Interesting find

[Zolotnik]

Hi all -

found an interesting, rare spoon made by the famous firm W. A. Bolin in Moscow (the mark BOLIN is normally only found on silver items produced in the Moscow workshop). In addition to the signature, most Moscow items are marked by the craftsman.
Townmark Moscow 1899-1905, maker KL, Karl Linke. Possibly Maria Linke´s son. His work, which was always associated with Bolin, appears first in the 1890s. Karl Linke seems to have been permanently employed in Bolin´s firm.

The spoon



The marks

Karl Linke


The Moscow marks


Regards
Zolotnik

[Qrt.S]

Nice finding and easy to date. The assaying mark is the first and out of standard kokshnik used only during the latter part of 1898. The assayer is Ivan Lebedkin even if the mark is very worn you can "see" ИЛ,

[Ubaranda]

The assaying mark is the first and out of standard kokoshnik used only during the latter part of 1898.

It's not quite correct, respected Qrt.S. Such marks were used in 1899 too. See example from Odessa.
ИГ is unknown maker, ИС is Ilya Egorovich Sorokin (Илья Егорович Сорокин)
, the head of Odessa's assay office in 1896-1910.



Best regards. Alex.

[Qrt.S]

This becomes more and more interesting. This kokshnik with small figures was launched in the latter part of 1898 but soon it became clear that it was not made according to the ukaz (assay charter of 1.7.1896, note! 1896). The exact deadline for this out of standard mark was by the end of 1898 (There is documentation). It is also stated that only Ivan Lebedkin ИЛ in Moscow and Yakov Lyapunov ЯЛ in St. Petersburg were the only assayers that have used this small figure assaying mark. However, recently a new name popped up in this contex, AA (Artsibaschev, Anatolij Apollonovitch 1888-1898 in Moscow) Note the working period! Now suddenly a 4th mark appears!? In addition, in a year when the mark was not anymore in use???? Moreover, The maker's mark is more than starnge. Something is not in place now???

[Zolotnik]

Hi all -

in my collection I have several objects dated 1899 with this mark (I just do not have the time to search hundreds of objects) - so it must have been in use in the year 1899 also. PL give a date until 1905....

Spoon 1899


Little box 1899





The difference between theory and reality.....is an real existing proof!

Regards
Zolotnik

[Qrt.S]

Mind my asking about the proofs because I cannot investigate more than I can see from the pictures. The assayer (ИЛ) Ivan Lebedkin marked in Moscow 1898-1914.
What indicates that the spoon with the maker's mark is from 1899
What indicates that the little box is from 1899? As mentioned many times before, an engraving does not proof anything.
What indicates that the maker's mark AHO is punched after 1898?

However, there is very a narrow possibility that the small figure kokosnik mark really was used in 1899 because the introduction of the new correct kokoshnik with big figures was introduced as from 1st of February 1899. So during January of 1899 it is possibly used but that is most unlike. Here is Lebedkin's new mark.

Why would Lebedkin use an "illegal" mark? But as very well known Russian marks are difficult and there is quite a lot of lost or unknown information...

[dognose]

Hi Qrt.S,

However, there is very a narrow possibility that the small figure kokosnik mark really was used in 1899 because the introduction of the new correct kokoshnik with big figures was introduced as from 1st of February 1899. So during January of 1899 it is possibly used but that is most unlike.

Now I'm confused, why would it be unlikely to have been used in January 1899? If the new style punch was not introduced until the 1st February, then what else could they have used in January?

Trev.

[Zolotnik]

Hi all -

I do not know why new findings are so hard to accept. Many small notes give a new image! Why should one engrave objects with a wrong date to just confuse future generations of collectors? Every day some riddles are solved - if you want!
Stay with your opinion but do not expect that others (with the proof in hands) will follow.
My suggestion:
Build a small collection and wait for the surprises that you will experience - in contrast to the informations in the so-called textbooks.

Regards
Zolotnik

[Ubaranda]

Mind my asking about the proofs because I cannot investigate more than I can see from the pictures. The assayer (ИЛ) Ivan Lebedkin marked in Moscow 1898-1914.

Ivan Lebedkin took up his duties as head of Moscow assay office with 01.02.1899. Hence his marks with small "84" were used in early 1899 but not in 1898.
Artsybashev's marks we already discussed here: http://www.925-1000.com/forum/viewtopic ... 46&t=37170

[Qrt.S]

There is nothing unclear with the AA kokoshnik with small figures. It only popped up recently and has not been seen earlier. Before that the situation was that only Ljapunov and Lebedkin used the small figure kokoshnik no one else. That was false information that we know today.

Nonetheless, what is amateurs' doing is to claim than an object can be dated by its engraving. That is a most ridiculous statement. Anybody can engrave at any time whatever year or date on an e.g. 10 or 200 or whatever years old object. I still wait for Zolotnik to show some real proves of the manufacturing year on his showed objects. As an example. The box could have been assayed and bought 31.12.1898 but engraved the next day. What year do we have then? Let's forget the engravings when dating an object because as I stated it proves absolutely nothing. At the most it can give a small hint, but.....

Moreover, on what page does Postnikova mention the year 1905? The year 1905 is crucial but it has nothing to do with the small figure kokoshik. The crucial things regarding the left kokoshnik of 1899 is that hallmarks before 1907 were imperfect and causing lots of trouble. Therefore the Ministry of Finance on August 10 1905, the minister , Privy Councillor Kokovtsev ordered to exchange the hallmarks used at the time for new ones. That started the planning of the new right looking kokoshnik. This new set was implemented as well as new rules in March 26 1908 by the Ministry of Trade and Industry. That is not either engraved anywhere.

What I stated above in the last paragraph is not either engraved on any objects but written on official papers that can be read in BOOKS!

[Zolotnik]

Hi -
this is a fruitless discussion. Either you can not understand or you will not understand. Many little stones of a mosaic became a picture - engravings (right time, right style, dates, meaning, ect.) are an important reference for a certain time period. All historians use them with big success.
I give you a simple example you can understand: some object with a mark for the years 1908-17 is narrowed down to 1910 by a donation text of this year.

Moreover, on what page does Postnikova mention the year 1905?

PL p 258, 259 (3875 etc.), same mark, same years in use!

Regards
Zolotnik

[Qrt.S]

That is one of the faults in Postnikova. You are lack of correct information. There is no A. Solodnikov in Kostroma at that time. In general there is no such assayer at all. The AC (3874-75) stands for Aleksandr Snarsky 1900-1910. He was the head workmaster of the district of Kostroma. The other mark (3876) is the working period of Gedeon Bytshkov from 1898 to 1899 in Kostroma. The previous head workmaster of the same district. Of course he used the small figure kokoshnik in 1898. There was no other alternatives. Sorry!

About the engravings read what I wrote. An engraving is not a proof of anything. It only could be a minor hint because it can be engraved at any time, yesterday or a hundred years ago. Try to understand that I can today or tomorrow buy an old object and engrave whatever year pleases me on in.