Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;lizjewel, post: 2293438, member: 13874&quot;][USER=59]@Bakersgma[/USER] Thank you for checking in with my problem. Yes, had I gotten my cheap digital camera to close in sufficiently on the teensy <i>poinçon</i> punched mark I definitely would have included it. As it is, I had to find the exact mark on the web and &quot;borrow&quot; an image of it there. </p><p><br /></p><p>It is the mark in the upper picture, not the lower as I first thought. The <i>face</i> reaches all the way up in the mark. The older mark appears to have a smaller face with a little <i>headroom </i>above it.</p><p><br /></p><p>I used a strong loupe to look at the mark now. The information that it meant <i>Moskow </i>is the one included with the picture I posted, or I wouldn&#039;t have known. Avoiding advertising here: The info comes from an online library of stamps and marks on a site with a dot com that ends in .it Not a commercial site, only reference. </p><p><br /></p><p>So if this 84 stamp is a fineness indicator, it refers to the thickness of silver plated on top of the metal that is under it, right? </p><p><br /></p><p>These utensils are unusually light in weight, not as heavy as stainless steel would be. They are also a lot lighter than the common Soviet era ware with the MHU mark, i e melchior. </p><p><br /></p><p>I wonder what alloy they used here. The plating is quite heavy actually. The set I have has seen almost no use so without any wear marks or missing plate I can&#039;t even guess what&#039;s under it.</p><p><br /></p><p>Maybe some expert on Russian silver can weigh in on it?[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in