I cant seem to find the maker of this clock and wondered if someone might be able to tell me who it was. Many thanks in advance. Retailed by Percy Edwards of Piccadilly.
Help identifying maker
Help identifying maker
Hi,
I cant seem to find the maker of this clock and wondered if someone might be able to tell me who it was. Many thanks in advance. Retailed by Percy Edwards of Piccadilly.
I cant seem to find the maker of this clock and wondered if someone might be able to tell me who it was. Many thanks in advance. Retailed by Percy Edwards of Piccadilly.
Re: Help identifying maker
Hello!
Maker's mark is ITB = Johann Thomas Berg from St. Petersburg. He was known at the end of the 19th century.
Regards.
Maker's mark is ITB = Johann Thomas Berg from St. Petersburg. He was known at the end of the 19th century.
Regards.
Re: Help identifying maker
@Ubaranda
Interesting info, could be ITB! (Looks like TTB!) Anyway, to my understanding Johan (only one n. He was a Finn!) My sources tell me that Berg punched (Cyrillic) ИБ, ИТБ around 1895~1903.
Mind my asking, but where from is the information that he punched Latin ITB also? Thank you in advance.
The hallmark indicates that the clock's frame was made before 1898(9).
Interesting info, could be ITB! (Looks like TTB!) Anyway, to my understanding Johan (only one n. He was a Finn!) My sources tell me that Berg punched (Cyrillic) ИБ, ИТБ around 1895~1903.
Mind my asking, but where from is the information that he punched Latin ITB also? Thank you in advance.
The hallmark indicates that the clock's frame was made before 1898(9).
Re: Help identifying maker
What makes you think Percy Edwards retailed this clock?
Percy Edwards of Piccadilly were retailers at the time; there are silver items sold in their boxes without additional marks on silver, i.e. traded within UK without double taxation. But this is supposed to be imported silver; was it possible to avoid import taxes and accordingly marking the frame?
Have you examined the clock? Who made it?
Very suspicious having in mind widespread fakes. A watch, clock repairer and trader in my neighborhood has regular customers from Eastern Europe who buy watches and mount them on frames with faked marks or they remove the dials, and enamel them with desirable and lucrative presentation imperial portraits.
Percy Edwards of Piccadilly were retailers at the time; there are silver items sold in their boxes without additional marks on silver, i.e. traded within UK without double taxation. But this is supposed to be imported silver; was it possible to avoid import taxes and accordingly marking the frame?
Have you examined the clock? Who made it?
Very suspicious having in mind widespread fakes. A watch, clock repairer and trader in my neighborhood has regular customers from Eastern Europe who buy watches and mount them on frames with faked marks or they remove the dials, and enamel them with desirable and lucrative presentation imperial portraits.
Re: Help identifying maker
I think this crooked brand is "ГТВ".Ubaranda wrote:Hello!
Maker's mark is ITB = Johann Thomas Berg from St. Petersburg.
About "ITB". It can be either Johann Berg or Johann Bruns.
Re: Help identifying maker
Hi.
I'm sorry to interrupt your discussion.
But, are the fake hallmarks on this photo frame getting in the way of your search for a master maker?
I think it should get in the way.
I'm sorry to interrupt your discussion.
But, are the fake hallmarks on this photo frame getting in the way of your search for a master maker?
I think it should get in the way.
Re: Help identifying maker
I didn't attribute these brands. But there are letters "ГТВ" and I'm always interested in what fake makers use.
Information about the silversmith "ITB" will not be superfluous from my point of view..
Information about the silversmith "ITB" will not be superfluous from my point of view..
Re: Help identifying maker
AG2012 wrote:What makes you think Percy Edwards retailed this clock?
Percy Edwards of Piccadilly were retailers at the time; there are silver items sold in their boxes without additional marks on silver, i.e. traded within UK without double taxation. But this is supposed to be imported silver; was it possible to avoid import taxes and accordingly marking the frame?
Have you examined the clock? Who made it?
Very suspicious having in mind widespread fakes. A watch, clock repairer and trader in my neighborhood has regular customers from Eastern Europe who buy watches and mount them on frames with faked marks or they remove the dials, and enamel them with desirable and lucrative presentation imperial portraits.
