Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
Could it be Kazan ( Kasane ) ? ( # 459. Postnikova ) ?
Not impossible, perhaps then the assay-master could be # 473 Postnikova ? ( 1877-78 would not be that far from 1880 ? )
Naturally putting my feet here on thin ice...none the less a possibility, while waiting for better approaches.
@Qrt.S.
Thanks for getting me back on the track from the side-track.
I think this one is quite challenging, because usually the maker's marks tend to be like 'up-side down", when compared to the assay-markings, at least very often. But in this case the maker's appear to be sort of 'side-ways' compared to the assay-markings...leaves one with plenty options and as well angles to have the pic's taken.
Summa summarum - this one and the markings inside the cartouche, really do appear quite different from different angles...
I will try to take some pic's from other angles and post those here tomorrow.
Best regards,
- Atlas -
But as seen from the picture I've posted here, would I say the following;
( assuming, that it is like that the part of the cartouche seen in the photo on the far upper part, is the correct direction...)
The first letter --- a P in cyrillic, followed by a dot...or it could be also, that ( the smaller dot ) could be part of the letter P in cyrillic...and the dot would actually be the next, a bit bigger 'symbol´, a little bit further on...followed by a letter...either a letter N or I in cyrillic. In this scenario the maker's marks would consist of two (2) cyrillic alphabets and a dot between those.
But there are other possibilities as well. This really is a hard one. Perhaps it is for the best to wait until I post the pic's from different angles as well.
- Atlas -
I give you my best shot: The master's initials are П.Н.(Latin PN). That would be Akim Prokopij Nikitin in Moscow 1885-1897....or not!
About the maker's mark being up side down in comparison to the assayer's mark is a pure coincident. The rumors tell that it was a rule/regulation that demanded an up side down marking but that is nonsense. The truth is that the assayer was a busy man and hit his punch on a suitable place. He didn't pay any attention to where or how the maker's mark was punched. The only thing he was interested in was the legality of the fineness and that the object carried a maker's mark, then he punched. Therefore the possibilities of up side down markings or not are 50/50.
@Qrt.S.
@Dad
Thanks for sharing your experienced points of views.
I hope, that the photo added a moment ago enables a clearer view with the maker's mark.
Best regards,
- Atlas -