Sugar box, Moscow, 1783

[Juke*]

Hi!

Have not been able earlier to identify the фг makers mark in Cyrillic. Alderman Fyodor Petrov and assayer Stefan Belkin.





Regards,
Juke

[Qrt.S]

A bit difficult case, anyway, in my eyes the maker is I·Ө. That would be Ivan Frolov. The alderman AӨП is Fyodor Petrov 1759-1784 as Juke also anticipates. The (unclear) assayer's mark looks much like С·Б, could be Stepan Belkin 1778-1788. The Moscow town mark shows 1783. It matches the other marks.

[Juke*]

Thanks for the suggestion! The letter seems to have a longer horizontal line towards one side than the other so I think it is not 'I'. I am not totally sure it is the 'Г' as only half of the letter can be seen so could also be a 'Б'.

[Qrt.S]

@Juke,
Take a look at P#2585 on p. 218. Serif fonts were more often used in the past than sans serif. More unclear is the "C" in Belkin's punch, but?

[Juke*]

I think you are correct it is a Serif font and also the longer horizontal line is so thin outwards it has thereby to be the letter 'I'. So the silversmith is Ivan Frolov. Thank you very much!

In the assayer Stepan Belkins mark is clearly a 'C'.

Here is a new photo from both sides:

[Ubaranda]

Hello!
The assayer is Stepan Belkin (С.Б), the maker is definitely Θ.Г (see attached photos). Unfortunately his name is unknown to me.

[Juke*]

Hello!
The assayer is Stepan Belkin (С.Б), the maker is definitely Θ.Г (see attached photos). Unfortunately his name is unknown to me.

Thank you Urbaranda for checking this! It was a good suggestion by Qrt.S but then we have him again unknown.

[Mart]

Silversmith Fyodor Gavrilov (ФГ) was working in Moscow at that time. But for me, this information is not enough to claim that this brand belongs to him.

[Juke*]

Thank you, at least a name is better to start with than none.

[Qrt.S]

But for me, this information is not enough to claim that this brand belongs to him

Mind my asking Mart but why not????? What else do you require?

[Mart]

If there is information about a silversmith for a certain year, this does not mean that the marks on the products belong to him. He could work for another master; he could only do minor repairs. He could only do silver plating. There could be another master with the same initials, etc.
A simple mention is the lowest percentage of reliability. This is the reason for a large number of errors in well-known reference books.
Sometimes the opposite situation occurs, when 3-4 masters are known, but only one type of mark is found.
Here's what can increase the probability percentage during research:
- when I established the time of birth and death of the master,
- when there is a full mark of the master,
- when there is information about what specific products the master made, for example, cigarette cases,
- when there is information that the master came to the assay office, the total weight of the silver products made,
- when documents have been preserved that a specific product was ordered from a specific workshop (most often these are frames for the church),
- when the products were preserved in the master’s family today,
- when I managed to establish friends of the silversmith and they are also silversmiths,
- when there are mentions or articles in newspapers or at exhibitions, in metric books,
- there are several more reasons...