shrine
shrine
Hello!
I think, it's a relic keeper.
I've never seen similar before, but I have some doubts. (Mostly about the quality, the engravings, and the deep of the punch). Every detail, every piece have been marked.
I ask your helps, tell me your opinions.
Thank you in advance!
Best regards!
Krisztián
I think, it's a relic keeper.
I've never seen similar before, but I have some doubts. (Mostly about the quality, the engravings, and the deep of the punch). Every detail, every piece have been marked.
I ask your helps, tell me your opinions.
Thank you in advance!
Best regards!
Krisztián
Re: shrine
Maybe a relic box but as well a wafer box, difficult to know. No measures given. How big is it?
АОП is a to name unknown alderman in Moscow
AT is the assayer Andey Titov in Moscow 1786-1798
ГГ is a to name unknown master ~1790 in Moscow, maybe Gavrila Grigoriev, but I don't think so.
You probably know it, but the inscription INRI above Jesus head on the cross ordered by Pontius Pilatus stands for "Jesus Nazarenus Rex Judaeorum" -> Jesus from Nazareth King of the Jews.
АОП is a to name unknown alderman in Moscow
AT is the assayer Andey Titov in Moscow 1786-1798
ГГ is a to name unknown master ~1790 in Moscow, maybe Gavrila Grigoriev, but I don't think so.
You probably know it, but the inscription INRI above Jesus head on the cross ordered by Pontius Pilatus stands for "Jesus Nazarenus Rex Judaeorum" -> Jesus from Nazareth King of the Jews.
Re: shrine
Hello!
Certainly I know the inscription, thank you!
The measures: 14,5; 7,6; 3,3 cm.
What do you think?
It's possible, it could be genuine?
Best regards!
Krisztián
Certainly I know the inscription, thank you!
The measures: 14,5; 7,6; 3,3 cm.
What do you think?
It's possible, it could be genuine?
Best regards!
Krisztián
Re: shrine
I see no reason for doubts. The marks look good to me.
Re: shrine
Hi,
I had similar box about the same period, but its position was different, it was meant to stand upright.
The cross was on top and it was missing, repaired, and sold.
Mine opened in front, therefore nothing could be kept inside it, was to shallow. I thought it was meant for an icon or a relic of some kind that fitted into the box. Anyway, it was standing upright.
It was Moscow, too, and rather well made, much better than yours.
Suspicious facts here:
1. The marks were struck over very deep scratches, clearly visible. Meaning, scratches are older than marks, which makes no sense.Scratches cannot run to the mark, stop abruptly and then reappear at the other side in the same direction.
2. Another assayer had the year 1795 above his initials, not under St George. Cannot tell if that was normal, I mean two assayers with different system and the same year.
3. Contours of marks are too sharp.
That`s all I can tell.
Regards
I had similar box about the same period, but its position was different, it was meant to stand upright.
The cross was on top and it was missing, repaired, and sold.
Mine opened in front, therefore nothing could be kept inside it, was to shallow. I thought it was meant for an icon or a relic of some kind that fitted into the box. Anyway, it was standing upright.
It was Moscow, too, and rather well made, much better than yours.
Suspicious facts here:
1. The marks were struck over very deep scratches, clearly visible. Meaning, scratches are older than marks, which makes no sense.Scratches cannot run to the mark, stop abruptly and then reappear at the other side in the same direction.
2. Another assayer had the year 1795 above his initials, not under St George. Cannot tell if that was normal, I mean two assayers with different system and the same year.
3. Contours of marks are too sharp.
That`s all I can tell.
Regards
Re: shrine
Hmmm, didn't notice the scratch below the mark but I don't think it is a problem. The box could have been assayed later... The year is on its place for the era, below St. George. What do you mean with "too sharp..." what would tear the mark?
Re: shrine
Hi -
I am with AG2012 -
several red flags!
What annoys me the most are the stupid faces looking like a carikature. The skull is sensational.
The whole style reminds of the Judaica falsifications - stupid faces but many marks.
Regards
Goldstein
I am with AG2012 -
several red flags!
What annoys me the most are the stupid faces looking like a carikature. The skull is sensational.
The whole style reminds of the Judaica falsifications - stupid faces but many marks.
Regards
Goldstein
Re: shrine
Hi,
[1795 / А.Т] - прообирный мастер Андрей Титов, 1786-1798 гг., Москва.
1795 marks to compare with, fortunately the same year and assayer Andrey Titov.
(The maker is [А.Г] - Александр Богданович Гильдебранд,Alexander Bogdanovich Hildebrand).
Sorry, no comment.
Will search further.
Regards
[1795 / А.Т] - прообирный мастер Андрей Титов, 1786-1798 гг., Москва.
1795 marks to compare with, fortunately the same year and assayer Andrey Titov.
(The maker is [А.Г] - Александр Богданович Гильдебранд,Alexander Bogdanovich Hildebrand).
Sorry, no comment.
Will search further.
Regards
Re: shrine
Hi -
The Internet auctions are full of more or less successful replicas of sacred objects - some Christian symbols, fantasy marks and as little artisan skills as possible - are all you need.
Regards
Goldstein
The Internet auctions are full of more or less successful replicas of sacred objects - some Christian symbols, fantasy marks and as little artisan skills as possible - are all you need.
Regards
Goldstein
Re: shrine
HI,
My final post regarding superb Moscow silversmith at the end of 18th century, the fragment of a chalice maid in 1795. Not every silversmith was this excellent, but there was a continuous improvement of all techniques that gradually developed to the end 19th century leading to worldwide praised Russian silver.
Fakers rely on buyers ignorance, assuming 18th century Russian silver was rude an primitively made, so every clumsy fake is accepted, saint`s cartoons and too many marks, as if abundance of marks will affect the authenticity.
Btw, I think those boxes were accommodated lavish gospels.
Enjoy.
regards
My final post regarding superb Moscow silversmith at the end of 18th century, the fragment of a chalice maid in 1795. Not every silversmith was this excellent, but there was a continuous improvement of all techniques that gradually developed to the end 19th century leading to worldwide praised Russian silver.
Fakers rely on buyers ignorance, assuming 18th century Russian silver was rude an primitively made, so every clumsy fake is accepted, saint`s cartoons and too many marks, as if abundance of marks will affect the authenticity.
Btw, I think those boxes were accommodated lavish gospels.
Enjoy.
regards