That is what I call "expert talk"!Qrt.S wrote:#AG2012
Exactly that is the point. No, Dad was not showing fake marks.
I do not know why I always show a lot of photos and write a lot of text. All in vain! Just to put the size of Fabergé marks back to the actual, authentic size (mm) look at the from me shown photos. All other gigantic dimensions (cm) are fake marks.
The explanation is easy: no faker has original, authentic Fabergé at hand - he is dependent on picture material from books or the Internet. There, the respective brands are always shown enlarged - and are thus adopted 1: 1. This has two advantages: first, the production is easier, second, the uninformed buyer sees at a glance what it is. In addition, the stamp is always displayed clearly visible. All Fabergé stamps I have seen are broken down in a conventional way - they are deep and not sublime and above all they are tiny. That's a big difference! In some museums you can check these things at any time. You just have to do it and do not bounce back and forth. The issue of counterfeiting is too serious to dismiss so superficially - this is about a lot of money and there is a big damage! Without really sound knowledge and without access to authentic pieces, everything is just dubious speculation.
I recommend a visit to a gold or silversmith: there I would ask them to explain how sensitive or thin-walled parts could be marked without a deformation on the back! An anvil is never used - rather a lead bed. They will show you...Qrt.S wrote:I said I wouldn't make any further comments but since it seems to that certain facts are overseen or forgotten (again), I find in necessary to add the following explanation:
Remember that objects had to be taken to the assay office unfinished and in parts. When the maker and assayer punched their (sometimes worn) punches on the cellar's outside bottom, it caused an impression mark on the inside. When assayed the object was brought back to the workshop to be finished, the impression marks were badly visible and had to be removed, a common process. That was done by "hammering" the bottom from the inside against an iron "anvil". Silver is as very well also known softer than iron and hammering from inside keeping the marks against the anvil damaged partly the marks on the outside. That is the reason why they look "distorted/blurred" nothing else.
Again, real knowledge is better than imagination!
In my opinion, it is grossly negligent to denote with determinateness publicly things as genuine which are demonstrably faked.
Regards
Goldstein