Cigarette case for the discussion 1908 - 17(26)??

Postnikov · Post by **Postnikov** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 9:33 am

Dear Qrt.S -

here is the promised cigarette case to harden my point of view. I have several cases for this time period - but this one is very characteristic for what I wrote in the other thread.
The story behind the case (yes, silver can speak!).

Towaritsch Ivan Vasilijewitsch Ã„kskusowitsch, head of the Theater of St. Petersburg was honored by his staff for conducting in the years 1918(!) - 1923. He was prominent and the Communistic party had without doubt an eye on him and accepted him as a trustworthy member - otherwise he would not have got this job. It would be very interesting to know what happened to his predecessor.....

The cigarette case have a thumb piece with rosecut diamonds, a 5 Rubel (Nikolaus I 1825 - 1855) gold coin soldered on front, assayed in St. Petersburg 1908-17(26), made by Muromkin, Petr Michailov
All things the condemned class enemy loved so much....

Here are the fotos:
Front with dedication

http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd33 ... v/TH01.jpg

Reverse with all the titels he conducted

http://i529.photobucket.com/albums/dd33 ... v/TH02.jpg
(admin photo edit - images too large - link only - see Posting Requirements-Remember to use the Preview Button )

Inside lid with the autographes of all the donators (staff)

MakerÂ´s mark

I do not believe that Muromkin still had his workshop!!

Regards

Postnikov
.

Qrt.S · Post by **Qrt.S** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:05 pm

A very nice piece indeed and knowing its provenience makes it even better. However, the dubious thing is that the maker, Muromkin, did not work in St Petersburg but in KostromÃ¡ (at least to my knowledge). I scanned briefly my available sources and couldn't find anything indicating that Muromkin should have had a workshop in StP (but of course, nothing is impossible).

Most certainly you're right in your believe, and that rises a new question; who is this ÐŸÐœ in StP? There are some ÐŸÐœ-marks but they are in Moscow or elsewhere. The only ÐŸÐœ that fits the period somehow is Pavel Alexandrovich Markov, but I don't think its him (I don't have his mark only his initials).
.

Postnikov · Post by **Postnikov** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 12:54 pm

Hi -

I have several silversmiths from Kostroma who assayed their merchandise in Moscow or St. Petersburg and not in Kostroma - that is what I think....because I have several smiths from Moscow with assay marks from Petersburg and vice versa (not firms with shops in both cities). ?????

What does your assay office documents say? Was it officially possible to assay in an other town? That it obviously was the case I can show you with the existing marks.

Is it possible that my speculations over the years 1917 -26 are completely wrong and all this absolut unknown marks (HBM, EK, APC, C.X, etc.) are the marks of "post revolution" - i.e. after 1917, makers. If this is right, than there must be the proof in this new Russian book covering the communistic aera silversmiths. If you do not find their names there....

So - now you have some homework to do :-)!

Regards

Postnikov
.

Qrt.S · Post by **Qrt.S** » Mon Nov 09, 2009 2:19 pm

Your questions need some investigation. I'll do that and revert to the matter.

However, if I remember correctly, the assay charter states that the master was obliged register himself in a certain town and assay only in the assay office to that town. The master should mark his unfinished but with the maker’s mark marked goods in that respective assay office. It was forbidden to use other assay offices. The problem was that there were not assay offices in every town. But as I said, I'll verify the exact rules later.

KostromÃ¡'s assay master from 1900-1917 was
Alexander Snarsky (AC) 1900-1910, Piotr Fyodorovich Tikhonov (ÐŸÐ¢) 1911-1916, both Head work master of the district and Nikolai Nikolajevich Korbitsky 1912-1916

Well actually I checked your mentioned marks from Troepolskaja. If you don't know this book, it is a continuation of Postnikova starting from the charter of 21 January 1908 (actually 1917) and showing all charters, decrees etc. as well as assay and maker's marks up to the year 2000, In other words, the hole marking history of "valuable metals" of CCCP i.e. gold, silver and platina.

Unfortunately I couldn't find any of your mentioned maker's marks in this book. I don't think your marks are "post revolution" marks.

