Hallmark identify

[madej]

Hallo.
Please hallmarks identify.
Dor better quality, please click on the image

[oel]

Hi, the (hall) marks to me look wrong.The oval shape of the kokoshnik and the figures, the kokoshnik head are not as it should be. It could be pseudo marks. To compare the kokohsnik see:
http://www.925-1000.com/Frussia_kokoshnik_01.html

Oel.

[Qrt.S]

I share Oel's opinion, a dubious mark and in the wrong place, no assayer's initials behind the neck etc.... In addition, the maker's mark looks to me like 8A and there was no such artel...or this would be the first ever seen...no way.

[AG2012]

Hi,
Just confirming previous comments and embedded wrong kokoshnik mark.
The head is beyond recognition, figure 84 distorted and no assayer (noticed by Qrt.S).
What happened with deep corrosion erasing the engraving? Have never seen anything like that unless it`s silver plate layer that vanished. I would suggest testing it for silver;many purses were made of plated alpaca throughout Europe at the time. Search for more marks everywhere.
Regards

[Goldstein]

Hi -

just a few thoughts about this purse:

I share Oel's opinion, a dubious mark and in the wrong place, no assayer's initials behind the neck etc.... In addition, the maker's mark looks to me like 8A and there was no such artel...or this would be the first ever seen...no way.

The marks are placed correct on the outside of the purse - inside is the fabric lining - no marking possible. All purses are marked like that.

What happened with deep corrosion erasing the engraving? Have never seen anything like that unless it`s silver plate layer that vanished. I would suggest testing it for silver;many purses were made of plated alpaca throughout Europe at the time.

What looks like corrosion is the rest of a former paper sticker or price tag - please see enlargement

The used chain is original (often changed against a new one) and time correct. Please compare .

The fabric lining is authentic and time correct. Please compare.

The mark looks crippelt - on the reverse is another one, maybe the OP can show this mark. My explanation: some dealers sandblasted (instead of handpolishing) their black, green and blue oxydized objects before selling them. If you have 50 or more objects to clean you can understand that - but it is a little barbaric. If you look closer to the surface you can see tiny pores - a typical sign.

My summary:
A 100% authentic purse with still unclear marks.

Regards
Goldstein

[Qrt.S]

How do you explain the missing assayer initials and incorrect figure font among other things? In addition, the maker's mark seems to show 8A. That would be sensational because articles from 8A have hardly ever been seen and this artel worked mainly with enamel and not even its mark is known. Sorry, but I have to make a correction, artel 8A existed but as said very few objects are known.

[olga_kehl]

I agree with Golshtein, the purse looks old. But engraving looks completely non-Russian. Like a child's drawing, imperfect.

[olga_kehl]

So, I think this nice old purse was without hallmarks, and without engraving.

Somebody made engraving. And hallmark. Both imperfect.

And sold.

[olga_kehl]

Sorry. I found silver Russian purse with the very similar engraving.



So maybe engraving is ok.

[Qrt.S]

The engraving is less important than the faked hallmark, THAT is important!

[olga_kehl]

I think it is not "8A", but "БЛ" or "БА".

[Goldstein]

Hi -
The purse is in all respects like it should be - compared to original authentic pieces.
To make a fake in that quality and authenticity is not possible without increasing the costs ten times to the amount of what you get selling it.
Only the shown mark is very strange - if the second mark from the backside is similar looking - than can we speak of fake marks.
What I do not understand: the purse is authentic of average quality and normal signs of use. If it was without marks (something that happened when it was never assayed) - somebody put some strange marks on it - destroying the value.
Never have seen such a nonsense. But I hope for the OP´s second photo of the backside.

Goldstein

[Qrt.S]

For once my apologies Goldstein.
Of course the 88-hallmark you show is upside down, how stupid of me not realizing that, sorry again.
Anyway, the purse might be authentic but the marks are more than dubious. Yes, probably added later and indeed destroying its value.

[Goldstein]

Hi -

Apologies accepted. I know from my own experience that sometimes one comes too fast to a misleading judgment. That is why a factual and friendly discussion based solely on facts is very important. If at the end a plausible solution stands, everyone has won.

Maybe we will see the marks from the backside sometimes - that may lead to a conclusive and more satisfactory judgment.

Goldstein