www.925-1000.com

Hello guys,
just got this Kovsh but i have some doubts about it's marks.
Is this the right mark for Mikhail Ovchinnikov? the last letter does not seem to fit with anything i found online.
13.5cm long, 153gr

Please share your thoughts :) any info would be great!
THANK YOU!!

Unfortunately my only thought is that this is a great looking piece. Hope to hear more about it, especially good things. If it has faked marks, I would be at the head of the line among those that might be duped by them.

In my opinion a more than a dubious mark. The vast majority of Russian cloisonné objects on the current markets are fakes.

This cannot be Ovchinnikov cloisonné.
``13`` mark is a mystery.
Poor knowledge of Cyrillic alphabet.

The "13" mark is the Israeli Standards Institution.
http://www.925-1000.com/foreign_marks2.html

Hi -
first the standard advices: 1) do not buy things of which you know nothing! 2) ask first - buy later!
The firm of Ovtschinnikov was one of the best in Russia of that time - known for their outstanding marksmanship and quality; both missing on your "reproduction" - to say it nice. Not to mention the false marks. Kovshi from Ovtschinnikov were always made of 88 zolotniki silver and correct marked! As a Kovsh consists of 2 parts (vessel and handle) both parts must be (according to the law) correct marked with silvercontent and the manufacturer.
See photos and red arrows:
Unmarked = false


Marked = correct


Goldstein

Dear Goldstein,
thank you for your advices.
1) I know exactly what i am buying, there is no risk when you pay scrap value for this kind of items - even if it's a "reproduction" i'd still buy 100 pieces every day of the week.
2) I don't agree, you don't always have the time to ask and wait for answers. if you do it is obviously better BUT no risk= no profit.
I did not know the handle should be marked too - thank you for pointing that out!

Regarding hallmarks on all detachable parts being taken to the assay office, duty paid and assembled later, I could not find any reference with detailed description of the legislation. The issue has already been discussed here, but the fact was vaguely mentioned.
1. When was it legislated? (The period when enforced).
2. Marks cannot be struck on enamel, meaning silver was assayed with cloisonné cells and enameled later. But enameling is not an easy process and if one wanted to match high standard every time, many pieces must have been ruined even with cloisonné and let alone with technically more demanding plique-à-jour. Was the tax reimbursed or new piece was tax exempted and ruined silver destroyed?
2. Although not properly marked silver is avoided, how often did you see obviously genuine items without being properly marked according to this legislation? Or it`s acceptable on silver made before the legislation, but as I said, the period is unknown to me.
(Having in mind duty dodgers in Britain and inconsistent marking throughout Europe at the time, it`s hard to believe Russia was the only country with close to perfect law enforcement).
I am aware many details will remain unclear. E.g. French ``owl`` import mark for gold was used for import from a non-treaty countries since 1893, but I never had the answer or the list of ``non-treaty countries``
(Just in case you are interested, it`s here)
http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic ... 21&t=44111
Thank you for your time and for sharing your knowledge and experience.
Kindest regards

Hi -
All additional parts (for example: spouts, handles, pearlrims, stands and added decorations ) of an object had to be marked against fear of fraud. There were good reasons for this measure! These requirements were introduced together with the respective stamp laws in force. This is one of the many reasons why you can easyly detect fakes - you need several different sized punches for one object!
Here some examples - all materials could be marked. Even for this there must have been an uniform regulation....you find the marks always in the same places.
Enamel cigarette case (later overstrucked by the communistic marks - just to avoid cheeky comments...)



Money bank



Creamer



Napkin ring enamel



Napkin ring lacquer



Tscharka lacquer



There are many other examples - you have only to look, know where to search. If they are missing - go away!

source: coll. Goldstein

Goldstein

Thank you for being kind to answer and for the effort.
All items shown are dated very late 19th century or beginning 20th century.

When was it legislated? (The period when enforced).

