Two pairs of Clausonné spoons.

[Tunder1]

These were recently given to us by my grandmother, who knows they have been in the family since at least 1902. I was unable to find the stamp of the maker on the site - and its a little ambiguous on one of them. It should be noted that that each picture of the fulls spoons are actually two different spoons, but have identical markings, so two spoons have one marking and the other two have another, so I assume they were made at different times by different people. They are silver but you can see some of the gold on of the sets is still left. There is some damage to the enamel. It would be great if someone could tell us bit more about them.

http://i.imgur.com/J6ImQ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/UTg8U.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/5yWga.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/ScLEm.jpg

(admin photo edit - images too large - link only - see Posting Requirements )

[Qrt.S]

Two interesting gilded cloisonneé tea spoons with interesting marks. But first one correction. It is absolutely impossible that the spoons have been in your family's possession before 1902 (...who knows they have been in the family since at least 1902.) . You see the hallmark tells us that they are made between 1908-1917(27).
Anyway, both spoons are made in Moscow and the upper spoon (26A) in the 26th Artel. This mark made me particularly happy because now it is definitely verified that the 26th artel existed. It has been some minor doubts about that.

The lower spoon seems to have a maker's mark of EO maybe EC or ....? (...is it correct?). If so, there is unfortunately no records of such a master in my available sources. but...? Maybe somebody else knows more about him. Nonetheless, nice spoons.

[Zolotnik]

Hi Tunder -

as always, first the story from whom the object(s) belong - (grandmother, grandfather, family, good friends, the Czar, etc. - just fill in what you like), than an more or less exact date (at least 1902, before the Revolution, just after the war, - just fill in what you like).
After an close inspection one can see the following:
1) the given date is wrong, according to the marks, the spoons were made between 1908 and 1917 (after the Revolution no spoons were made!). OK - grandma can´t remember correctly....
2) the spoons with the 26A mark [26th Moscow Artel, a cooperative of very fine silversmiths/enamel artists - whose actual existence is until today not proven(!!), nobody has seen real objects or the mark] are a little bit too much formal phantasy, the stamps are on the wrong place and the enamel is without any ageing/use (about 100 years!)- in one word: they are contemporary
3) the 2 spoons with the ilegible marks look ok - see the ageing/use?

So what is left from your story?

Regards
Zolotnik

[piette]

I agree with Zolotnik about the '26A' spoons, but disagree about the other two spoons. I don't think they look so good and would be inclined to believe that they are not so old either. I have seen a number of similar spoons with this 'E0' mark in auctions, all of which were contemporary.

Regards,
Piette

[Qrt.S]

What's left of the story is that there is always a possibility that the story is true or partly true. All spoon are not used but instead put away and perhaps waiting for better days. As all very well know the first decade not to mention the second decade of the 20th century were restless periods in Russia, so maybe...who knows?
What is true and what I also mentioned is that the existence of the 26th artel is unverified but that doesn't mean that everything that pops up under the name of 26A would be fakes. And because it is uncertain it is as well rather difficult to know exactly what was the quality of their production.

By the way, there are no particular regulations demanding where the marks should be put on a spoon. They only state that on the stem/handle or sometimes on the inside of the bowl, that's all. That means that in this case no conclusions can be made based on the location of the marks. I'm not convinced that the spoon are contemporary. But as in all cases, to evaluate only on the base of a picture is difficult.

[Zolotnik]

Hi Qrt.S -

just let´s use as much as possible common sense, facts and continous observations. If everything is possible and all is accepted than we can close the forum.

Just to remember:
There are rumors that a 26th Atel could have maybe existed (doing enamel clausonné) but there was until today no proof (files etc. or authentic objects).

As we all knew,the Russian spoons are marked in a certain way, depending on the form, style ,pattern or maker:

1) outside bowl





2) inside bowl



3) side of the stem (twisted handle)



4) "normal" spoons on the backside of the handle



5) Fakes are marked where ever enough space is comfortable (underside of the stem, twisted handle - so one can read the 26A clearly!This is the wrong and unusual location.)



Regards

[Qrt.S]

Yes, yes, yes, YOU are dear Zolotnik always right YOU know it all and if you for one reason or another are unable to identify the object, it is according to you a fake. In this case YOU are telling ME how and where a Russian made spoon should be marked. YOU have nothing to fall back to and YOU only claim it is as you believe it is. Yes, yes, I know your answer, "based on years of experience". That is of no help here. Now I'm telling you that I have the Russian edicts, ucaz, regulations etc. in writing. You don't have them. I happen to know that. However, I read what they state and they state what I wrote in my previous message irrespective of what opinion you carry. Once more: There are no regulations demanding any particular place how or where the marks should be punched except for ON THE STEM or ON THE BOWL. Moreover, is the mark punched on front, back or side, is irrelevant i.e. not regulated. Factum est!

Nonetheless, I have not said that everything is possible but only that there is a possibility.... Please note the difference!

As it happens I would appreciate it very much if you would be kind enough and tell me when the hallmark showed below was used (your picture). In addition, I would also appreciate if you told me the maker too. Thank you in advance.

[Tunder1]

Thank you for the replies. I can honestly say I don't know much about them other then what I was told, so I understand the skepticism. I do know that neither set has seen the light of day for a long time, but were cleaned before I took the photos. I tried looking for the "EO" silver mark some more and found some very similar items with the same mark by attributed V.M.Chestnov. The ones marked EO are marked on the side of the stem. Can some one point me in the right direction to find some information on either V.M Chestnov or the 26 Artel? May I ask why the existence of this 26th Artel is debated over? Either way, thank you for at least taking a look.

Also - Sorry about making them the photos too large I thought i had cropped it to 7 inches but I guess not. I have the same photos in a higher resolution uncropped , if anyone is interested.

