Russian object and marks

[huszas76]

Hello again!
Can anyone help to identify the maker and the assayer of this chalice from Moscow?


Thank you for any comments.
Best regards!
Krisztián

[Goldstein]

Hi huszas76 -

in your own interest - keep away from "Russian silver"!

Goldstein

[AG2012]

Hi Krisztian,
Somebody not very familiar with Cyrillic alphabet tried to make ``ДК`` mark as well as ``St George`` and then ``AS``. The marks really have nothing in common with Russian marks and they are not even close to dangerous fakes, but very obvious.
Regards

[huszas76]

Dear Goldstein!
I thought, we all learn about the posts. I don't know who do you think you are to tell me, what would like to ask from the forum members. I make you sure, if you would like to learn something about the hungarian marks and makers, I won't say to you, "keep away from the hungarian silver". Not even, if you show us fake marks.
If it would happened, I would tell you, what is wrong with the marks, and the item.

AG2012: Thank you for the helping words.

About the item. I saw it somewhere, and I'was courious about the marks, because I see rarely russian marks from the 18. century, and I'm always ready to learn. So if anyone has good marks from this period, I would really appreciate to show me/us, and if it's possible, compare with marks I already post.
Thank you in advance.
Best regards!
Krisztián

[AG2012]

Hi Krisztián,
Is the chalice engraved? Any inscription ? It was probably not even meant to deceive with St George, too obvious.Cannot be Greek because of ``Д``.
Cheers

[liviu1]

Hi. The mark is for Moscow before 1749, assayer is Andrei Santev Postnikova 2076 from 1735 to 1749 and there is a maker DK Postnikova 2414 but the shape is different. If the top part of the chalice is of the period, I can not tell but the bottom part is consistent with the ones made around that period. Regards, Liv.

[AG2012]

Unfortunately, must disagree again. This is not Moscow chalice made 1735 to 1749.
Regards

[liviu1]

Hi again. If you have a look at Postnikova 2414 which is the makers mark for Konstantinov Dimitrii, 1739 - 1748, you will see that the D is very similar to the one on the chalice. Most likely he was the maker and he had another mark that is not in Postnikova. Regards, Liv.

[Qrt.S]

I must agree with AG2012, it's not a Russian object even if there is an AS mark and a riding man mark. Moreover, look at the town marks of Moscow P#1958-1960-1968 and compare.
For the records the assayer AS is transliterated Andrey Zaytsev/Andrej Zajtsev 1735-1749

[liviu1]

Hi. The rider is not just a rider, you can quite clearly see St. George, the spear and the dragon, well struck. The year was under St. George but can not see, another angle of the mark would help. The underside of the cup would give more details also the nut and bolt that ties the cup to the foot. The engravings would give a lot more information about the chalice but the picture is poor. Also the cup should be marked as well so maybe a later addition. Coming back to the marks, they are correct and the shape of the foot is correct. Regards, Liv.

[huszas76]

Well, you can see the chalice in a Hungarian auction catalog, if you want. Maybe that pics better than mine. I can't decide, it's authentic, or not, because I can see rarely authentic russian marks from this time. You didn't show either. The quality of the chalice looks good, as I can compare to the hungarians, and austrians I saw before.
So, if you want, you can find it in the internet, or I can lead you in private.
Best regards!
Krisztián

[liviu1]

Hi. OK, where is it ? Regards, Liv.

[AG2012]

Hi,
Moscow town marks of the period, always with full year, no exception (Consistent with PL).

[liviu1]

Hi. I 100 % agree that the year is always under Sy George and the dragon for the mid 18th century marks for Moscow. What I am saying is that the year is underneath but poorly struck ( not uncommon ) plus the picture of the mark does not help. St George is very clear and if you look at the rim of the mark on the side it starts off thick and as it goes down it becomes thin so it was marked with the punch not parallel to the silver, exactly the opposite to the mark that you posted ( the left one ) where the year is clear and St. George is not at all. Regards, Liv.