HELP; Russian Monogram on Faberge

[monogram]

No, you mis-understand, the spout and handle are separate parts and thus should be marked.

Trev.

They never are, so no.

http://www.sothebys.com/en/auctions/eca ... t.267.html

[Zolotnik]

Hi monogram -
your answer is the proof that you did not understand what is here written. dognose explained extra the word "detachable" for you - in vain.(try google translater...)
Please do not quote every answer - we all can read!
It really is enough now - believe what you want but never try to learn something new - it could be disturbing...

Regards
Zolotnik

[monogram]

Hi monogram -
your answer is the proof that you did not understand what is here written. dognose explained extra the word "detachable" for you - in vain.(try google translater...)
Please do not quote every answer - we all can read!
It really is enough now - believe what you want but never try to learn something new - it could be disturbing...

Regards
Zolotnik

Your so-called "answers" are more proof than my questions. Why would someone ask to get answered in the manner you answer people? That tells more about you than of me, literally. You claim my stamp to be fake but you have posted merely identical 88 kokoshnik of your own items, but they are authentic? Yeah, right!

[oel]

Hi,


Russia until 1882, assaying was conducted on unfinished items that were then sent back to the manufacturer after hallmarking for any final work hence the spout of a coffee-pot could bear a hallmark. After 1882, items were normally assayed when completely finished, hence no hallmark on spout but indeed all detachable parts hallmarked.
I do share Zolotnik opinion about the coffee-pot and I should call the marks dubious and the quality not up to Fabergé's standards.
Reference; World Hallmarks Volume I Europe 19th to 21st Centuries.



Oel

[monogram]

Thank you for the responce. That's actually an acceptable answer that make some sence. As I wrote in my first post in this topic, I were more interested in knowing the monogram than "authenticity" because I already have had it evaluated in 4 different locations for authenticity as well as for retail value. Authenticity was never questionable on my part because I do believe people who are working with antique Fabergé on a monthly basis are able to recognize fake vs. authentic, it's their job to do so.

[Qrt.S]

An apology from me. I was too hasty in saying that the marks are OK. I must withdraw this statement, sorry. Taking a new closer look tells me that something is after all not in place here irrespective of what the auction houses' so called experts say about your coffee pot. They are, however, allowed to have an opinion of their own. Right or wrong but it is still their personal opinion only. Anyway, as Oel mentioned, before 1882 the objects were taken unfinished and in piece to the assayer for testing and assaying but carrying the maker's mark. After 1882 the object could be assembled but still every detachable part had to be marked. A detachable part is not only the lid but also parts that are soldered. Like Oel mentioned, handle, spout, sometimes bottom plate, legs, lid knob...

However, there are some rare exceptions; the imperial court suppliers like Fabergé, Bolin, Ovtshinnikov, Sazikov... etc. could present their works unmarked without any consequences. Finding such an object today is close to mission impossible. Other exceptions are objects in filigree, enameled object, hollow objects and very small object like pins, ear rings... and such object that could be badly damaged if punched and other similar items.

As to the marks "К.ФАБЕРЖЕ" for Moscow and only "ФАБЕРЖЕ" for St. Petersburg is not an absolute fact, some few anomalies has been found.

Errare humanum est...

[Qrt.S]

Forgot to mention that when we close into the turn of the century and pass it authentic objects have been found with "insufficient/sloppy" markings i.e. not all detachable parts are marked. It is not common but it occurs...

[piette]

Perhaps I should add my two cents... and I'll start here...

What are you talking about? It's not fake. But sure, you are right and all high-end auction houses are wrong. And as you write, some are real, some are fake. I got a real one. You should do your homework before coming with such comments.

I am actually a paid employee by arguably the world's most reputable auction house and my job is specifically to work with Russian works of art / Faberge. As someone who works on the inside I can say, without giving too much away, that many fakes pass through the hands of all auction houses for one reason or another, so if you are to place your full trust in the opinions of what the aforementioned experts have told you, then you are a fool. Auction houses have a financial incentive to tell you that your object is authentic - in the hope that they can sell it for you for as much money as possible so that they can take as big of a commission as possible.

Now, I have a few points which I would like to bring up. Before even addressing the hallmarks on the piece, I feel that the following should be considered:

• The engraved monogram, as pointed out, is not in the Russian style, and is also unusual in that neither of the two letters are shaded/crosshatched, and that the monograms on all eight items from this set are rather different.

• Also unusual, is the presence of the European Prince's crown, which is even more unusual on the other items in this eight piece set, as I find it unlikely that a highly important European crown prince would be seeking to fill his palace with the work of Pekka J Silventoinen, an ordinary St Petersburg silversmith.

• Whilst Faberge also had premises in Kiev, Odessa and London, almost everything was produced in Moscow and St Petersburg, with St Petersburg producing much higher end goods than Moscow, due to the difference in wealth of the population of the two cities. In Moscow, it is very common to see no masters mark alongside the Faberge mark, and even Fedor Ruckert's mark was very often overstruck by Faberge. Anyway, in Moscow a lot of what Faberge made included 'ordinary' items rather than the bourgeois objects coming from St Petersburg, and in accordance, Moscow Faberge objects are more often seen in 84 silver than 88 silver, like the tea set which you chose to show from Sotheby's 2011 New York Russian Art Auction.

