Moscow vermeil charka, 1883

[GiulyF]

Hy all
Happy Easter even if it's late.
I'm having some troubles to decipher the maker of this beatiful small vermeil charka niello decorated.
The assayer, aaccording to what I was able to understand also by probing here the site should be, Vasily Aleksandrovich Petrov (1883-1893) in Mosca, 1883, while the maker maybe, Ivan Fyodorovich Golovin, 1861-1884, but where? In Moscow?? the old post the old post didn't report it but it was talking about St. Petersburg for another IG maker, if I'm not mistaken, here it's definitely not St. Petersburg, maybe Moscow? but that city hallmark like a threaded shield makes me think of something else, but what?? Tiflis? and then if it really was Petrov as an assayer, r then it must necessarily be Moscow.
I note a mark with an H under that of the assayer, could it be an import hallmark?
Is there anyone who wants to translate the writing engraved along the external cup?
thank you all as always!!

[Dad]

This is Moscow.
The ladle belongs to church paraphernalia. The inscription on it is part of the prayer: "Теплота Веры Исполнь Духа Святого"("The warmth of faith is filled with the Holy Spirit.")
Is there a picture on the ladle handle?

[Dad]

In addition.

The correct name is "korets". Part of the Eucharist set. Like here:

https://umilenie.su/magazin/evharistich ... 1-5-litra/

[Aguest]

:::::: Is there a hallmark just below the number Four in the "84" zolotnik hallmark or are my eyes just playing tricks on my brain? ::::::

[GiulyF]

Dear Dad thank you so much for all the precious inforamation and the help, splendid! perhaps it was used for ointments during the Eucharistic function?
You are right the handle is engraved with the representation of the Russian Orthodox cross flanked by the spear of Longinus and the sponge, as told in the Christian tradition, I don't understand what the two lateral knots are instead.
As for Aguest instead, you have seen well under the title 84 zolotniki there is a letter, I read an H, in uncial style, what could it be, I can't figure it out, is it a letter from some city in the Austro-Hungarian or German Empire??

[img]https://i.imgur.com/OYm5LpR.jpg[/img]
[img]https://i.imgur.com/blDzgqt.jpg[/img]

[dognose]

Please embed your images.

Trev.

[GiulyF]

Is it ok?

[GiulyF]

Is it ok?

The letter mark H, seems to me as a Dutch dating mark, is it possible? which corresponds to the year of importation into the Netherlands of the product? as written in the site, the date letter was considered the indiviadual assayer's identification mark....or am I fantasizing about finding a match at all costs?

[Dad]

You are right the handle is engraved with the representation of the Russian Orthodox cross flanked by the spear of Longinus and the sponge, as told in the Christian tradition,

Ok. "Quod Erat Demonstrandum"

As for Aguest instead, you have seen well under the title 84 zolotniki there is a letter, I read an H, in uncial style, what could it be, I can't figure it out, is it a letter from some city in the Austro-Hungarian or German Empire??

These are parts of a double-punch Assay Mark. We see "1" from "1883".
"Double punch" are common. The hammer "jumps".

[GiulyF]

[quote=Dad post_id=210637 time=1681461096 user_id=16900]
[quote=GiulyF post_id=210629 time=1681456794 user_id=50102]
You are right the handle is engraved with the representation of the Russian Orthodox cross flanked by the spear of Longinus and the sponge, as told in the Christian tradition, [/quote]

Ok. "Quod Erat Demonstrandum"
[quote=GiulyF post_id=210629 time=1681456794 user_id=50102]
As for Aguest instead, you have seen well under the title 84 zolotniki there is a letter, I read an H, in uncial style, what could it be, I can't figure it out, is it a letter from some city in the Austro-Hungarian or German Empire??[/quote]

These are parts of a double-punch Assay Mark. We see "[b]1[/b]" from "[b]1[/b]883".
"Double punch" are common. The hammer "jumps".
[/quote]

ah you say it could be so? this explanation did not even cross my mind because, I read and learn, that the regulation in terms of punching was so stringent and mandatory that it seems inconceivable to me that such a thing could happen, that is, that a clumsy assayer would punch a product by mistake, moreover small and delicate. But perhaps we are faced with a reading according to Occkham's razor

[Dad]

ah you say it could be so? this explanation did not even cross my mind because, I read and learn, that the regulation in terms of punching was so stringent and mandatory that it seems inconceivable to me that such a thing could happen, that is, that a clumsy assayer would punch a product by mistake, moreover small and delicate. But perhaps we are faced with a reading according to Occkham's razor

There is also such a case: after the final processing (polishing), pre-delivered marks are defective (disappear).
In this case put new punches.