Russian silver chalice - goblet help

[Yacorie13]

If you mean on the bottom of the base - there are no other marks. I’ll take pics and post them in the morning

[Juke*]

Good notice that the lettering would be 'БГ' and as for the old Cyrillic lettering it fits well. Even better there is a candidate for the silversmith.





The question regarding the year mark is also open. It seems that the last number has been smudged out so it could well be corrected to 1745 after the initial punching. The year was part of the whole control mark.

As for the mark beside 'AK' it is the Moscow city control mark. There seems to have been two types of control marks one with the year and one without the year in the 18th century so even these marks seem quite correct. The one without the year would have been used beside the assayer mark.

My last questioning is depicting the royals on the beaker. It is very typical for later objects have depictions of royalties because they are very sellable because people tend to believe they would have been used by the royalties themselves. Also fakers tend to use this as an attraction to get their makings sold easy.

It sounds somewhat bold to me that the silversmith would have made royalty images without any consent of the emperor. If the emperor would have not been happy then the silversmith would have been easy and fast expelled from the empire. The style and quality of the images are quite naive which is typical for the craftsmanship during this period. Possibly it is a yes anyway to this question. If it is to be from 1745 then the emperors as a best guess are 'Peter the Great (emperor 1721-25)' and 'Catherine I (wife of Peter the Great and emperor 1725-27)' or Elizabeth (daughter of Peter the Great and emperor 1741-62). If the object would be later then it would be Catherine the Great (emperor 1762-96) as she is more well known.

Thereby I take one step back regarding the authenticity so it could well be authentic and from the period. It is then a rare object which type I have not seen during many years of collecting/studying these objects. Congratulations for having it!

[Yacorie13]

Thank you everyone for your contribution to this thread. For me, it has been a great learning experience and has allowed me to search for additional information on the marks and the item. I want to try and put together a quick summary of what I think I've followed from the thread so I can put it with the item. I like to add as much information to the items I find and collect as I can because I know I won't remember it down the road. I also realize from reading this thread and others on the pages here that old russian silver marks are not often cut and dry.

1. The base and cup are both marked with AK. This is the assayer mark and is the mark of Anisim Kuzmin. He was active 1741-1752
2. The base mark next to the AK is a mark of Saint George slaying a dragon over a date. This mark would have been used by the Town of Moscow. The date is not completely legible - specifically the last number is smudged which could have been intentional to be punched later or just smudged over the years from usage??? The shape and style of the town of moscow mark is roughly from 1745-1755
3. The mark next to the AK on the cup itself is also a mark for the Town of Moscow
4. The mark on the cup that looked like JS to me, is actually an old cyrillic mark and stands for Boris Gavrilov who was active from 1746-1752
5. The requirement to add a silver hallmark was not until 1798 and finding silver hallmarks on earlier items is rare.

[Yacorie13]

I wanted to ask about the depiction of the people on the item itself.

On this thread it was suggested that the decoration is likely depicting Peter the Great and Catherine 1 or Elizabeth. If the item was later, it could be depicting Catherine the Great.

In my original post, I stated that it was told to me that the depiction is likely Princess Sofia and her brothers Peter and John (Ivan). All three of these people died before 1750. However, the daughter of Peter 1 was the queen from 1742-1760.

If you look that the 4 people shown on the cup - the two of the female are identical to one another so I believe it is depicting the same person. However, the two males are not identical. To me, it looks like the hair and face are intentional different and the outfit is different. One has a V-shaped collar and the other has a rounded collar.

I'd love to hear opinions or thoughts on this. I've tried to search out items containing images of everyone I've mentioned to see if there might be some way to help point in a certain direction - but it has been difficult.

[Mart]

A person’s desire to understand in detail always commands respect.
The first three digits are clearly understood and they are “175x”.
Earlier I mentioned the initials “БГ” that are on the stamp. In the well-known reference book they are assigned to Boris Gavrilov. You can think so too.
In fact, the available information is not enough to consider that he is a real silversmith "БГ". In such cases, I consider the silversmith only a possible candidate.
This product is in the State Historical Museum. Attribution is Boris Gavrilov 1740s. Attribution is based on information from the same directory.

[Mart]

Here is another "БГ" product. (Thanks to Alex!)

[Yacorie13]

Thank you Mart

[Juke*]

There has been of course a reasoning for depicting the royalties. I didn't see any reason to depict the earlier tsars/emperors as they had been either murdered or overthrown so I didn't see any healthy reason to depict them. Anyway always also a possibility to commemorate a certain event/year of previous tsars/emperors.

Ivan V (tsar 1682-96), Peter I (tsar 1682-1721) and Princess Sofias family heir was coup engineered in 1741 by Elizabeth I.

My reasoning thereby was that Peter the Great was the current line of emperors, the one modernizing and declaring the Empire of Russia and his daughter Elisabeth I was empress during this period. As said as well could be Peter the Greats wife Catherine I.

I agree there are some differences with the male figure so could be two different ones. However they look quite the same, the quality of the craftsmanship could also explain the difference. The cloths can also be different on same person. The second one could also be Peter II or Ivan VI but they were very short time as emperors. The former died in smallpox (1730) and the later was overthrown (1741).

