I have also had this box for many years. Are the signatures original?
Silver snuffbox
Silver snuffbox
Please give me info about the producer.
I have also had this box for many years. Are the signatures original?
I have also had this box for many years. Are the signatures original?
Re: Silver snuffbox
Hi,
There are pros and cons.
The snuffbox is authentic, the assayer is matching year 1868 but to be honest I have never seen Moscow St George of this form during the period the box is supposedly made. The monogram does not look Russian at all and it was not added at later date because it is in niello.
Possibly ``russified`` European snuffbox to make it more lucrative, but do not take it for granted.
Regards
There are pros and cons.
The snuffbox is authentic, the assayer is matching year 1868 but to be honest I have never seen Moscow St George of this form during the period the box is supposedly made. The monogram does not look Russian at all and it was not added at later date because it is in niello.
Possibly ``russified`` European snuffbox to make it more lucrative, but do not take it for granted.
Regards
Re: Silver snuffbox
It looks strange in my opinion too. The engraved initial's font is in fraktura (on a Russian box???). In addition, I have not either seen Moscow's town mark in that shape. It resembles more of Tbilisi/Tiflis town mark. Note that there is no maker's mark either. I believe it is a "Russification" or an imported box. BTW, is it actually a snuff box or a box for spectacles?
AG1012
Mind my asking, but who is the assayer in your opinion?
AG1012
Mind my asking, but who is the assayer in your opinion?
Re: Silver snuffbox
Good morning Qrt.S
I guess it is B.C for Victor Savinkov (PL 2112) unless this is one of the mistakes you pointed out earlier (but I forgot details).
There is more controversy here; it looks as if there is something punched above B.C within the mark. One would expect St George punched separately as shown bellow, not incorporated within the mark itself, at least what I have seen.
Monogram in Fraktur (Schrift) can be explained if added later as engraving, but this one is in niello technique, therefore it must have been done at the same time as the box itself. On the other hand, I remember when I tried to solder a niello watch case and applied high temperature needed for hard soldering; unlike enamel which would break and crack immediately, to my surprise niello was quite resistant and could be polished again. Meaning, there is a possibility the monogram was added later. Nevertheless, marks are not right.
Regards
I guess it is B.C for Victor Savinkov (PL 2112) unless this is one of the mistakes you pointed out earlier (but I forgot details).
There is more controversy here; it looks as if there is something punched above B.C within the mark. One would expect St George punched separately as shown bellow, not incorporated within the mark itself, at least what I have seen.
Monogram in Fraktur (Schrift) can be explained if added later as engraving, but this one is in niello technique, therefore it must have been done at the same time as the box itself. On the other hand, I remember when I tried to solder a niello watch case and applied high temperature needed for hard soldering; unlike enamel which would break and crack immediately, to my surprise niello was quite resistant and could be polished again. Meaning, there is a possibility the monogram was added later. Nevertheless, marks are not right.
Regards
Re: Silver snuffbox
Good afternoon dear AG2012,
With all reppect but you should know that there was no Viktor Savinkov! He is a ghost. It is a big misunderstanding/fault/error whatever copied in many books PL included. The initials BC belongs to three different assayers. The dot between B and C has a major role. It can be an ordinary dot or a centralized dot. The centralized dot can be either big or small. Unfortunately I have not managed to find out with certainty which dot belongs to whom.
However, the BC assayers who existed in Moscow where:
- Veniamin Vasilievich Savinskij, senior assayer 1862-1875
- Viktor Vasilievich Savinskij, junior assayer 1856-1894 (brother to Veniamin)
- Vladimir Stepanovich Smirnov, 1878?
The year on the box is 1868. Therefore Smirnov is excluded. It belong to either of the brothers Viktor or Veniamin or likely a fake mark. The maker's mark is МП. Maybe someone tried create an impression of it belonging to Mihail Perkhin not knowing that he was in St. Petersburg?
Another problem is that this initial BC is often found on fakes. Too many anomalies here, a tricky case....
With all reppect but you should know that there was no Viktor Savinkov! He is a ghost. It is a big misunderstanding/fault/error whatever copied in many books PL included. The initials BC belongs to three different assayers. The dot between B and C has a major role. It can be an ordinary dot or a centralized dot. The centralized dot can be either big or small. Unfortunately I have not managed to find out with certainty which dot belongs to whom.
However, the BC assayers who existed in Moscow where:
- Veniamin Vasilievich Savinskij, senior assayer 1862-1875
- Viktor Vasilievich Savinskij, junior assayer 1856-1894 (brother to Veniamin)
- Vladimir Stepanovich Smirnov, 1878?
The year on the box is 1868. Therefore Smirnov is excluded. It belong to either of the brothers Viktor or Veniamin or likely a fake mark. The maker's mark is МП. Maybe someone tried create an impression of it belonging to Mihail Perkhin not knowing that he was in St. Petersburg?
Another problem is that this initial BC is often found on fakes. Too many anomalies here, a tricky case....
Re: Silver snuffbox
Thanks, Qrt.S
As I suspected, that was the mistake you pointed out several times, but I always forget.
Regards
As I suspected, that was the mistake you pointed out several times, but I always forget.
Regards
Re: Silver snuffbox
No problem AG2012, it comes with the age ;-)))))) but a problem still exists: How is it possible the both Veniamin and Viktor could use the same initial BC between 1862-1875 and Smirnov in 1878 when Viktor already used it ??? According to the law it would not be possible, but? Something is not in place here, but I don't know what or why. Any ideas?