Russian beaker

[Qrt.S]

There is an assayer marking AK in Moscow at that time. He is Anisim Grigoryev Kuzmin. His working period is a bit unclear. Anyway, it was from 1741 to not later than 1752, but...? There are many gaps and unknown names regarding Russian assayers in the 18th century...

[Zolotnik]

Hi -
some thoughts:
Normally, the bottom of a vessel, cup, pitcher or mug is most protected against damage of all kinds. If you see an object otherwise in a good condition but the bottom is scratched, dented and mistreated, all marks overstruck and impossible to identify - then some bells should ring! How comes that only the bottom is in this bad condition? Now start thinking....
Here some examples of other more or less old vessels - see the difference?






Regards
Zolotnik

[liviu1]

Hi. I have not posted pictures with the whole bottom. Will do so next week. The bottom is in quite good condition. Regards, Liv.

[zilverik]

Hi,

The assayer mark "AK" on the second charka raises even more questions in combination with "51".
In 1751 Iwan Schagin was assayer. AK could be Anisim Kusmin, but his period was 1741-1748. Another assayer "AK" in that period in Moscow I wasn't able to find. And the photo of the "AK" mark I found doesn't fit very well with the photo of the "AK" on the second charka. My guess is that the charka's are not made in the 18e century.

Regards,

Zilverik

[Qrt.S]

Mind my saying dear zilverik but what you told is already mentioned earlier in the thread except for that Kuzmin's working period is a bit longer to about 1752. The AK could therefore very well be Kuzmin. However, this is undoubtedly a rather "odd" case....

[zilverik]

Hi,

Indeed a sort of odd case. And yes, other members had the same opinion that the charka's are probably not 18e century. I only added an argument. I don't agree with your idea that Kusmin (Not: this is probably not the mark of Kusmin) could have worked somewhat longer and that it is possible that he still worked in 1751. In "Verzeichnis der Russisichen Gold- und Silbermarken" is stated on page 41 that Kusmin worked from 1741-1748, Kusma from 1741-1749, Sajzew from 1735-1749 and then Schagin from 1749-1757. If an assayer worked longer in 1751 than it is more probable that it would have been Kusma or Sajzew. Being an assayer in 1751 and Kusmin are unlikely to go together as I see it.

Regards,

Zilverik

[Qrt.S]

Forget "Verzeichnis der Russisichen Gold- und Silbermarken" it is the German translation from 1971 of Postnikova's first edition from 1967. It contains too much insufficient and inaccurate information. In her next edition (NAUKA 1983) Kuzmin's working period is corrected to 1741-1752 Please note, Kuzmin (КУЗЬИ) not Kusmin! Anyway, still an "odd" case.

[zilverik]

Hi Qrt.S,

I didn't know that the book "Verzeichnis..." was outdated.
So, I admit you are right. My added argument doesn't stand. Indeed anyway, still an "odd" case.

Regards,

Zilverik

[liviu1]

[piette]

Opinions may be divided on the forum, but at the end of the day it is your collection. If you are 100% happy with the items, keep them. If you have a single doubt about them, you should sell, as you will never be completely satisfied with them and it will bug you.
My advice is to get rid of the two beakers. To me everything about them points to the fact that they were made around the mid 19th century and are NOT Russian.
Best wishes,
P