www.925-1000.com

Hi all,
Here is a spoon in my collection which has a bit of a question mark over it... It is marked with this unusual С. П. ВУРГ mark and the kokoshnik mark is larger than usual (5mm x 3mm).
I believe the makers mark is for Igor Grigorievich Pankratiev of St Petersburg, 1898-1908. What do you think? Genuine or...?

If anyone has any more information on this 'С. П. ВУРГ' mark this would be appreciated :-)






Regards,
Piette

My apologies - the mark on the spoon is ofcourse С. П. БУРГЬ, not С. П. ВУРГ.

Regards,
Piette

Hi Piette -
there was a long discussion on this board about these marks. Just go back and read.
My opinion: both marks come always together and are fakes.

Regards
Postnikov

Hi Piette -

here is the newest form

X

Regards
Postnikov

Hi Postnikov,
Thank you for this information. It is interesting to know about this extra mark. I have read the previous discussion on the forum and will take note.
Regards,
Piette

Hello,

I have also such a С. П. БУРГЪ mark but with Kokoshnik from before 1908 and I read the very interesting discussion on the forum about it. I am interested, when this fakes were made. Are this fakes modern or were they inofficial made in the time of the original mark?

Kind regards,
Ringo

I would not bet on that all С.Р.ВУРГЪ marked objects are fakes. There have been lots of discussion around this mark and as for now nobody knows for sure what is the truth. There are different opinions whether С.Р.ВУРГЪ is a city mark or a maker's mark or...? Ivanonv claims it is a maker's mark while Postnikova says it is a City mark. Ivanov cannot show any waterproof evidences but neither can Postnikova. What some writes say here are matters of opinions, without any 100% proves but matters of opinions too.

I have looked and looked and looked at both piettes and Ringos marks, especially the kokoshniks. Piettes mark looks a bit suspicious but just a bit, but....? Nonetheless, I cannot find anything suspicious with Ringo's earlier kokshnik mark. Everything seems to be as it should. Why would it be a fake? Only because somebody says it is fake, or? I need proves but I have none and neither has anybody else. Until hard proves are put on the table, my opinion is that the whole matter around the mark С.Р.ВУРГЪ should be put on hold and not deemed to be a fake just like that.

To continue the debate, in order to try to find the truth, tell me why it is a fake but please, do not repeat what has already been said earlier, I know what was stated so come up with something new.

Hello all,
Forgive me if I am wrong but, I think the kokoshnik mark on Ringo's object is dubious. As far as I am aware, the chin should smoothly continue into the ear whereas in Ringo's mark, the ear sticks out from the chin? Do you see what I mean? Could someone else please offer a second opinion on this...
Please excuse me if I am wrong about this - this information is from Dad's previous post in another thread:

Dad wrote: 2. Hallmarks.
Compare please mark "kokoshnik" to marks of the Petersburg Assay Office 1899-1908. (Small "kokoshnik"). My opinion: the difference is obvious:

Regards,
Piette

Hi, Piette.

I wrote about small "kokoshnik". Ringo's kokoshnik - big kokoshnik. It's another kind.

Best Reg..

Hi Dad,
Sorry about this - I didn't read your post properly :-)
I understand that the small kokoshnik is 3.5x1.5mm - can you tell me, what is the proper size of the big kokoshnik?
Regards,
Piette

Hi all -

this is an open forum where everybody can express his/her opinion - if he/she has one! And there is no obligation to believe what is written - it´s no dogma - it is the attempt to clear the fog. Common sense and experience is asked, doubts and mistakes are alowed to come to a satisfaying result - which help the interested. Unfortunately fakes have no "fake" sticker as some would prefer. Only real exsisting objects can help to shed some light. If you have none - what can you speak about?
In the other discussion several examples were already shown. Now we have some new examples - all as questionable as the known. There is a certain continuity of faults apparent even for the believers.
Some questions.
Why are all this spoons more or less brandnew? Spooncollectors will understand what I mean!
Why are they all made by ЕП, newest version by AK?
Why is the maker´s mark stamped over the Kokoshnik?

