Help Identify Marks (likely Europe/Dutch)

[chrissfife]

I believe this cup was owned by my great grandmother who was originally from Holland. It belonged to my grandmother, so it is also likely that it was given to her as a child, so possibly not from Holland. I have scoured the internet and can not find any of these hallmarks.

[AG2012]

Hi,
One of the marks is St Petersburg, Russia, 1773 and assayer Ivan Frolov (И.Ф).
Cannot tell if genuine, there is no maker`s mark.

More search is needed for three tower mark.
Regards

[AG2012]

Three tower mark looks like Hamburg and LR over Fleur-de-lis is attributed to Leonhard Rothaer but he was a Hamburg silversmith much earlier (master 1671)

Confusing combination of marks,for sure.

[Qrt.S]

No problem here. Of course it is made earlier than the Russian hallmark's year 1773. It lacks the Russian maker's mark because it is not made in Russia but imported from Hamburg/Germany to Russia. I have said a thousand times and say it again: If an object object carries only a Russian hallmark but no maker's mark, it is imported goods.
The Russians implemented an import mark not earlier than in 1882 (The ПТ mark). Before that the customs brought imported goods to the assaying office in order to test it for legal minimum fineness i.e. 84 zolotniki. If approved, it was hallmarked and the import granted. Therefore there is no maker's mark on the cup. The assayer Ivan Frolov was active in St. Petersburg 1738-1779. The Russian marks are correct.
The style of the cup is baroque and dated to the latter part of 17th century.

In my opinion AG2012's suggested maker is most likely correct.

[chrissfife]

Thank you to all of you. This really helped and I've been able to find all the info I was hoping to find.

[Goldstein]

Hi -

Before that the customs brought imported goods to the assaying office in order to test it for legal minimum fineness i.e. 84 zolotniki. If approved, it was hallmarked and the import granted. Therefore there is no maker's mark on the cup. The assayer Ivan Frolov was active in St. Petersburg 1738-1779. The Russian marks are correct.

It would be interesting to test the silver content of the cup - it should be minimum 900/1000. Otherwise the above opinion would be nonsensical.

Regards
Goldstein

[Qrt.S]

First of all, the Russian law from 1798 stipulated that the minimum finesses on silver manufactured in or imported to Russia must not less than 84 zolotniki 875/1000. Secondly, the fineness in the cup can well be 900/1000 or anything between 875 and 999,99/1000. The 84 fineness is a minmum fineness only, nothing prohibits to exceed it. Golstein's comment is irrelevant.

[Qrt.S]

I have tried to identify the engraved initials, two letters, on the bowl. Obviously they are Cyrillic letters but I cannot identify the second letter. I thought it might have been Church Slavonic, but it isn't. The best I can com e up with is OT, but....?

[AG2012]

There are many Hamburg silver objects in Russian museums:
Filimonow,1885: Beschreibung der Moskauer Rüstkammer.

Does it mean everything entering Russia was 14 Lothige to comply with 84 zolotniki ?
14 Loth is 14/16 or .875 silver content


But they have much Danish silver,too:
(Martin, 1900:Dänische Silberschätze in Moskau)
And the highest standard in Denmark was 13 1/2 Loedigt (.844), I.e. less than legal Russian standard.
It`s impossible to believe that Danish silversmiths exceeded the standard to 14 or 15 Loedigt expecting their silver being exported to countries with higher standards, Russia included.


Anyway, it would be interesting to test silver content of this beaker (there are non invasive methods now).
(Number 75 remains a mystery, if indicating sub-standard zolotniki it would be close to 12 Loth, but I do not like to speculate without reliable references).

[Qrt.S]

And the highest standard in Denmark was 13 1/2 Loedigt (.844), I.e. less than legal Russian standard.

Sorry AG2012, the highest standard in Denmark was 14Löd or XIVLOD and that is 875/1000. In use in 18th century. Source: Christian Bøje, Danske Guld og Sølv Smedemærker før 1870.
We are in the 18th century, aren't we?

