Wondering if this continental silver cup or goblet deserves to be looked at a little more closely, or if it is just marked with psuedo or fantasy marks?
From the images, I can only see what looks to be a maker mark and 800 stamped adjacent to it.
Continental Silver Cup Goblet
Continental Silver Cup Goblet
Hi All,
Wondering if this continental silver cup or goblet deserves to be looked at a little more closely, or if it is just marked with psuedo or fantasy marks?
From the images, I can only see what looks to be a maker mark and 800 stamped adjacent to it.
Wondering if this continental silver cup or goblet deserves to be looked at a little more closely, or if it is just marked with psuedo or fantasy marks?
From the images, I can only see what looks to be a maker mark and 800 stamped adjacent to it.
Re: Continental Silver Cup Goblet
There was no fraudulent intention whatsoever; as soon as the maker marked it with 800, he dated the footed beaker in late 19th or early 20th century. Looks well made, embossed by hand. If there are no more marks (hallmark indicating the country of origin, one can only speculate Germany or Italy because most of European countries had well established and legislated marking system.
Regards
Regards
Re: Continental Silver Cup Goblet
Thank you very much, I appreciate that feedback!
A follow up question is if the 800 mark was applied at the time of manufacture or if it was applied at a later date?
One scenario that crossed my mind is if the item was of unknown origin, and/or some of the identifying marks had been rubbed away, someone may have tested it and then stamped it 800?
A follow up question is if the 800 mark was applied at the time of manufacture or if it was applied at a later date?
One scenario that crossed my mind is if the item was of unknown origin, and/or some of the identifying marks had been rubbed away, someone may have tested it and then stamped it 800?
Re: Continental Silver Cup Goblet
Something like a Philipp Stenglin or similar comes to mind?
Re: Continental Silver Cup Goblet
"One scenario that crossed my mind is if the item was of unknown origin, and/or some of the identifying marks had been rubbed away, someone may have tested it and then stamped it 800?"
My opinion is that this is exactly what happened.
I've seen it on several antique pieces
Best
Amena
My opinion is that this is exactly what happened.
I've seen it on several antique pieces
Best
Amena
-
Theoderich
- contributor
- Posts: 1844
- Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 6:54 am
Re: Continental Silver Cup Goblet
Thanks AG2012, Amena, and Theoderich, I appreciate and value the feedback!
I unfortunately made the gamble to purchase the goblet half way through writing the first post and will upload some more images when it arrives.
I've made a few risky purchases before and have often come away lucky, but accept my luck may have run out this time.
One can only hope to keep learning to improve their chances for the next time.
Thanks,
I unfortunately made the gamble to purchase the goblet half way through writing the first post and will upload some more images when it arrives.
I've made a few risky purchases before and have often come away lucky, but accept my luck may have run out this time.
One can only hope to keep learning to improve their chances for the next time.
Thanks,
Re: Continental Silver Cup Goblet
Well I have received the cup now and the condition is unfortunately worse than the blurry online images showed.
While the foot and the upper cup are marked "800", the central stem is actually silver plated. It has been acid tested with 18K gold acid and compared against an 830S spoon used as a control to confirm.
In the images, you can see where the high spots on the stem have been worn away to a brass/bronze colour (not to be mistaken for remnants of gilding, where the gilding would have remained in the crevices and worn away to silver on the raised spots).
The upper cup was made of a thick gauge of silver, and you can see the evidence of tiny hammer marks near the bottom of the bowl indicating it was possibly raised by hand from a single sheet of silver, and when compared with the other components, it appears to be of much higher quality.
In contrast, the foot is about half the gauge and looks like it may have been stamped into shape by machine.
The stem was probably cast (in brass) and later silverplated.
The colour of the solder used to attach the stem to the foot and the cup is very dark and appears to be what I believe AG2012 has referred to as soft solder.
Overall it gives the impression of a Frankenstein cup that was assembled from leftover components of 3 different pieces.
This cup will be returned due to the failure to disclose that a significant portion of the piece is silverplated.
While the foot and the upper cup are marked "800", the central stem is actually silver plated. It has been acid tested with 18K gold acid and compared against an 830S spoon used as a control to confirm.
In the images, you can see where the high spots on the stem have been worn away to a brass/bronze colour (not to be mistaken for remnants of gilding, where the gilding would have remained in the crevices and worn away to silver on the raised spots).
The upper cup was made of a thick gauge of silver, and you can see the evidence of tiny hammer marks near the bottom of the bowl indicating it was possibly raised by hand from a single sheet of silver, and when compared with the other components, it appears to be of much higher quality.
In contrast, the foot is about half the gauge and looks like it may have been stamped into shape by machine.
The stem was probably cast (in brass) and later silverplated.
The colour of the solder used to attach the stem to the foot and the cup is very dark and appears to be what I believe AG2012 has referred to as soft solder.
Overall it gives the impression of a Frankenstein cup that was assembled from leftover components of 3 different pieces.
This cup will be returned due to the failure to disclose that a significant portion of the piece is silverplated.