Gold Roman Intaglio

[byr0n]

Hi there, this is my first post. I have acquired this Roman gold intaglio. It is definitely18 CT gold and jasper stone. Slightly damaged as one can see from the picture. I need help dating and identifying the depiction. I suspect it to be an early intaglio, and also think it depicts Mercury, seated on a rock holding his caduceus in one hand, a purse in his other. It also looks like his cockerel at his feet. What are peoples thoughts on this item? Date and depiction?

Thanks

Byron

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[byr0n]

This is the wax impression that it makes in sealing wax

 

[tamrock]

The stone intaglio sure looks like a true antiquity to me. I can only guess on the mounting, as your describing the term 18ct is a mark you see on it. I take it you see a mark on it? That mark is a European way of marking gold, instead of like here in the U.S. using 18K on gold items. I have an old marked 18ct European gold ring from the Victorian era and this leads me to believe the mounting of your ring would be from around the mid to later 19th century. Correct me if I'm wrong about the 18ct term you mention?. Hopefully the fella's from Europe such as Silver Searcher or Crusader will see your post and add their expert knowledge of an item like the one you have.... Dang! Cool ring you have.

 

[byr0n]

Many thanks for your reply! It is very much appreciated. You are quite right. There is indeed an 18 Ct mark on the inside of the band. It is the only marking on the ring at all which also made me believe that the setting of the stone is 19th or early 20th century. The only thing is that the marking is not a stamp or a hallmark but just lightly engraved by hand. I would take a photo but I can't get the camera to focus as its a very small marking indeed. Typically in the UK you would expect a hallmark.

Any more comments would be much appreciated. Can anyone confirm it depicts Mercury and a date for the intaglio? I've had one person send me an email suggesting it could be as early as 100 BC!

 

[byr0n]

No other comments??!

 

[CRUSADER]

Pretty sure the stone is carnelian. Popular stone to use in Roman rings. Dad found one.

Just a little unsure why the black is showing underneath, what is that?

Also, its more the style of the ring that dates it, not the depiction (Mercury is most likely), specially as they reused stones, some even in the 18th C etc...

So a side shot would help?

 

[byr0n]

Here are some more pics of back and sides of the ring. I think the black is an imperfection in the stone which runs through it in the two areas that correspond to the back and front. And sorry yes it is carnelian I believe. Be most interested to hear your other thoughts!

 

[CRUSADER]

I have my concerns with it being a truely authentic piece. The stone I'm happy with, looks right & period. The gold ring I'm not so happy with.
I need more background;
Where was it found? (which country etc..)
How was it found? (metal detector?)
The issues I have with it being ancient gold is that the stone would have a very tight fit & there is evidence of filling used in the top area between the stone & bezel. See this example for comparison:
http://www.treasurenet.com/forums/t...rnelian-seal-intaglio-amazing-experience.html
I've never seen this type of Roman gold ring, but if its a non-British one then it still could be a possibility.
But it just doesn't have that ancient 'look' to it. Something that is hard to explain but look at some images to compare yours to:
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=r...iM7QaGvoCQAQ&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1280&bih=835
I'm 90% sure someone used an ancient stone & made that ring about 20 years ago. Specially as there seems to be no scratch or dents or imperfessions on those applied dome shaped things that just look odd to me.
Think about it the stone got damaged pretty bad but the gold looks perfect, doesn't make sense.

 

[byr0n]

I think I would agree that the gold is probably not ancient. I would think it's 19th century. The stone I am convinced is however.

It was found in the UK (South of England) and acquired by my father many years ago.. Beyond that I don't know any more..

 

[CRUSADER]

I think I would agree that the gold is probably not ancient. I would think it's 19th century. The stone I am convinced is however.

It was found in the UK (South of England) and acquired by my father many years ago.. Beyond that I don't know any more..

OK, so my 20 year old (throw it out there comment) is probably way off but like you say, the ring is not ancient.

 

[Silver Searcher]

I agree with Crusader I don't think the ring is Ancient, it looks to be made up from other parts. Most Roman Gold Rings are very high gold content, also a lot were hollow made by rolling the gold. The setting looks nice I hope that's real, you could have it checked out, as it was handed down it would not be classed as Treasure trove, should it turn out to be real.

SS

 

[byr0n]

Many thanks for your comments and thoughts. Confirmed a lot of what I was thinking about the stone being ancient but the ring being more recent. Where could I go for confirmation of these things? Sorry for all the questions. New to all this! Definitely hooked on finding more myself now though!

 

[Silver Searcher]

Many thanks for your comments and thoughts. Confirmed a lot of what I was thinking about the stone being ancient but the ring being more recent. Where could I go for confirmation of these things? Sorry for all the questions. New to all this! Definitely hooked on finding more myself now though!

You could join the UK finds data base and upload the find to them UK detector finds database - Online I record my finds there, images need to be done on plain white back ground. This is a great source for iding finds.

SS