However, I have stated earlier that enormous numbers of silver documentation was destroyed as unnecessary in Russia. That is why we today (Postnikova and others included) are sometimes unable to identify some maker's marks.

But I shall do my "home work" :-) and revert, but it will take some time. There is a lot of info to scan about 700 pages. Luckily I now about where to find the needed info.
.

Qrt.S · Post by **Qrt.S** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 1:33 pm

Answers to the registration and hallmarking question. Please note that the following texts are direct quotes from different sources. Also note that this is what I found and that it not necessary the whole truth.

Edict on hallmarking regulations February 13, 1700
…The names of all silver- and goldsmiths should be listed, and to be registered they should pay one rouble each…
…most skilful work masters were to be appointed as head work masters and it was their task to assay and mark precious articles brought by others. An object could be marked only if it bore a maker’s mark. …
… the Edict obliged headworkmasters to issue permits to all merchants and workmen on the silverrow they had registered. It was strictly forbidden to sell gold and silver objects anywhere else outside the silverrow.

Special regulations on gold and silverwork 1857
Thus the Regulation made it obligatory for every workmaster and factory owner to be registered in special registration books in the assay stall. The Regulation forbade assay stalls to hallmark articles brought by unregistered workmasters or anyone else…

Assay charter of July 13, 1861
A workmaster, factory owner or jeweler who was going to manufacture precious things had to bring and hand in a tin copy of his future individual hallmark/maker’s mark to the assay institution.

The Assay Charter allowed workmasters to order their individual hallmarks in the Mints via assay institutions. Masters were strictly forbidden from manufacturing precious articles in other towns but were they were registered.
Â· It follows from this that examining a work of art an expert must pay special attention to the maker’s mark and the corresponding town mark. If they do not match, the article should be considered forged.

Assay charter of 1896
A new rule was introduced in 1901; it gave workmasters who lived far from assay institutions the right to send gold and silver pieces to the nearest assay establishment…

After this charter I couldn’t find anything that would change the afore mentioned procedures, but…?
Comments or questions please.
.

Nero5 · Post by **Nero5** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 1:45 pm

Maybe I can clear something for you and solve the problem. Because my english is bad I bring Wikipedia's explanation:

The New Economic Policy (NEP) (Russian: ÐÐ¾Ð²Ð°Ñ ÑÐºÐ¾Ð½Ð¾Ð¼Ð¸Ñ‡ÐµÑÐºÐ°Ñ Ð¿Ð¾Ð»Ð¸Ñ‚Ð¸ÐºÐ° - Novaya Ekonomicheskaya Politika or ÐÐÐŸ) was an economic policy proposed by Vladimir Lenin to prevent the Russian economy from collapsing. Allowing some private ventures, the NEP allowed small businesses or shops, for instance, to reopen for private profit while the state continued to control banks, foreign trade, and large industries.[1] It was officially decided in the course of the 10th Congress of the All-Russian Communist Party. It was promulgated by decree on March 21, 1921.

It ended in 1928.
Maybe some siversmits still worked at this period?
.

Postnikov · Post by **Postnikov** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 3:05 pm

Hi Qrt.S - Hi Nero5

Thank you very much for your clarification - so it could not be Muromkin! I am on the hunt for the name again. Either it is one of the names which were burned/destroyed or it is one of the NEP silversmiths Nero5 mentioned. I do not know if their names were somewhere registrated. If I understand everything right , there was no private venture from 1917 - March 21. 1921. Than from March 1921 until 1928 private ventures were (limited) allowed. Assay marking was still the same like 1908 and ended 1927, when the new assay mark came.
So far the theory....

What we need is one or two names of silversmiths who worked between 1917 and 1927! Maybe in the new book...

Any way, many many thanks!

Regards

Postnikov
.

Postnikov · Post by **Postnikov** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 4:27 pm

Kjaere Qrt.S -

kanskje kan noen av dine norske, svenske eller finniske venner finner et svar pa mine spÃ¶rsmal.

Ha det bra og tusen takk!

Postnikov
.

