Russian Sugar Bowl - Authentic?

[MGArgent]

Hi Forum,

Looking for an opinion on whether this Russian sugar bowl is authentic.

As far as I can tell the marks are:

M*K over 1833: assayed by Mikhail Mikhailovich Karpinsky in 1833
Anchor/scepter: St. Petersburg
84: 84 zolotniki (0.875 parts silver)
FB or JB?: Unknown maker mark

The marks didn't raise any red flags for me, but I am wondering if the construction provides any clues to it being authentic? The indent and scoring on the bottom looks as though the piece was lathe turned, and it is hard to tell if the finial is threaded into the lid, but I will know more when the item arrives.

I am also curious if anyone can identify the maker?

[Qrt.S]

Yes, it is authentic. It is made by John Blasball (JB) in St. Petersburg. John Blasball had a son by the same name. The son continued his father's business and used the same mark, The working period of father and son is not exactly known but it was from 1802 to around 1840. The assayer is Mihail Karpinskij in St. Petersburg 1825-1837 in

[AG2012]

Hi,
JB stands for Johann Buntzell (died 1846).The finial does look suspicious.
Regards

[Qrt.S]

@AG2012
Mind my saying, but I disagree. Johann Bunzell marked either BUNTZELL or JTB (Johann Theodor Buntzell) not JB.

[AG2012]

Qrt.S is right about the maker.«JB» Джон Блейсбол.
The maker I found used the same initials,but with middle name T in PL.
Regards

[AG2012]

Qrt.S is right about the maker.«JB» Джон Блейсбол.
The maker I found used the same initials,but with middle name T in PL.
Regards

[Qrt.S]

I must correct too. He did not use the mark BUNTZELL, only JTB/J.T.B.

[MGArgent]

Thank you both for your excellent responses. A quick search of John Blasball shows a lidded jar with an identical maker mark attributed to him. I am happy to hear that it is likely authentic. AG2012, can you share your thoughts on the suspicious finial? Are you suspecting that the original finial was damaged and then replaced?

[AG2012]

Nothing suspicious in craftsmanship, style and marks.
Finials can be riveted or more often fixed with a screw.Nuts were always more or less decorative.
If moved in both directions many times, the nut leaves marks on gilded surface and the circumference (radius) of the traces matches the size of the nut.In the example shown here the nut (or several nuts in the course of time) of whatever form had to be much bigger to leave circular traces clearly visible (my red arrow) well outside this nut.One thing is for sure ; it could not have left the workshop like this.
When you receive the item you will see how the finial is fixed and show us.
Regards

[MGArgent]

The sugar bowl arrived today so I have some more pictures to share.

Some observations:

1. The finial is riveted on
2. The scratches under the lid might be from a previous attempt to clean around/under the finial rivet
3. The scratches under the lid might be from installing a new rivet (if it is a replacement finial)
4. The finial top appears to be brighter than the rest of the bowl (less patina?)
   1. It looks dark in the top few photos but that is just the reflection from my black phone
5. The finial decoration appears to be bone
6. There was some rubbing to the bottom of the bowl near the city & maker marks

[AG2012]

Hi,
Something is definitely done with the finial,it could not have left the workshop like this.
But impossible to tell what was done, and what parts are genuine.
Are you sure it is not a screw ?
Rivets are uncommon in finials;rivet heading process is done with the help of forming die and backup die which keep a rivet in between them and by application of force tail part of rivet is deformed and converted to head.
After all,we will never know.
Enjoy your sugar box as it is.
Regards

[MGArgent]

Your intuition was right, and it is in fact a screw!

I mistook the screw head for being the deformed end of a solid rivet. I hadn't applied much force when trying to turn it yesterday but based on your suggestion I had another crack at it today.

There are no additional "84" marks on the remaining pieces (including the decorative piece with radial lobes) and I'm wondering if this is odd because I thought most separable pieces are supposed to receive their own mark?

At least we now know that the scratches under the lid were caused by someone unthreading the finial, possibly for cleaning/polishing.

[AG2012]

Finials are not always marked.Besides,we are too idealistic and optimistic in regard of law obedient silversmiths centuries ago.
Judging by modern moral and legal standards most of world's population in 19th century would be imprisoned and sentenced.
Regards