It is exactly as Goldstein explains. It is mentioned in the Assay charter of July 13, 1861

Hi AG2012 -
now we have an exact date: before July 13th 1861 objects were marked only once with the 4 known marks ( town, assayer, maker, content). It looks like there was a lot of misuse - so something had to happen. After 1861 every extra part of an object had to be marked. Around 1898 (new marks) only this marks were enough, mostly a tiny controlmark (little kokoschnik head with a dot code for the town) was added on the extra parts.
I will explain it on sugar tongs but this shall apply mutatis mutandis for all silber objects.
The oldest sugar tongs I have dating back to 1799, show the beginning of the habit to mark sugar tongs on both arms, left: year/town - right: assayer/maker or vice versa. I do not know if it was made for aesthetic reasons or to prevent abuse. Maybe both. This continued until 1898. From then on until the end of Imperial Russia there was only the latest mark within the bend of the sugar tongs. Some examples:

Before 1861



After 1861



Around 1898



sorce: coll Goldstein

Goldstein

The misuse among other problems was that some dubious goldsmiths exchanged some parts to illegal fineness after the assaying. Therefore the ukaz stipulated that an object made of separate parts must be presented to the assayer unfinished, unpolished and in parts with every part punched with the maker's mark irrespective of how the parts were later joined, soldered, riveted, with hinges, chains...whatever. If this was not the case it was strictly forbidden for the assayer to punch his mark. If he still did it and got caught for doing that, he was severely punished, fined and in worst case sent to Siberia with a one way ticket and all his belongings were confiscated to the state.
I don't understand why I have to explain this one time after another. Use the search function and you will find more information about this law and its consequences if not obeyed. However, in the beginning 20th century some reliefs from marking all separate parts were allowed.

Factum est!

Just believe it AG2012!

I do believe what you say, I just wanted to know when it started. Both of you have the correct year (1861) and in the meantime I managed to find the charter of 13 June 1861, legislating
1. number of samples (числу проб) taken to the assay office 2. marks on items covered with thin sheet of silver (проб для накладного серебра) and 3. solders (золотого и серебряного припоев).
``Устав пробирный от 13 июня 1861 года ``
Thank you

Hi AG2012 -
last but not least the tiny control marks you can find if you look very close - sometimes they are very hidden - consisting of the Kokoschnik head and a dot or dash code for the different citys.
Example: crystal pastry shell, made by 15th Artel Moscow



From left to right: silvercontent, maker, contol mark (1908-17 (26), export mark crystal-silver
Now everything should be clear.

source: coll. Goldstein

Goldstein

AG2012 wrote:``Устав пробирный от 13 июня 1861 года ``

Not June but July, fine that we can agree on the date. Nonetheless, below you can see a good example of a correctly marked object. I have showed it before but anyway, take a close look of the marks on the detachable but soldered parts. This is how it should look like. If not, just leave it irrespective of the buyer's "explanations..." why the marking is what it is...


If somebody happens to know who this master BM is, I would be very happy, thank you. However, sometimes you can find object in plique a jour or filigree unmarked for the already mentioned simple reason i.e. the object could be damaged with the punch. It is rare but such objects exist.
The cream jug is from my collection. Unfortunately its companion the sugar bowl is in the Moscow Kremlin Museum. I have book with a picture of it in it. Funny, I have the jug they have the bowl :-))))))

Goldstein wrote: ↑Fri Apr 08, 2016 7:46 am Hi -
All additional parts (for example: spouts, handles, pearlrims, stands and added decorations ) of an object had to be marked against fear of fraud. There were good reasons for this measure! These requirements were introduced together with the respective stamp laws in force. This is one of the many reasons why you can easyly detect fakes - you need several different sized punches for one object!
Here some examples - all materials could be marked. Even for this there must have been an uniform regulation....you find the marks always in the same places.
Enamel cigarette case (later overstrucked by the communistic marks - just to avoid cheeky comments...)



Money bank



Creamer



Napkin ring enamel



Napkin ring lacquer



Tscharka lacquer



There are many other examples - you have only to look, know where to search. If they are missing - go away!

source: coll. Goldstein

Goldstein

Dear Goldstein, I realize that this topic is really really old but could you be so kind to repost the images that I cannot open and visualize?Maybe because it's been to long, I'm trying to imrpove my knowledge about russian silver, especially on kovshi because I'm managing a very large collection, and all the information I find here is really valuable and unique to me!

I read that theoretically both the cup and the handle and also the vessel, really? they should be marked with the hallmarks, I've never seen it, I've always and only found a single mark (by single I mean both goldsmith brand and city and kokoshnik marks) often and willingly on the base or along the pedestal but never on the handle or on the vessel.

thank you very much if you can help me in this intricate forest that is the world of antique silverware

Hi,

See: https://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopi ... 39&t=57948

Trev.

dognose wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2023 11:56 am Hi,

See: https://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopi ... 39&t=57948

Trev.

Dear Dognose, thank you so much i had no idea. I'm sorry for hurting anyone with my question.