Help identifying please

[MarinaM]

Hello everyone, I am hoping someone can help with identifying some makers marks and regions? I have recently picked up a box of silver from my parents which belonged to my both sets of grandparents who were Russian. I have also been researching our family history for quite some time which is proving to be difficult as there are name changes and adoptions involved, so just having an idea where these came from would be great. I have looked through the forum and at the list of assayers and makers marks and I think maybe I could have found this maker and assayer, but it's so hard to tell if it's correct. I have several other items to post, but I see it is preferred to post one at a time, so will post the others on a separate thread. (I hope I understood that correctly!) Any help at all would be very much appreciated. Thank you.

[dognose]

Hi MarinaM,

Welcome to the Forum.

Yes, you've understood that correctly, create a new topic for each item.

Trev.

[Mart]

Hello! Moscow, 1862. Silversmith "MK" Maxim Gavrilovich Karabanov (Korobanov). Максим Гаврилович Карабанов (Коробанов).

[MarinaM]

Wonderful, thank you so much! It will be interesting to see if the other items are from Moscow.

[Qrt.S]

Could be Karabanov, a rather unknown master in Moscow. His exact working period is not known. What makes me doubt a bit is because Karabanov's known punch was M.K. (note the dot's location). On the spoon only one dot and it is centralized (M·K).
But OK, he could have used several punches...who knows? Punches were worn, broken and renewed, but if so, why change the outlook on a new punch? It happens but....?
The assayer (Cyr. B.C, Latin V.S) is either Veniamin or his brother Viktor Savinsky.

Please note that there are still quite a lot of unidentified master in Moscow and in Russia in general.
Waiting eagerly for your other posts... :-)))

[MarinaM]

Thank you for that extra info, and the assayers name. This is why I was not sure, I found the M.K mark on the forum, but yes it looked different, hence putting it on here to double check. It will be my luck to have unknowns, but at least I know it was definitely Moscow and the year. I look forward to finding out about the rest of it!

[Mart]

This is Maxim Karabanov. If Qrt.S doesn't know anything about him, it doesn't mean that the workshop was unknown in reality))))
Maxim was born in 1809 (plus/minus one year), his wife Natalia Vasilyevna, daughter Anna. Information about his workshop has been in the primary sources for more than 25 years.
In the 1860s, Karabanov's workshop was among the three largest in terms of the volume of recycled silver. This is largely due to the fact that he mainly made forks, spoons, etc. - simple mass products.

[Qrt.S]

Sorry for using the word "unknown". Anyway, it is good that somebody here always knows everything with 100 % certainty. If Karabanov is so well known, kindly name at least some the more than 25 years old reliable and known "primary" sources as well as his working period. If Karabanov is well known the working period should most likely also be known. His wife's and daughter's names are irrelevant but the working period is important not mention what the punch looked like. Thank you in advance.

[Mart]

1. Your sarcasm does not hurt me in any way, you can not try too hard)))) Moreover, he is not honest. When I'm not sure who the silversmith is, I use the word "possible" or "difficult to determine".
2. Even if the master is well known, it absolutely does not mean that the period of his work should be precisely known. There are some time intervals when there is simply no information or it has not yet been found. Then the database of collected actual brands helps.
3. The primary sources are known to everyone who is interested in silversmiths. Of course, these are not the books of modern authors on which your knowledge is based - I do not read them at all. These are archives, population censuses, periodicals of the 19th century and much more.
4. Information about the silversmith M.Karabanov I met in 1851, 1852, 1857, 1860, 1868, 1874 years.
All the best!

[Qrt.S]

Sure... but thank you anyway, however, it is interesting that no one else has stumbled into these sources/archives you mention earlier and used them in current/new books etc., hoe come? It is also a well known fact that lots of archives/documentation were destroyed/burn as useless during the Soviet era. Finally you have no idea of what my sources might be!

[Mart]

There are still enough documents in the archives. You need to be able to use them and know where to look.
You yourself have previously named your sources of inspiration many times. They all contain quite a lot of the same errors. Perhaps their authors did not have the opportunity, time, desire, factual basis and experience to deal specifically with each silversmith. This is not an easy job. Most often, the authors simply listed the names they met and assigned them some brands, very approximately.
For me, in these books, only the real documents that Ivanov and Skurlov found are important. And information about silversmiths who brought their wares to the Assay Chamber in 1838 and 1874. And, of course, the information collected by Postnikova about the 17th century. . And some more information, but not much of it.

[Ubaranda]

Why not Mikhail Karpinsky? He too is mentioned in primary sources during these years.

[Mart]

I have seen the mark "MK" on spoons since the 1850s, and on other products (salt shakers, cups, mugs) only after 1865. Do you really have information that Karpinsky was already working as a silversmith in 1862? Very interesting. Can you give an indication of the source?)))

