Moscow Assayers in the 1890's

[Juke]

Hi!

Yes it is good to start a new one. I hope admin can accept this way I present this.

Skovronsky is mentioned in the PL for 1894 so this is not new information, there are in PL mentioned several assayers in Moscow for a particular year so Skovronsky don't exclude Oleks as a possible assayer for 1894. Assayers in Moscow in the 1890's:
- A.Romanov 1886-94
- Lev Oleks 1890-96 (according to Qrt.S 1889-1890, 1892, 1895-1904. Also as we all know Lebedkin was in Moscow 1899- so would have been the same time as Oleks)
- Vjurst 1891-94
- Artsibashev 1891-96
- Skovronsky 1894
etc.

I have understood that one of them was the main assayer but everybody seems to have had their own marks. I think this is not clear yet, however I understand that if there are some new information that Oleks would have only assayed 1889-1890, 1892, 1895-1904 in Moscow so we can accept this as it is. But what would he have done the years missing? How did they come to this conclusion as PL principle was to include only those years she found an assaying mark by the assayers. It would be interested to find out how they came to this conclusion and how PL did accept the missing years. For me the matter is purely academic, the spoons don't have big value for me.

I don't know if we can get further as I guess the knowledge on Oleks has not been clarified more in the source that Qrt.S have but we can accept as it is.

Regards,
Juke

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Qrt.S wrote:

Well Juke, somehow you lost me know. But let me put it this way. First of all we are far out of topic regarding this thread but if this is accepted by our admin, I shall continue otherwise a new thread should be opened, Juke, you have the questions, haven't you?

Anyway, do not keep PL as your only bible for Russian maker's marks or hallmarking. It is undoubtedly a very good book but it has its weaknesses. A lot of recearching has happened since this book was written. Unfortunately PL contains also inaccurate as well as missing information here and there. It is also correct as Juke mentioned that Postnikova put more stress on known goldsmiths than unknown. However, some of them are known today.

Here are the Assayer's in Moscow assaying office as from 1880 to 1900. Depending on different sources some variations according to the working periods may occur.
---
1880-1883 AK Unknown assayer
1883-1893 ВП Vasilij Petrov
1883-1894 СШ Sergei Shostak
1886-1887 HK Nikolai Korbitskij
1886-1894 AP Aleksandr Romanov
1889-1890 ЛО Lev Oleks
1891-1894 PB Rudolf Würst
1891-1898 AB Aleksei Vasilijev
1892 ЛО Lev Oleks
1892-1894 HC Nikolai Stradomskij
1894 AC Aleksandr Skovronskij
1895-1904 ЛО Lev Oleks
1896-1904 CM Sergei Miljutin
1896-1908 AC Aleksandr Skovronskij
1896-1912 МФ Mihail Falejev
1897 HB Viener/Viner Nikolai
1897-1898 AA Anatoli Artsibaschev
1898-1914 ИЛ Ivan Lebedkin
1899-1900 KT? Konstantin Tumsky
1899-1916 CO Stahij Orlov
1901-1904 MP? Mihail Romanov
...
I think this will do for now. I apologize for possible transliterations faults or typos. A quick look tells me that there are no holes, or are they? If there are holes, kindly remember that hundreds of thousands of documents were destroyed around the turn of the century . This is the best we have available.

What comes to what did the assayer when he was not assaying. Actually I have no idea but an assayer was a skilled goldsmith. When he assayed he was not allowed to fabricate by himself. Probably he sat in his silver workshop and made things during such years while he was not an appointed assayer. This happen at least in St Petersburg.

Huh...your move...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Qrt.S wrote:

Ahhh! I forgot Juke's question about Lev Oleks. There is an interesting thing about him. You see there is no known documentation verifying that he worked in Moscow assaying office in 1892-1894 only to 1890 and as from 1895- 1904. However, some of you you have seen as well as I have seen some object carrying Lev Oleks marks ЛО and a year mark being either 1892 or 1894. I don't know why it is so but there is one common thing for these marks. They all seem to have this as Postnikov calls it "ant like" St George as the town mark. Could we draw some conclusions of this mystery? What Lev Oleks did between 1891-1894 I haven't the faintest idea, sorry for that. Does anyone have?

