www.925-1000.com

Here are the picture I promised. However, note that I said that I have soot marks only! However, soot marks are made from originals, so???




I'm not joking, but it seems to that we have a minor language problem here. Yes you have written that the assayer is Moor. OK, i buy it, but the important information is his (and Mitin's) working period in St. Petersburg. The YEARS!
Anyway, now you have the soot marks and I would appreciate you comments. I believe it is a Moor but not Mitin (according to you).

A minor addition. I made a typo in my previous message. What i meant is that it is Mor's/Moor's not Mitin's mark!

Mart wrote:Alexander Mor is the owner of the brands "AM" in St. Petersburg 1851-1866.
You can not even mean Alexander Mitin in connection with the brands "AM".

These numbers from my very first message mean years. I do not know how else to write differently.
I'll try again. The brands of Alexander Mor's probirer "AM" are found in St. Petersburg in the period 1851-1866.
Unfortunately, I can't discuss the funny pictures from your last message. There is no reason for this.

@Mart

Yes I saw the years in your message but they differ from the years I found in Bäcksbacka's and some other books and that is the problem. As you can see and what I said about the marks they are soot mark only. In case you don't know what a soot mark is, it is a copy of a real silver mark on an object. Therefore I am so astonished that you present different working years without any references. The gap is about 11 years (1866, 1877). What might be the reason for that? Anyway, you will found the same years I show in Ivanov's green book on page 724 and some other pages too. Also take a look in Postnikova #1174-75 on p. 179 and you will again find the same years more or less. This why I am so astonished over your years. I can accept that Mitin is skipped and changed to Moor, but the years need a better explanation. You write that the AM mark is found in St. Petersburg. Hardly on the street ;-). Mind my asking, where and what is that (printed) source you rely on? You must have one. I don't believe you have picked it from the sky, so show us...! Thank you in advance.
Moreover, why can you not discuss the pictures I showed? They are from a book. I have not made them! Anyway, I'm not claiming to be 100% right but if you can, prove me to be wrong, I would appreciate that, thank you. For future investigations it is important to have correct information to rely on. If this Mitin/Moor info found written in many books is incorrect, let's correct it, but it needs watertight evidences and sources mentioned. Words only are unfortunately not enough.

Everyone who is seriously interested in silversmithing in my camp knows all the probirers of Moscow and St. Petersburg and the years of their work. Information about them can be found in books of the 19th century and if you know how to analyze information.
You can write out in the table the initials of the probirers from specific products for specific years and it will be seen when one probirer changes another probirer. (I'm talking about the 19th century, it wasn't always like that in the 18th century.) It will be seen how in 1866 А.Mor and Е.Brandenburg were changed by Mikhailov "ПМ" and Smirnov "ВС". I don't think many people are interested in the reasons for the movements. The participant of this forum, Dаd, knows this question best of all.
I have no desire to post dozens of documents on the forum that can only be read by Russian-speaking participants who know this so well. In this case, I have no reason to prove anything. The question is not difficult.
About funny pictures. Someone once drew something. It's not my fault. Why do I need to discuss this? Show the real brands of the probirer "AM" in the period 1867-1877 and we will be able to return to this issue. I'll give these pictures to my granddaughter. Let her learn the letters "A" and "M" and numbers. This will be a real benefit.)

#Mart

In other words, you cannot present anything supporting what you have written only empty words and again words...!
What a shame I had faith in you! As to me this discussion has ended.

I am very happy about it!
There is a big difference between the phrases: "I can't explain" and "I don't want to explain the well-known." There is no extra time for this. You probably don't even have time to look at your favorite books and see there that in 1866 two new probirers started working in St. Petersburg.
All the best!

Thanks for all the replies. Skepticism is always healthy in my view!

Here's more photos, not reduced in size this time so loading may be slower.

I also noticed an inscription I'd never noticed before, initially I thought the first parts wrote "Iyus" which turns out to be a town near Krasnoyarsk, one of Russia's gold centres, but I think that's a stretch, and in any case I'd expect it to be cyrillic, not latin.