[Qrt.S]

Good question Ubaranda, but according to my sources M. Karpinsky was active master 1865-1883. There was, however, an assayer with the same name in Moscow 1800-1828. His punch was M·K (centralized dot). To my understanding he is hardly the same person. The year span is rather big!
The hallmark shows 1862. In addition, to my understanding master Karpinsky didn't use a dot in none of his known punches (he used several). Moreover, in my input 31.10 I wrote that Karabanov used two dots in his mark but none of them centralized like the single dot in the questioned mark, but according to Mart it is 100% Karabanov...is it? I'm not fully convinced about that! As mentioned earlier, there are still quite a lot of unidentified punches in former Russia. I wouldn't draw too hasty conclusions of who is who if only the letters, the town and the year marks happens to match. The punch's outlook, font and dots etc... are also important factors to match. Anyway, silver marks is not an exact science, it is a hobby only.

[Mart]

".... I wouldn't draw too hasty conclusions of who is who if only the letters, the town and the year marks happens to match..."
So I gave you the information earlier without result:
"...In the 1860s, Karabanov's workshop was among the three largest in terms of the volume of recycled silver. This is largely due to the fact that he mainly made forks, spoons, etc. - simple mass products...."
It is necessary to be able to analyze information. The production volume of Karabanov was greater than the volumes of Sazikov and Ovchinnikov all together. Probably, he could achieve this only by releasing mass-produced products.
By the way, the silversmith Mikhail Karpinsky could not work in 1883, as he died in October 1882.
And earlier you wrote:
"....an assayer with the same name in Moscow 1800-1828....." ...The period is specified incorrectly.
I have no questions on this topic until I see information that M. Karpinsky was actively working in 1862.
All the best!

[Qrt.S]

This seems to be a never ending story... Anyway, Mart is right about assayer Karpinsky's ending year. It is 1824 (my fault, sorry for that).
Regarding master Karpinsky, Postnikova writes on page 220 #2658-60 MK M. Karpinsky 1865-1883. Other sources tell the same. I believe we can forget him. He was not active in 1862. The"problem" left is the centralized dot in the maker's mark. As mentioned earlier, Karabanov's punch was M.K. Unfortunately I have no picture to show of K's punch. Is it Karabanov or somebody else is still unclear.
An interesting case anyway and as I wrote "no hasty conclusions, please"

Mart!
Please do not try to distract this topic with irrelevant text/information. We are talking about a goldsmith's name, punch and working period, but not what somebody produced or his competitors.

[oel]

Hi Mart,

Thanks for the relevant information, indeed Postnikova as sole information source is not adequate and dated.
Russian national archives and censuses are important sources for relevant information. To research and to understand the information a good knowledge of the Russian language is essential. The more we discover about a particular silversmith, the better. His date of birth, date of marriage, his children, the years he was active, his apprentices and the size of his company and the products made, his manner of working are indeed very relevant.
If the master owned a large workshop and/or factory, we may assume that over the years he used several maker’s marks. And with this master marks based on his initials MK.

To wrapp up, using your information and for the lack of other possible candidates. I feel no hesitation to attribute the maker’s mark M•K to: Maxim Gavrilovich Karabanov (Korobanov). Максим Гаврилович Карабанов (Коробанов).
I share your opinion. Thank you and good luck with your ongoing research.

Yes Mart, the Russian forum is not the easiest forum. Unfortunately, on this forum the replies sometimes degenerates into a polemic. Often laughable, sometimes painful. Some of the real Russian silver connoisseurs have already dropped out. What others write don't take it personally and keep it up.

Best wishes,

Peter.

[Mart]

Hey Peter!
Thanks for the kind words!
Your understanding of the methods of studying the history of silversmiths is very clear and close to me. Of course, information about the amount of silver used in the work is very important. The lists of "Silver workshops" included those who did minor repairs and owners of large workshops. If we know the amount of silver used, then it will be very helpful to understand which of the masters with the same initials did what. Of course, there is a difference between 100 grams and 3 tons))).
Postnikova's book, of course, is largely outdated and contains a large number of errors, but it was very important for its time. A very big job. These errors are mainly associated with the names of silversmiths, assayers and the period of their work. I think that the authors of the book did not have the main idea to study each specific silversmith. This book is like a pencil sketch. Many large workshops are not named at all. The big problem is that the readers of the book believe that the drawings of the hallmarks of the silversmiths absolutely belong to them. Sometimes this is true. Often, the authors simply attached the hallmarks they had to the names of the silversmiths they encountered. The period of work of silversmiths was indicated by the time when they encountered these hallmarks. They did not have the task of examining in detail the work of each master. And they didn't have the sources that can be found now.
About knowledge of the Russian language. This knowledge does not always help. I cannot correctly read the names of dozens of silversmiths that are written in old documents. The handwriting of some officials was sometimes very bad))).
Sorry for the many words.
All the best!