www.925-1000.com

Hi Dad -

thank you very much for your copied photos. They are all fake marks! The Latvian mark on your object is the socalled "local fabrication" mark (laying head)! This mark was only in Latvia for in Latvia made silver used! This objects (I believe spoons) were made in Russia and sold by Mr. Burg! If they were exported to Latvia the mark shown by my photos were used, socalled export marks.

Here you go:
Latvian silve rmarks - please note the details and than look at your "harlekin"!



A correct marked , exported object - if you need explanations, please let me know!



your fake marks, please compare



I think that is enough proof that this are fake marks, always on spoons from EП, Kokoshnik from St. Petersburg with different year marks and this ridiculous S.P.Burg mark. There is not only one spoon circulating - there are hundreds - since years. Poor Ivanov - the expert for experts!

Regards
Postnikov

Hi Postnikov.

In 1908 Latvia was a part of Russia.
At that time there there was no export. The Latvian marks have appeared at the period of Soviet Russia. Imperial silver being in territory of Latvia to WWII marked usual (local) mark. The Time of Troubles. Almost as in Poland. I will repeat, it is a spoon.
You too often speak "fake". It isn't good. You confuse.
About mark (laying head) and "harlekin":
Here an example from a site 925-1000.

I have many examples of such marks. It not "harlekin", but a symbol of Latvia - Milda.

Best reg.

Hi Dad -

I explain and explain, send photos - but you do not understand what I say. Please reread my last contribution, use a dictionary if you do not understand and have some history books handy.
Please read attentive - I try to be as simple as possible:

The spoon(s) we talk about was according to Ivanov made between 1908 and 1918 by ЕП and sold by Mr. Burg (even after the Revolution they were working??). The spoon is marked with the Latvian "local production" mark , in use after the foundation of the state Latvia in 1922 and the introduction of a new marking system for precious metals, the mark was changed several times until 1927 - then it was obligatory for whole Latvia.
Do you ernestly believe that the proud, just from the Imperial yoke liberated and souvereign Latvia would mark an Imperial spoon with "local production"? Please have a look at my last contribution, Imperial marks , Latvia under Russian rule, RM =Richard Müller - marked/rehallmarked by the new state Latvia with "foreign prodction". Absolut correct. Whenever you find a Latvian mark on an object it is from ~ 1922/27 on.
Conclusion: someone marked the spoon (wrong mark, wrong place, wrong time, wrong details) = fake. We collectors call this primitive kind of Latvian "local production" mark the "Polish mark", mainly used 5-6 years ago.

Your photo of Latvian marks, as usual not own photos but photos from some unknown "experts":



The text is wrong, the marks are authentic Latvian marks for "local production" from Latvia!
HL unknown master, Riga
JL Jörgen Larsen, Riga

I think it is useless to discuss further - the material you show is anonym, wild mixed nonsens with much mistakes.
Collecting is a serious thing - you need technical literature, original objects, talk shop, a little bit brain - and do not believe there are no fakes.

Much luck!
Regards
Postnikov

I have tried to avoid interfering in this discussion but now it is unavoidable. The mark to left that Dad claims being Latvia's Milda (the mark left to ЕП in the "С.П.Бург" is an an imaginary mark (Postnikov's "harlekin"). It is not even close to the two real Milda marks used 1922-1940. The angle of the headpiece is all wrong etc. In this case I share Postnikov's opinion. Sometimes I carry a different opinion but not now. However, I'm not claiming that everything is faked but something is seriously wrong here. Unfortunate I don't know what. Somehow I still tend to believe that this "С.П.Бург" was an existing company, but now I'm not sure about that either...

I also hate to say this but in the Russian general sites, hallmarks etc. there are many more than dubious statements as well as incorrect information. I don't know what to say anymore...This is very confusing....

Hi -

here is the newest fake series of ЕП- please have a look at the marks! No Mr. Burg.....





Regards
Postnikov

It doesn't look good, really doesn't. What spoons are those, could you give some measures. Are they 12 cm or 24 cm or ?

Thank you
Qrt.S

Hi -

"normal" coffee or tea spoons, 13,5 cm.

Regards
Postnikov

OK, thank you. I share your opinion in full: spurious spoons.

