Spell the names as it pleases you.

Have a nice Sunday

Hi Child and Dad -

we all are still waiting for your valuable explanations why this fake is no fake!

Regards
Zolotnik

So we are indeed as well as the sources on Russian masters not known by anybody else but you.

Hi, All.

I don't know who such СС. But what it changes? It doesn't mean that it wasn't. I repeat. If you recognize the first "charka" original, I don't understand why the second "charka" is fake.

Postn.-Loseva and Ivanov in the books have described silversmiths who could identify. Many masters haven't been identified. For an example: you consider, what at Rosenberg all German masters are listed?

Confuses only very typical design.)))

For an example, similar items:

http://i54.tinypic.com/218qw.jpg



http://i52.tinypic.com/9svt3r.jpg
(admin photo edit - images too large - link only - see Posting Requirements )


etc.

Best Reg..

Hi Dad -
even if things look similar - they must not be the same!
3 arguments why the second Tscharka is a fake:
1) the condition is mint after been hidden wellpacked in a cup board for ca. 150 years. Look at your shown examples...
2) the centering point on the bottom the fakers forgot to erase (industrially made!) is a clear give away. See photo.
3) the untypic/wrong and unclear marks on an otherwise flawless piece.



Regards
Zolotnik

Hi,

Zolotniks argument that this Tscharka is a fake because "the condition is mint after been hidden wellpacked in a cup board for ca. 150 years", does not hold. When I bought the cup it was not in a mint state at all, in fact it was full of misforms and dents. A good silversmith made it look better. This brings me to the following remark: when Zolotnik has to use this argument to prove that this Tscharka is a fake, for me that is a sort of disqualification in the reasoning about the genuineness of this Tscharka. It easy to just say that an object is a fake. There should be good arguments and the fact that the condition is mint, doesn't mean anything.

I add some better photo's of the Tscharka. Now the strange "CC" I observed earlier, looks more like EE in Cyrillic (that is the turnaround the latin E). I must admit, it still looks strange to me.
Not good to see on the photo: on the upperpart and the inside there are rests of gold. The underpart has no rests ogf gold on the outside.

Regards,

Zilverik

An items condition is only one thing to consider when analyzing it.
I wouldn't mind if you read my argumentation too dear Zilverik. Moreover, about the "E oborotnoe" (backward E) i.e. Э. Unfortunately it is absolutely impossible that the initials would be ЭЭ. You see this Cyrillic letter Э, Latin E, can be any other letter in a word but not the first. In addition, it is a rather seldom used letter. Russia is a complicated language.

However, looking at your new pictures shows another alternative. It could be EE and that could be Jevdokim Jevdokimov 1739-1780 in Moscow and he made charkas. But we still have the problem with the dot in the assayer's mark. Even if the marking now seems to fit, I'm still very very doubtful, but....maybe....or maybe not?

Nonetheless, but I would think twice before I let a silversmith "lay a hand" on an old silver object. It should be badly damaged if I let...if I let at all. You see, In that case you have a new situation, should it be fixed a bit only or restored or repaired to its original condition or what and how much should be "corrected"? What would be the result not talk about the change in value....up or down? Difficult to decide, usually better let it be as it is.
But as always, this is only my personal opinion...