Qrt.S · Post by **Qrt.S** » Tue Nov 10, 2009 6:05 pm

:-) :-) :-) Well you have to try every possible source in order to find answers. Remains to be seen if any help is available.

I have now examined the new book up to a certain level. Unfortunately it is a minor disappointment because it contains the same information more or less that you can find on Postnikova's pages 265-312. The only thing is that it is extended to the year 2000. It also contains the regulations and legislation as from 1917 -> which is missing from Postnikova.

I think that the silver-smiting was rather limited during the first decades after the revolution (as you have also stated). I cannot find any private names at all only zavod, inspektia, kombinat this and that. Most of them are "founded" ~1950->.

Some silver smiths were undoubtedly working in the early CCCP decades but in the nameless in kombinats etc.. Their names seems to be unknown and they had no "private" punches/marks.
.

Postnikov · Post by **Postnikov** » Wed Nov 11, 2009 2:17 am

Hi Qrt.S -

many thanks for your efforts and the time you spent to solve my "problems"!

Regards

Postnikov
.

Qrt.S · Post by **Qrt.S** » Wed Nov 11, 2009 3:26 am

Morning Postnikov

No problem, you're welcome, however, this investigating silver marks and especially Finnish and Russian, is my hobby so to say. You collect silver, I investigate marks, actually an interesting combination. I also collect silver but not to your extent, I don't have money :-), it goes to the books. Some of them are rather expensive and finding them is often a challenge too.

Anyway, fell free to present more unknown marks here. I shall do my very best, but whether I have an answer or not remains to be seen.

The sun is shining here today, about zero degrees outside, have to take a promenade...

Have a nice day
.

Qrt.S · Post by **Qrt.S** » Wed Nov 11, 2009 11:39 am

Hi
I just noticed that according to the regulations both the maker's mark and the kokoshnik on a Russian cigarette case should without exceptions be struck on both halves on the cigarette case. Whether it is on the inside or outside is not stated but on both halves anyway.
.

Postnikov · Post by **Postnikov** » Wed Nov 11, 2009 1:45 pm

Hi -

on all cigarette cases, small boxes and etuis it is inside on each part.
On handbags and portemonnaies it is outside on each part (because of the inlay you can not see the stamp)!
Please watch the many ex- portemonnaies which are sold everywhere as cigarettecases!
On large boxes outside (lid and bottom).
.

Qrt.S · Post by **Qrt.S** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:04 am

Morning.

OK, thanks, good to know. Please also know that every detachable piece in an genuine Russian item must carry a mark. Not necessary the same mark all over but an assay mark anyway. There are exceptions as some works in filigree and other similar things which are either very small or difficult to mark like jewevely, chains, (ear) rings etc.. There is no hardly place for the mark(s).
.

Postnikov · Post by **Postnikov** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 6:45 am

Hi Qrt.S -

I found something in my basement - it will interest you very much....:-(

A box in the shape of a basked of mushrooms

Marks:

Moscow 1872 BC, 84, P. Ovtschinnikov
Silver, enamel, casting,chasing
6,8 cm x 6,7 cm

If you want to compare what you have, go to:

The Tsaritsyno Museum, Moscow
Inv. No. MT 345/A,B

Have a nice day and look twice!

Postnikov
.

Qrt.S · Post by **Qrt.S** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 7:08 am

Heheheh, du lÃ¤ser Antikprat. I've seen the same picture. It is in a book by the name of The Fabulous Epoch of FabergÃ©, page 198.

Unfortunately my piece is so far unidentified. I'm not sure if its even silver. It has this strange face+84 mark. What can you tell?
.

Postnikov · Post by **Postnikov** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 7:31 am

Normaly things are 100% fake - but this is 200% fake :-)

I think they come from China - one of the biggest fake producer of silver of all kinds and countries ( and enamel, furniture, watches, clothes, cars, motor saws, atomic plants, kalashikovs - you name it - they do it).
Regards

Postnicov
.

Qrt.S · Post by **Qrt.S** » Thu Nov 12, 2009 8:14 am

That's what taught, thanks anway. One have to pay until you learn, but then you learn even if it is a hard way to learn...
.