Rgds

Qrt.s

Qrt.S wrote:I have tried to avoid interfering in this discussion but now it is unavoidable. The mark to left that Dad claims being Latvia's Milda (the mark left to ЕП in the "С.П.Бург" is an an imaginary mark (Postnikov's "harlekin"). It is not even close to the two real Milda marks used 1922-1940. The angle of the headpiece is all wrong etc. In this case I share Postnikov's opinion.

Hi Qrt.S.

Tell me please, why mark of Wilda on a spoon from S.P.Burg (a red cross) is fake? For comparison I show other marks of Wilda. Where you have seen difference?

We are far away from the original topic and I apologize for that. In addition I rather not discuss fakes here as also earlier stated.
However, about the questioned Latvian mark. There are two marks. Milda in both and they are only almost similar. The first was used 1922-1927 a rather simple mark. Because the mark didn't look so good it was improved in 1925 and implemented in 1927 and used until 1940. It looks like that we are here talking about the earlier mark or are we? Anyway look at the mark to the left that Postnikov shows 8.11. at 3:42 pm. Does the questionable marks look like that. Look also on the picture below. How about them? Compare the angle of the hat. Where does the dot come from close to 8 in the second mark from the left? Why is it a difference in space between mark 3 and 4. Milda is a beautiful lady, where from is the witch or monkey on the mark?
I don't know, I'm just wondering and feel that the marks are at least dubious if not spurious. Look, compare and draw your own conclusions.

I am sorry, but to compare a photo of real marks to drawings it noncorrectly. You understand me?
Show please real photos of original marks of Milda of the first period (1922-1927). In drawings of Postnikova other Milda, other period (1927-1940). It is impossible to compare.

In that case just compare the three of the marks of your own as you show and see the difference between them. That is quite enough and do not forget the dot which should not be there. I will not discuss this further.

It would be good to safe this part (the Latvian mark) in a separate theme. If there will be an expert from Latvia he will express the opinion?

Thanks

Dad wrote:It would be good to safe this part (the Latvian mark) in a separate theme. If there will be an expert from Latvia he will express the opinion?

Thanks

In addition. This example of "Milda" (1922) from a site "Silvercollection":



Best reg.

Hi Dad -

please have in mind that this is no duel but an exchange of opinions. The early mark you show (Silvercollection of Giorgio Busetto, a honest friend) is correct! You have to look academic and compare part for part. That a badly made early "local production" mark is on an Imperial piece is just ridiculous. Of course, human error is always possible - but when all marks are suspicious? The only mark I miss on this object is: 925 STERLING...
Really just opinions - but sometimes several opinions lead to a result - it is no matter of winning or losing - it is a matter of truth.
Personally I have alway accepted the truth (even after some heated discussions) - sometimes very disappointed - but I accepted. Truth is truth...

Regards
Postnikov

EП and С.П.БУРГЪ

Do not forget there were silversmiths, contractors and retailers. Better example: Artel No. 6 worked for Faberge.

Hi Argentum49,
Are you sure the 6th Moscow Artel worked for Moscow? I have nothing that says the 6th Artel worked in conjunction with Fabergé. Although my reference does say the 6th Artel were a court supplier, there is no mention of Fabergé.
Regards,
Piette

piette wrote:Hi Argentum49,
Are you sure the 6th Moscow Artel worked for Moscow? I have nothing that says the 6th Artel worked in conjunction with Fabergé. Although my reference does say the 6th Artel were a court supplier, there is no mention of Fabergé.
Regards,
Piette

Sorry, this is meant to read "Are you sure the 6th Moscow Artel worked for Fabergé?"
Regards,
Piette

I have nothing that indicates the the 6th Moscow artel had anything to do with Fabergé. Those who worked with F were ICA, 3яA and 8 CA , as far as I know but knows it all???

Qrt.S wrote:I have nothing that indicates the the 6th Moscow artel had anything to do with Fabergé. Those who worked with F were ICA, 3яA and 8 CA , as far as I know but knows it all???

To add to this list, I bevlieve the 11th Moscow Artel (11A) and the First Jeweller and Engraving Artel of Kiev also supplied some items to Fabergé, did they not?

Regards,
Piette