Apologies for the delayed reply. The clock comes in a bespoke fitted leather case with Percy Edwards retail stamps gilded onto the linen. I know he sold other russian pieces, I had a russian agate, silver and enamel frame also retailed by him in a fitted case many years ago. Not too sure about avoiding import taxes, I'll have to look into that. Yes, there's a lot of fakes out there at the moment being sold (looking at you john nicholsons and hannams auctioneers) but I'm confident this is genuine.
Re: Help identifying maker
can you tell me what leads you to believe they are fake marks? there's marks to the front of the clock and the back leg (which one side of has sheared off since these images were taken). it comes in it's original leather covered and felt lined bespoke fitted case which has the retailers details stamped in gold to the linen on the inside doors of the case. I don't doubt it's genuine, but am happy (or not) to learn otherwise.Dad wrote:Hi.
I'm sorry to interrupt your discussion.
But, are the fake hallmarks on this photo frame getting in the way of your search for a master maker?
I think it should get in the way.
Re: Help identifying maker
Many thanks for your reply.Ubaranda wrote:Hello!
Maker's mark is ITB = Johann Thomas Berg from St. Petersburg. He was known at the end of the 19th century.
Regards.
Re: Help identifying maker
Yes, sure. I think I will not make life much easier for falstmakers if I point out one bright mistake. I will not show the rest of the markers. One is enough.chelsea98 wrote: can you tell me what leads you to believe they are fake marks?
The coat of arms of St. Petersburg consists of two anchors and a scepter (a symbol of royal power). Please look Images of the coat of arms on the Internet.
Now look at the coat of arms of St. Petersburg in the hallmark of theme. An arrow is depicted on the brand instead of a scepter. The unknown forger was poorly educated or he copied bad photos.
I have never seen such a free treatment of the coat of arms of the capital on any of the original hallmarks of the St. Petersburg Assay Office.
Re: Help identifying maker
After a closer look I share Dad's opinion. Nice doing Dad! Unfortunately I didn't pay any particular attention to the hallmark but to the maker's mark only. Sorry about that.
Anyway, to find genuine Fabergé made objects on today's markets is RARE very RARE! The current markets seem to be almost flooded with recently found Fabergé objects but that is far from the truth. Too often you can find "newly" detected Fabergé objects for sale in Internet....browse yourself! Less than 10 % are genuine if even that. Forget that you might find a genuine piece in your garage or in your grandparents' attic!
About the anchors in the coat of arms. The one with "four hooks" is actually a so called river anchor (?) but I have also seen it defined that it would be grapnel, but ??? Anyway It doesn't make any difference wichone it is.
Anyway, to find genuine Fabergé made objects on today's markets is RARE very RARE! The current markets seem to be almost flooded with recently found Fabergé objects but that is far from the truth. Too often you can find "newly" detected Fabergé objects for sale in Internet....browse yourself! Less than 10 % are genuine if even that. Forget that you might find a genuine piece in your garage or in your grandparents' attic!
About the anchors in the coat of arms. The one with "four hooks" is actually a so called river anchor (?) but I have also seen it defined that it would be grapnel, but ??? Anyway It doesn't make any difference wichone it is.
Re: Help identifying maker
Hi!
The clock have a nice appearance of a Russian clock from the end of the 19th century with a good quality. The carvings and enamel looks nice what one would expect from the time of period.
I think the main question for many is why the makers mark can not be found in well known catalogs from where it would be easy to ensure the correct maker and that the person would have done this types of items. Could it be a rare maker or a lost name in the records/museums? The mark itself looks somewhat untypical from the time period what one would expect so these brings question marks.
On the other hand for me the coat of arms seems quite correct, the anchor and arrow parts can be noticed even thought they look very similar. These are typically very simplified versions from the city of St.Petersburg coat of arms and can look somewhat different by different assayers. Here is an example by assayer Pavel Mihailov markings and as can be seen the anchor and arrow look quite similar:
Then there are a couple of other issues with the marking which I notice and possibly these are also to what Dad was referring. Could it possibly be a human error in the authentic marking process meaning it has not been done as to the code or is it just a forgery?
If the fitted leather case looks from the material perspective to be from the time period and the clock fits exactly to the case it is important.
