Unknown Maker of Snuff/Tobacco Box

[silberdosen]

Hello!
I got a russisn snuff/tobacco box of Niello/Tula silver.
I identified the most of the hallmarks (I hope I am right, otherwise please correct me), but I can not find any hint on the silversmith. On 925-1000 I found just a silversmith with the initials the other way round.

For me the box comes from Moscow, made in 1877, assayer 'Victor Savinkov', silversmith UNKNOWN. The front showing the Kremel in Moscow.





I hope someone can help me to identify the silversmith.

Best regards
Rainer
.

[Qrt.S]

Hmmmm interesting case, kindly tell me where are the marks located? The mark (84 St George) on the middle photo looks a bit strange...at least to me. It should be in an oval cartouche but this is in a rectangle with round corners?

For the monent no suitable master found, but I'm investigating...I'll revert when or if I have something to tell you.

By the way forget this Victor Savinkov, I've said it earlier and I say it again, hes whole existence is more than dubious. The assayer is either Viktor Savinsky or Veniamin Savinsky, cannot say which-one.

But...??
.

[silberdosen]

Hello Qrt.S

The middle (strange) mark is located on the inside of the lid, quite center.
The other mark is located inside on the bottom, also just in the center of the bottom.

The cartouche is rectangular and has little more 45-degrees corners.

I am courious and hope you will find more details to share.

Best regards
Rainer
.

[Postnikov]

Hi -

the silversmith of your tobacco box (not cigarette case!) is probably Feofilov N.N., a famous master working in oklads for icons and especially in tobacco boxes in niello. According to Postnikova-Loseva he worked 1881-1894. Your box is from 1877...
Viktor Savinkov was on duty 1855-1888...Maybe he took the wrong assaypunch - 1877 instead of 1887?
The tobacco box is typical for Feofilov´s quality ( Trompe lóeil basket wickerwork) - even if it is very worn - one can see the difference to other niello products. The time difference I can not explain but have seen similar cases in the past - I think it was the wrong punch in the wrong year. The box is 100% Feofilov!

Regards
Postnikov
.

[Qrt.S]

Hmmm, could be. But the reason to my hmmm is, that there are some disturbing facts here, wrong punch, wrong year etc. In addition I have no notes that Feofilov would have used Н.Ф. mark. He marked Н.Н.ФЕОФИЛОВЬ.
But as I said, could be...Maybe Postnikov has found a potential master.
.

[Postnikov]

Private lesson
To have books - is good
To know how to use them - is better
To understand them - is best
Here you are:


Regards
Postnikov
.

[Qrt.S]

That is not the same mark. Please note the location of the dot! In investigating Russian marks it is of great importance to pay attention to all details, like the fonts, the cartouche etc. There is a big difference whether a e.g. dot is centralized or not or is there a dot at all. In addition the year does not match. Finding the same initials only is not enough.


.

[silberdosen]

Hello all together!
A really interesting discussion is going on here, but what I do not understand

Your box is from 1877...
Viktor Savinkov was on duty 1855-1888...Maybe he took the wrong assaypunch - 1877 instead of 1887?

if the master worked from 1855-1888 - why is 1877 "the wrong year"?

Best regards
Rainer
.

[Qrt.S]

The point is not the assayer but the master. It is the "wrong year" since the assaying mark shows 1877 and the maker who Postnikov suggested worked/marked 1881-1894. As you can see his marking years are later than the assaying year 1877. When your box was assayed, the "maker" was not a master and not yet authorized to use his punch.
That is one thing why I'm so doubtful. One other is the dot's location on your mark compared with the dot's location on Postnikov's suggested mark. To me it is a different mark. A third matter is that later researching is not fully convinced that this НФ is the mentioned master's mark, it could be but...?

However, didn't you notice that I mentioned that this Victor Savinkov ist most likely a non-existing person. Kindly read my message on Sat. at 9:58

An interesting case indeed I would say, but too many disturbing factors. Let's wait and see what Postnikov has to say.
.