Hello,
My girlfriend bought me this russian cup as a birthday present. However, both her and I don't know much on the topic and we are wondering if this hallmark is legit or not. After reviewing this website, we feel some things are unusual.
1- The city mark looks like the Moscow city mark, but reverted from left to right (horse going to the left instead of right)
2- The standard 84 is missing part of the writing on top (this might be normal, but I thought Russia had very strict quality control)
3- Assay Mark "LO 1894": This seems ok - Lev Oleks, from Moscow (1890-1896)
4- Maker's mark? : Сyrrilic "Ð’Ð" or latin "EA" - I didn't find any EA, so I must assume it is Cyrrilic "Ð’Ð" - The problem is that among the two maker's mark "Ð’Ð", none of them was producing in Moscow during 1894.
I would really appreciate expert's opinion on this. Maybe I misread the marks on it's just other marks that are not listed on this website.
Thanks for educating me!
LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Re: LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Hello, hello,
You seem to have a good touch regarding Russian marks. Your feeling is correct. The marks are more or less imaginary ones. Moreover, Lev Oleks didn't assay anything in Moscow in 1894. That year the assayer was Aleksandr Vladislavovitch Skovronsky. His mark was AC
have a nice evening
Qrt.S
You seem to have a good touch regarding Russian marks. Your feeling is correct. The marks are more or less imaginary ones. Moreover, Lev Oleks didn't assay anything in Moscow in 1894. That year the assayer was Aleksandr Vladislavovitch Skovronsky. His mark was AC
have a nice evening
Qrt.S
Re: LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Hello Qrt.S,
Thanks for your message. Can you be a bit more specific when you say "more or less imaginary". Do you mean fake marks made to deceive someone or unknown marks that appear legit otherwise.
If it's wrong, that would probably explain why she go a good deal on price :(
Thanks for your message. Can you be a bit more specific when you say "more or less imaginary". Do you mean fake marks made to deceive someone or unknown marks that appear legit otherwise.
If it's wrong, that would probably explain why she go a good deal on price :(
Re: LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Just a short comment, I'm in a hurry right now and will be out of town for a week. Actually you said it yourself in your message. The marks are dubious indeed. I consider them as fakes. That is my personal opinion. Likely somebody else drops in and makes a comment, just wait.
Sorry have to go now...
Qrt.S
Sorry have to go now...
Qrt.S
Re: LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Hi!
Sorry Qrt.S but I don't follow you now. Lev Oleks worked from 1890-96 in Moscow, here is another example of his mark from 1894. The horse rides to the left in the Moscow mark in the 1890's so it is also correct. I could consider the silver content mark to be a bad struck. How about V.Akimov as the silversmith who was working from end 19th century to 1908. So I consider the marks to be correct or maybe there is something new that I don't know. The only thing which makes me wonder is that the item itself looks like a later 20th century product.
I guess you wrote in a hurry so we have to wait until Qrt.S is back.
Regards,
Juke
Sorry Qrt.S but I don't follow you now. Lev Oleks worked from 1890-96 in Moscow, here is another example of his mark from 1894. The horse rides to the left in the Moscow mark in the 1890's so it is also correct. I could consider the silver content mark to be a bad struck. How about V.Akimov as the silversmith who was working from end 19th century to 1908. So I consider the marks to be correct or maybe there is something new that I don't know. The only thing which makes me wonder is that the item itself looks like a later 20th century product.
I guess you wrote in a hurry so we have to wait until Qrt.S is back.
Regards,
Juke
Re: LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Hi -
Qrt.S is always a little like a sphinx! You have to guess what he really want to say.
Your cup with saucer is a fake (otherwise the pseudo marks would not be there), made only for one reason: to deceive the buyer!
On this forum you can watch the development of the different fakes. We discuss more fakes than original and authentic objects.
Regards
Postnikov
Qrt.S is always a little like a sphinx! You have to guess what he really want to say.
Your cup with saucer is a fake (otherwise the pseudo marks would not be there), made only for one reason: to deceive the buyer!
On this forum you can watch the development of the different fakes. We discuss more fakes than original and authentic objects.
Regards
Postnikov
Re: LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Hi Juke -
Please show a photo of the object where the marks you show are from - because they are faked too!
According to P-L, # 2121, Oleks Lew Fedorowitsch was in the years 1890-1896 on duty.
Regards
Postnikov
Please show a photo of the object where the marks you show are from - because they are faked too!