In my opinion I would not directly condemn the clock to be a forgery but as there are some clear question marks the authenticity can not be confirmed. If the clock would be for sale I would retain from buying it because of the question marks.
Regards,
Juke
The clock have a nice appearance of a Russian clock from the end of the 19th century with a good quality. The carvings and enamel looks nice what one would expect from the time of period.
I think the main question for many is why the makers mark can not be found in well known catalogs from where it would be easy to ensure the correct maker and that the person would have done this types of items. Could it be a rare maker or a lost name in the records/museums? The mark itself looks somewhat untypical from the time period what one would expect so these brings question marks.
On the other hand for me the coat of arms seems quite correct, the anchor and arrow parts can be noticed even thought they look very similar. These are typically very simplified versions from the city of St.Petersburg coat of arms and can look somewhat different by different assayers. Here is an example by assayer Pavel Mihailov markings and as can be seen the anchor and arrow look quite similar:
Then there are a couple of other issues with the marking which I notice and possibly these are also to what Dad was referring. Could it possibly be a human error in the authentic marking process meaning it has not been done as to the code or is it just a forgery?
If the fitted leather case looks from the material perspective to be from the time period and the clock fits exactly to the case it is important.
In my opinion I would not directly condemn the clock to be a forgery but as there are some clear question marks the authenticity can not be confirmed. If the clock would be for sale I would retain from buying it because of the question marks.
Regards,
Juke
Re: Help identifying maker
Well Juke,
Interesting points, but I still stick to Dad's opinion, something is not in place here. Take a closer look at the "arrow's tip on the hallmark on the clock. I believe you will find that the end "looks" like a stylized tip of an arrow but it should show a scepter's top. Now take a look at the "arrow's" tip on your picture. You will find that it looks quite different. It shows a bird (eagle) with spread wings. Anyway, I believe that you have already noticed it.
Moreover, the clock could well be made from the mentioned period of time. That is not the actual problem here but the marking seems to be it! Also the ends (rings) of the anchors look a bit strange, but? This is not an easy case.
The hallmarks were usually made in the mint office in StP and sent around. Difficult to believe that they would have made a blunder like this with the hallmark, but again?
What talks against the above stated is why would anyone bother "fake" a rather ordinary clock made by a not particularly famous, almost unknown maker? Why isn't the maker's mark also faked to e.g. "FABERGE" or...???? But, but, but....
Have a nice weekend all of you!
Interesting points, but I still stick to Dad's opinion, something is not in place here. Take a closer look at the "arrow's tip on the hallmark on the clock. I believe you will find that the end "looks" like a stylized tip of an arrow but it should show a scepter's top. Now take a look at the "arrow's" tip on your picture. You will find that it looks quite different. It shows a bird (eagle) with spread wings. Anyway, I believe that you have already noticed it.
Moreover, the clock could well be made from the mentioned period of time. That is not the actual problem here but the marking seems to be it! Also the ends (rings) of the anchors look a bit strange, but? This is not an easy case.
The hallmarks were usually made in the mint office in StP and sent around. Difficult to believe that they would have made a blunder like this with the hallmark, but again?
What talks against the above stated is why would anyone bother "fake" a rather ordinary clock made by a not particularly famous, almost unknown maker? Why isn't the maker's mark also faked to e.g. "FABERGE" or...???? But, but, but....
Have a nice weekend all of you!
Re: Help identifying maker
Hi all,
many thanks for your replies which have been fascinating. I'd like to give you a bit more info about this piece and I've also uploaded some more photos for you which you can view here:
https://imgur.com/a/KwIUfVi
So as you will see, it has an original Percy Edwards bespoke leather case. I've dealt with leather pieces as well as silver for over 30 years and this is entirely genuine. The inside of the case is fitted precisely to the shape of the clock. The leather is in wonderful condition and most definitely of the age of the clock. The pull tab for the back leg of the case and the support tab under the leg are both broken and missing, but this is quite common and doesn't alarm me at all. Even the green leather under the leg is spot on as it continues the green theme of inside the case.
You'll also see that the clock has been gilded since my original post. Why did I do this? Well, shortly after my post one half of the silver leg at the back sheared off, completely. I didn't know it was going to happen but when I looked at the first images I took of the clock when I took it in my possession, I could see that it was indeed damaged, so I didn't blame my daughter who was holding it at the time half of the leg came away.
