www.925-1000.com

Dear All,

I would be grateful of your considered opinions on my analysis of a pair of silver gilt cufflinks - I have posted here (as opposed to Silver Jewellery section) as I believe this area of the forum is the most relevant in terms of its regular members’ expertise; do please correct if I am mistaken. Also, apologies in advance for the length of text.

These bear the following marks:

- Post-1908/right-facing oval 88 Kokoshnik marks for St. Petersburg to rear of principal part, with corresponding round certificate marks on subsidiary bar part (with spot mark in correct position). Measured with Verniers, the principal (oval) cartouche is exactly 4x2mm.

- Maker's Mark to principal and subsidiary parts ‘AT’. Plenty of opportunity for mis-attribution here given the number of ‘AT’s’ that were active in St. Petersburg, but I believe the font and shape of cartouche is closest to Alfred Thielemann; this corresponds with the style and type of the piece (I recall Tillander-Godenhielm’s assertion that Thielemann’s workshop produced a good deal of small decorative pieces - cufflinks included - typically with an Imperial theme (e.g.double-headed eagle), made with guilloché enamel, and set with precious/semi-precious stones. Whilst circumstantial, this piece conforms stylistically with these points. In terms of the lattermost, I have seen confirmed Thielemann pieces with very similar cabochon stones, also claw-set.

- There are also Cyrillic Fabergé marks - ‘K. Fabergé’ with a double-headed eagle above, with corresponding initials (also in Cyrillic) on the subsidiary part. Notwithstanding the general rule with Fabergé marks (always be suspicious), their presence raises a concern - I was under the impression the ‘K. Fabergé’/Imperial eagle combination denoted a Moscow manufacture; naturally, this does not correspond with the Kokoshnik marks. As surely they must be spurious, the presence of these marks of course calls the authenticity of the entire piece into question.

- Another point of concern - whilst admittedly very small, I have been unable to locate any marks on the links; furthermore, these links do not seem of a quality commensurate with such a maker, or indeed the rest of the piece. Perhaps poorly repaired, or replaced, at a later date? Also, whilst perhaps a minor point - I would have thought an 88 zolotnik purity would be perhaps too high for such a piece?

With the above taken into account, I suspect this could be from the workshop of Thielemann, ‘upgraded’ later with spurious Fabergé marks. However, it is highly likely that I have come to an incorrect conclusion. I would therefore be grateful of this forum’s expertise, particularly as to the veracity of the marks but also in terms of the general style and quality of the piece (pictures for consideration below).

Quite good quality of Hallmarks. But I think this is fake. If you can, take clear pictures of the round punch with a kokoshnik. There are also too many productions marks. This style of the product is often used in Faberge fakes.

Hi,
Cannot tell for sure whether translucent light blue enamel is damaged or it`s of uneven thickness, the latter is not acceptable in genuine Faberge.
Close up of the enameled front is appreciated.
I have seen faked Faberge marks struck on enameled pieces but marks were always applied to parts without enamel, because otherwise enamel would be damaged.
Regards

Thank you both for your responses, much appreciated.

To Dad - I have uploaded below two pictures of the round Kokoshnik punch; hopefully they will be clear enough to be of use to you. Do let me know if they are not.

To AG2012 - I have also uploaded a close-up photograph of the light blue enamel. It looks to be to be damaged, with several hairline cracks and a chip distinct through a loupe. This perhaps is consistent with faked Fabergé mark struck after the fact? To your first point, in terms of the thickness it seems flat and even both to the eye and to touch.

Your further thoughts gratefully received.

Thanks for the photo. Very informative.
Now I am completely sure that the item is 100% fake. From the first second of life.
In addition. I do not remember a single successful fals round stamp with a kokoshnik.
If you acquired this item as Russia in the early 20th century, then this is a sad mistake.

Hi,
There is something else very wrong here; Imperial provenance with the jeweled eagle, very popular with fakers.
The eagle is clumsy and does not match Faberge excellence. Not even resembling Russian imperial eagle with phony shield and ruby.
The eagle itself is of poor design, poor chasing and almost amateur setting of central ruby, notches needed to insert its wings.
Possibly a marriage (combination) of plain enameled cufflinks and then the eagle applied to it.
Besides, almost every real Faberge cufflinks have no imperial cyphers, crowns, eagles.
Regards

Not early 20th but early 21th century.

Dear both,

Thank you for your further advice - I must say, I was suspicious about the notches to the sides, (I noted also they were rather uneven in execution), and also suspected perhaps a marriage to plain cufflinks.

Dad, I am aware of the Forum's sensible reticence in arming 'fakers' with knowledge, but that being said it would be useful for my own future reference to understand what is wrong with the round punch.

Fabergé in St Petersburg punched usually on "ФАБЕРЖЕ" without K. However, there are a few exceptions. The round punch looks a bit odd. It should measure 1,25 mm Ø. The round kokoshnik is used as a separate punch on detachable parts. The oval kokoshnik's measures are correct 4x2 mm. Thielemann punched 1870-1909. His widow Elisabeth continued the business but with her own mark,ET. And as Dad said: "Too many punches!" Thielemann made small thing like jetons etc. but still I would say fake.

Ok. Look and compare. The round mark was punched deeply usually. Its preservation is usually good.





Your punch looks more like a portrait of a Mayan (indian)

Here is a product from the same "workshop"