Is this a Faberge small mark? Does this look right for an 88 gilded silver pendant? TIA

[vanpatten]

[Aguest]

::::::::::::::::: Is there a tiny hallmark in-between the [88] and the [KF] my eyes aren't the best but I think I see a tiny hallmark. ::::::::::::::::::

[Qrt.S]

Please show the whole object. The craftsmanship can tell more because there are alternative makers...

[Qrt.S]

Please note that the small mark (КФ) had a round frame. There were some other makers using the same initials but with a different frame.

[vanpatten]

Please note that the small mark (КФ) had a round frame. There were some other makers using the same initials but with a different frame.

Thank you! Here are a couple of pictures of the pendant. The mark does look to have a rounded frame to me, if you look at the top of the K down, it certainly as a domed shape. The opposite side is harder to determine.




Also, another picture of the marks. As the other user mentioned, there may be a faint mark in between? The ridges appear to be there? I can't make out anything though.

[Qrt.S]

Sorry, don't buy it. The frame looks "round" because of the round shape of the ring. In addition, the frame should be round/circular but not only a square with rounded corners. Compare to the "roundness" of the frame's both sides for the fineness mark (88). In reality the fineness frame is always rectangular.
All in all, in my opinion this rather simple pendant cross is not of Fabergé quality.

If it would have been made by Fabergé, it would have carried Alfred Thielemann's punch A.T. because such small things were made in his workshop.

[Juke*]

I agree. Even that in my mind the marks seems quite well done the craftsmanship of the item itself is more mediocre. The work on the enamel and the sharpness of the details like letters seems very plain and thereby not high quality. Fabergés trademark was their exquisite work on the item itself and on the enamel work.