Hello.
I’d be REALLY grateful if someone could cast an expert eye over this mark for me. I have a pair of antique Russian silver bowls. They have a couple of completely worn hallmarks to the interior, but these are the legible marks still visible to their bases. If anyone has any info it would be great. I’ve spent hours trying to research this.
Many thanks in advance.
Frankly, I do not think they are Russian. Russian measure of silver purity was “zolotnik”. One can often find the numer 84 on old Russian silver meaning 0.875 proof. However, here you have the number 96 meaning 1000/1000 proof, which is not likely. Besides, proper assayer’s and maker’s marks are missing.
G.
Hi George
We know they’re Russian. And I appreciate the 96 is very rare but the 96 in place of the usual 84 does exist. The quality of the piece is incredible, and with the interior hallmarks almost worn away, I was hoping someone might be able to point me in the right direction with the legible marks. Hey ho…
Thanks for your reply, it’s appreciated.
I agree with George that 100% pure silver is a highly unlikely material to use, especially for bowls which would require some form of solidity. The square maker’s mark puts me in mind of French electroplate marks but I have no real idea what you have.
Phil
Hi Phil, they’re INCREDIBLY soft. Thanks for your input.
We have managed to get a better loupe and the previously illegible hallmarks to the interior are more visible.
We have found our makers mark. So thanks to all for the input.
They are by
OTTO REINHOLD PETTELIUS of St Petersburg. Which is great.
The guy was a real silver maker in 19th century in St Petersburg. However, I doubt your item is genuine. He signed his works with initials within rectangle, not full name. Besides, other silver marks appropriate for the period are missing (city mark, year mark, assayer mark). Sorry to say that but in my view the thing is not 19th century and may be not silver at all.
Regards,
G.
OP was within a rectangle and the st Petersburg assay mark next to it though the assayers initial were worn away. These were the two marks found.
I’ll take it for evaluation & testing. I think that will be the safest option.
Glad to learn that I was probably wrong.
G.
No problem, isn’t that what the Forum is for? Sharing info and odd finds, this way we all pick up something new. I’m still stumped on the 96 though, as you pointed out. I will say this, if it doesn’t sound melodramatic. When polishing you could almost push into the metal, not quite like lead, but that sort of sensation. My only dealings with fine silver have been filigree rather than larger solid objects. It’s an odd one, for sure…
Hi there, wondering if the piece was tested and it’s silver?
