Unknown 18th century makers mark

[Kirils]

Hello. I have this beautiful silver cup made in 1745. Does anyone know this maker: АЕЛ? Thank you for your help in advance.

[AG2012]

Hi,
Heart shaped mark is not a maker but non existing alderman`s mark.
I doubt the beaker is authentic.
Regards

[Kirils]

Hi,
Heart shaped mark is not a maker but non existing alderman`s mark.
I doubt the beaker is authentic.
Regards

Thank you for your reply. What makes you think it is not authentic?

[Kirils]

Hi,
Heart shaped mark is not a maker but non existing alderman`s mark.
I doubt the beaker is authentic.
Regards

BTW, There were also heart-shaped marks of the maker, not only alderman's.

[AG2012]

What makes you think it is not authentic?

Alderman`s mark is wrong (non existing assay master in 1745).

[Kirils]

What makes you think it is not authentic?

Alderman`s mark is wrong (non existing assay master in 1745).

This could be a maker, why do you think its alderman? The year is 1745, Moscow, Probing master is CG (Grigoriev Kuzma) - he worked from 1741 - 1752.

[Kirils]

Please see this assay master:

[Qrt.S]

Please believe what AG102 tells you. He is absolutely right. This is a very very suspicious object. Grigorjev Kuzma was an assayer (an official) in Moscow 1838-49. He didn't "make" anything. As an official he only guaranteed the legal silver fineness of an object. He is not know to have made anything. There is not either a maker's mark on this "piece". In addition, as already mentioned, no known alderman (chairman of the guild) with those initials at that time either. Sorry my good man!

However, yes it could be a master, but maker's marks i "heart shaped" shield are rare! This doesn't belong to those!

[Qrt.S]

Sorry I made a minor typo. Kuzma's working period as an assayer was 1738(41)-1749.

[Kirils]

Please believe what AG102 tells you. He is absolutely right. This is a very very suspicious object. Grigorjev Kuzma was an assayer (an official) in Moscow 1838-49. He didn't "make" anything. As an official he only guaranteed the legal silver fineness of an object. He is not know to have made anything. There is not either a maker's mark on this "piece". In addition, as already mentioned, no known alderman (chairman of the guild) with those initials at that time either. Sorry my good man!

However, yes it could be a master, but maker's marks i "heart shaped" shield are rare! This doesn't belong to those!

Thank you for your message. I do know that he was an assayer, what AG2012 has written is that there is no such assayer. What I'm trying to prove is that this is him and he worked in that period of time. I do not understand why you think it is alderman. I can see 14 maker marks that are heart-shaped and starts with the letter A, this are not to count those that are not known.

[Qrt.S]

I believe you are misunderstanding me. Kuzma was as said an assayer. The alderman's mark has usually a "heart shaped" or rather similar shield. The problem here is that there is no maker's mark on the cup and that is alarming! CG is supposed to be the assayer and АЕЛ is supposed to be alderman, but...... as said more than suspicious marks!
BTW!
Do not rely too much on Postnikova. Unfortunately her book contains unfortunately quite a lot of incorrect information. Take a look on page 200 MINSK. Most of the marks there belong to Warsaw. This is only one example. I could tell about a 100 more "faults".

[AG2012]

Wrong marks are important clue , but there is always more; how it`s made - pay attention to the embossed decor.
What do we have here ? An eagle trying to catch the donkey ?

[Juke*]

I think this is a tricky one, the heart shaped mark could of course be a makers mark, then there would be missing the alderman mark, then of course it could have been worn out. As the makers mark is missing from several of the known catalogs is a rare issue, of course it could be a totally unknown mark which is not expected. All these makes questions and don't help in the definition towards an authenticity.

On the other hand the beaker clearly have the wear, shape and ornamentation of an 18th century beaker. These Russian beakers anyway typically have carved lines and repoussé work for the ornamentation. This beakers ornamentation (eagle etc) seems to be carved to the surface which is different.

In my view all these don't directly and necessarily mean the beaker is not authentic. I anyway could not give a sure statement for authenticity as these issues raises questions which are always problematic towards ensuring an authenticity.

[Kirils]

I'm uploading more photos, maybe you will have some other thoughts. BTW it is not a donkey, it is probably a wolf or a fox. Thank you all again for this discussion.

[Kirils]

Do you think that alderman mark is is mandatory? I can see many examples where there are only 3 marks: City mark, assay mark, and maker.

[Juke*]

Do you think that alderman mark is is mandatory? I can see many examples where there are only 3 marks: City mark, assay mark, and maker.

To my experience the alderman mark is expected to be there as he was responsible for ensuring and probing the silver content for the guild. He was the eldest in the guild and for sure felt the high responsibility to ensure the silver contents. If the content was accepted he put his mark on the item. If the alderman mark is not seen on an object typically it is believed to have worn out or mixed under the other marks. Marks were quite often struck during this period even on each other.

This practice was used during the 18th century after which the responsibility was taken by the local state owned offices. Qrt.S knows best these practices.

Your later photos are again quite untypical for the period and not what to expect, thereby I would say they feel more like end of 19th century made than mid 18th century.

[Mart]

I don't think that at this time the Aldermans have already started to put their brands. The shape of the master's stamp is not uncommon.

[Juke*]

I don't think that at this time the Aldermans have already started to put their brands. The shape of the master's stamp is not uncommon.

This is a good point and it is true that the alderman marking would have started first after the mid 18th century so this can be the reason. Also can be noted that the earlier the item a missing mark is not a total exclusion of authenticity. Thereby I would not exclude the authenticity just based on the markings on the item.

Then it is to the work of the item where the style seems to be correct with baroque/rococo ornamentation. However typically the ornamentation on Russian 18th century beakers are more plain with repoussé work from inside out and carvings of leaves etc. This beaker has more and deeper carvings than typically seen. The different animals are not a total exclusion as they tend to be somewhat naivistic in their looks from this period. This beaker could of course be of different and higher quality than usual Russian beakers, anyway on some parts it feels more a later item with more mid European style quality and influence from the historicism period.

As said this is a tricky one and I have not the confidence to say if it is authentic even that I have spent over twenty years with collecting and following Russian silver item sales on auctions.

[AG2012]

How do you explain CG (Kuzma Grigorjev) initials in Latin ? Not even KG, but C for Cuzma.

[Kirils]

CG (Kuzma Grigorjev) assayer mark is quite common. I have seen it on a few items that were made in this period of time. I have no explanation of why it is CG, not KG. Probably we will never know. I have also found a beaker with a similar motif. Take a look below.