Any idea on age of these gold cufflinks? Any chance 1700s?

[testing123]

Bought, not a metal detector find.

I'm a bit confused by these. The older cufflinks (1700s) seem to have the single oval connector link, but oval cufflinks seems very rare during that timeframe- many seem to be round or octagon. Also, the seller mentioned they were 10k, which if that checks out (it'll be quite sometime until I can check), I don't think would make it super old, no? But then there's the design which looks to have some age to it.

Can anyone estimate how old these actually are? Thanks for any help!

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Professor of Engineering]

Cool!

 

[Toecutter]

They are interesting, I wonder what they represent ?

 

[Steve in PA]

That's a tough call. The oval cufflinks were popular in America from about 1780-1820. The octagonal ones from at least 1750-1780. But I have never seen an 18th century cufflink with a design like that. That doesn't necessarily mean they are not that old. Maybe someone else has some better info.

 

[testing123]

I haven’t been able to really find anything on these.

 

[bowwinkles]

my thought is that they are from the 1900s and from england. https://www.google.com/search?q=vin...mg&ei=lm3qXtXaC4eAzQKr7K_gDg&bih=577&biw=1280

 

[Aureus]

I would think early 1800's The image appears to be religious in nature and is similar in style to those featured in ''Devises heroïques'' (1551) by Claude Paradin. Might have been inspired by that book.
French Emblems: Facsimile Page

 

[Trezurehunter]

Can't help, but they are neat looking.

 

[Red-Coat]

Obviously nothing happened at midnight on 31st December 1799 that creates a distinction between cufflinks from the 1700s versus those from the 1800s so it’s a bit arbitrary in the absence of a precise date. I would say the quality of workmanship, the elongated chain loop, the oval shape for the ‘buttons’ and the relative rarity of purpose-made cufflinks before the 19th Century all suggest that these fit more comfortably in the 1800s

There is much debate over the meaning of ‘grasped serpent’ imagery as seen on the cufflinks (as opposed to the French ‘serpent biting hand’ imagery referenced above). It has been around a very long time and the consensus is that it mostly symbolises the suppression of evil or control of other undesirable events, factions, or people. The embodiment of evil/sin relating to serpents of course has biblical origins from the Garden of Eden, but the snake has also long been portrayed as a symbol of wisdom.

Interestingly, there is a portrait of Queen Elizabeth I from the 1580s or 1590s by an unknown artist which has this imagery. It was hanging in the National Portrait Gallery in London until 1921 when it was taken off display after an observation that it was deteriorating. The posy of Tudor roses that the Queen was holding in her right hand had developed a curious spiralling shadow which it was believed would require some restoration.

Closer assessment of the damage including more recent X-ray and infrared imaging has revealed that, underneath the posy, the artist had originally depicted the Queen’s hand as grasping a snake but then painted over it. The change was made at the very final stage when the painting was effectively complete and just before it was varnished. This is what it looked like originally:



We don’t know whether this was the artist’s decision, on advice from the royal spin-doctors, or on instruction from the Queen herself. The gallery’s curator has suggested that the imagery was too shocking or potentially ambiguous for the populace. There is another portrait of the Queen wearing a dress decorated with snakes, which perhaps less ambiguously relates to a proclamation of her wisdom. Perhaps it was thought that the hand-holding imagery might have been perceived as a suggestion of dominant suppression (lack of benevolence) rather than wisdom.

 

[testing123]

Thank you guys, and Red-Coat. I appreciate your time in responding. Unless something conclusive comes along, 1800s seems like a fair assessment.