Now that it is clearly shown that the makerÂ´s mark is BB (lat.V V), in my sources I have only one fitting: Viktorov, Vasilij Viktorovitsch. If he is the maker, I can not say - he was known for his religious articles. It is possible that he was not the maker but the vendor - very common around 1900 and later.Source: P-L. p 180, # 1240
The two charms (egg and shoe) were added later - the bracelet comes without. They are correctly stamped at the eyelet.
Marking of jewelry in Russia was total different from marking other objects. Bracelets or belts were marked once on the lock completely (depending of the time with the appropriate marks). If with Kokoshnik mark, always with the certificate mark (the small, round mark with a head). The single links were marked either only
with the makerÂ´s mark (Moscow and St. Petersburg) or with the silver content mark 84 Zolotniki (in the Caucasus region). Rings and diadems were mostly only marked with the gold content or were without marks. Platinum was never marked. Today and in the past it is/was very, very hard to discover and proof Russian jewelry exept it comes from the owner with some receipts etc. Many FabergÃ© jewels were only through the paperwork of the owner detected. A fact that is understandable - even today jewels are only marked with the content of the precious metall - when you know that there is not much space on a ring where you can mark.
Enamel belt (Moscow/E.T. Samoshin, 1900, fully marked on the lock, links only with makerÂ´s mark)
Niello belt (St. Petersburg/Khodzhaev, 1900, fully marked on the lock, links with silver content 84 - though made in St. Petersburg it should bear the makerÂ´s mark - but it was ordered/made for customers in Caucasus - therefore 84 Zolotniki mark. Can you follow the logic?Sources:
Ð ÑƒÑÑÐºÐ¾Ðµ Ð¡ÐµÑ€ÐµÐ±Ñ€Ð¾Ð± Ð’Ñ‚Ð¾Ñ€Ð°Ñ ÐŸÐ¾Ð»Ð¾Ð²Ð¸Ð½Ð° 19 - ÐÐ°Ñ‡Ð°Ð»Ð¾ 20 Ð’ÐµÐºÐ°
Russian Gold and Silverwork, Alexander von Solodkoff
FabergÃ©, GÃ©za von Habsburg