[Juke]

Hi!

My point was only that even that Skovronsky assayed in 1894, it doesn't mean that Oleks could not have assayed that year. But ok if there is no documentation of Oleks for 1892-1894 then it is a starting point. Is the new research based on the documentation only? Then as we know there is a lot of missing documents which could verify new information of Oleks, if it would exist.

You wrote earlier that 1892 Oleks would have been assaying and that is correct, at least I have an assaying mark by him from 1892 (sorry if the picture is no the best but the mark is in a difficult place to photo):



Possibly Oleks could have done some silversmith work during those years, however there is no mark (at least one that I would know). Yes this is more a speculative question than really knowing.

Of the Moscow city mark my point has been that there seems to be a few different types, meaning for instance in Postnikov picture in 31.10 6:15 (last picture) which is not typical (PL #2017 even looks different from it but similar). So of this "ant" type of mark I don't know if it is correct but it is again similar. I would not write this but as for instance the measurements etc. are correct on the spoon marks and as indicated by Postnikov the fakers would not have been able to make them earlier etc reasons which would favor that they are real. But as earlier I also thought there are a couple reasons why it could be a fake and then that it is used with the year 1894. Maybe this is then accepted and we can follow your list before we have new information of the 1894 year or the "ant" like mark.

Regards,
Juke

[Postnikov]

Hi -
most of the fakes I have seen in the last 6 months are assayed by ЛО for the year 1894 and 1895. The marking system and the knowledge is getting better and better - and I am under the impression that these people take assayers and assaying dates which are very hard to proof. It always could be the missing link...but there is still the " antlike" St. George with his little wing, never seen before.

I am sure that we will see corrected marks in the future!

Regards
Postnikov

[Juke]

Hi!

As you both indicated that the Lev Oleks mark is not his it would be nice to see his mark. If somebody has the Lev Oleks mark in the form LO/year, purity, Moscow mark I would be interested to see it, especially for the year 1895, even if the 1894 exists it would be very interested. Somebody must have one, they all can not be fakes.

Regards,
Juke

[Qrt.S]

Yes it would be nice and actually I have those marks. Unfortunately the marks are not on objects in my possession but in books. That creates a copyright problem meaning that I cannot show them here. I'm very sorry about that. That much I can tell, however, that there actually exists another mark or LO for the year 1892 than this oval mark that Juke shows above. It is this earlier mentioned "troiniki"- mark. This arise an interesting question i.e. why would an assayer have two different marks for the same year? I don't have an answer, does anybody? Please don't tell me that the first mark broke down and a new one was ordered from the Mint Office. I don't buy that.

Anyway, I have some new info for you. I have spent almost half a day in investigating what Lev Oleks might have done when he was not an assayer. Surprisingly I didn't find anything supporting my anticipation that he would have worked in his silver workshop or similar. There is no maker’s mark at all registered for LO in neither Moscow nor in St: Peterburg regarding his working period. I didn't either find anything indicating that he would have had a silver shop in the mentioned towns. That is rather strange indeed, what did he do when he was not an assayer? If he had a workshop in some other town I don't know but I don't think he had. However, kindly remember the destroyed documentation. The explanation might be hidden there as well as one for the mysterious marks from 1892 and 1894, but that we'll never know.

[Postnikov]

Hi -
I am renovating my house - therefore all my objects are stored away in boxes, satchels etc.
The only original stamps of Oleks I could find in the tohuwabohu:

The wellknown "ant" like St. George just to remember - I see it only on fakes - please look forensic (close) and compare the details!



