St. Petersburg 1879.

[2209patrick]

Hello everyone.

Believe these are St. Petersburg assayer marks for 1879.
The box is 10 inches long by 3 1/4 tall
Would appreciate any information on the maker.



Pat.
.

[2209patrick]

Some have sugested that this is a Sazikov mark.
However, I have read the Petersburg branch closed in 1877.
Also read the firm stopped trading in Moscow in 1887 and was taken over by Ivan Khlebnikov.

Any thoughts as to wether or not these are authentic Sazikov marks ?



I'm helping someone out here. These are not my pictures.

Thanks.
Pat.
.

[Qrt.S]

"Sazikov" was one of the best and famous companies in Moscow and in St Petersburg. Founded in 1793 in Moscow by Pavel Fyodorovitsh Sazikov. The firm was a supplier of the imperial court as from 1837 and achieved the highest awards in different exhibitions throughout the world.

The St Petersburg subsidiary existed from 1842 to 1880 according to my sources).

The whole company was overtaken by Khlebnikov in the beginning of 1887 as you already correctly stated.

About the marks: The assayer is not unknown anymore. He seems to be Ivan Vonif. Jestignev 1870-1891 in StP. But the maker's mark...I haven't seen a Sazikov mark like that before as well as I cannot find a similar mark i my books. Sazikov'äs marks are usually printed but not written marks. In addition the letters in Sazikov's marks are all of the same size, your mark "C" is bigger like an anfang mark. So..but but, but these are my humble and personal remarks, but I haven't seen everything....yet :-)
.

[Qrt.S]

More questions:
Where are the marks on the box?
Has the lid separate marks?
Is there really 2 assayer marks on the same box (84)?
What mark is right of "Sazikov"? (cannot see it good enough)
What possible letter is on the imperial eagle's body?
.

[BourbonDelMonte]

Hi guys!

Here are a few more photos and some more information.
The marks are on the lid and inside the box. There are two double strike heads on lid and inside (to right of Sazikov), eagle on lid and inside, Two assayer marks (84) on lid and inside, signature on lid and inside, and one mark with 1879 and N.E except the "N" is reverse on inside. I cannot see any letter on the eagle.
I hope this helps.








.

[2209patrick]

Hi Alexandra. Welcome to the forum.

Good to see you got registered ok.
Great job on the pictures.

Qrt.S has identified the assayer as Ivan Vonif. Jestignev 1870-1891 in St.Petersburg.
Has also stated The St Petersburg subsidiary of Sazikov existed from 1842 to 1880.

Two questions I have:
- Is this written Sazikov mark with the first letter larger authentic ?
- Why is there an additional, oval, assayer mark that was used from 1896 ?



Pat.
.

[Qrt.S]

Interesting to see that the box (body) is marked on the inside. Usually the marks are on the bottom's outside. And full marks on the lid? The revers N (И) is the cyrillic letter I and the E is Ye (Je) meaning Ivan Jestignev.

Anyway, 2209patrick presented the same questions that I did. Why two assaying marks? Too many open questions. I must say that I have my doubts...(sorry)
.

[BourbonDelMonte]

There is always a fake somewhere. I am not too disappointed because it seemed a little strange from the get go. Thank you all so much for your help, I was going a little crazy.
.

[oel]

Hi,

For the records herewith a picture with a hallmark contributed to Sazikov.
Russian Hallmarks from left to right. Imperial Court Silversmith Imperial Cypher,the silversmith in cyrillic alphabet =Sazikov,The date 1865 / assayer mark, purity degree 91=91 zol.=947,9/1000, St. George killing the dragon (towards right ) is hallmark of Moskow mid 19th century.

http://g.imagehost.org/view/0884/Silver_basket_Sazikov" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://g.imagehost.org/view/0512/Silver_basket_Sazikov" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I appreciate any feedback.

Regards,

Oel
.

[Qrt.S]

With due respect dear oel, but hardly believe my eyes. Please take a closer look at the marks you refer to.