I took it down to a very renowned silver dealer I know in the London Silver vaults, as he had a much better silversmith than me to repair it. This dealer doesn't actually do Russian silver, but he did state that it is, as is evident, a lovely piece. So he gave it to the silversmith and whilst working on it, the silversmith told me, via the dealer, that there was remanence of original gilding visible and he asked if i would like it re gilded, and of course I did. He gilded it after cleaning it so the marks on the front are now clearer than before.
Aside from that, and it being in a percy edwards retail case, when I pop the lid off the back which reveals the mechanism (more of a watch mechanism than a clock actually, although still 8 days / 200 hours ) you'll see that that is also stamped for percy edwards with their address on piccadilly also engraved. The marks to the lid of the mechanism are also very fresh, maybe more so than the other marks so they're included in the above gallery. Still no sign at all though of any import marks as someone else referred to above. That is a tad odd and I haven't looked into that as yet.
So that begs the question of why, or how, someone would go to the trouble of making a new piece and faking makers marks, when they've also had to track down an original percy edwards case and an original percy edwards clock mechanism. I mean, the chances of finding both those percy edwards elements is pretty remote at best, you just don't see much of his stuff about at all, hardly any in fact. Yes it is still possible that the rest of the silver face and legs etc could have been made to simply fit around the guilloche enamel fronted clock face, but that does seem to be an inordinate amount of effort to make a fake, especially when the vast majority I see are Faberge and this has marks by a maker most people would be completely unaware of without coming to somewhere like here to find out.
So I hope this new information and the additional images will help us all get to the bottom of it, because I'd really like to, one way or another. If it is still 100% a newly made piece (the silver body that is), then I'll probably just keep it as I only do genuine antiques and it's lovely, but if it turns out that it is in fact as genuine as I thought it to be when I bought it, then on the "for sale" shelf it goes.
Thanks once again for all of your input
many thanks for your replies which have been fascinating. I'd like to give you a bit more info about this piece and I've also uploaded some more photos for you which you can view here:
https://imgur.com/a/KwIUfVi
So as you will see, it has an original Percy Edwards bespoke leather case. I've dealt with leather pieces as well as silver for over 30 years and this is entirely genuine. The inside of the case is fitted precisely to the shape of the clock. The leather is in wonderful condition and most definitely of the age of the clock. The pull tab for the back leg of the case and the support tab under the leg are both broken and missing, but this is quite common and doesn't alarm me at all. Even the green leather under the leg is spot on as it continues the green theme of inside the case.
You'll also see that the clock has been gilded since my original post. Why did I do this? Well, shortly after my post one half of the silver leg at the back sheared off, completely. I didn't know it was going to happen but when I looked at the first images I took of the clock when I took it in my possession, I could see that it was indeed damaged, so I didn't blame my daughter who was holding it at the time half of the leg came away.
I took it down to a very renowned silver dealer I know in the London Silver vaults, as he had a much better silversmith than me to repair it. This dealer doesn't actually do Russian silver, but he did state that it is, as is evident, a lovely piece. So he gave it to the silversmith and whilst working on it, the silversmith told me, via the dealer, that there was remanence of original gilding visible and he asked if i would like it re gilded, and of course I did. He gilded it after cleaning it so the marks on the front are now clearer than before.
Aside from that, and it being in a percy edwards retail case, when I pop the lid off the back which reveals the mechanism (more of a watch mechanism than a clock actually, although still 8 days / 200 hours ) you'll see that that is also stamped for percy edwards with their address on piccadilly also engraved. The marks to the lid of the mechanism are also very fresh, maybe more so than the other marks so they're included in the above gallery. Still no sign at all though of any import marks as someone else referred to above. That is a tad odd and I haven't looked into that as yet.
So that begs the question of why, or how, someone would go to the trouble of making a new piece and faking makers marks, when they've also had to track down an original percy edwards case and an original percy edwards clock mechanism. I mean, the chances of finding both those percy edwards elements is pretty remote at best, you just don't see much of his stuff about at all, hardly any in fact. Yes it is still possible that the rest of the silver face and legs etc could have been made to simply fit around the guilloche enamel fronted clock face, but that does seem to be an inordinate amount of effort to make a fake, especially when the vast majority I see are Faberge and this has marks by a maker most people would be completely unaware of without coming to somewhere like here to find out.
