Generally speaking I agree with Goldstein. However, it is more seldom quite that simple. In some cases it is very well known when a master was born, became master and died etc.. But that is not always the case. There are master whose dates and/or working periods, sometimes even their locations are not known with certainty. In those cases their working periods etc. are "assumed/defined" based on the year marks on objects found and made by them.
In this particular case Bäcksbacka presents not only the year bot also the day and month Falck passed away i.e. March 2. 1845. He must have found it from some source. Postnikova presents the same year. I would rather not question the mentioned year. Even more questionable is to refer to the very unclear mark in this thread. Its year mark could be whatever. One cant even guess what the third figure might be. Regarding the fourth figure it is easier to guess what it is not. That would be 1, 2, 4, 7, 9 or 0. What is left is 3, 5, 6 and 8. But without even blinking claiming that the year is 1846 is making a hasty conclusion. Falck died March 2. 1845.
Nonetheless, sometimes there is also the possibility that the maker's mark doesn't belong to the assumed master. This is not the case here.