Jaschin, Oleks 1896 (correct time frame, authentic piece, normal St. George)



P. Ovtschinnikov, Oleks 1890 (correct time frame, authentic piece, normal St. George



Kind Regards
Postnikov

[Qrt.S]

Ay ay ay, skip the red text from my list above or add "not verified"
....

1891-1898 AB Aleksei Vasilijev
1892 ЛО Lev Oleks not verified
1892-1894 HC Nikolai Stradomskij
1894 AC Aleksandr Skovronskij
...

Sorry

[Postnikov]

Hi -
here is the fitting fake mark to your faked I.Jaschin mark!



Regards
Postnikov

[Juke]

Hi!

Sorry I can't keep up with your writings as unfortunately I don't have enough time to check these. Yes, the pictures are very helpful. I compared your pictures ("ant" and last, I can not see clearly the middle mark) and yes I can see the some differences, I am not on a position to say what is a fake but as you both indicated that the "ant" like is a fake I am sure you are correct. I copied the mark on the spoons here just to compare and would say that it is somewhere between your pictures, maybe it has more similarities with your "ant" picture. The interesting thing is that the picture in Postnikova PL#2022 is also a little different from your marks in the pictures (especially the back part of the horse and rider).



I noticed that in your last picture it seems that the assayer mark seems to have been struck before the makers mark? Maybe it seems only like this in the picture but as you know it should be vice versa, I am not suggesting that it would be fake or something, it is just odd, maybe it is a human error.

What Lev Oleks did during the missing years, maybe he was on a sabbatical leave at the Black see taking sun. ;)

Of the oval mark that I have. It is struck on a sugar tong (inside) and the size is app. 4mm. Why an assayer would have several mark during one year, I believe the reason is that different marks where used for different objects, especially the size I guess mattered. I could not see that the trippel could have been struck on the sugar tongs as it might have broken it.

Regards,
Juke

[Postnikov]

Hi -
on my last photo the marks are absolute correct in the right order stamped:

First: maker´s mark ИА = Aleksejev, Ivan Aleksejewitsch
Second: assay master ЛО = Oleks, Lev
Third: П. ОВЧИНИКОВЬ = Ovtschinnikov, Pavel





To judge the different marks correctly one need a lot of experience and real, authentic objects - not to forget some up to date reverence books and the help of friends!
All four things are not easy to get .....

Regards
Postnicov

[Postnikov]

Hi -
forgot to mention that Aleksejev was the maker, Ovtschinnikov was the vendor! A very normal habit of the "Great " silversmith´s/manufacturers to use suppliers.

Regards
Postnikov

[Juke]

Hi!

I didn't have time reply to Postnikov yet. Hm.. well here we are again, I have some difficulties to understand this one, I guess you are refering again to the year 1894 (and 1892) question. The sugar tongs have been guilded inside (which is common) and the guilding has been made after the marks have been struck as the guilding is also on the marks. The guilding has not been made on the upperside of the tongs (no traces of it) so as I understand it not with the electrolytical way. Yes it is possible that there would have been guilding on the upperside and it would have worn away which would then indicate that the tongs had been used for a longer time.

Well I would need more confirmation of Lev Oleks working during the 1890's period, expecially from the new investigation why they did leave open these few years, was it because they didn't find enough material or was it that they did find all these marks and concluded that some of them are not real because they didn't find documents etc. that Oleks would have worked those years. It would be nice if somebody could get information from those authors/researchers of their conclusions.

Well fortunately or unfortunately I am out of assayer marks from Oleks so I can not provide more real or unreal marks to the discussion. Well they were a couple of small objects so nothing much but from the academic point of view I am not satisfied with the comments of estimating as a fake mark without better reasoning behind than this. I put a question mark on the marks but would want facts of Lev Oleks doings during the missing years as the main argument is that he was not working as an assayer in 1894 (1892).

Regards,
Juke

[Juke]

Hi!