Postnikov wrote:

Why have the several marks so many mistakes?





Many thanks to Piette and Ringo for providing real pieces!
Regards
Postnikov

piette wrote:Hi Dad,
Sorry about this - I didn't read your post properly :-)
I understand that the small kokoshnik is 3.5x1.5mm - can you tell me, what is the proper size of the big kokoshnik?
Regards,
Piette

"Big" - 5.0 Ñ… 2.2 mm

Best Reg..

Not quite Dad, 5 x 2,5 mm is correct and the other sizes are
4,0 x 2,0
3,5 x 1,5
3,0 x 1,5

Qrt.S wrote:I would not bet on that all С.Р.ВУРГЪ marked objects are fakes.

Hi, All.

I agree with Qrt.S. I will tell more — all spoons of "С.П.Бург" presented in these two themes have original marks. Last example of Postnikov (very nice example) shows that the mark "kokoshnik" is put after "С.П.Бург" mark. It means that "С.П.Бург" isn't the state mark from assay office, and concerns to imennik. But, whose is mark: the master? The seller? Also that it means: the name? A city? Definitely it is impossible to tell.




Best Reg..

What's the problem? The kokshnik mark must be the last punched mark on the object. I have explained a thousand times that the maker took his object to the assayer unfinished, unpolished and in parts but marked with his maker's mark. Only then it was allowed for the assayer to punch his hallmark on the object, in this case the kokoshnik. Therefore a maker's mark can never overlay a hallmark.

»Saint Macro of Distortions«

Hello All

Thank you all for yours contributions in the »Russian« section! In the very past I’ve got the impression, if actually some body is bored, but like to enlarge his knowledge, he should read the »Russian« topics — with other words, actually there is the »kitchen«.

I’ve read many of the past topics, also I wasn’t bored either. So I’ve got knowledge also from discussed details of how original punches must be, and their fakes.

»Buckler« was already in the past the »925-1000« contributor who made research by studying details from details — that has always amazed me.

Now »Qrt.S« in his contribution from Tue Jan 25, 2011 3:40 pm introduced a »line of differentiation«; for to could understand the differences of letters in their optical appearance, and it’s useful for ciphers as well. By the way: 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 0, a, b, C, c, d, e, f, G, g, J, O, o, p, Q, q, S, s, U, u are ciphers and letters which have to be passing with their ‘circular’ elements a little bit the top and/or bottom line — otherwise they look alike not to be correct.

Please see here »Qrt.S« contribution:

http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic ... 46&t=22989" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Already before (sorry I couldn’t find it back just now) »Postnikov« requested »Dad«, to show for comparisons of marks here in the Forum not “side view” images, but please only “top views”. That’s in principle well correct!

But that kind of »top view« is the kingdom of »Saint Macro of Distortions«!

A little discourse in between: Professional portrait photographer use for portrait an objective for distances — to prevent distortions, e.g. contra ears like sails, noses like to be the »Mount Everest« …

For Macro photography is a wide angle position of the zoom-objective the almost usual offer of the actual digital photography.

But these images are all distorted!

Well, »Postnikov« is in principle on a very correct line of comparisons — but all these images must be taken only in very similar optical conditions!

But it looks like, that that isn’t here the case!

So it’s in principle illegitimate to place more as only a »centre line« for comparisons. The more the comparison lines are placed near the border of the image, it doesn’t matter if it’s on the top or the bottom, left- or right-side, and there are the distortions.

The item’s area which should be imaged and the camera must always be centred and horizontally levelled to each other — otherwise …

Very special macro-objectives are necessary for images without distortion, and these aren’t ever the cheap ones!

To prevent at least some problems of distortion, well my argument there is for reason of lightning, with the preferred side effect of preventing distortion, I’ve already recommended, to make photos out of some distance, and then after clip out the marks area.

http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic ... 34&t=19420" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Another problem was or still is, to make a »white calibration« (»white balance«) in advance of taking photos, if it’s necessary for reasons of comparison to have e.g. the red enamel of Faberge correct shown.

