Russian cup with saucer Petersburg 1857

[silverfan]

Some days ago I saw this cup marked St. Petersburg, assayed by Eduard Brandenburg 1857 with a maker's mark I could not yet identify. Two letters: cyrillic N and a letter like the G in the word Fabergé. I know the photos are very bad, but I can not do better at the moment (if I buy it, later better photos), therefore please give an answer concerning the maker.
If possible with these bad photos give an opinion, if the cup could be fake.
Regards silverfan

[Qrt.S]

HUH!! Why didn't you enhanced the photos before showing them? Anyway, it looks like the initials are НЖ, are they? If so, the only alternative I can come up with is Nikolay Zholpin in StP 1837-57, but it is a long shot!

[silverfan]

Hi Q.rts.
Thank you. Here some slightly better photos. The letters you describe are right, but I think the cyrillic N is the second letter. So it is perhaps another family name. I didn't find the maker in PL. Russian silver remains a difficult thing for me, so that I normally do not dare to buy without support. In this case the item was so cheap that I bought it and hope that it is not a fake.
Regards silverfan

[Qrt.S]

If the initials in the maker's mark is the other way (ЖН), then I have no suggestions...unfortunately. However, please note that it is not at all uncommon that the maker's mark is upside down compared with the official marks on Russian objects. Sometimes a dot will reveal which way the mark should be read. Can you see a dot?

[silverfan]

Hi Qrt.S,
when looking on the cup standing on the saucer the cyrillic letter N is the first letter and the other marks are upside down under the rim. Is it possible that when the maker, following the rule, marked the item first, the assay master marked to the right and to the left? Are the marks on cup and saucer on the right place? The bottom of the saucer looks as if it were cast.
I am a bit doubtful if the piece is so old and authentic because I found it on a flea market for very little money.
Regards silverfan

[silverfan]

I cannot see a dot.
Regards silverfan

[AG2012]

Hi,
I think Qrt.S is right about ЖОЛПИН Николай, 1837–1857: СДМ; в 1849 г. имел мастерскую, Постникова—Лосева: клеймо № 1359.
This is from Skurlov.There is no other family name starting with Ж among St Petersburg silversmiths.
Besides,Russian given names starting with this letter are extremely rare.
List of names starting with Ж (one Russian, one Kazak, one borrowed from French).
Список имен на букву Ж
https://kakzovut.ru/imena.html?c=8

The years of his activity matches, dot or no dot.
Regards

[Qrt.S]

Are the marks on cup and saucer on the right place? The bottom of the saucer looks as if it were cast.
I am a bit doubtful if the piece is so old and authentic because I found it on a flea market for very little money.
Regards silverfan

To state are the marks part of the cast or not from a photo only is rather difficult. A cast mark's edges are usually very "soft/rounded" and the shield's bottom has very a similar structure as the bottom around it. Use a good magnifier and check it for yourself, but note that marks on bottom are usually also worn for obvious reasons.
The marking in general looks OK for the period. AS AG2012 already stated the mark is #1359 in Postnikova on p. 184.
Sometimes good bargains are made on flea markets. Don't worry, looks good!

[silverfan]

Thanks Qrt.S and AG2012, I am "calmed". @AG2012: I do not understand the russian text after the double point and further down. What means SKURLOV in this context?
Regards silverfan

[Qrt.S]

The text is of less importance. It is only an extract from Skurlov's book. Skurlov is a Russian researcher and has written books about Russian silver and marks. The text only states that "The maker's mark is found in Postnikova-Loseva's book by number 1359"

[silverfan]

Thanks again. Last questions. I think the marks on the cup to be punched (slight indentations on the opposite side, impression mark), the marks on the saucer are difficult to judge, because the bottom of the shield looks like the bottom around it, but there is a slight indentation too. When scrutinizing the saucer I discovered that one of the patterns caused an indentitation too (see photos).
So I suppose Sholpin not to be a silversmith of first class, who sold also his items which didn't turn out perfect!? (he does not appear in the Forum)
These cups are offered as coffee, tea and even as vodka cups. What is right? Weight of cup and saucer is 172 grams, height of the cup 8 cm, diameter 8 cm.
Regards silverfan

[Qrt.S]

Autch! Impression marks are always alarming. When the maker took his objects to the assayer who checked the fineness and punched his mark (or didn't) he had to punch hard. It could cause an impression mark on the opposite side. However, the object had to be shown in pieces and unfinished to the assayer. Before shwoing it, the maker punched his maker's mark on all pieces. When the maker returned to his workshop, he assembled, usually by soldering, the marked pieces together, polished and finished his work making it ready for sale. If the impression mark was on a visible place, he "removed" it. Therefore a visible impression mark is a red flag.
In addition, you mention that the bottom in the mark looks very similar to the surrounding area....soft edges perhaps...? that is also alarming. Now we have two alternatives to pick from:
1. poor quality
2. fake
or just to note, "what a sloppy silversmith!"
Also note that Zholpin is not very well known and not either famous. Maybe he made objects 13 in a dozen..., difficult to know the truth. One should see the object "in flesh" so to say.

[AG2012]

Do not worry, cup and saucer are genuine,there are many facts supporting authenticity.
Marks were punched to confirm duty paid, not for us to admire them after 150 years.
Regards

[Qrt.S]

Mind my saying AG2012 and to make a long story short... Originally the hall-/assay mark's intention was and still is to guarantee the fineness of gold or silver to the buyer and to guarantee his acquisition correct by the standards laid down by the law. In the early days gold and silver was also a monetary question. In some countries the silver fineness was the same as used in the coinage. Silver objects were sometimes used like money in the trade. It was as well an investment object. Therefore the maker's mark idea was and still is to trace back to the responsible maker in the event of fraud. The duty question appears much later ~17-18th century when some governments got the bright idea that here they have an ideal medium for extra revenue for them. The duty question is, anyway, a minor matter in this context.
Moreover, the marks were never intended as a guide to future researcher and collectors. This is a 20th. century "invented worldwide hobby" in which both you, me and many other are taking interest in ;-)))))))