So I hope this new information and the additional images will help us all get to the bottom of it, because I'd really like to, one way or another. If it is still 100% a newly made piece (the silver body that is), then I'll probably just keep it as I only do genuine antiques and it's lovely, but if it turns out that it is in fact as genuine as I thought it to be when I bought it, then on the "for sale" shelf it goes.
Thanks once again for all of your input
Re: Help identifying maker
Oops, another quick observation if I may.
So a few posts above this one, Juke was kind enough to post an image of another set of marks. Qrt.s then remarked that the hallmarks were usually made in the mint office in St Petersburgh and then sent around.
My question, which will show my lack of knowledge, again, is why are they so different? On my clock, the 84 and arrows etc are all in one stamp in the three stamps on the piece (the front face, the back leg, and inside the lid of the mechanism). In the image that Juke posted, they're in two separate stamps, the 84 on its own and the arrows etc in a circle. If they were all made in the mint office, then why is there this difference? Surely it would have been one uniform stamp, either the 84 with arrows etc together, or the 84 and arrows etc separate.
Many thanks
So a few posts above this one, Juke was kind enough to post an image of another set of marks. Qrt.s then remarked that the hallmarks were usually made in the mint office in St Petersburgh and then sent around.
My question, which will show my lack of knowledge, again, is why are they so different? On my clock, the 84 and arrows etc are all in one stamp in the three stamps on the piece (the front face, the back leg, and inside the lid of the mechanism). In the image that Juke posted, they're in two separate stamps, the 84 on its own and the arrows etc in a circle. If they were all made in the mint office, then why is there this difference? Surely it would have been one uniform stamp, either the 84 with arrows etc together, or the 84 and arrows etc separate.
Many thanks
Re: Help identifying maker
Another feature of this piece got me thinking and that's the guilloche enamel and the engine turning to the front. These areas have both been done using a variation of the rose engine turning machine and not by hand. Faberge was indeed using an engine turning machine at this time, circa 1896, as is seen on many of his original pieces. It would have been a very unusual style in the UK, because UK silversmiths hadn't started using the technique at that stage as far as I know, and were still using pressed foil behind coloured glass to give a similar effect (poor man's guilloche as I call it). So, that's another element that checks out for me.
There's also the scratched inventory number on the lower back of 92120. I'm hoping that the V&A archives have the Percy Edward books as that may well contain it, though of course it could be the makers number.
There's also the scratched inventory number on the lower back of 92120. I'm hoping that the V&A archives have the Percy Edward books as that may well contain it, though of course it could be the makers number.
Re: Help identifying maker
Engine turned guilloché was widely used by British silversmiths in XVIII century.because UK silversmiths hadn't started using the technique at that stage as far as I know
Regards
Re: Help identifying maker
The back of the marks is completely wrong; what are those strange counter marks, irregular impressions, pitting - arrow 1?
They are really not supposed to be here.
Even if the clock was repaired and removed from the frame, there are issues when it was put back (there was no need for excessive filing arrow 2).
Conclusion,nice British clock was ruined by fake Russian marks to make it more lucrative.
Hopefully, this practice is about to end soon.
Regards
They are really not supposed to be here.
Even if the clock was repaired and removed from the frame, there are issues when it was put back (there was no need for excessive filing arrow 2).
Conclusion,nice British clock was ruined by fake Russian marks to make it more lucrative.
Hopefully, this practice is about to end soon.
Regards
Re: Help identifying maker
again, happy to stand corrected about this and always happy to learn. "guilloche" is just the french word for "engine turning". I've personally not seen "guilloche enamel" or "engine turned enamel" pieces made in the UK of the age you mentioned. Maybe it's just the type of object I deal in, but earlier examples I have seen and had, tended to be engraved by hand underneath the enamel as they don't / didn't have the concentric or geometric lines. I have seen examples of engine turned items from the mid 1850's, just never with enamel over them, from what I deal in. Again, happy to be proved wrong and learn. Thanks.