First of all there is no Latin "S" in the Cyrillic alphabet. Its "S" is the Latin letter "C". Secondly the name seems to be misspelled. The correct spelling is САЗИКОВЪ not --SИКОВЪ. Thirdly the assay mark looks strange to me, the town/hallmark for Moscow has a round shield when it at this time should be a square with cut corners. Such round shielded town mark was used in St Petersburg but before 1864, but that has nothing to do with this. In addition, the quality mark 91 has sharp corners when they usually are cut, but....

Dubious indeed...
.

[oel]

Dear Qrt. S

Thank you for your reply. With due respect please have an other look at ’ Sazikov’. This time at the hand of a new picture. I clearly stated contributed to Sazikov. There never has been or will be a letter Latin S in the Cyrillic Sazikov mark. We are clearly looking at what I call the figure 3 (used triplet). Before the figure 3 I see a faded letter what could be an A. So we have (?) A3ИКОВЪ. This could be САЗИКОВЪ for Sazikov? The assay mark/ town mark. The shield is not round but also not square. However it is St.Georg as in Marc Rosenberg band IV Lf. Nr. 8155 & 8153. The 91 mark indeed has no cut corners but does this implement we are looking at fake hallmarks? The quality of the work speaks for it self (perhaps made in India?). How can we be sure?
For a better picture of the hall marks see and you can trust your eyes:

http://g.imagehost.org/view/0117/Saziko ... ter_S_or_3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Regards

Oel
.

[2209patrick]

Hello everyone.
I enhanced Oel's last picture. Maybe this will help.



Pat.
.

[Qrt.S]

OK, sorry, my mistake. The new pictures show it better, it is 3 not S. But the town mark is still a bit of a mystery. Rosenberg is written already in 1928 and is not the best source for Russian (hall)marks. A lot of investigations has taken place after that with new findings. There are more sufficient books available today. Anyway, yes it is Moscow's St George, but the shield is strange as well as the "missing" corners in the quality mark. The 1865 assay mark's shield is a square with cut corners and definately not "round". There is no round marks at all in the "tripple/troiniki".

Is it a fake or not? Good question. I don't know the absolute truth, but here is one hint:
Take a look at the opposite/inside side of the bowl where the marks are. Can you see any roughness or anything that indicates what is on the outside. What I mean is, that is the marks hit so hard that they have damaged the opposite side? The thing is that a piece must be brought to the assaying office for marking unfinished but marked with the maker's mark. The assayer hit his mark(s) and the pieces was brought back to the workshop and finished. During that process the possible "roughness or damages" caused by the assay mark was removed and the piece polished and finished.

Now you can make your own conclusions about the genuineness
.

[oel]

Hi Qrt.S

Thank you and according to my wife and children I make a lot of mistakes without admitting doing so. Back to the filigree. Could it be that filigree work has been considered hard to hallmark past? I have seen many filigree items without hallmarks. Due to what I think the absence of a suitable place to hallmark. I read in Tardy page 372 Russia ‘small articles were marked with the City arms and the fineness. Tardy page 371 ‘Ukase of 13th June, 1861 a special note about filigree work . Filigree work was allowed a fineness of…….provided it was marked to show its fineness. St.George killing the dragon without a shield was used in 1787-90, 1799 and 1804-1810 Tardy page 353. Tardy page 365 shows the 91 fineness mark with sharp corners for the 18th century and perhaps early 19th century. The firm Sazikov was founded in 1793 and became a supplier of the imperial court as from 1837. What I am saying is could we be looking at an earlier piece, made by Sazikov, at the end 18th beginning 19th the century. Due to the filigree work and changing rule on filigree hallmarking with a later added assay mark and date. The assaymark has been clearly re-struck. There is a ‘extra 1’ in the bottom left corner next to 1865.
Herewith a picture of the basket opposite inside side of the bowl where the marks are. However bear in mind that that the opposite impressions left by the hallmarks are normally covered by a plate and not visible.

Regards

Oel


.

[Qrt.S]

Unfortunately we are a bit lost now because this thread was in the origin about the box. Anyway, to my understanding "unmarked" filigee work is usually silver plated brass or some other alloy. However, filigree work in silver must be marked with the respective Russian silver marks. This was a very strict obligation to the silversmiths. Every piece must be marked with maker's mark before it was brought to the assayer.

