www.925-1000.com

Hello .
I bought a large size podstakannik. Its weight is 205 grams. I put a photo for comparison with another typical size. I can not identify a silversmith. Assayer is Ivan Lebedkin (Moscow 1898-1914).
In P.L , MT in Moscow, but without a dot after M, while M.T. Takkinen Michael, but from St. Petersburg (PL1804). Do you have any information about this silversmith?
Please click on the photo for better qualitty.
Regards

Nice buy, but my good man, please polish both podstakanniks you show. Silver shall shine like the full moon.
Nonetheless, I cannot read the assayer's initials because the picture is to "small". If you say it is Lebedkin, the town is Moscow and you can forget Takkinen in St Petersburg. By the way, the kokshnik was used 1908-1917/26 meaning that Takkinen is, anyway, out of question because his working period was in mid 19.th century.

Anyway, I believe the maker is Mihail Jakolevich Tarasov, active in Moscow 1905-1914. Undoubtedly there are no dots in his mark and there are two "MT" makers in Moscow using dot in their punches, but they are both too early. Therefore my suggestion is Tarasov irrespective of the missing dots. Punches were worn out, broken, changed etc...so let's bet on Tarasov unless somebody else has a better suggestion.

Hallo.
Thanks Qrt.S for your answear .
I took a photo of the podstakannik after coming home, before cleaning it. Today I will polish it :)
My English is weak, so maybe you sometimes misunderstand me. Of course, I know that Takkinen is from St. Petersburg and it can not be him, I meant that in Postnikova Loseva M.T. it's only Takkinen.
I've also took a new photos that I can see better. Do you think that there are no dots does not exclude Mihail Jakolevich Tarasov? Hmm?
Thank you, maybe someone will find something else.
Click on the photo for better qualitty.
Regards

The new pictures show clearly ИЛ, in other words verifying Ivan Lebedkin and Moscow. As I said, I believe it is Tarasov because I have no better alternative to present. It is quite possible that Tarasov had punches without dots too, who knows for sure? But let's wait for others to comment.

Thanks Qrt.S
It's possible that this is how you write Tarasov.
Yes, let's wait for the opinions of others
Regards

Äh, a minor correction. ...Tarasov had punches with dots too...

Thanks Qrt.S
So rather we are sure that it is Tarasov. Can you show his marks with dots?

Can you show his marks with dots?

This is it (on a salt cellar).
Regards

Thanks AG2012
And who in what book says that M.T. is Tarasov?

@madej
Don'r be so skeptic. Do you have a better suggestion than Tarasov?

Hi Qrt.S
I do not want to be misunderstood. I'm not skeptical. I would just know who writes about it. I rely on information from P.L and from all of you.
Regards

Everything cannot be found in books. Postnikova is one of the best books available on the market. But unfortunately it old and as all other books too contains errors, misunderstandings etc., etc. New findings are done and new information found all the time. You have been told by me that punches become worn, breaks are renewed, redesigned, fonts are changed.... whatever....To find all variations used is a mission impossible. Therefore some statements are made based on experience, intuition and drawn conclusions made over time. I assumed the questioned mark to be Tarasov because I don't have a better suggestion. I also said that "let's wait for other opinions". I we don't get other opinions, the maker is presumably Tarasov.

Yes, one more thing! According to the Russian regulations two or more similar maker's marks could not be used at the same time in the same town. The dots are not necessarily sufficiently separating two marks from each other. Dots or not the can be the same master.....or not! The font again is usually a separating factor.

Thanks QrtS
Regards

Hi -

there is a strict rule:

Informations without source(s) are worthless!

In all other sections of the forum this is common praxis...only in the Russian forum "rumors" are accepted.

Regards
Goldstein

@Goldstein
Hmmm! Interesting comment presented by you. What might be the source for this "strict rule"? You're not mentioning it. When not, your comment is worthless being just a "rumor". Common "praxis" is neither a rule nor a "source". It is a certain behavior.

In addition, it is very well known that silver marks is not an absolute science. Sometimes information is collected based on years of experience. There is still so much unknown in especially in the Russian area that you sometimes just have to make assumptions until somebody presents clear evidences that reveal the truth. Until then is not more than an assumption or "rumor".
Please don't come up with some nonexistent "strict rules" again based on nothing.

Hi -

you are the only one who "sells" own opinions as facts. Declare them as "personal opinions" - and everything is fine.

If a poster stops asking questions and begins to express a point of view, he then becomes an advocate for that viewpoint. When a person becomes an advocate, he has the burden of providing evidence for his point of view. If he has no evidence, or doesn't provide it when asked, it is reasonable for the reader to conclude that his opinion or viewpoint is uninformed and may fairly be discounted or rejected.

Undocumented claims undercut the research purposes of this section of the forum. Consequently, it is required that proof be posted along with a claim. The main reason is that proof, evidence, facts, etc. improve the quality of discussions and information.

Really not difficult to understand!

Feel free to disagree. The forum becomes way better if we try to keep some kind of standard.

Regards
Goldstein