According to P-L, # 2121, Oleks Lew Fedorowitsch was in the years 1890-1896 on duty.
Regards
Postnikov
Re: LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Hi!
Well this gets interesting. The mentioned mark is on spoons made according to my understanding by Nikolay Vasil’yevich Nemirov-Kolodkin. Yes I am refering also to PL # 2121 and the year 1894 fits in the period and the Moscow mark would be PL # 2022. It would be very interested to hear what makes you think that the marks would not be authentic? I have seen previously faked spoons so it would not be a new thing but they were made by court suppliers. It's always nice to learn something new.
Regards,
Juke
Well this gets interesting. The mentioned mark is on spoons made according to my understanding by Nikolay Vasil’yevich Nemirov-Kolodkin. Yes I am refering also to PL # 2121 and the year 1894 fits in the period and the Moscow mark would be PL # 2022. It would be very interested to hear what makes you think that the marks would not be authentic? I have seen previously faked spoons so it would not be a new thing but they were made by court suppliers. It's always nice to learn something new.
Regards,
Juke
Re: LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Hi Juke -
Nowadays you have to use nearly forensic methods to distinguish right from wrong. The fakers get better and better (by the way through discussions like that!) and went from crude "handmade" lookalike marks to better galvano plastic and laser made marks. Note: It is not my intention to destroy your joy on a nice find or know everything better - I just want to sharpen your eyes and point to the "mistakes" the fakers made. There is one big problem: To conceive you I must go into the details - in other words: I educate the fakers! The best answer would be: This is a fake - believe it or not. Just some hints: compare # 2022 with your mark (dimensions and detail), compare the 84 with other 84´s, compare #2121 with your mark (round corners against diagonal corners), compare #2723 with your mark (it starts high and ends low, it is no sharp stamp). By the way Nemirov-Kolodkin was not famous for simple non Russian type spoons! What is most important: Nemirov-Kolodkin was the manufacturer but his objects were made by his workmasters with the initials AK and CK (Semen Kazakov). Where are the marks? Even if he was only the vendor - where is the mark of the maker? When you have noticed all this and all your red lights are on - you go to your collection (I suppose you are a collector and know what you do!) and compare with some of your (hopefuly) authentic pieces. You at once will see the difference. I could write a book about all this, title :Do your homework and you will not get cheated.
Regards
Postnikov
Nowadays you have to use nearly forensic methods to distinguish right from wrong. The fakers get better and better (by the way through discussions like that!) and went from crude "handmade" lookalike marks to better galvano plastic and laser made marks. Note: It is not my intention to destroy your joy on a nice find or know everything better - I just want to sharpen your eyes and point to the "mistakes" the fakers made. There is one big problem: To conceive you I must go into the details - in other words: I educate the fakers! The best answer would be: This is a fake - believe it or not. Just some hints: compare # 2022 with your mark (dimensions and detail), compare the 84 with other 84´s, compare #2121 with your mark (round corners against diagonal corners), compare #2723 with your mark (it starts high and ends low, it is no sharp stamp). By the way Nemirov-Kolodkin was not famous for simple non Russian type spoons! What is most important: Nemirov-Kolodkin was the manufacturer but his objects were made by his workmasters with the initials AK and CK (Semen Kazakov). Where are the marks? Even if he was only the vendor - where is the mark of the maker? When you have noticed all this and all your red lights are on - you go to your collection (I suppose you are a collector and know what you do!) and compare with some of your (hopefuly) authentic pieces. You at once will see the difference. I could write a book about all this, title :Do your homework and you will not get cheated.
Regards
Postnikov
Re: LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Hi!
Thanks Postnikov, I always appreciate a view from a serious collector and no problem as it handles only of a couple of spoons but one can always learn with these cases. I read thoroughly what you wrote and understand what you write. There are some points that I agree, then there are some points that can be explained by natural differences in marks and damages. I cut from the picture the makers mark AK as I considered it not important as I wanted to highlight the assayers mark (LO), but anyway AK makers mark is not missing. Also I would like to point out that especially marks on spoon stems are vulnarable for damages. Attached a picture of a makers mark on a 18th century english spoon where the mark is damages through 100's and 100's times of polishing. Also in this case the assayers mark (LO) and makers mark have clearly been typically damaged, the corners are not totally round etc. I also made comparisions on the city mark and believe there are normal variations. I am sure you know that the PL consists of carbon copies of marks which don't tell the whole story.