Sorry Postnikov my intention was not to question the authenticity but to understand why the Ovtschinnikov has been marked after the Lev Oleks mark (at least looks like this in the picture) as this was as I understand not the way marks were struck. Maybe there is behind it some new information like that the marking was done in a way that first was marked Aleksejev and the assayer Oleks accepted this as enough and he could strike his mark and afterwards Ovtschinnikov as the vendor had the possiblity to mark the item. Meaning that the item did not need to be struck by the vendor before it was taken for assaying but the vendor could mark after the assaying.

Regards,
Juke

[Qrt.S]

No Juke, your thinking is not logical, i doesn't go that way. There are no "missing years". My records of Russian assayers tell me that it was not unusual that an assayer jumped off and back so to say. Here are some other examples:

Grodno 1852-1861 Л·Б Balabanov, Lavrentij *
Kazan 1866-1876 Л·Б Balabanov, Lavrentij * What did Balabanov 1862-1865?

Odessa 1845-1849 ВФ Furman, Viktor Aleksandrovitch *
St: Petersburg 1850 ВФ Furman, Viktor Aleksandrovitch *
Kiev 1857 ВФ Furman, Viktor Aleksandrovitch *
Kiev 1861-1862 ВФ Furman, Viktor Aleksandrovitch * What did Furman 1851-1856 and 1858-1860 ?

St: Petersburg 1807-1821 ПЕ Jefremov, Pavel Demidovitch *
St: Petersburg 1827-1829 ПЕ Jefremov, Pavel Demidovitch * what did Jefremov 1822-1826?

Vilnius 1883-1886 Я·Л Ljapunov, Jakov Nikolajevitch *
Warszawa 1890-1898 Я·Л Ljapunov, Jakov Nikolajevitch * What did Ljapunov 1887-1889?
St: Petersburg 1899-1904 Я·Л Ljapunov, Jakov Nikolajevitch *

etc etc...

Don't ask me I don't know what they did, actually it has no meaning and doesn't prove anything whatsoever. I only like to show with these examples that "missing years" are not uncommon.

About the gilded sugar tong. Yes, it was gilt after it was assayed. Kindly note that the maker should show his made objects to the assayer unfinished and unpolished. When it was assayed the maker returned to his workshop and finished the object for sale. He also removed the impress marks on the opposite side if it was visible and/or possible. Gilding is a finishing procedure and if it was gilt before assayed what would you think the assayer might have said? When the vendor struck his mark is less important because it has no meaning, it's just a vendor's mark.

The main problem with Lev Oleks is that the marks for 1892 and 1894 are difficult to explain. As I said earlier there are no registering notes/documents for those years in the assay office of Moscow but still the marks exist.
This is not easy...

[Juke]

Hi!

Ok, I will not question the Lev Oleks doings during the years we don't know about. I guess we have to live with it that we don't know (just a thing that the working period of the silversmiths have showed differences from different sources so we don't know neither them. Prehaps the assayers are better documented).

For me the vendor marking was new so I know that it can have been struck on the assayers mark.

My point with the guilding of the sugar tongs was that if the marking is a fake, it means first of all that it is not an overstruck as the guilding would have been destroyed. First somebody has to make or find sugar tongs, then have somebody make the russian look engravings, then put the fake marks and get someone to guild it and then polish it somehow to get an old look. Huh ... a very big job, and then you get 40 euros for it (I normally don't want to give estimates of value but just to get some understanding).

Ok spoons are faked too but I think they can typically be overstrucks as they are not guilded typically so no big costs.

Well I think we got some good discussion, I hope you didn't get bored with the long discussion but maybe we can close it here, you both estimate the both marks for 1894 and 1892 to be fake, I put a question mark for them so I will consider more thorougly any buys with LO and these years. Maybe later there will be something new about this.

Regards,
Juke

[Postnikov]

Hi-
as stated before on this site - fakes are mostly not made in kitchens or backrooms by lonly, unknowing losers, overstrucking existing silver - they are made in big, well equipped factories! China for example...

Regards
Postnikov