Russian Hallmarks - An "up side down" mark questio

[Qrt.S]

Seasons Greetings,

Rather quiet here, so I thought that a new discussion might have a livening effect.

I have noticed that sometimes it is asserted that on a Russian silver object the assayer’s mark should according to former Russian regulations or rules be up side down in comparison to the master’s mark (otherwise it would be a fake??). For years I have investigated such objects and noticed that some times the mark is up side down some times it is not. Due to this claim I have tried to find an assay charter, a regulation, a rule or whatever supporting this “up side down case”. I have not managed to find anything stating such between the years 1700-1917. However, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, I just haven’t found it.

What's a fact is, that the charters state that the maker was obliged to bring the object unfinished, unpolished and in pieces to the assayer who then struck his punch (or didn’t) on the object. The assayer struck his punch not paying any attention to the angle or location of the maker’s mark. He couldn’t care less. Then the master brought the assayed object back to his workshop and finished it in order to sell it or deliver it.
The assay master was strictly forbidden to mark any object lack of the master’s mark. If he got caught for doing that, he was severely punished. However, there are objects on the market with only the assayer’s marks on it and no Russian maker’s mark. Such objects are imported from abroad and brought to the assayer by the customs to be officially imported, assayed and marked. Such objects are not of Russian origin. Imported goods can of course have a foreign maker’s mark but they can also be unmarked as well, of course before they were assayed.

Nevertheless, my question is: On what regulation, charter etc, is this "up side down" claim based on or is it only a false rumor? I would like to know the document and the date. Kindly notice that I’m not satisfied if somebody says; "it is just a fact". I need the document proofing it.

If this up side down “rule” turns out not to be based on anything, imagine what damage this “rule” might have caused.
.
.