Cloisonne Egg Pendant

[skinscientist]

Hi everyone,

I have been a long-time reader of the forum for educational purposes and have worked to get my knowledge of Russian silver up to speed, but I still have a long way to go. You have all been a great help. My knowledge of cloisonné and its makers during the late 19th century is rather weak, and I was hoping you could help with your impressions of the authenticity and possible maker of a piece.

This egg pendant is about 3 cm tall. I am torn as to its authenticity. In its favor, the color palette isn't overly garish, the foliate and scrollwork style is consistent with late 19th century work, and I find the bail to be of an interesting style that is particularly Russian and seen on other small enameled objects. However, the city mark is odd, and I can't tell what it is supposed to be. The wires are also strangely flat in some places and do not fully connect to form cells as seen in the image of the bottom of the pendant.

If the maker's mark is genuine and not a fantasy/forged mark, I think it could be (in cyrillic) NA, IA, ND, or ID. As the piece doesn't appear to be of the quality of Nikolai Alekseev, I feel it is probably "ND" of St. Petersburg and the city mark is the crossed key and anchor. Supposedly, this unidentified ND made other (guilloche) egg pendants and two cloisonne spoons which have been previously auctioned through Christie's and Sotheby's.

Please let me know your thoughts. I am interested as this piece is very unlike the other "Russian" cloisonne pendants that are seen all over the internet. I can't seem to find anything quite like it except for some larger eggs pendants by cloisonne masters which opened to reveal icons.

Thanks!

P.S. I apologize for linking the images instead of embedding them. The images were not appearing in the post preview. If anyone knows how to trouble shoot that, kindly let me know.

https://imgur.com/DVbg2Bs
https://imgur.com/SAonInu

[silvermakersmarks]

HI and welcome to the forum. To embed images you must post the URLs of the images themselves and surround them with the image tags which you can include by clicking the picture icon which appears above the post composition box:





Phil

[Juke*]

Hi!

The enamel items are often tricky ones. If we compare the shown one to authentic ones there are several problematic issues like enamel quality work, silver wire quality work, unclear marks etc which was also already referred to. In these cases the wish for authenticity often goes past the facts and what one can see. One can always ask if during the competitive imperial silver market these kind of sloppy works would have existed? Often egg pendants with very well known court supplier marks which has same similarities of sloppy work are obvious fakes. Thereby my judgment is that this one also is most probably a fake.

Regards,
Juke

[skinscientist]

Than you, Juke. After further research I think the city mark is supposed to be the top of the Kostroma sailing ship. Why the top of the ship appears halfway down the 84 though I do not know. As you say, did such sloppy cloisonne exist in provincial Russian works? Probably not.

I will stay in my lane of expertise which happens to be the "egg pendants with very well known court suppliers" that you speak of -- I have a small collection of translucent enameled miniature eggs by Faberge that have been authenticated by globally-known academics and authors of Faberge catalogues raisonne. These have become the objects of my study and devotion, and as you comment there are quite literally thousands of imitations, homages, and forgeries for sale at any one time, even by reputable dealers.

I was hoping to add a non-Faberge cloisonne piece to the collection to provide some breadth but it seems this may not be the one.

[bijoux.expert]

In my humble opinion, the quality of the wirework and enamel is very poor and the egg is not the work of a renowned maker.

[skinscientist]

Bijoux.expert,

I think we all agree it is not by a renowned maker. I thought perhaps a low quality provincial maker. Am I to take it that you do not think it is period either, but a later reproduction?

Best

[Juke*]

Here are similar types of fake egg pendants. These were produced just for touristic purposes with added fake marks to mislead. You should believe what you see, wishful thinking can easily mislead. I also need to add that the mark on the egg pendant shown by you is also wrong as the purity/city mark should be one.









I highly recommend you to stick to the high quality Fabergé egg pendants and leave the poor quality ones outside your collection. I also wanted to mention that even Sotheby's sold this clumsy fake egg pendant as Fabergé.

[skinscientist]

Thank you for your input, Juke. I don't want to believe anything, only trying to learn. I have seen the eggs you show, including the one shown at Sotheby's. I find it questionable as well, certainly not by Faberge. But I hesitate to say that it's entirely fake. If you dig a little deeper you will find that prior to the 2021 sale at Sotheby's it was sold as part of a lot of eggs in 2019 at Doyle (second image):

(admin edit - see Posting Requirements )

The provenance was as follows:

Grand Duchess Marie Georgievna of Russia (1876-1940).
Princess Nina Georgievna Chavchavadze (1901-1974).
Prince David Pavlovich Chavchavadze (1924-2014).
By descent to the present owner.

Take that as you will. Provenance is easily fabricated. Anyway, I'm sure that is the reason why Sotheby's accepted it as a genuine Russian antique.

[Juke*]

Good to hear that you have seen these in the last 100 years fabricated copies/fakes before. I can also see you have an educated knowledge of the subject so I am sure you are able to recognize the questionable ones to be defined authentic or not.

I understand well if Sotheby's did make the decision of the sale based on the provenance. However I consider the sale decision should be made also according to the item itself and if it has some uncertainties but I understand if the client was well known for them. Possibility is of course it is a very worn one and would be authentic. Equal possibility is that the memory of the provenance is not accurate which is very human and could then be more easily judged not authentic. As said especially enamel items are tricky ones. My philosophy as a collector has always been to decline any items which has any susceptibility and uncertainty, it just makes collecting and life much more easy without the struggle to continuously question the questionable ones in the collection and ones mindset.

[skinscientist]

Thanks, I appreciate you sharing your knowledge. I think your collecting ethos is wise, though my personal goals are different. Someday, I hope I can represent the full spectrum of quality and expense of Russian silver- and goldsmithing in the late Imperial era. For the reasons discussed in this thread, it's proving more difficult to recognize period, lower-quality, "everyday" objects than it is the masterpieces. For now, I'll stick with what I know for certain as you advise, take the time to learn more about what I don't understand as well, and maybe someday one of those pieces will find its way toward me.

[bijoux.expert]

It's crucial to keep learning, and one learns from one's mistakes very valuable lessons. I personally will buy doubtful items as long as I'm not paying a high premium for them, as in quite a few cases I've been able to prove them to be genuine. But this comes after a lifetime of experience, certainly for a debutant it's best to be very prudent.
Christies had a sale of Art Nouveau jewellery some years ago, with several signed pieces that I found very doubtful. While it's a good idea to only buy from reputable dealers, even then one must trust one's own judgement, which comes with experience. A good dealer should be able to show you some fake pieces he bought, or tell you about some he bought thinking they were genuine. I try and refrain from dealing with those who claim they can "always" recognise fakes and have never bought a fake in their careers. One needs to nurture humility, and arrogant dealers who refuse to question their own actions are exactly the ones that will sell fakes on, either unknowingly or deliberately.
A so-called jewellery expert in France sold me a piece that had been moulded from a genuine piece, and while I pointed out her error, I notice that this week she has identified, in an auction, as 19th century another silver cross that is a modern copy, moulded off an antique one. Some dealers and experts never learn...