I still stick to my previous statement i.e. check the opposite side, no visible marks should occur. The opposite side is usually visible. Take a sugar bowl as one example. I have never seen a piece where the opposite side of the marks are covered with a plate??? OK, I admit that I haven't seen everything :-)...yet. But a plate soldered on the inside bottom of a sugar bowl or pitcher or similar???

Tardy is a good book but only on general level and the stamp marks are "paintings" not photos. I kindly suggest that you rather relay on Postnikova or Ivanov when examining Russian silver marks. Please also note that the Tardy sentence you quote continues ...allowed a fitness of 81, 84 or 94 zol no 91 here!

The assayers' marks were manufactured and distributed by the official mint office. There are no exceptions. The (quality) marks are all similar for the same year. St George for Moscow without a shield was used as from 1777 to 1816 with minor exceptions. They are the years 1780, 1786 when they used a shielded mark alongside with the one without a shield. 1811 is also a "shielded" mark.

By the way, all of you that have Tardy, please make a correction on page 117 (Finland). Disregard the last sentence on the mentioned page. It is complete nonsense that 813H or 916H would mean something else than 813/1000 or 916/1000. Thank you.

At this stage I apologize my simple English, its not my native tongue.
.

[oel]

Hi Qrt.S

Thank you. Only some remarks about silver items of thin gauge. Most of the time you can see a impression mark on the back of the silver plate, where they hallmarked the front of the silver plate. And yes most of the time the impression mark is visible but smooth. I agree on heavier gauged silver plates you see no shadows of the hallmarks on the back of the plate. The Sazikov and the double headed eagle impressions on the back of the base plate.It looks like they have been smoothened. The hallmarks have been stamped on a non removable item of the filigree work, were the silver twisted wires have been attached to the base plate of the filigree work. To make it look better, the silversmith put a protected shield over the base plate, attached with 2 little silver nuts. Like I said before where do you best put hallmarks on a piece of delicate filigree work? My local jeweler acid tested the basket and he can confirm the fineness is higher than .925. Unfortunately he can not be more precise. (admin edit) I agree about your comments about silver research books. In Tardy I put note on page 117.

Regards,
Oel
.

[Qrt.S]

On last comment to this interesting discussion. It is very true that marking a filigree work is difficult. Usually the marks are on the bottom or on the base ring on the inside.
About the marking in general, I forgot to mention that on a Russian silver piece every detachable part must carry a mark. That means that your piece should have at least two marks (both master and assay office). One on the handle and one on the "body". This was also a strict rule. The idea was to prevent a possible later change of parts to similar parts made of unqualified silver (dubious silver smiths). A part with the assayer's mark could then not be interchanged too easily.

A plate on a piece could of course be a part of the design but I still refuse to believe that a respectable silver smith, keen on keeping his reputation, and especially a court supplier, would cover the impression mark on opposite side with a plate, no way I say! But everything is possible...

Have a nice day.
.

[Postnikov]

HI -

Sazikov was one of the best silvermanufacturers in Russia. Immagine if you would buy a piece in this quality from him....immagine if he would give his name for such a poor work! By the way: Sazikov never worked in Filligree - but this the fakers and the faker´s customers do not know....
One do not become a jeweler of the court with such output!

Hope that helps
.

[oel]

Hi Postnikov,

Thank you for your firm answer. We were allready doubtful but you convinced us. We are dealing with a fake. Keep up the good work.

Regards,

Oel
.

[oel]

Hi Qrt.S and Postnikov,

Herewith the final report I have just received about the “beautiful” filigree basket. The basket, most probably, has been made in Kutch (Cutch), India c.1900. Silversmiths of Kutch were renowned for their enamel and filigree work on silver and gold ornaments and articles. Pieces of this workmanship include brooches, necklaces, rings, trays, silver fans, biscuit boxes and other table items. Little of this vast output before 1910 was marked. Most probably in Israel or Eastern Europe, the unmarked filigree basket got his fake Sazikov marks, and was sold again to a New Yorker. Who put it on eBay were I came in. The name Sazikov has been a serious mistake, so to speak, because the famous Andrei Postnikov was well known for his filigree work.
http://www.bexfield.co.uk/08/j113.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Regards,
Oel
.