Help with hallmarks

[AlikN]

Here is the link, I would like to get some info and opinions on those markings.

(admin edit)

[dognose]

Hi,

Welcome to the Forum.

Please, no linking to other forums. Embed your images here.

Trev.

[SteveDWollongong]

Hi Alik,

Here is a link on how to post and embed your photos:

http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=42199

Cheers,
Steve

[AlikN]

Here it is

[AG2012]

Hi,
The assayer in St Petersburg was Alexander Yashinov, Yashenkov, or Yashinkov (PL #1162)
The maker could be Etik Sällström (PL #1592) but I see dots in the mark here. There are very knowledgeable members of the forum. Let`s see what they have to say.
Btw. the image of the whole item would be appreciated.
Best wishes

[SteveDWollongong]

Hi,

To quote someone I hold in high regard; " what I know about Russian silver would fit on the back of a postage stamp" is totally applicable to me too but I would like to raise a question on this set of marks.

There is an example of the assay mark of Aleksandr Yashinov for the year 1816 already on this website and it differs in that the date is part of the St Petersburg city mark and not a separate punch.

See here under St Petersburg on the right hand side:

http://www.925-1000.com/Frussia_city_01.html

I would assume that the same punches (or style if worn out or broken) to be used during the same year by the same assayer unless there was a change that occurred in 1816 to the punch designs? Could one of our learned Russian experts shed some light on this please?

Thanks,
Steve

[Goldstein]

Hi -
Jaschinov assayed 1785-1826. Within this timeline marking rules changed several times. See PL p. 178

Please post a photo of the object - important for the style etc. This is a forum to learn - not only to ask!

Here another object (fruitbasked) assayed by him - according to the type of townmark within 1818-1864.




source PL, coll. Goldstein

Goldstein

[Dad]

There is an example of the assay mark of Aleksandr Yashinov for the year 1816 already on this website and it differs in that the date is part of the St Petersburg city mark and not a separate punch.

Steve.

Yes. You are right in your doubts.

It's false marks.

[AlikN]

I would think if someone made a set of fake stamps, they would use it more than once.
I wonder if someone have seen this combination of markings before.

[SteveDWollongong]

Hi Alik,

Could you please upload of a photo of the whole item.

cheers,
Steve

[AG2012]

Hi,
There are inconstant data on early 19th century St Petersburg marks.
Even ``experts`` on silver often disregard the issue of ``how it`s made``. For example,the marks on the right are struck on an open-work tray (a Russian web site), obviously machine stamped and cannot be genuine in spite of several comments claiming otherwise.


Goldstein`s fruit basket demonstrates the utmost excellence of craftsmanship (jeweler`s saw painstaking open work). Even tops of salt and pepper shakers were hand pierced at the time.
In short, one cannot rely only on marks, unless they are obviously poorly made or fully inconsistent with the item itself.
In this particular case the image of the whole item would be appreciated, as already suggested.
Furthermore, we would appreciate references or ideas on St Petersburg assay office system in early 19th century (i.e. the year incorporated within the assayers’ marks etc ).PL reference is insufficient regarding the issue.
Best wishes

[Goldstein]

Hi -
Without meaningful, clear photos, it is pointless to answer questions specifically!
Wasted time and effort! In any case I will ignore these types of queries in the future!

Goldstein

[Qrt.S]

St Petersburg's town marks vary from the very first beginning that is as from 1714. What marks were used before that is not known. If it is of bigger interest we can revert to those 18th cent. marks later. Anyway, let's focus on what town marks were used as from early 19th cent. as requested by AG 2012. Those town marks' frames are more or less (irregular) ovals. Some are almost round ones and with the year in four digits below the town crest of an anchor and a grapnel crossing a scepter. However, there are two different town marks for 1800, one in an oval frame and another in a round frame. The mark for 1801 exists as well in two different shapes, one in an oval and another in an oval but with a cut lower end. The years 1823 and 1824 has two shapes, one a round frame and one an irregular oval (almost a triangle with round corners). The year 1825 is round. However, between 1795-1825 the town mark can lack the year but such marks are rather uncommon.

As from 1826 to ~1860 the town mark lacks the year but one will find them in different sizes and in two frame shapes, one a square with cut corners and one with a round frame. As from about 1860 the fineness is included with the town mark (dvoinik) but lacks the year. As from ~1872-75 the assayers initials are included (chetvernik).

The mark AG 2012 refers to (АЯ 1825 and ST P town mark) as possibly being a fake is not a fake, it is genuine but the left mark (1824 and St P) can be discussed.

By the way Aleksandr Illitsh Jaschinkov/Jaschinov/Jasenkov assayed 1795-1826!

Nonetheless the town marks regarding St Petersburg during the 18th and 19th centuries are difficult indeed (not to talk about Moscow's town marks) and differing opinions may occur. However, I have soot marks of almost all years,so...

In general I share Goldstein's last comment.

[Goldstein]

Hi Qrt.S -
as we all want to learn permanently it is alway essential to specify the primary sources and instead of endless descriptions are photos or pictures more helpful and unequivocally. Just to mention an otherwise denominated date (working period of Ja. A.) without source is worthless because not verifiable.
If we want to work seriously and comprehensible for everyone it should be done like that. All other procedures leave too much room for errors or wild speculations. Russian silver is complicated enough.
I count on your support!

