Hollming mark (?)

[art_addicted]

Hi everyone,
I happen to have come through to a Russian mark on a pair of cufflinks.

It looks to be the one of August Hollming, but – considering its dating around 1915 (from personal indications other than the hallmarks) – one should also believe it could be from his son Väinö production. What puzzles me more, it’s that the joining clasp it’s correctly stamped for gold (even if clearly added lately, as it seems to me), but no traces of a silver hallmark, other than the maker’s one. If the silver marks does pop out (I haven't inspected the item personally), would everything be correct?

Also: where could I find any copy of Fabergé inventory lists, if existing for reference? Are they publicly available as a whole, maybe within some book? I couldn't find any infos about it on the forum. Indeed, it does look like there could be also something scratched, but not very clear. At least, for who knows more: would something with number 9***(*?) match this master/period or inventory were attributed following no order/purely in a random way?

Things like those above could make you doubt of the object?
I appreciate any help and thank you in advance.

[AG2012]

Hi,
There were 3 gold standards in Imperial Russia: 56, 72 and 92.
The most common was 56 zolotnik (.583), less common was 72 (.750).
Full kokoshnik marks are seen on bigger items, otherwise the following mark was applied (with assayer`s initials).
And it was strictly regulated, no exceptions, particularly with reputable jewelers.


It would be interesting to see the cufflinks; the quality of craftsmanship matters.
You mention both silver and gold marks; on same cufflinks ?

Regards

[art_addicted]

Hi,
There were 3 gold standards in Imperial Russia: 56, 72 and 92.
The most common was 56 zolotnik (.583), less common was 72 (.750). Full kokoshnik marks are seen on bigger items [...]

Hi AG! First of all, thanks to have recalled for public interest the gold standards and the kokoshnik for small items. It's always useful.
56 looked indeed to me the most suitable solution in using gold - especially in particolar situation like this (namely: used just for a replacement/enlargement issue); a much higher gold content would have look suspicious to me to realize such a work.

It would be interesting to see the cufflinks; the quality of craftsmanship matters.

I agree, that's straight to the point: hallmarks can be faked, real quality cannot.
I just had a glance and they looked to me compatible with a good quality product. I'll try to have a photo and post it.

You mention both silver and gold marks; on same cufflinks ?

Yes, sorry but I forgot to state it clearly previously: they're ALL made in SILVER, only the connecting CLASP is in GOLD. That's why I posted in this section, also.

And it was strictly regulated, no exceptions, particularly with reputable jewelers.

It's exactly what made me think: I already read a lot on this forum and learnt that such "exceptions" often are... deceptions! From what I know on this object, there are complete marks (maker's+kokoshnik) on gold, but ONLY the maker's one on silver. No silver kokoshnik (I was expecting a 84). That's pretty strange, isn't it? What do you think?

[art_addicted]

Here it is! We can judge better.

[AG2012]

Hi,
Although the image is not very sharp, I think it makes sense now. Diamonds (rose cut here) are never set in yellow or rose gold because they need to retain their white colour as much as possible. Therefore they are set either in white gold or silver.
The number on the clasp must be 56 for .583 gold (see the image with the arrow bellow).
The problem of authenticity remains, though, because AH mark changes the value from $$$ to $$$$$. And they seem to have AH punch struck on many items flooding the online market.
Most of Hollming jewelry was of exceptional quality (particularly with enamel).This pair of cufflinks is rather modest, but not every piece was made for royalty. All said, other facts (provenance) should be reconsidered, too.
Regards