As there are no other clues maybe it remains open which of these they are. My best guess was Peter the Great and Elizabeth I.

The first three digits are clearly understood and they are “175x”.

I still have some difficulties to see the number '7' in the picture. Maybe it is? The last number looks like a '0'. I think with a magnifying glass you can get it better confirmed. Thereby the possibilities would be 1750 or 1745?

[Mart]

This is the stamp of the 18th century. This means that the first two digits are "17.." The third digit is clearly visible, it reads "5". The last figure has suffered a lot. If it wasn't there at all, then I would assume that there should be a number "1". There are reasons for this. But judging by the photo, there may be another figure. Therefore, in the very first message I wrote that this is the first half of the 1750s.

[Yacorie13]

Thank you Juke* for your explanation. I think your reasoning makes perfect sense. On my side I'm just trying to look into anything that was mentioned as a possibility. For me, I enjoy learning about the items I find and this is no different.

[Yacorie13]

This is the stamp of the 18th century. This means that the first two digits are "17.." The third digit is clearly visible, it reads "5". The last figure has suffered a lot. If it wasn't there at all, then I would assume that there should be a number "1". There are reasons for this. But judging by the photo, there may be another figure. Therefore, in the very first message I wrote that this is the first half of the 1750s.

I think its because its not a clear #7 given the condition of the stamp. I'm assuming if you could clearly see the 175 - there would also be limited discussion on the last digit.

[Juke*]

I can see a '4' in the picture (not a '7'). Before that could be a '1' or a '7'. I think the last number is round so possibly '0'. Anyway Yacorie13 has the best estimate with the object.



Thank you Yacorie13. It was an interesting case!

[Mart]

I can see a '4' in the picture (not a '7'). Before that could be a '1' or a '7'.

I don't really understand what we're talking about.
This is the 1700s. Question: What are the first two figures in these years? The answer is "17..". If there are any other numbers, then these are fake stamps, but this is not the case.
It happens when the numbers on the old stamps do not look the same as on the new ones.
Basically, you can think that it's the 1400s or the 7400s, but don't tell anyone about it!)

[Juke*]

The clearest of the four year numbers is the '5'. I understand then that the conclusion would be 175?.

However if you look closely the number before '5' seem to be '4'. The number before '4' I think is '7'.

Thereby I think the year has been overstruck and the correct year is 1745.

[Mart]

ll try it one more time. Please take a piece of paper and we will write down the year from the 18th century. From left to right.
The first two numbers are not in doubt (it does not depend on what you represent). 1,7,.. The third digit is clearly visible and it is 5. We write. That makes 175.
The last figure is difficult to determine exactly. Let's denote it with an "x". It turns out "175x".
How can there be 1745 if "5" is the third digit (not the last!), and the fourth is not visible? I hope you've seen it now.
"AK" didn't work at all in 1745).

[Juke*]

Take a close look at the number before '5'. Which number do you see? I see a '4'.

Also Yacorie13 stated on 21.1 klo 9.24: 'The number before the 5 - definitely appears to look more like a 4 then a 7'.

I think the year has probably shifted one number left when double struck? Therefore the last last smudge number is not included in the second struck (double struck). Thereby we could have the year 1745?

Or how do you explain the number '4'?

[Yacorie13]

Take a close look at the number before '5'. Which number do you see? I see a '4'.

Also Yacorie13 stated on 21.1 klo 9.24: 'The number before the 5 - definitely appears to look more like a 4 then a 7'.

I think the year has probably shifted one number left when double struck? Therefore the last last smudge number is not included in the second struck (double struck). Thereby we could have the year 1745?

Or how do you explain the number '4'?

I see what you’re saying about it looking like there could be a 4 there which is why I mentioned it when I posted. However, I also recognize we are dealing with 270 year old stamps and in the areas I collect / marks we rely on are often distorted or less than perfect.

When I zoom in and look at the number I could also make a 7 out of it.

So I guess the questions or options with the date would be

1. is it a repunch that was shifted out of place and could be 1745 with the last smudged digit not being included
2. Is the date 175x with the last digit smudged and the 7 being distorted - after all the 1 is missing and the Moscow stamp is also weak on that side
3. It’s fake altogether - but all of the other marks seem to align with this not being the case.

[Mart]

I'm sorry, but this is my last attempt. It's a pity that you didn't write down the year on paper... In the 1700s, the first two digits were 1 and 7. It does not depend on how you think. There is no number "4" there. The figures of the year have not been shifted anywhere. They are located exactly under the coat of arms. It may even seem to someone that there is an elephant, but there is "17"))). It is very clearly visible that the last digit is blurred, and in front of it is the number "5". I can't say anything more. Good luck!

[Juke*]

Yacorie13 explained well my questioning.

As all the other signs show a correct object I believe the case is then either 1) or 2). We others have only the pictures to go from and Yacorie13 have the best view and when he say zooming in and looking at the number you could also make a 7 out of it. I am happy with that so we can have it to be 175?. Then all is clear, just like to be exact.

[Mart]

... I am happy with that so we can have it to be 175?. Then all is clear, just like to be exact.

If only you knew how glad I am!))). There were absolutely no questions related to the year from the very beginning (except for the last digit).