Thank you All for be holding this in mind too.

Kind regards silverport

Hi all -

all my questions stay unanswered. The mantra like repetition of book textes help nobody - everybody knows them already! What helps are own observations, findings and examples (please not from Ivanov or from obscure internet sites). If there are none - it is better to be silent. Rudeness help not solve problems!
Another question: why is every shown mark completely different? Are the punches renewed after each spoon? Why the never seen "monkey"head as Kokoshnik? Can somebody show the same Kokoshnik from a real object?

My grandmother was right: You can lead horses to the water but you can´t make them drink!

Regards
Postnikov

Dear Silverport -

Maybe I did not understand your article 100 % but it is perhaps important to explain the connections of the different threads to you. As you might know no other silver/enamel/niello is so much faked than Russian Imperial objects. 98% of the queries on this board have with lookalikes or fakes to do. My intention was to ignore these threads with a laconic "We do not discuss fakes". (An usus you can find on all high class watch or antiques fora - these people do not want to discuss fakes - they can discuss enough real ones!). Here it is different: we have much more fakes than real objects - so some members want to show off what they know or not. The wrong way - but....
Real stuff is cleared with 2 contributions and one notorious contribution which repeat what the two otheres had already written.(You know who you are...)
Fake stuff starts endless discussions with the result depending on the experience of the single member: Yes-No-Yes- Maybe- Maybe not.
It is not important to need a highly sophisticated photo studio to separate right from wrong - only 2-3 clear photos. All the shown objects exist(ed) many thousand times and mostly you have seen them all. So if you have doubts you can remember which smith made what or can go to your collection (archive, photo collection, library etc.) and seek the solution. This concernes authentic and faked objects. Only when it comes to details - the "forensic" is neccesary, with different photos - unfortunately you can not take the object in your hand.
In European silver you do not have these problems - if the marks are clear - you have the answer at once. If the marks are heavy used or unclear - it takes a little longer. Experience!!
Only the fake (phantasy) marks take your time...

Kind Regards
Postnikov

Maybe there was another reason for the horse not to drink. You see it was not thirsty!
This eternal whining about the marks in books and in other sources being fakes annoys me a great deal. However, there is a partial truth in it but only a partial. There are books on the market that are copies of copies of copies. I will not name them here because you know what copycat books I’m talking about. These books are unreliable for obvious reasons.
But they are also reliable books on the market even if there is not a single book that has no faults and is perfect and complete up to 100 per cent, well maybe 90 at the most.
A.I Ivanov’s book is one. It is claimed that it contains dubious marks and some of them picked from whatever suspicious sources.
Now I wonder how and why could that be so? A. I. Ivanov is an expert in Ministry of culture of Russian Federation and his task is to examine precious Russian items and prove their authenticity. Do you think he would have the guts to write rubbish or whatever crap in his researches of which he has extracted and written his books?
Do you think that Ivanov pick Russian dubious or fake marks from suspicious sites in Internet and publish these fake marks in his books as it sometimes is claimed?

He didn't need to collect marks from dubious sources; he had all marks he needed in front of his eyes on the objects in all the Russian museums! He is authorized to investigate whatever pleases him or is needed.

Postnikova is written in 1963. She and her associates had the similar opportunities as Ivanov now have. The same as said above goes for Postnikova too. By the way there was no Internet in 1963.
Rethink before you next time start whining about the information in the books.

Without experience you must believe in every book - where else you have the opportunity to see marks - mayby on the forum?
By the way there a revised editions of P-L, Edition "UNVES" and "TRIO" 1995, ISBN 5-88682-002-7 and ISBN5-8872-003-0! 1995-1963 = 32 years of new informations.
But I am not interested in this kind of fruitless discussions - I am interested in Russian silver - I am a collector and no psychiatrist.

Regards
Postnikov