Who is assayer ГА in Moscow 1815?

[Qrt.S]

An interesting case and question:
Who is assayer ГА in Moscow 1815? I'm very sorry, but for certain reasons I cannot show the object. It is, however, a sugar bowl with a lid. There is some fuzz with the object. I believe it is a fake irrespective of the marks being very well done and punched. They look very authentic and everything is punched as it should be.
Anyway, I assume that the mark ГА (Latin GA) is the assayer, but there is no assayer with those initials at that time. Even if there was so there is no maker's mark, which is more or less an impossible situation. If ГА again would be a maker's mark, the assayer's mark is missing. That is not either possible. In addition, there are ugly impression marks on the inside of the bowl. According to the legislation, the object should be taken to the assaying office in parts and unfinished. When it was approved and marked, the maker took it back to his workshop and finished it by removing the impression marks etc.
If somebody has the knowledge of who the assayer might be, I would be very grateful getting that information. However, I still think it is a fake.
Thank you in advance I need your assistance!

[Qrt.S]

Forgot one thing. According to PL#2004, the town mark has no year, but?

[Goldstein]

Hi -

Inquiries without meaningful photos are pointless! It is not for nothing that explicit mention is made in the forum rules.
Objects with assayer but without manufacturer are not uncommon - the best example is A. Jaschinkov, who has already attracted attention.




More can not be said - except for the great doubt.

Regards
Goldstein

[Qrt.S]

??? "without meaningful photos..." There is no need and nothing more to show. Moreover, single images are allowed. In addition, your reply with no answers to my questions is useless only shoving what is already known. That is that you are still not familiar with the legislation.

[Qrt.S]

A bit more about the Russian legislation. I have said it before but a repetition seems to be needed:
A hallmarked object without a maker's mark is imported goods. At the time period in question there was no import mark. The customs brought the imported goods to the assaying office in order to test the fineness. According to the Decree of the Russian Senate of May 1, 1798, the lowest allowed fineness was 84 zolotniki i.e. 875/1000. If the fineness was legal, the import was granted, if not the import was denied and the goods returned. Your sugar basket has no maker's mark because it is imported from who knows where, anyway, most likely Germany.

Now I repeat my question: My object has no maker's mark but a hallmark ГА. That indicates it being imported goods. In that case ГА must be the assayer. There is no registered assayer as ГА, so my questions is; who is he, does anybody know? Moreover, the ГА is hardly the maker's mark because then the assayer's mark is missing. That smells fake.

No replies without any answers, thank you.

[AG2012]

Hi,
This salt cellar by Андрей Астаханцев has no assayer`s initials on the bowl, but only on the postament.
Just guessing: if ГА is the maker, assayer`s initials could be elsewhere on the box.
Regards

[Goldstein]

Hi -

you should reread the contibution from member "Dad" about A. Jaschinko and his habits......

Your sugar basket has no maker's mark because it is imported from who knows where, anyway, most likely Germany.

Importware? Just pure ignorance of the facts.
How comes that all you showed lately is always junk? Try to find authentic Russian silver and show some pics from the whole object.

Regards
Goldstein

[Qrt.S]

@Goldstein
What facts? My facts have a base and not like yours, based on what you are saying only ignoring completely what other members are stating. I requested replies with answers. You ignored that completely. Junk? Yes of course it is junk because it is not in your possession. End of this discussion.

@AG2012
Unfortunately I haven't found any assayer's mark on it.
Your bowl has clearly an assayer's mark even if it is only on the base and a maker's mark too. I see no problem here. My problem remains.

[Qrt.S]

I asked myself a simple question:
Let's for a moment disregard what the regulation stipulate and only focus on:

Why would a master not punch his maker's mark on an object he has made? Isn't the maker's mark as well a trade mark/logo as an advertisement to potential buyers now and in the future i.e. "This object is made by me XX! Isn't it beautiful and well made?". That is what e.g. Fabergé did, didn't he? He put his mark on his production and became famous and known by almost everybody in those days and is well known still today. What might have happened if Fabergé hadn't punch his mark on his objects? Punching the maker's mark on every object made in the workshop making yourself known is the whole point with the mark! In addition, also a question of responsibility of course.

The above mentioned leads undoubtedly the cold fact that leaving an object unmarked by the maker is a dead end! Nobody knows who made it and therefore there is no "address" where to put new orders or whom to turn to.

Conclusion: Please don't present fairy-tales of why a Russian made object has no maker's mark but is hallmarked. I gave you the answer: It is imported! That is a fact that cannot be overseen. On the other hand, an object can carry a maker's mark only. There are many reasons for that, but that is another story.

All above mentioned complies with the regulations, assay charters etc....That is the answer I got. Disagree if you can.

[Goldstein]

Hi -

Hi.
I want to tell that in Yashinkov's work there was no evil (commercial) intention. Only the negligent relation to the duties. Understand me correctly.
He was the honored official. After dismissal from a position of the head of Assay Office, the Mining Department continued to pay for his merits to him the same salary.
Charges of violation of accuracy of definition of a finess of silver (and gold) are absent. Silver and gold were analyzed correctly.

But, during Yashinkov's management of the St. Petersburg assay office, Petersburg silversmiths often weren't registered at office,
- didn't show at registration of prints of his punches,
- brought products not regularly,
- often didn't put makers punch and etc.
The new Head of the St. Petersburg office (M. M. Karpinsky) had to improve work of office considerably.

source: Mining department

Why would a master not punch his maker's mark on an object he has made? Isn't the maker's mark as well a trade mark/logo as an advertisement to potential buyers now and in the future i.e. "This object is made by me XX! Isn't it beautiful and well made?". That is what e.g. Fabergé did, didn't he? He put his mark on his production and became famous and known by almost everybody in those days and is well known still today. What might have happened if Fabergé hadn't punch his mark on his objects? Punching the maker's mark on every object made in the workshop making yourself known is the whole point with the mark! In addition, also a question of responsibility of course.