French could be an option as it was the international diplomatic language at the time, but I can't make out what it says. Maybe a signature?

I should also add, as not an expert, I do think the box carries some significance. It is such a perfect fit, it's so clearly designed for this snuff box.

Qrt.S wrote:#Mart

OK, if you say so. This assayer Mitin versus Mor case has always been a mess. Different sources inform "conflicting" information.
Ivanov states:
Aleksandr Yakolevich Moor/Mor assayer in St. Petersburg 1831, 1850-1867 (in Tobolsk1845-49)
Aleksandr Nikolaievich Mitin assayer in St. Petersburg 1842-1867

Bäcksbacka states:
Aleksander Mitin in St. Petersburg 1852-1877.
Nothing regarding Mor.

Postnikova states:
Aleksandr Mitin in St Petersburg 1842-1877
Aleksandr Mor in Tobolsk 1845-1852 (nothing in St.P)


Now you are presenting a fourth alternative for Mor ST.P 1851-1866

This is a complete mess!!!!
If you know what is the truth. I would really appreciate if you told it here.
Thank you in advance.

Dear Qrt.S.

I'm grieving. Why did we discuss this 10 years ago?
viewtopic.php?f=46&t=30311&p=75409&hilit=mitin#p75409
All in vain?
I will repeat it again. Mitin Alexander Nikolaevich worked in the Petersburg Assay Office since 1823.
He died in 1848.
BUT! I have not come across a single assay office punch with the initials AM since 1823 to 1848. If you have examples of real (not Bäcksbacka))) punches AM (1823-1848), show them, please.

What's wrong with Bäcksbacka????

Qrt.S wrote:Here are the AM-soot marks I promised to show you. Back to my question, who is it, Mitin or Mor/Moor???

Are these pictures of yours from the Bäcksbacka book?

@Dad
Yes, they are SOOT MARKS from Bäcksbacka's book. Those marks are usually made from original marks, but......? However, no book contains the absolute truth. There is not a single book about silver marks that doesn't have some inaccuracies even faults in it (Marina Postnikova's book Included).
Please note, that Bäcksbacka's book is rather difficult to find. It was printed in 1951 in a limited numbered edition only. Mine is number 47.

Silver marks is not an absolute science. It is more or less a hobby only!

Anyway, Dad I would appreciate your valuable comments regarding who is who and what is what in this thread. As it is for the moment, no hard evidences are shown only words and word again... Nothing wrong with that, but words based on "nothing" are still words (or personal opinions) only! Sorry!

The owner of the box might want to know about "upscaled" gold & silver boxes. ::: Sometimes boxes (and other items) from other European countries are altered and have their original European hallmarks erased by someone who is trying to create a forgery. ::: Given the overall style of the box and the inscription which seems to begin with a "Z" it makes me wonder if this is an Austro-Hungarian gold box that was "upscaled" in order to imitate an authentic Russian box. :::: The box also to my eye seems a little too new to have survived all these years, with conveniently faded center ink. ::::

I can't understand from the comments in this thread if the overall opinion is that this box is authentic or not. ::: It might be authentic, or it might not be authentic, but if it is not authentic the most logical explanation is that of an "upscaled" item and I think it's important for the owner of the box to understand what an "upscaled" object is and how they appear on the market for Russian gold/silver antiques. ::: Hungarian gold/silver objects aren't as valuable as a Russian gold/silver object so that's why a forger would try to transform a Hungarian gold/silver object into a Russian gold/silver object. :::

There's been no discussion of "upscaling" in this thread and I thought it might help the owner to understand this general concept even if it doesn't apply to this particular box. :::: Honestly I'm not sure quite what has been said concerning the authenticity of this particular box. :

The owner already said there was extensive paperwork and documents in the family. Normally, we do not trust much in stories but in this case it looks genuine family heirloom of an ambassador to Russia at the time. Otherwise, the marks would be suspicious.
Regards