So how I conclude this, I believe I would anyway consider that the spoons are real but there was one thing you wrote which I can not explain which could mean a fake but I don't want to repeat it here, not to learn any fakers. I have to say that it really is not easy to detect what is very good fakes and what is real marks with normal variations. Also it happends that real things have been considered as fakes by experts and fakes as real things. I don't want to undermine your experience as I know it is very high and I understand why you would consider it a fake. I have also noticed that you are a very straight person and say directly when you think it is a fake. I am as a person more caucious saying if something is real or fake if it is not a sure case. If there is a more valuable object with something unsure with the markings I decline to buy.
Regards,
Juke
Thanks Postnikov, I always appreciate a view from a serious collector and no problem as it handles only of a couple of spoons but one can always learn with these cases. I read thoroughly what you wrote and understand what you write. There are some points that I agree, then there are some points that can be explained by natural differences in marks and damages. I cut from the picture the makers mark AK as I considered it not important as I wanted to highlight the assayers mark (LO), but anyway AK makers mark is not missing. Also I would like to point out that especially marks on spoon stems are vulnarable for damages. Attached a picture of a makers mark on a 18th century english spoon where the mark is damages through 100's and 100's times of polishing. Also in this case the assayers mark (LO) and makers mark have clearly been typically damaged, the corners are not totally round etc. I also made comparisions on the city mark and believe there are normal variations. I am sure you know that the PL consists of carbon copies of marks which don't tell the whole story.
So how I conclude this, I believe I would anyway consider that the spoons are real but there was one thing you wrote which I can not explain which could mean a fake but I don't want to repeat it here, not to learn any fakers. I have to say that it really is not easy to detect what is very good fakes and what is real marks with normal variations. Also it happends that real things have been considered as fakes by experts and fakes as real things. I don't want to undermine your experience as I know it is very high and I understand why you would consider it a fake. I have also noticed that you are a very straight person and say directly when you think it is a fake. I am as a person more caucious saying if something is real or fake if it is not a sure case. If there is a more valuable object with something unsure with the markings I decline to buy.
Regards,
Juke
Re: LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Hi Juke -
on a forum like this one expects clear and blunt answers. It is no help when I write: "Yes it is authentic but also it could be a fake, who knows?" The workmaster of Nemirov-Kolodkin with the initials AK was always without dot! So in my opinion it is still a fake - all marks are incorrect. The marks are very clear, no spoiling through handling or polishing - but they corespond with most of the known and often used pseudo marks.
In the factories or workshops existed hundreds of stamps in different sizes - all crisp, sharp and clear - the same at the assay office. Why most fakes have sloppy and unprecise marks? Exept galvano marks.
Just in case it is not a fake - why should Nemirov-Kolodkin make some simple, untypical spoons himself - when he could buy them by the many suppliers there were in much better quality for less money- even Fabergé did it. He was famous for his enamel work and for his quality! Last argument: I never saw plain, "non Russian style" spoons from him. But I see very often this "ant"-like St. George with the wing!
Disclaimer: This is my personal opinion, based on over 20 years collecting, viewing and comparing!
Regards
Postnikov
on a forum like this one expects clear and blunt answers. It is no help when I write: "Yes it is authentic but also it could be a fake, who knows?" The workmaster of Nemirov-Kolodkin with the initials AK was always without dot! So in my opinion it is still a fake - all marks are incorrect. The marks are very clear, no spoiling through handling or polishing - but they corespond with most of the known and often used pseudo marks.
In the factories or workshops existed hundreds of stamps in different sizes - all crisp, sharp and clear - the same at the assay office. Why most fakes have sloppy and unprecise marks? Exept galvano marks.
Just in case it is not a fake - why should Nemirov-Kolodkin make some simple, untypical spoons himself - when he could buy them by the many suppliers there were in much better quality for less money- even Fabergé did it. He was famous for his enamel work and for his quality! Last argument: I never saw plain, "non Russian style" spoons from him. But I see very often this "ant"-like St. George with the wing!
Disclaimer: This is my personal opinion, based on over 20 years collecting, viewing and comparing!
Regards
Postnikov
Re: LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Well, thanks for adding your interesting and expert comments despite the fact that I didn't get lucky ;(
I must admit that I come from Soviet awards collecting (for 12 years) and I saw tons of fakes there too. But, until now, I hadn't realized the imperial Russia silverware was a very vast and popular world also plagued by this problem. This is a sad reality.
