Could this be a trade ring?

[VThistorybuff]

Found this brass & glass ring in the yard of a 200 year old house in VT. The site has yielded items from as far back as the 1700s (eg, 1751 KGII halfpenny; pewter buttons & spoons) but mostly 1800s. The ring was about 10?-12? down. It?s crudely made. Nothing is symmetrical, not even the facets on the glass jewel. The patina seems quite advanced to me. The only other ring I?ve been able to find online that bears any similarity to mine is one that?s purported to be a 1600s fur trade ring from upstate NY (see pic). So my question is whether mine could also be a fur trade ring, even if from a later period. Thoughts?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[Seabees]

Very nice find. Someone here will be able to help you out. Also welcome to T-net, we look forward to seeing your future post.

seabees

 

[VThistorybuff]

Thanks! I’m really trying hard to figure out what I’ve found here. ��

 

[islamoradamark]

nice find Welcome to treasurenet

 

[VTColonialDigger]

That's a beauty of a ring I'd definitely say that's at least 1700's!

 

[VThistorybuff]

That's a beauty of a ring I'd definitely say that's at least 1700's!

Thanks, man! My gut is telling me it could be that old but I haven't been able yet to put a reliable date on it. I'd be shocked if it turned out to be made after the Civil War.

 

[Terry Soloman]

I believe your ring is a 1650-1680 Iroquois Seneca Indian trade ring![FONT=Noto Serif JP, Noto Serif, serif] [/FONT]

 

[VThistorybuff]

I believe your ring is a 1650-1680 Iroquois Seneca Indian trade ring![FONT=Noto Serif JP, Noto Serif, serif] [/FONT]

Dude, I'd be thrilled if that turned out to be the case! I can see you've got some serious experience as a detectorist...have you seen others like this? I mean, aside from the one in the comparison photo I posted?

 

[Terry Soloman]

Dude, I'd be thrilled if that turned out to be the case! I can see you've got some serious experience as a detectorist...have you seen others like this? I mean, aside from the one in the comparison photo I posted?

Yes I have. Email [email protected] / https://www.uvm.edu/cas/history/profiles/jacqueline-barbara-carr

[email protected] / https://www.uvm.edu/cas/history/profiles/dona-l-brown

See if they can help you authenticate it or point you to someone that can. Best of Luck!!!

 

[VThistorybuff]

Thank you!

 

[abucooche]

show us a pic of the 1751 KGII if you have it!

 

[ARC]

I was taught growing up that if you dont have something nice to say dont say anything at all...

Welllll... damnit.

Um... it is not a trade ring... sorry.

Wanna know "why" i say this ? ? ?

Trade rings did not have faceted stones or glass.

The key thing that clues this out are those facets.

And to make matters "worse"... errr... or not neccessaily worse... but...

I believe this may be a vintage bubble gum ring... Hong Kong.

Sorry... but again... in my opinion.

 

[ARC]

After a quick search for "vintage Hong Kong bubble gum machine ring"... this came up.

This is an example of what i was thinking yours MAY be.

View attachment 1938445

 

[Terry Soloman]

I was taught growing up that if you dont have something nice to say dont say anything at all...

Welllll... damnit.

Um... it is not a trade ring... sorry.

Wanna know "why" i say this ? ? ?

Trade rings did not have faceted stones or glass.

The key thing that clues this out are those facets.

And to make matters "worse"... errr... or not neccessaily worse... but...

I believe this may be a vintage bubble gum ring... Hong Kong.

Sorry... but again... in my opinion.

Your info is incorrect my friend. Here is one I found that was authenticated by Professor John Irwin, at New York City's Museum of Natural History. While the glass is missing, the facets are obvious.

 

[ARC]

Your info is incorrect my friend. Here is one I found that was authenticated by Professor John Irwin, at New York City's Museum of Natural History. While the glass is missing, the facets are obvious.

>? what facets ?

The picture you posted Terry shows NO facets.

It cannot show any either... FOR there is NO glass OR stone to show facets.

I think it is you that is incorrect on this one.

The ops ring is a cut green glass ... faceted.

Facets are a quality to the "gem"... not the ring my friend.

What you are referring to is the "prongs"... for that is the only thing left on the ring you pictured.

Which BTW is a great find... never saw your post on that one,

 

[Gene Mean]

>? what facets ?

The picture you posted Terry shows NO facets.

It cannot show any either... FOR there is NO glass OR stone to show facets.

I think it is you that is incorrect on this one.

The ops ring is a cut green glass ... faceted.

Facets are a quality to the "gem"... not the ring my friend.

What you are referring to is the "prongs"... for that is the only thing left on the ring you pictured.

Which BTW is a great find... never saw your post on that one,

This could turn in to a real donnybrook! Bubblegum versus trade ring.

 

[VThistorybuff]

I was taught growing up that if you dont have something nice to say dont say anything at all...

Welllll... damnit.

Um... it is not a trade ring... sorry.

Wanna know "why" i say this ? ? ?

Trade rings did not have faceted stones or glass.

The key thing that clues this out are those facets.

And to make matters "worse"... errr... or not neccessaily worse... but...

I believe this may be a vintage bubble gum ring... Hong Kong.

Sorry... but again... in my opinion.

In this case, you probably should?ve heeded your mama and kept your negativity to yourself. First, I never *claimed* it was a trade ring. I *asked* because of the general similarities to the one I posted (which btw differs from most other trade rings I?ve seen as well). But whether it is or isn?t a trade ring, it?s absolutely not a gumball machine prize. In fact, you ought to be embarrassed to have even suggested that, for many reasons. Second, since I originally posted here, I?ve shown the ring to several curators at museums in New England and while no one has yet been able to determine a specific origin, *no one* has doubted that the ring is old, with a general agreement that it dates from 1780 - 1830, a period still within the trade era and when faceted stones were common if not the norm. At the same property, in addition to numerous other 18th & 19th cent relics, I found a legit gold & ruby ring from the 1920s. It?s a special, historic site and I know its history quite well. I didn?t find this ring at a local ballfield.

If you want to question the ID as a trade ring, that?s totally cool. That?s why I posted here: to get feedback on that possibility. But you went way beyond, calling my find essentially a piece of junk in a rather obnoxious (and uninformed) way. But that?s always a risk when we post in online forums. There?s always someone eager to sh*t on other people while pretending to offer ?just my opinion.? Peace, bro.

 

[VThistorybuff]

This could turn in to a real donnybrook! Bubblegum versus trade ring.

Whether or not it turns out to be a trade ring, it’s absolutely not a gumball prize. In fact, it’s absolutely not 20th century at all. This dude is embarrassing himself.

 

[CreakyDigger]

You have a winner there, my friend!

 

[ScoTTT2]

IMO .. the cut of the stone points to something other than a fur trade ring