Moving on. As others have said - all detachable parts (at the time of manufacture) of an item must be hallmarked. For example:
On a rjumka, both the cup and base should be marked.
On a jug both the main body, the spout, the handle, and a raised rim to the base (if present) should be marked.
On a podstakanak, both the main body and the handle should be marked.
On a kovsh, both the main body and the handle should be market.
Etc, etc, etc...
AND on a teapot, the main body should be marked (often to the underside) as well as the lid (and often the finial on the lid, if fixed by a screw), spout AND handle. Before the kokoshnik was brought into use in 1898, the previous marking system would often see larger objects (such as a teapot) marked with full hallmarks to the base (consisting of an Assayer/date mark, a purity mark, a city mark and a makers mark), and the detachable parts (spout, handle, lid, finial) would be marked only with a makers mark and a dvoinik mark (two part mark consisting of purity and city mark).
This was the law, and breaking it carried a punishment - no questions.

On your object, only the base and the lid are marked, as shown below (with clearer pictures than the ones your posted), which to me suggests a few things...


These marks have undoubtedly been added to the object at a later date. Even if the faker who was adding the marks knew that every detachable piece must be marked, they could not fulfill this criteria. They could mark the base and the lid, because they are flat, solid surfaces and it is possible to add later marks to them without damaging them, but the spout and handle are hollow and therefore fake marks could not be added at this stage without causing significant and noticeable damage to these areas.

Furthermore, the hallmarks themselves are not right, especially the 'КФ' makers mark which is struck here in italics - never used by Faberge. And, as Zolotnik perspicaciously noted, the Ф is also not in the correct form. I won't sit here and tell you that this item is fake, because there is no point placing your trust in me, and especially not in auction houses, even if they do tell you what you want to hear. You should only trust your own opinion, but first you need to educate yourself in the field so that your own opinion is trustworthy. All I will say is that if I had purchased this very expensive coffee pot from a very well known auction website, I would be contacting the vendor and attempting to make use of the 14 day money back guarantee.

Think carefully and ask questions before you buy, then you will have no regrets.
With best wishes,
P

[Zolotnik]

Hi monogram -
to make a long story short:
Your "ensemble", bought from Sothebys, cleared by experts as genuin Fabergé was offered 2 weeks ago on the famous westcoast auction site as Fabergé - but every part had different marks. It was not sold. After it was posted again - but every part alone. As far as I remember the sugar tongs were sold - by a Swiss dealer.
Here some photos:





I would like to see the expertise of the experts and the invoice of the auctionhouse you bought it...

The interesting part of this story is: who sold whom what under which maker´s name.

Regards
Zolotnik

[Zolotnik]

Hi monogram -
just a last word:
Maybe it escaped the attention of the experts or your notice, that the Fabergé firm have provided goods sold in their various shops with scratched inventory numbers (scratchmarks) which had been entered in the sale books . These numbers are missing also on your objects.
Just something to think about or discuss with your experts - only the Tsar got objects from Fabergé without scratchmarks (the reason why several big presentation Easter eggs were unmasked as fakes because they were marked). Your objects have been some weeks ago on a big westcoast online auction site but were not sold, after that they appeared on the same site not as ensemble but piece for piece.....you said you got it from Sothebys (?).... it is always the same object with the sugar tongs made by PJS - an original but later engraved with this phony crown and monogram. The sugar tongs were sold by an Swiss dealer last week....
I would be interested to see your expert´s expertise and the invoice from the auctionhouse.....
Here some facts:



and the result


A little bit confusing ....who sold whom what ....and who tells storys...

Regards
Zolotnik

[monogram]

It's the coffee pot from that lot, and yes, I know the other ones are fake but they are not marked Fabergé. The coffee pot I purchased as a single item only. I did not buy it from Sotheby's, I do not want to share the information about where I purchased it from - but yes, it's from Switzerland.

[monogram]

We can say it's fake to put an end to this because I did not intend to get on this forum to discuss the authenticity. I wanted information regarding the monogram. If you look at the monogram of the coffee pot you can clearly see it's not the same as for the other items in the lot, the markings are not similar either. I do believe the coffee pot itself are authentic and that the other pieces are made to look like it belongs together; because the owner did not have the whole original set.

[Zolotnik]

Hi monogram -
if you payed with PayPal and claim that you bought a fake - you get your money back. Open a case.It is better to know that you have made a mistake as to possess a worthless object and have lost money. We all made mistakes on the way where we are now but we learned one thing: do your homework before you buy, keep the losses small and successes big!

Regards
Zolotnik

[monogram]

Thank you for the information!

[kerangoumar]

I am struck by the awkwardness of the spout and its insertion into the body. Looks too big. The authentic Faberge at Sotheby's is immediately several magnitudes more felicitous.