SALT OR CONDIMENT CELLAR

[Qrt.S]

No problem with that Dad, but I'm afraid that the marks you show are more than dubious...they have nothing to do with Hacklin. Take a new a look of the marks Oel showed earlier and compare.

[Zolotnik]

Hi Dad -

I think we all have sometimes difficulties with the "non native language"! Careful reading is recommended...
In my opinion the shown marks of Hacklin are fakes.
Желаю хорошо повеселйтъся в Голландии!

Regards
Zolotnik

[Dad]

No problem with that Dad, but I'm afraid that the marks you show are more than dubious...they have nothing to do with Hacklin. Take a new a look of the marks Oel showed earlier and compare.

No problem....))))

Please, show me " original punch" of Hacklin and I shall tell you about assay master "Ð’Ð¥" in Rewal assay office.)))

Best Reg..

P.S. Haarlem is the beautiful town of Holland)). I like Haarlem.))

[Qrt.S]

Time to revive this thread. Here is Henrik Hacklin's mark



Your move Dad, tell us about assay master BX, thank you

Happy New Year to everybody

Qrt.S

[AG2012]

Qrt.S posted a mark with even more striking difference from PL #1675 mark. Now let’s review all marks depicted here so far; more and more striking differences compared to Henrik Hacklin PL #1675 mark.
If this is supposed to be a research project of some kind, has it ever been concluded a new form of the mark was found, not documented so far? It seems not. It leads nowhere; ``if it is not in the Holy Scriptures, it is a fake``. All marks seen here are from well made silver fully consistent with the style, technique, age traces. Did Henrik Hacklin use the same punch for decades? Most probably not. He must have had more than one punch over so many years. Did he care to have them exactly the same? Most probably not.
The mark PL #1675 was taken from A SINGLE silver object in GIM and that’s it..It cannot be his only mark.Otherwise would make sense.
PL needs serious revision, if ever done.

[Qrt.S]

I fully share your opinion AG2012. Postnikova is good but not God. Unfortunately it has its faults and inconsistencies. I have registered and I could present a list of about 100 amendments regarding it. Anyway, by an astonishing coincident here is another of Hacklin's marks.

[AG2012]

Dear Qrt.S; You do a great job. I am sure you have more references than most of us. With your experience and knowledge I am sure you can amend much ``dubious`` and ``old faked`` marks. The picture has been frozen for a long time, and now it gets even more difficult with a plethora of fakes emerging everywhere. Scrap silver is bought nowadays in huge amounts and we know its purpose; I have recently saved a Garrard 1907 three piece intact tea set meant to be sold to a Chinese buyer who was about to pay 650 Euro for 1100 grams (teapot wooden handle was about to be removed !).Still, there is hope; one should search for less lucrative and even damaged silver for research purposes only. Then, if we find out the silver is well made and consistent with age and technique used at the time, if everything else but marks (well struck) fits in, previously unknown shapes of punches could be added. It seems this is the only serious place to do this; museum curators are of no help, auction houses even more so.
There is something else worrying me; similar to ``duty dodgers`` in UK, important Russian maker’s spoons of simple pattern are sold at unreasonable high prices. Why should one pay a few hundred pounds for a Sazikov tea spoon unless meant to be soldered to another more important piece? But this is another issue and in any particular case``Conditio sine qua non`` is to have silver in our hands and spend hours examining it; every possible detail.
Happy New Year

[Dad]

Hi, dear friends. Happy New Year!

I trust you. These are Hacklin's real punches. ))
But there is a maker - Nikolay Nikitin (1845-1874) from S.-Pb. (Pic.). Its punch is very similar to the punch of TS. May be it's he?



About a assaymaster Ð’Ð¥. If I promised, there are no problems.))

Ð’Ð¥ - Victor Andreevich Hatuncev was the assaymaster of Reval's assay office (1868-1873) .

Best Reg..

[Qrt.S]

Thanks Dad, Happy new year to you too.

[Qrt.S]

Sorry Dad, but BX name in Cyrillic letters ( pa Russkij :-) if you don't mind.
Thank you in advance

[Dad]

Виктор Андреевич Хотунцев (or Хотунцов)

[Qrt.S]

After intensively debating this HH enigma with other interested and skilled persons, the following conclusion can be made. The mark HH in script in an oval frame that Postnikova (#1365) attributes to Nikoilai Nikitin as Dad also mention, is a fault in the book. The thing is that both Hacklin and Nikitin were registered in St Petersburg at almost the same period i.e. Hacklin 1846-1879 and Nikitin 1845-1874. That means that two masters used both an almost similar mark for a period of 8 years in St Petersburg. Irrespective of that Nikitin's mark would in Latin letters be NN and so it would be a "different" mark would not explain the "similarity" in two different masters marks. Looking at the mark only does not reveal this Latin versus Cyrillic "difference". Such a situation would not either have been allowed by the assay office in StP.

Moreover, Nikitin also used different mark. It is HH sans serif in an rectangular shield. Why would he had used another HH in script in an oval shield that is 99,9% similar to Hacklin's mark used at almost the same time? It does not make sense!

I hereby reconsider my statement of the object carrying fake marks. It might be Hacklin's work after all. However, the marks are still rather smudgy and I have a memory of seeing this HH mark faked, but...? Nontheless, Hacklin was not a particularly well known or skilled smith and neither was Nikitin. What would be in it to fake his mark?

FYI!
There are a couple of hundred "mistakes" i Postnikova's book that should be corrected. Start with this and attribute #1365 to Henrik Hacklin #1675 instead of Nikitin.

Here we see it again, silver marks is not an absolute science......have a nice afternoon