Can somebody tell me from which country this object is.
Chalice is hammered/coined
Height - 11 cm / 4 1/4 inch
Jewish chalice, kiddush - origin
Jewish chalice, kiddush - origin
Hi,
Can somebody tell me from which country this object is.
Chalice is hammered/coined
Height - 11 cm / 4 1/4 inch
Can somebody tell me from which country this object is.
Chalice is hammered/coined
Height - 11 cm / 4 1/4 inch
-
silverport
- contributor
- Posts: 870
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:18 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: Jewish chalice, kiddush - origin
Chalice maybe made in Germany
Hello
»JS« in script, and the »12« (12 Lot = 750-1,000 fineness) seems to me, to be from Germany - but both are used so often, that only by coincidence could be confirmed, from whom and where the chalice is made.
By studying the main photo, I personally have got some doubts:
The appearances of the object seems to me, to be made from pewter.
(Reason: The materials colour, some details of the decoration, material's thickness.)
Kind regards silverport
Hello
»JS« in script, and the »12« (12 Lot = 750-1,000 fineness) seems to me, to be from Germany - but both are used so often, that only by coincidence could be confirmed, from whom and where the chalice is made.
By studying the main photo, I personally have got some doubts:
The appearances of the object seems to me, to be made from pewter.
(Reason: The materials colour, some details of the decoration, material's thickness.)
Kind regards silverport
Re: Jewish chalice, kiddush - origin
Hi,
This is not pewter but silver, 12 lots ( but may by less ) because colour is gray.
About thickness, this object is hammered, decorations are plain.
Thanks for your regards.
This is not pewter but silver, 12 lots ( but may by less ) because colour is gray.
About thickness, this object is hammered, decorations are plain.
Thanks for your regards.
-
silverport
- contributor
- Posts: 870
- Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 7:18 pm
- Location: Portugal
Re: Jewish chalice, kiddush - origin
A chalice, and a hundred fold, not yet defined marks combination.
Hello
It’s ever our unique target, to clear questions on marks, items … so far as it ever could be for us.
Please hold in mind, that always the other has the item and marks in question — not we are having them. We couldn’t turn them by full light, striking light, see relief …
Not so often as you maybe guess, we are getting already in the first contact sufficient information, and photos of the mark to could have an immediate clue.
We are voluntaries, spread worldwide, and from several cultural and professional back ground. All our knowledge you get free of charge — but each of us spend yearly some thousand or more hours in research, buying our own guides …
So, we need also your comprehension and cooperation in that manner, that we get clear mark’s pictures, some descriptions (including e.g. measuring) …
Well it's clear, a mark which doesn’t exist on the item, nobody could present them for research.
But often is shown only a low pixel photo in post stamps dimension, of a very detailed mark.
In this, your case it’s difficult to get a clue on the spot, for reason of hundreds of similar marks — almost of them without any more information’s.
My doubts, in relation of materials thickness and decorative details, results from my own experience (now about 50 years ago) in making hand wrought items, like e.g. chalices as well — not made by assistance of lathe processing!
Such a kind of symmetrical chalice, as yours, isn’t made in an hour!
The question now is, which thickness has the material on the upper part of the bowl? Or is there a kind of rim, flapping outside, like as a projection? If the rim is in reality a projection, what is the thickness of this projection?
It seems now (photographically), that the bowl is hand wrought from a rondo of at least 5 mm thickness — but that’s very unusual.
The baluster below the bowl could be hand wrought as well — but the appearance looks like to me, to be cast, and then after for similarity of surface, “hand wrought” as well.
Yes, the material could be »12« Lot silver = 750-1,000 fineness.
But as already mentioned before: There are also some other aspects as well.
We haven’t the object, you’ve.
Distance diagnoses need cooperation.
Kind regards silverport
Hello
It’s ever our unique target, to clear questions on marks, items … so far as it ever could be for us.
Please hold in mind, that always the other has the item and marks in question — not we are having them. We couldn’t turn them by full light, striking light, see relief …
Not so often as you maybe guess, we are getting already in the first contact sufficient information, and photos of the mark to could have an immediate clue.
We are voluntaries, spread worldwide, and from several cultural and professional back ground. All our knowledge you get free of charge — but each of us spend yearly some thousand or more hours in research, buying our own guides …
So, we need also your comprehension and cooperation in that manner, that we get clear mark’s pictures, some descriptions (including e.g. measuring) …
Well it's clear, a mark which doesn’t exist on the item, nobody could present them for research.
But often is shown only a low pixel photo in post stamps dimension, of a very detailed mark.
In this, your case it’s difficult to get a clue on the spot, for reason of hundreds of similar marks — almost of them without any more information’s.
My doubts, in relation of materials thickness and decorative details, results from my own experience (now about 50 years ago) in making hand wrought items, like e.g. chalices as well — not made by assistance of lathe processing!
Such a kind of symmetrical chalice, as yours, isn’t made in an hour!
The question now is, which thickness has the material on the upper part of the bowl? Or is there a kind of rim, flapping outside, like as a projection? If the rim is in reality a projection, what is the thickness of this projection?
It seems now (photographically), that the bowl is hand wrought from a rondo of at least 5 mm thickness — but that’s very unusual.
The baluster below the bowl could be hand wrought as well — but the appearance looks like to me, to be cast, and then after for similarity of surface, “hand wrought” as well.
Yes, the material could be »12« Lot silver = 750-1,000 fineness.
But as already mentioned before: There are also some other aspects as well.
We haven’t the object, you’ve.
Distance diagnoses need cooperation.
Kind regards silverport