Russian, not russian, fake?

[amena]

A friend of mine asked me for an opinion on an icon that belonged to her late father.

There are many things that leave me perplexed: the riza is very thin and does not seem to be worked by hand. There are also two different oval punches whose meaning I don't know, but I don't have enough knowledge of the subject to make a judgment.
Can any of you give me your opinion?
Thanks in advance
Amena

[AG2012]

Hi,
Looks OK to me; Kokoshnik either in an oval or circle are both legitimate,the latter often as a secondary mark.
At the time they already used die presses and etched the decoration.
I think ИМ is for
МНЕКИН Иван Николаевич
Mnekin Ivan Nikolaevich in Moscow.

Regards
  

[Qrt.S]

Yes, it looks OK, but mind my saying, I don't think it is Mnekin. The M in his mark looks different. Of course he could have used several punches, but ...? There is also no mentioning in mine sources that he would have made rizas. Unfortunately I have no alternative to present.
Btw. Mnekin's second name was Николаев (Nikolajev). He was active in Moscow around 1886~1909.

[amena]

Many thanks for your comments.
I will communicate the good news to my friend, that she will be very happy.
To improve my knowledge on the subject, could you tell me the meaning of the mark found on the parts of the riza without kokoshnik?

Best
Amena

[AG2012]

Nothing to decipher here.

[oel]

Hi, to me it appears to be very similar to the kokoshnik mark, the woman's head facing left, wearing the traditional headdress known as a kokoshnik, implemented 1898 until 1908. Left in oval nummer 84, assayer perhaps Lebedkin(?)
Your image turned, enhanced.

Indeed a very bad punch, I believe both marks to be a deformed kokoshnik
Peter.

[amena]

Thanks Peter,
I would never have recognized it.
Best regards
Amena

[Qrt.S]

Excellent Peter, well done, good eyes indeed. I minor comment: The left looking kokoshnik with big figures (84) was implemented 1899. This has been discussed here earlier. The kokshnik with small figures implemented in the second half of 1898 was a disaster and against the regulation. Therefore it was renewed with big figures in 1899 according to the regulation. This is no big deal, but good to remember ( small 84 figures is always latter half of 1898).

[Mart]

There is no reason to believe that kokoshnik appeared in 1898. From the beginning of 1899, he was with a small "84", and a few months later with a large "84".

[Qrt.S]

The assay charter of 1896 introduced new rules regarding hallmarking of silver in Russia. In 1899 it became obligatory to punch with the new mark (left looking kokshnik). The first punches were manufactured and distributed already in the middle of 1898. But it was a disaster because the punches did not match the description in the regulation (too small figures). However, the punches were used in some regions to the beginning of 1899 when new punches with big figures were distributed.

[Mart]

Your regular persistence in spreading incorrect information is surprising.
All new punches in Russia began to be used in 1899. Just try to remember it.

[Qrt.S]

Read the assay charter and stop talking nonsense.

[oel]

In my humble opinion, instead of arguing, in order to appear professional, one should at all times cite the source. The Russian hallmarking degree of 1896, implemented in 1898. NB. It does not state when the new punches were first use.


Source; World Hallmarks Volume I Europe 19th to 21st Centuries William B. Whetstone, Danusia V. Niklewicz, Lindy L. Matula; Russia page 240. Bibliography; Postnikova-Losseva, M. and N. Platonova, B. Ulianova. L'Orfevrerie et la Bijouterie au XV-XX siecle, Moscow: Nauka, 1983. Troepol'skaya, N. Catalog of Hallmarks on items in Precious Metals, 1917-2000 (USSR and Russia), Moscow:2006. Acknowledgement to director/head Russia assay office Elena Zakamaldina.


Peter

[Qrt.S]

Thank you Peter,
@Mart
Who is spreading false information and again? Anyway, I understand you because what you stated is a very common misunderstanding and stated as a fact in many sources. in some sources among those in well known Postnikova, who states what you claim "new hallmarks were supposed to be introduced on January 1, 1899" (yes they were, but with big figures). Another source claims that the rules were applied 1896, but that is that is the year of the presenting of the new assay charter. The year is correct regarding the assay charter but not the marks. The "false" small kokoshnik marks were implemented in July 1st 1898 and abolished in December 31st, 1899. Nothing unclear about that. The whole introduction process in general was more or less a "catastrophe" and led to that the right looking kokshnik mark was started to plan already 1905/6 and implemented 1908. I suggest that you read P. Tikhonov's (from Kiew) book "For Gold and Silversmiths" (1904).
In general I also suggest that you investigate more thoroughly before stating anything instead of blaming me for no reason whatsoever.
As for me end of this discussion.

[oel]

Hi Qrt.S,
Quote; The "false" small kokoshnik marks were implemented in July 1st 1898 and abolished in December 31st, 1899
Please cite the source where we can find the correct data, the entry date when the new hallmarks were first distributed and used etc,with name, page number and footnotes.Thanks.


Peter.

[Qrt.S]

Hi Peter,

One source is: Assaying and hallmarking in Russia 1700-1946, Russian national Museum, Moscow 2002. Chapter; Assay Charter of 1896 page 245-252, Gold and Silverware Hallmarking from 1897-1908. Read the whole next chapter too. Information is spread all over in those chapters!
Another source is/was the one you already referred to 17.10 at 6.59 PM
A third is MIller's II on page 770. (not so useful) ...marks commenced in 1896...??????. MIller's Russian chapter 767-779 is very incomplete and contains too much mistakes and errors. Not very useful unfortunately, actually a mess.
That will do and as I wrote: As for me end of this discussion.
My pleasure
Q

[Mart]

To OEL:
I agree with you. The best thing is to refer not just to someone's opinion, but to sources from the specific documents and archives. For this particular issue, the «Assay Statute («Пробирный устав») of 1896 is not needed, but the "Assay Instruction" («Инструкция по пробирной части») of July 1897 is needed. Chapter No. 4 (68-79) of this instruction "On the branding of products" («О клеймении изделий») was amended in August 1898. Then the bureaucratic machine began to work: mailing to cities and waiting for applications for the manufacture of various new punches. Applications came back even in November 1898. Then the St. Petersburg Mint made new punches. So when in 1898 could they have been used?
About Moscow. Ivan Lebedkin (initials on the punch "ИЛ") began working only in 1899. If we assume that the new punches began to be used in 1898, then they should have the initials A.Vasiliev "АВ", who worked before Lebedkin. No one has ever seen such punches.
A member of the forum Dad knows this topic best of all, but perhaps he is already tired of it))) New punches began to be used since 1899. If someone thinks otherwise, then it is his personal right. I'm not insisting. All the best!
P.S. An example of an application for new punches for 1899 from the city of Kostroma.
The application date is November 5, 1898.

[oel]

Hi Mart,

Thank you for your patience, additional information and citing source. Much appreciated, all clear to me.

Peter.

[dognose]

Hi Mart,

Agree with Peter, many thanks for sharing this important document with us.

Trev.

[Mart]

Wonderful!
And another document from Ivanov 's famous book:
Petersburg, January 1899.
The St. Petersburg Mint managed to make punches of a new type by January 1, 1899, but....