Hi there! First of all, thanks for trying to help me on this one! You sure use the word "supposed" a lot in deciphering the hallmarks - what do you mean by that? Would you happen to know any background on this Assayer or the piece? Many thanks!Qrt.S wrote:Ye, I'll try to help you but most likely you'll be disappointed. Yes, the marks are supposed to be Imperial Russian. This is the best I can do:
The HK is supposed to be assayer Nikolai Nikolajevitch Korbitskij
The City mark is supposed to be Moscow's St George
The Maker's mark is supposed to be who knows who?
Alternatively it's a completely "NEW" mark, that I've never seen before (in any books, but I haven't seen everything :-)).
Kindly, make you own conclusions about the above stated.
Hi Juke - thanks for this. How would one know that these marks are not right? I find it hard to believe someone would go to the trouble of making this complicated piece but then wouldn't or couldn't get the marks right.. The silversmith skills involved in making (or even faking) this piece are tremendous, and then to fail at the last minute because of a mark - just doesn't make sense...Juke wrote:Hi!
I have to agree with Qrt.S, the marks are supposed to be russian marks so unfortunately it is most likely a copy of a known russian charka model.
Regards,
Juke
Hehe - you did use a "soft" way - thank you! If you think it's a copy, when do you think it was made - any idea? And why would this piece be copied at all - why the big deal?Qrt.S wrote:Let me put it this way, English is not my native tongue as you probably noted. I only tried to tell you in a soft way that your charka is more or less a "copy" as Juke already stated. Brutishly expressed, your cup is a fake marks included, sorry.
I know the assayer's (Cyr. HK) background, he existed in Moscow. But he has nothing to do with the marks on your object. In addition. the city mark doesn't look even nearly as the respective mark should look like for that period etc...That is the reason why you don't find the marks in the "records".
It is Guard de Chevalier's helmet in St Petersburg.
Hi Qrt.S - first of all, thanks for taking the time to respond - I appreciate that. And yes, I was indeed asking for more specificity on your opinion. For instance, why you thought that the assayer "has nothing to do with the marks." As for city mark, I agree it doesn't look 100% like what's found here online, but it's fairly close - are there no variations or alternative explanations for the difference at all here? I guess I was asking you to be more specific, or give more examples, etc., both for my education and that of other readers of this thread.Qrt.S wrote:It is undoubtedly a copy/fake believe Juke and me. I don't know when and where it's made. Anyway, you're asking how to separate originals from fakes? If I would ask you how did you learn to separate the letter A from the letter B etc. and later combine the letters to words and finally you could read and write text? I took some time didn't it, but you made it? This is exactly the same thing, in the long run you'll learn to see the difference when "reading/examining" an object.
In addition you're asking why bother to make a fake and then fail with the marks. It's a good question, but that's how it usually goes. The marks are more than often the crucial point revealing the counterfeit. The simple reason is that the faker doesn't have patience to investigate how the marks looks like and punches whatever "similar" marks on the piece, and the result you see on your helmet. Silver it is, no question about that.
In my previous message I told you what is wrong and that's it, a fake.
Hi Tom - thanks for this! I'm happy to attach a photo of the interior and underside of the visor - see below. The body is very heavy - several ounces - it definitely appears to me to be raised.admin wrote:Hello,
Interesting discussion. There are a few details that would help clarify everyone's understanding. The eagle and helmet badge applique are cast pieces, I am curious if the helmet itself is cast, diestamped or hand raised. Could you provide a picture of the interior of the helmet and the underside of the visor?
Thanks, Tom
Hi Postnikov - thanks very much for the photos and detailed description - really interesting and more in-line with what I had hoped the discussion would bear out. I'm actually very calm - this is not a big deal - I've been collecting silver for a while and I'm aware of the crap out there. What one typically finds on eBay is a bit different than what I am showing you - look at eBay No. 260563398830 to see a terrible copy - I wouldn't have been fooled by that. Anyway, I do think my piece is high quality, even if a copy - I just see it in the details...Postnikov wrote:Hi Silver Guy -
By the way - if you watch eBay international, your Tsharka is showing up minimum once per month.
Hope this will calm you down a little.
Regards
Postnikov
Postnikov - you know, it hasn't happened yet, but perhaps this is the point of the discussion where I start to get heated up a little bit. There is no reason to be rude during these discussions, and I think you are sliding toward that... If you cannot maintain a civil discourse without being condescending to new members (or maybe even old ones), then you're right, just don't answer posts. But you know what, I'm going to chalk this discussion up to different cultural sensibilities. Maybe this is the way you discuss things with people you interact with. It's not the way I carry on a discussion with people, even if it is on an anonymous Internet forum.Postnikov wrote:Hi Silver Guy -
I can not explain more and show you more as I did. It is always the same song: "All fakes are ugly - mine is the best". I would suggest to go to librarys or buy some books and learn - this is much cheaper than collecting scrap silver (maybe you let it test - mostly the silver content is very low too - if any)!
Why ask experts when you know everything?
I for my part will not answer to fakes in the future anymore - this is a silver forum and not a fake forum....
Much luck and happy hunting for Russian silver, yu da man and expert!
You buy what you love....
Regards
Postnikov
Hi Cheryl - thank you! Yours was a kind post and a breath of fresh air - I appreciate it. Yours was also an educational post, which I think at the end of the day that's why we all come here... It's not to display our wealth, or find out if our piece is fake, or how much it's worth... It's about learning about the piece, it's origins, what it was used for, how it was made, etc. You were kind and easy with sharing your knowledge, which is I think (and hope) is the spirit of this forum, and any specialized form, really. In a perfect world, forums such as this should have no place for people who begrudge sharing their knowledge, or are in it just to get their kicks, or offend or get offended, or belittle others. Those people just don't realize that when they do that, they are merely beating down the passion others have for their own field of interest - and that can't be good for anyone... Anyhow - thanks again!dragonflywink wrote:I would not presume to apologize for another member of the forum, but most of the members here are friendly and helpful in a considerate manner, hopefully you will return with other interesting objects. There is something to be learned from most pieces posted in the various forums.
There was some hesitation on my part to join in here because the members with the knowledge, references and experience have already made their opinion clear. It is a charming object, appearing to be a bit better finished than some of the many copies available. I am much more accustomed to dealing with the numerous cast reproductions of desirable American silver, but your pictures are quite clear and the unmistakable signs of being a cast piece are present - the soft-looking interior and heavy edges, the wavy joints, the rim on the visor shows the uneven casting clearly along with the tiny pits and voids common to the casting process.
Have been seeing fake Russian silver in my area for at least 20 years, often finding identical pieces with different false marks. At first they seemed to all be "Fauxberge", but over the years, many other marks began appearing. The quality varies, and they will continue to be produced as long as people continue to pay high prices for "Rare Russian Silver". A truly honest dealer I know had his piece tested, had the jeweler strike through the false marks and stamp the proper "Sterling" mark. He was angry at being fooled, but certainly didn't want to sell it as real or have it turn up elsewhere as genuine, something I hadn't really thought of. Personally, I shy away from most pieces found in the market, though some can have a somewhat better look and feel to them than others, and I've seen several cups like yours, some with enameling on the emblem, none appeared to be "right" to me.
~Cheryl