Since I just wanted several items to complement my Soviet collection, I don't expect that I will be spending years to learn all the facts and tricks about hallmarks... so I am wondering if there are any very reputable and established dealers active on the forum who everyone knows and I could trust for buying 2-3 items. I don't mind paying a small premium, but would like to have the peace of mind.
(admin edit - see Posting Requirements )
Thanks!
I must admit that I come from Soviet awards collecting (for 12 years) and I saw tons of fakes there too. But, until now, I hadn't realized the imperial Russia silverware was a very vast and popular world also plagued by this problem. This is a sad reality.
Since I just wanted several items to complement my Soviet collection, I don't expect that I will be spending years to learn all the facts and tricks about hallmarks... so I am wondering if there are any very reputable and established dealers active on the forum who everyone knows and I could trust for buying 2-3 items. I don't mind paying a small premium, but would like to have the peace of mind.
(admin edit - see Posting Requirements )
Thanks!
Re: LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Hi!
Sorry rukivverh that the discussion got to another direction but I hope you also learned something new.
Well I guess we don't get further than this. You vote that it is a fake, I have to say I don't agree on all your points Postnikov but there was one point that I agree on which could mean a fake. Anyhow I don't see that the marks would not be real but you have an advantage I have only been studing russian marks for 12 years not 20 years.
I disagree on the effect on polishing. As showed in my example of an english spoon the letters can be crisp but the edges bent. If the edges would be crisp I would be more concerned. I am sure you know how soft the silver is so you can easily bend the spoon stem where the marks are. I agree that the letters etc. can many times be also damaged but not always. I also made some comparisions of the city mark on other city marks from the 1890's and consider them to have similarities.
I don't know the marking policy of the Nemirov-Kolodkin firm, meaning when the AK was used and when not. I just also wanted to show that the AK is without a dot.
Well this was an interesting discussion, at least I got some new information. I am sure this didn't anyhow change your view Postnikov.
Regards,
Juke
Sorry rukivverh that the discussion got to another direction but I hope you also learned something new.
Well I guess we don't get further than this. You vote that it is a fake, I have to say I don't agree on all your points Postnikov but there was one point that I agree on which could mean a fake. Anyhow I don't see that the marks would not be real but you have an advantage I have only been studing russian marks for 12 years not 20 years.
I disagree on the effect on polishing. As showed in my example of an english spoon the letters can be crisp but the edges bent. If the edges would be crisp I would be more concerned. I am sure you know how soft the silver is so you can easily bend the spoon stem where the marks are. I agree that the letters etc. can many times be also damaged but not always. I also made some comparisions of the city mark on other city marks from the 1890's and consider them to have similarities.
I don't know the marking policy of the Nemirov-Kolodkin firm, meaning when the AK was used and when not. I just also wanted to show that the AK is without a dot.
Well this was an interesting discussion, at least I got some new information. I am sure this didn't anyhow change your view Postnikov.
Regards,
Juke
Re: LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Hi Juke -
there are some aspects I do not want to dicuss on a forum - you know the reasons. If it is a fake - it is a very good fake! If it is an authentic Nemirov-Kolodkin - it is the worst I have seen.
I wish we had more genuine Russian silver for our discussions!
Regards and happy hunting
Postnikov
there are some aspects I do not want to dicuss on a forum - you know the reasons. If it is a fake - it is a very good fake! If it is an authentic Nemirov-Kolodkin - it is the worst I have seen.
I wish we had more genuine Russian silver for our discussions!
Regards and happy hunting
Postnikov
Re: LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Hi-
I forgot some photos of fake marks - please have a look at the "ant"-like St. George with his little wing!
Regards
Postnikov
I forgot some photos of fake marks - please have a look at the "ant"-like St. George with his little wing!
Regards
Postnikov
Re: LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Hi!
Well one more round, thanks for the pictures of fake marks, yes you have had some points which I agree on. You might be right, even more likely or then there is always the possibily to be wrong. Your pictures show they are fakes and I agree on these. For me the clue in the first two are the fake court supplier marks and in the last one the city mark. Here you see also the sharp edges which makes me cautious especially on spoons. The problem for me is that the city mark in the first one and second one looks to me very similar to what I see as the 1890's mark and what I have been comparing to. The previous ones 1880's and before looks different as they show only the profile with less details. I could assume your eyes are more experienced in seeing also the differences in the city marks.