[AG2012]

Right, that`s the fact about Danish standard in 18th century. Thanks.
But .875 was still under sterling and would that mean not a single Danish piece of silver (or from Germany, Sweden etc, either), entered legally UK ?
Having in mind everything we see what happens now in 21th century with fraudulent trade, intellectual property theft, corruption etc. I doubt legislation was obeyed in 18th century.
Have read that by our moral standards the entire European population of 18th century would be serving prison sentences.

But we can only speculate if every silver object in museums worldwide complies with import standards of a particular country.
Most likely, not.
Regards

[Qrt.S]

AG2012
I believe you are right. However, you have to separate official import and trade from people traveling transporting their personal effects over the borders.

[AG2012]

Qrt.S Yes, you are 100 % right about private circulation of silver.

When people wanted their silver checked just to know what they had or inherited, they went to assay offices and their silver was not always marked with import marks, but domestic marks were applied.
Have seen examples in several Eastern European countries marked like that after both world wars.I even suspect many punches were stolen or simply disappeared from assay offices,like officially exist but never seen in real life.
Have a nice Sunday afternoon.

[Qrt.S]

Some times it was forbidden to sell silver with foreign marks unless the domestic/local hallmark or in some countries the lombard marks was punched (e.g. the owl, Л...). As some examples; Poland, Lithuania, Russia.....etc.

[Aguest]

Would it be helpful to identify the specific letter in the castle-door of the Hamburg castle hallmark? :: It might help to identify the assay-master which would narrow down the dates of assay to certain years, and that might help to get a more accurate date of the cup's construction?

[Qrt.S]

@Aguest
Unfortunately I don't quite follow you now. Please specify a bit more what you mean.
Anyway, we know the Russian assayer. He is Ivan Frolov but he has nothing to do with who made the cup. The letter in Hamburg's town mark is D and it belongs to alderman Nic. Sülssen. We are in mid 17th. cent. so...?

[Aguest]

The letter in Hamburg's town mark was my question and I was wondering which assay master the letter corresponds to, and you have identified the specific letter and the specific person to which the letter refers, I see that person should be referred to as an alderman and since I have never used this word in association with a silver hallmark I just forgot it :::

[Dad]

Hi

It is made in Hamburg during earlier period of time. Then, in the 1770th the Petersburg assay office marked it by russian punches.
75 – it is purity of silver (zolotnik). (Decree 7517 of February 22, 1732)
At this time (1770th) a usual set of punches guaranteed the minimum purity of silver - 72 zolotniks (750 metric) only.(Decree 7517 of February 22, 1732).
If purity of silver was more than 72, then the assay master could punch other figures of fineness.

But it is not import in our usual understanding. Most likely it is a special case.

Best Reg..

[AG2012]

So. my assumption was correct in regard of 12 Loth.

See above:

(Number 75 remains a mystery, if indicating sub-standard zolotniki it would be close to 12 Loth, but I do not like to speculate without reliable
references).

Well, after Dad`s comment 75 is not a mystery any more.
But 75 zolotniki (.781) is too low for 13 Loth .813 or 78 zolotniki, and too high for 12 Loth (.750).
If the beaker is 12 Loth (.750) or legal 72 zolotniki no additional mark 75 would be needed.
As it was assessed above 72 zolotniki, it must be 13 Loth, because exactly .781 would be very unusual 12 1/2 Loth.
But, were the measurements so precise at the time ?
All said, it would be interesting to test the fineness of the beaker.
(Correct me if my calculations are wrong).
Regards

[Goldstein]

Hi Dad -

Of course it is made earlier than the Russian hallmark's year 1773. It lacks the Russian maker's mark because it is not made in Russia but imported from Hamburg/Germany to Russia. I have said a thousand times and say it again: If an object object carries only a Russian hallmark but no maker's mark, it is imported goods.

Thanks for ending this "import nonsense" and for a reliable source!

Regards
Goldstein