Another Moscow mark

[carlislepaul]

Another Moscow mark for identification please.

Regards

Paul
.

[Qrt.S]

And a third difficult case. Assayed in Moscow by BC (VS) probably Viktor Savisky 1859-1894. Not Viktor Savinkov who's whole existence is doubtful.

The maker ИА/Д (or what?) is completely unknown to me. Sorry.

Interested that you have managed to find three spoons with three unknown makers, strange indeed...!
.

[carlislepaul]

Thank you for your efforts.

Paul
.

[Postnikov]

HI -

the maker ia Aleksejev Ivan Aleksejewitsch

Hope that helps
.

[carlislepaul]

Thanks Postnikov, well done.

Paul
.

[Qrt.S]

As I said earlier. Do not make hasty conclusions only for the reason that the initials seems to match (or not). Ivan Alexeevich Alexeev had a factory i Moscow manufacturing jewelery of all kind and other precious pieces. The company was founded in 1876 and is known to 1912. There is nothing here that indicates to this person or his company.

An ordinary spoon is hardly a precious piece. But the main point is anyway that the master in question marked his pieces with ИАА and not just ИА. This is why it so difficult to sometimes identify the maker and one should not jump into suppositions without clearing the history and/or background.

OK, there is always a possibility that I'm wrong. In that case I would like to hear on why it is Ivan Alexeev. I'd like to update my files.
.

[Postnikov]

Dear Qrt.s -

the firm of Aleksejey was at that time a big enterprise with about 40 employees. One has to understand that many things they made were semi-industrial manufactured - not like: the famous master sit at night in his workshop and made first one spoon, than another. He worked in fine silver, enamel, houshold flatware, religious objects (like oklads, lampadas) for icones, etc.,etc. - short: the whole palette - Moscow and the regions around were a big market. As every big firm he used prefabrikated products of other smaller workshops - his objectiv was not to be listed in Postnikova-Loseva, his main striving was to make profit and be better (less expensive) than his competitors! Even Fabergé had many unknown suppliers (I hope you have a list of them), especially in Moscow where the standards and the taste of the customers were lower/different than in St. Petersburg.
Just to make you happy: Please have a look at Postnikova-Loseva, p 215, Nr. 2472, Nr. 2473, Nr. 2474. There you have all possible variants: I.A, IA, I.A.A - but imoportant is Nr. 2473 (rectangle with rounded corners)!! You see: there are squares, rectangles, ovals, circles, rectangles with rounded corners, etc., etc. And please do not think Mr. Aleksejev punched every piece which left his factory!
I remember: There were thousands and thousands of silversmiths in Russia - of nearly all nationalities - who worked to earn their living in an extremly rich (for the upper class) and gigantic (one fifth of the world) country. Some were one man enterprises, some were large factories, some became famous, others nobody knows.
If you love Russian silver you must not only read books - you have to go and see, touch, compare and differ. Than you see that spoon is not spoon, basket is not basket - there are tremendous differences in optic, quality, skill and aesthetic
Letters in a book are dead and do not speak - the silver speaks if you are able to listen.
I hope I did not disturb you too much reading your lists!
Regards and happy investigations
Postnikov
.

[Qrt.S]

Dear Postnikov,

The problem is that time has passed since Postinova was written. Its a good book, unfortunately time has shown that there are both mistakes and faults in it. There are newer books with more specific information. Postnikova has put almost all of the following masters in Moscow under ИА. But please look at my list. All of the listed smiths have used the initals ИА. Here they come:

Akimov, Alexandrov, another Aleksandrov, Alexeev, another Alexeev, Ananjev, Andrianov, Andriyanov, Astafiev, Astrakhnsev, Afonasiev, Acharkin and guess what, even Ovschinnikov used ИА.

All are fitting the assay mark for Moscow at the time more or less. This is what the books tell me but the spoon cannot, irrespective of how much you look on or touch it. That's why I don't dare to say who this ИА is.
I hope I haven't chocked you too much now.

I wish you a peaceful evening.
.

[Postnikov]

Dear Qrt.S -

this is my last attempt:
Someone who has no clue what the stamps on his spoon mean want to know what he have, with as much information as possible. The socalled experts start to produce opinions (mostly their knowledge is out of books, if these books are up to date or not, they do not know) based on what they see on the fotos.

You for instance list all 13 names you can find under this punch and explain that it is nearly impossible to know who made the spoon.

I for instance determin the exact punch (a sqare is no rectangle etc.), look who it is, look what he mostly fabricated and decide that it is much more possible to find some spoons from a large workshop, fabricating flatware in the thousands than a spoon from some 2 workers silversmith with the same initials who worked only in enamel. Furthermore have I seen countless spoons from this factory over the years in museums and privately and I own several sets in my collection (Aleksejev made very nice ones too!) Here comes experience to knowledge.
When I write the name of the silversmith down, I could ad: probably, all answers on your own risk!
But: If I am not sure, I do not write!
I am keen to learn, all I knew is from others! But I want a:"This is!" and not a: "Probably???" Especially in such a simple case.

End of fight! I very much respect what you do and how you do it ! The bug has bitten you--- like me.

Regards

Postnikov
.

[Qrt.S]

Your last message gives me the impression that we after all carry the same opinion more or less. It somehow seems to hang up on words. None of us is using his native tongue, which is a bit of a problem.
However, your bold text is important, that is the point, If you are not sure, don't write it. I'm not sure that ИА is the master you mention, but you are. This is a matter of opinion, which cannot easily be verified if at all. Its anyway a long haul to do it. Let it be so.

Yes, end of an interesting discussion, it was not a fight. Thank you Postnikov I appreciate your opinions as well as you (probably) appreciate mine :-)
.

[carlislepaul]

Gentlemen

Thank you for a very interesting and informative discussion.

Even though neither of you spoke in your native tongue you were both eloquent.

Paul
.