Thanks Postnikov, yes it has been educating, I believe we have also given good experience for other collectors. I can say that after all this writing I am even more cautious on the 1890's marks and silver items when considering buying something.
Regards,
Juke
Well one more round, thanks for the pictures of fake marks, yes you have had some points which I agree on. You might be right, even more likely or then there is always the possibily to be wrong. Your pictures show they are fakes and I agree on these. For me the clue in the first two are the fake court supplier marks and in the last one the city mark. Here you see also the sharp edges which makes me cautious especially on spoons. The problem for me is that the city mark in the first one and second one looks to me very similar to what I see as the 1890's mark and what I have been comparing to. The previous ones 1880's and before looks different as they show only the profile with less details. I could assume your eyes are more experienced in seeing also the differences in the city marks.
Thanks Postnikov, yes it has been educating, I believe we have also given good experience for other collectors. I can say that after all this writing I am even more cautious on the 1890's marks and silver items when considering buying something.
Regards,
Juke
Re: LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Hi!
Related to this I just want to note other collectors (these Postnikov knows well) that there are also silver items with both real and fake marks on the same object (ex. authenitc city marks, fake makers mark and vice versa). Fakers even have real authentic stamps which they have succeeded to get and the use these to mark fake objects. So collecting russian silver is not easy!
Regards,
Juke
Related to this I just want to note other collectors (these Postnikov knows well) that there are also silver items with both real and fake marks on the same object (ex. authenitc city marks, fake makers mark and vice versa). Fakers even have real authentic stamps which they have succeeded to get and the use these to mark fake objects. So collecting russian silver is not easy!
Regards,
Juke
Re: LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Hi -
To illustrate that size matters in this case, here some photos of spoons with the complete name of the manufacturers. They are 12 to 15 mm, very tiny marks, but you can clearly read every letter.This is one of the things fakers can not manage until today. Please note that some are without assayer and that P. Ovtschinnikov used the rare 91 Zolotniki (945) for his spoon.
Brothers Gratschev
Kusmitschev
P. Ovtschinnikov
Now, what is your scale saying?
Regards
Postnikov
To illustrate that size matters in this case, here some photos of spoons with the complete name of the manufacturers. They are 12 to 15 mm, very tiny marks, but you can clearly read every letter.This is one of the things fakers can not manage until today. Please note that some are without assayer and that P. Ovtschinnikov used the rare 91 Zolotniki (945) for his spoon.
Brothers Gratschev
Kusmitschev
P. Ovtschinnikov
Now, what is your scale saying?
Regards
Postnikov
Re: LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Hi!
Well the story goes on, I guess you are refering to my marks, so the assayers mark is app. 9 mm and the makers mark is app. 14 mm (the name is quite long :) ).
I have a question relating to the assayers mark in your last picture. As you can see there are clear lines which indicates that the mark has been cut with a file. Do you know did possibly the assay master or the silversmith this. Was this part of finishing/polishing the product by the silversmith after the item had been assayed. I have seen also this in other marks.
Regards,
Juke
Well the story goes on, I guess you are refering to my marks, so the assayers mark is app. 9 mm and the makers mark is app. 14 mm (the name is quite long :) ).
I have a question relating to the assayers mark in your last picture. As you can see there are clear lines which indicates that the mark has been cut with a file. Do you know did possibly the assay master or the silversmith this. Was this part of finishing/polishing the product by the silversmith after the item had been assayed. I have seen also this in other marks.
Regards,
Juke
Re: LO 1894 | Moscow | Is this hallmark "normal/legit"
Hi -
As you might already know, objects were assayed before they get enamelled. If the file traces are a toll of the time consumating enamel and finishing process I do not know.
The measures and script of your marks are OK - but I ave my doubts. Ifyou look at all 3 spoons from the backside - are the marks identical or idividual? Please excuse my inquisitory question - I just want to know if I made a mistake!
Regards
Postnikov
As you might already know, objects were assayed before they get enamelled. If the file traces are a toll of the time consumating enamel and finishing process I do not know.
The measures and script of your marks are OK - but I ave my doubts. Ifyou look at all 3 spoons from the backside - are the marks identical or idividual? Please excuse my inquisitory question - I just want to know if I made a mistake!
Regards
Postnikov