The above mentioned leads undoubtedly the cold fact that leaving an object unmarked by the maker is a dead end! Nobody knows who made it and therefore there is no "address" where to put new orders or whom to turn to.

Conclusion: Please don't present fairy-tales of why a Russian made object has no maker's mark but is hallmarked. I gave you the answer: It is imported! That is a fact that cannot be overseen. On the other hand, an object can carry a maker's mark only. There are many reasons for that, but that is another story.

All above mentioned complies with the regulations, assay charters etc....That is the answer I got. Disagree if you can.

[Goldstein]

Hi -

I hope this is disagreement enough! Maybe you have learned something....

Regards
Goldstein

[Qrt.S]

Forlorn hope, focus Goldstein focus! I'm not talking about Aleksandr Yashinkov, Yashinov, Yashenkov or whatever his name was. No one seems to know it. He has nothing to do with this case. You only brought his name up in order to draw the attention to irrelevant matters.
I'm talking about a punch with the initials ГА asking who might it be and what is the origin of an object with missing/insufficient marks. That is the topic here.

Anyway, as to Yashinkov, Yashinov, Yashenkov, I'm fully aware of what Dad has written about him. Most likely he is right. However, Dad is only saying:

"...silversmiths often weren't registered at office..." The regulation demanded a silver smith to register at the assay office. Yasinkov oversaw that. But what has that to do with a silversmith's obligation to punch his mark on an object he had made? There are answers to that. He didn't punch because:

- illegal fineness
- illegal smith (bönhase)
- bad work
- medical instrument or object not meant for sale
- fake
. whatever unknown reason....??

If the assayer still punched his assaying mark on an object lack of maker's mark, there are two answers only:
- criminal act (there were criminals among the assayers)
- IMPORT!


...often didn't put maker's punch..." During an assayer's assigned official working period, he was not allowed to work as a commercial gold-, silversmith.

All in all and again, an assayer has nothing to do with the manufacturing of an object. He is the official testing and guaranteeing the fineness only. Therefore it is completely ridiculous that respectable auction houses and sellers of antiques repeatedly today are mentioning the assayer's name in their catalogs often leaving the real maker unnamed. It only shows the incompetence of the staff.

[Goldstein]

Hi -

as always: much smoke - but no fire!

if a poster stops asking questions and begins to express a point of view, he then becomes an advocate for that viewpoint. When a person becomes an advocate, he has the burden of providing evidence for his point of view. If he has no evidence, or doesn't provide it when asked, it is reasonable for the reader to conclude that his opinion or viewpoint is uninformed and may fairly be discounted or rejected.

Undocumented claims undercut the research purposes of this section of the forum. Consequently, it is required that proof be posted along with a claim. The main reason is that proof, evidence, facts, etc. improve the quality of discussions and information. A second reason is that inflammatory, groundless posts and threads attack, and do not promote, the scholarly purpose of this section of the forum.

Regards
Goldstein

[Goldstein]

Hi -

here the original text from Dad again -
you had 8 years time to understand it:



Regards
Goldstein

[Qrt.S]

@Goldstein
Lots of words but no content. What proofs have you shown and when? You are nagging and accusing me for no reason but not answering my questions. You cannot tell is ГА a master or an assayer. You cannot either tell why the marking is insufficient. What is your input in this topic. I tell you, it is nil and nothing so stop nagging about irrelevant matters and get to the point that still is: Who is ГА or stay silent!

[Goldstein]

Hi -

8 years are not enough.....

If you would leave your books now and then and look around under Russian silver, you might notice that there are often poorly stamped objects. These are absolutely authentic! For the lack of individual marks, there is a simple explanation: fraud, avoiding fees, laziness or just carelessness. It is simple like that. Generations of collectors are already desperate for this phenomenon. Of course this does not affect the many fakes on the market and the dubious pieces you often show.

This is a completely different world ......

Regards
Goldstein

[Dad]

Hi,

Excuse me for comparison, but your dispute is like the fight of eaters of eggs at the Lilliput and Blefuscu .))

Ivan Vikhlyaev (Иван Вихляев) was the Head of the Moscow Assay Office during this period of time
His initials in the punches are "IB" (Иван = Iоанн).
The town mark (Saint George) could be with year mark (like at your silver), but and without year mark. Also punches of assaier (initials with a year and without year)

It is possible to meet two types of set of marks at silver (from the Moscow Assay Office) during this period of time:
1 – The coat of arms (Saint George), finess, a mark of a assaier (initials) with a year.
2 – The coat of arms (Saint George) with a year, test, the mark of a assaier (without year, only initials).
As a minor kind of the second type – lack of assaier punch (initials). For various reasons.

Thus, the "ГА" is a mark of the Maker at your silver. But the punch of a Assaier (IB) is absent.

Best Reg..

[Qrt.S]

Thanks Dad, interesting information. Anyway, At the time in question not only Vihljajev assayed but also Grigori Filippov (1810-1819) and a to name unknown MB (1810-1822) P#2103. Do you happen to know his name? In addition, I cannot find a suitable master's name for ГА, do y

While you are there. Do we have a common understanding on the claim that if the object carry the control marks only, it is imported because according to the "books" an object had to carry a maker's mark before it was brought to the assay office. It was strictly forbidden for the assayer to assay and mark an object without a maker's mark on it. Later import mark were introduced, but that is another story.