Goldstein

[Qrt.S]

Hi -
Jaschinov assayed 1785-1826. Within this timeline marking rules changed several times. See PL p. 178

source PL, coll. Goldstein

Goldstein

@Goldstein

Take a look on what is written on page 178 #1162.

When a questioner puts a question on these sites, it means that he wants to know the answer. Therefore it is of utmost importance that the answer given is correct. An incorrect answer might spread like uncontrolled fire. In worst case cause that these sites in the long run will become unreliable. That shall not happen! Moreover, the source for the information given is of less value because if the questioner had sources he wouldn't have asked the question in the first place! Silver books are difficult to get, rare and expensive and unfortunately they also contain in some cases insufficient even false information. In addition, some times the books might just be inaccessible. That is the main reason for the question and not to know the source.

Every time I see incorrectness here I will correct it. The reliability of an answer is not either based on numerous pictures or referring to different sources or "collections" only. It is as well based on years of studies, research and experience....etc.. How do you refer to that? Therefore the correct answer is based in trust of the answering person's knowledge. To trust in the answer or not is up to the reader and nothing else. To know the source is not the main point at all. It might be interesting but that's all. Nonetheless, mistakes can be made by anybody...it happens.

Anyway, since you insist. My "source" regarding the St Petersburg's town marks comes from Leonard Bäcksbacka's book: St Petersburg's guld och silversmeder 1714-1870, Konstsalongens förlag Helsingfors 1951. In this rather good and rare book there many pages of soot marks of St Petersburg's town marks. It is impossible to show all pages here. You ought to understand that, so you just have to trust me as simple as that. By the way, in the past I offered you the possibility to buy the mentioned book but you had no interest in it. According to you it was too expensive. Yes, it was, but all such books are. The chance was lost.

Yes, Russian silver marks are complicated. Indeed we know that well. Sometimes you must speculate to some extent because there are no sources available to fall back to. In the long run the missing jigsaw pieces will be found and fall into their places but that needs co-operation not criticism.

[Goldstein]

Hi Qrt.S -
Thank you that you have made me aware of the typo re Jaschino´s assay time. I thought I missed something. But you see how important sources are - errors are resolved quickly!
Interesting that a book from 1951 is more meaningful than books from the 80s and 90s. In my opinion, another reason to indicate sources - so that everyone can get an idea, what source he believes more. As long as no 100% proof exists always room for speculation is given. I can not point decisively enough to the frequent use of photos. Proverb that says: a picture is worth a thousand words - how true.The reason why others and I show as much photos as possible - often always the same - is not to show off - but to underline the written word or give the opportunity to detect a flaw or typo in your text. To ask for sources is no hidden criticism - it is the wish for more co-operation, kind of team work, collecting puzzels or solve riddles - however you want to name it. And by the way: I like to see photos of Russian silver and their marks! The more the better!
I count on you anyway!

Goldstein

[Dad]

You are right both. Like always.
But. A picture is worth a thousand words. Show punches "АЯ" with 1795 and 1796, please.

[Qrt.S]

I have never denied the importance of showing pictures. They are very important and they reveal a lot of information. However, too often situations occur when pictures are unavailable. As an example Dad's recent request here; "Show punches "АЯ" with 1795 and 1796" I would be happy to do that but I cannot because I don't have such pictures. What I have is many dozens of soot marks of St Petersburg's year and town marks starting from 1714 and much more.... To show all of them here would be close to mission impossible but also unnecessary and a total waste of time and space. Therefore it is up to the reader to believe or not what is written only.

Yes, Bäcksbacka's book is written in 1951 and he has written another book too i.e Narvas och Nyens Guldsmeder This book is written in 1946. Another interesting book is written in late 19th century by baron A. E. von Fölkersahm. i.e " Inventaire de l'Argenterie des Palais Impériaux (Описи серебра двора его императорскаго величества). In 1907 he published in Russian in the art magazine Starjie Godi a list of the most important jewelers and goldsmiths in St Petersburg between the years of 1714-1814. Von Fölkerssahm aimed to expand the list to 1850 but unfortunately it never happened. Believe it or not but the vast majority of the marks regarding St Petersburg in Postnikova's "bible" are taken from the books mentioned above. What do we learn from that? Yes, we learn that pictures are only a part of the truth the rest is in the books. We also learn never to disdain books written many decades ago. There is a hell of lot of truth and facts in them. But of course you knew all that already, right?

As to books written around 1980-90. From them we learn that there is not a single book containing really new and relevant information regarding Imperial Russian makers marks. They are almost all copies of Postnikova. Some them really lousy ones not even worth wastepaper so full of misleading and false information are they and some of them just really poor copies irrespective of what "crap" is written on the back page. If you know a book containing really vital and new information as to Russian makers I'd like to know the name of it and the author too. Please, do not mention Ivanov's blue and green books. Pick some other books.....I don't think you find one...

[Goldstein]

Hi Dad -
the best I can do is 1805....




Goldstein

[Dad]

Hi.

Qrt.S, I think, it (punches of "АЯ" 1795 and 1796) don't exist. According to my data, Yashinkov has begun to work in this position since 1797, only.

Thanks, Goldstein. But I asked about 1795-96 punches ..

Best Regards....