Page 1 of 1

Help appreciated with identifying Moscow maker's marks, plz./Vol.II

Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2021 1:20 pm
by Atlas
Help with identifying the following Moscow maker's marks on this Closonne-enamel pill box would again be appreciated if you please.
1. Photo of the hallmark's on the lid/cover;
Image
2. Photo of the hallmark's on the bottom piece of the pill box;
Image
3. The pill box;
Image
4. The pill box upside-down;
Image
5.The in-side of the pill box;
Image
Regards,
- Atlas -

Re: Help appreciated with identifying Moscow maker's marks, plz./Vol.II

Posted: Mon Apr 26, 2021 2:07 pm
by AG2012
Hi,
Иван Хлебников

Ivan Khlebnikov

Regards

Re: Help appreciated with identifying Moscow maker's marks, plz./Vol.II

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2021 3:06 am
by Qrt.S
Yes , looks like Khlebnikov, but what are the assayer's initials, С·Ш or ?

Re: Help appreciated with identifying Moscow maker's marks, plz./Vol.II

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2021 4:00 am
by AG2012
Must be С.Ш for Семен Шебанов
Semen Shebanov 1883
PL# 2116

Besides, the first letter C is very clear, and he was the only Moscow assayers at the time whose first name started with C.
That`s what I think.
Regards

Re: Help appreciated with identifying Moscow maker's marks, plz./Vol.II

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2021 7:54 am
by Qrt.S
Yes, the initials must be С·Ш, but it cannot be Schebanov because he never assayed in Moscow. The assayer is in my opinion Sergey Aleksandrovich Schostak 1883-94.

Re: Help appreciated with identifying Moscow maker's marks, plz./Vol.II

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2021 6:07 pm
by Atlas
@AG2012
@Qrt.S.
Thank you for sharing your perspective with the matter. ( I did come to somewhat the same results with my own conclusions, at least regarding the maker's marks, more foggy with the assay markings. I do value a lot your experienced point of views.)

Re: Help appreciated with identifying Moscow maker's marks, plz./Vol.II

Posted: Sat May 01, 2021 10:33 am
by Juke*
Hi!

Sorry to mix this up as I would put a question mark on the authenticity. To my opinion there are quality and mark issues, the quality is not one would expect and especially the second mark seems very strange. Even the place of the marking seems odd.

Regards,
Juke*