[Qrt.S]

There are no items found made in the 26 artel. That is why both Zolotnik and piette are so sceptical but I hopeful. Its existence is only mentioned in literature. Here you have the best information and close to almost all there is regarding the artels http://www.silvercollection.it/dictionaryARTELS.html

Mind my asking where did you get this information regarding V. M. Chestov ? Just wondering how EO and V.M Chestov are related? Do you have the Russian spelling of the man?

[piette]

There are no items found made in the 26 artel. That is why both Zolotnik and piette are so sceptical but I hopeful. Its existence is only mentioned in literature. Here you have the best information and close to almost all there is regarding the artels http://www.silvercollection.it/dictionaryARTELS.html

Mind my asking where did you get this information regarding V. M. Chestov ? Just wondering how EO and V.M Chestov are related? Do you have the Russian spelling of the man?

I am not suspicious because of the lack of items from the 26th Artel, I am suspicious because of the quality/condition of the items. The enamelling looks as though it could have been done yesterday in my opinion, and if you look closely there are gaps in the twisted wires.

I think we would all benefit from seeing the larger high resolution pictures of these items, so please do show them - and if you are able to take any more pictures of the bowls and handles of the spoons as close ups it would also be of interest to see these.

Regards,
Piette

[Tunder1]

Here is the link to some of the photos in a higher resolution .

http://imgur.com/a/3j4Sa#0

I'll try and take some more close up photos of of the bowls and handles, and post them tomorrow.

[Zolotnik]

Hi Qrt.S -

I would suggest (bowing in respect before your tremendous book - and ukazshelve) that you start to not only read but also look around - there are all the things you only read of in existence - you can admire, touch, compare and understand them. We collectors call it experience...Even a simple minded soul will notice, that the spoons are always on certain spots , but never under the stem marked. Why? What tell your papers? Hundreds of assaymasters marked always identic? Coincident? Do you know that this men were highly trained and knowing in every respect concerning silver, gold etc.? That they had a rigid education and knew all tricks?
We collectors call it observation of a constant recurring regularity. Because it is not explicit regulated (a healthy common sense is necessary to find the aesthetic best place!) it can not be. Bravo - that is cute! Please represent your personal opinion factually- but stop the personal attacks. This will (should) be an exchange of knowledge and experience - and not a place of rudeness.

Saltspoon, 6 cm, Moscow 1886-1894, Assayer: A. Romanov, Silversmith: I. Khlebnikov





Regards
Zolotnik

[Qrt.S]

Mind my asking, who started the attack and who is continuing it in the last input by despising me...again? I have said it many times, do not underestimate and disregard other persons knowledge and opinions in this forum. Your opinion is not the one and only correct one here. You have an admirable knowledge dear Zolotnik, but you still don't realize that you don't know it all but unfortunately neither do I. In every respect, l how about you starting to read some books too. It will not hurt you on the contrary I would say. As for me, end of this discussion.

Think carefully of what I stated.

[Qrt.S]

I said I would discuss this further but I've change my mind after taking a closer look at Zolotnik's spoon.

Ivan Petrovich Hlebnikov lived 1819-1881. He started in St Petersburg and the company existed there for only a few years. In 1869 or 1870 he established a workshop in Moscow. Ivan Hlebnikov marked ИПХ or ИХ.


The assayer Aleksandr Vasilijevitsh Romanov (AP) assayed in Moskow 1883 possibly later 1886 to 1894 then he moved to Riga.

The control mark on the spoon is not registered in any of my sources. It is supposed to look like the known dvoinki/double. But this mark is a tripple???
Is there any explanations?

[Zolotnik]

Now the hairsplitting start again - useless and timewasting.

Here some important dates and correct facts for your files:
Khlebnikov
This firm was founded in 1867 by Ivan Petrovich Khlebnikov in St. Petersburg. In 1871 the whole business was transferred to Moscow, where it survived till 1917. It was one of the more distinguished in Russia and a warranted Court purveyor. In 1882 some 200 craftsmen were employed by Khlebnikov. Khlebnikov´s pieces were executed in the Russian national style and consisted principally of silver and enamel (cloisonné and more especially plique-à- jour).The firm often exhibited at worldfairs and received a distinguished mention at that of 1873 in Vienna.

If you do not find the marks in your sources - they do not exist. If they do not exist - the spoon can not exist....what you see is not there.
Your problem is solved and I can continue.

Regards
Zolotnik

[Qrt.S]

Useless discussion. If you have a mark on whatever object in your possession and it happens to fit your purposes or needs irrespective of what the mark shows, it is authentic. Good, so bee it!

As I said earlier, you have a lot to learn if bother to take a look on what the books tell you. Years of experience gained by looking and touching objects it not enough.

[Dad]

Hi, All,
Qrt.S, I regret, but I on the party of the Zolotnik in this discussion ( about saltspoon). Sorry. )))

Look, please : viewtopic.php?f=46&t=24520

Best Reg..

[Zolotnik]

Hi Dad -
thank you for the claryfication!

Regards
Zolotnik

[Qrt.S]

Hello Dad,

You don't have to be sorry. There ar lots of mistakes in Postnikova. I know almost 100 faults in the respective book and that is only what I have found. This could be one. By the way, Ivanov does not recognize this mark. What is 1896 for a year, what happen then, what charter, regulation or? Anyway, Ivan Hlebnikov was still dead at that time.

[Zolotnik]

Hi Qrt.S -

As I said earlier, you have a lot to learn if bother to take a look on what the books tell you.

"He who can read has a big advantage!!", my grandmother always said....now make a mental note re Russian marks, try to
be nice again and let us all further participate on your tremendous theoretical wisdom!

Regards
Zolotnik