Makers and years for these two gold rings?

[Iron Patch]

I could probably search some sites, and make some guesses, but can anyone say for sure? Even just knowing the year would be a good start to finding who made it. The pictures are the best I could shoot.

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

The way I understand it you need to identify what city the gold was assayed in first because each assay office has a different date system.

Each place of assay has its own cycles of hallmarks which include a letter of the alphabet for each year, beginning with the letter A, and continuing through to Z . Also, the shape of the reserve or shield background changes with each cycle. A letter can be upper or lower case and of differing type faces, in order to distinguish it from the same letter in an earlier or later cycle.

 

[Iron Patch]

I thought for sure I had seen some piece of gold jewelery marked with a G. I must have just thought it and was wrong at the time, and it stuck in my brain. I've had these rings for near 15 years combined and never spent more than a few minutes on them until now.

 

[Iron Patch]

If that is King George III it would date your ring 1784-1785 but the 'G' don't make since unless the ring was made in 1779 and later got the duty mark. Monarchs heads were abolished in 1890.
Go here at the bottom.

http://www.925-1000.com/british_marks.html

It says 1786-1821 for the George III head stamp.

 

[Iron Patch]

It says 1784 it was imposed #1.
It would make since if the ring was made in 1779 and got stamped. Than in1784 a duty was put on gold and silver before it was sold and than the King George III stamp was added. It could only be the 1st. stamp that looks more like it, 5 years after it was made. The rings in this time period we made in Birmingham. I spent sometime on this trying to make since of it and you act like you don't give a sh-t.

Ok humour me and tell me how I act like I don't give a sh-t.

I figure I'll let you explain before I say anything else.

 

[Iron Patch]

It says 1784 it was imposed #1.
It would make since if the ring was made in 1779 and got stamped. Than in1784 a duty was put on gold and silver before it was sold and than the King George III stamp was added. It could only be the 1st. stamp that looks more like it, 5 years after it was made. The rings in this time period we made in Birmingham. I spent sometime on this trying to make since of it and you act like you don't give a sh-t.

Ok humour me and tell me how I act like I don't give a sh-t.

I figure I'll let you explain before I say anything else.

Well do you think what I posted makes any since to you or not.There are places on one of these sites above you can join and send you pictures to and they will tell you what you need to know. It would solve it.

....and that's how I act like I don't give a sh-t? Please don't waste anymore of your time on anything I post!

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

 

[Iron Patch]

Exactly.

 

[Iron Patch]

Your rings look brown. Do these words mean anything.
Was probably plated brass an older fake and maybe more common a find than you think. Your own words on another ring post.

If you can't tell why parts of mine look "brown" I'm guessing a lot of things on this website confuse you.

 

[Bigcypresshunter]

Well do you think what I posted makes any since to you or not.

Ironspike, I havent studied it as much as rodger has and Im not sure I understand the date system in England..
Does what Rodgerdodger have to say make any sense? I think he just wants a response from you to his findings. And I just dont know.

If that is King George III it would date your ring 1784-1785 but the 'G' don't make since unless the ring was made in 1779 and later got the duty mark. Monarchs heads were abolished in 1890.
Go here at the bottom.

http://www.925-1000.com/british_marks.html

It says 1784 it was imposed #1.
It would make since if the ring was made in 1779 and got stamped. Than in1784 a duty was put on gold and silver before it was sold and than the King George III stamp was added. It could only be the 1st. stamp that looks more like it, 5 years after it was made. The rings in this time period we made in Birmingham. I spent sometime on this trying to make since of it and you act like you don't give a sh-t.

 

[CRUSADER]

Well do you think what I posted makes any since to you or not.

Ironspike, I havent studied it as much as rodger has and Im not sure I understand the date system in England..
Does what Rodgerdodger have to say make any sense? I think he just wants a response from you to his findings. And I just dont know.

If that is King George III it would date your ring 1784-1785 but the 'G' don't make since unless the ring was made in 1779 and later got the duty mark. Monarchs heads were abolished in 1890.
Go here at the bottom.

http://www.925-1000.com/british_marks.html

It says 1784 it was imposed #1.
It would make since if the ring was made in 1779 and got stamped. Than in1784 a duty was put on gold and silver before it was sold and than the King George III stamp was added. It could only be the 1st. stamp that looks more like it, 5 years after it was made. The rings in this time period we made in Birmingham. I spent sometime on this trying to make since of it and you act like you don't give a sh-t.

Lets clear this one up a little.

The duty marks on the link indicate a date range for Geo III 1786-1821.

Therefore the 'G' date letter stamp of 1802 fits fine.
http://www.925-1000.com/dlc_london.html

Below are markers marks for WW for the other ring.:
http://www.925-1000.com/dlLondon17.html#M

 

[CRUSADER]

Well do you think what I posted makes any since to you or not.

Ironspike, I havent studied it as much as rodger has and Im not sure I understand the date system in England..
Does what Rodgerdodger have to say make any sense? I think he just wants a response from you to his findings. And I just dont know.

If that is King George III it would date your ring 1784-1785 but the 'G' don't make since unless the ring was made in 1779 and later got the duty mark. Monarchs heads were abolished in 1890.
Go here at the bottom.

http://www.925-1000.com/british_marks.html

It says 1784 it was imposed #1.
It would make since if the ring was made in 1779 and got stamped. Than in1784 a duty was put on gold and silver before it was sold and than the King George III stamp was added. It could only be the 1st. stamp that looks more like it, 5 years after it was made. The rings in this time period we made in Birmingham. I spent sometime on this trying to make since of it and you act like you don't give a sh-t.

Lets clear this one up a little.

The duty marks on the link indicate a date range for Geo III 1786-1821.

Therefore the 'G' date letter stamp of 1802 fits fine.
http://www.925-1000.com/dlc_london.html

Below are markers marks for WW for the other ring.:
http://www.925-1000.com/dlLondon17.html#M

These maker marks are for silver and the one I posted is gold and silver!!!

Firstly all hallmarks of this period are for Silver & Gold - no difference.

The link you posted is to hallmarks of the Birmingham Assayer office. Easy mistake, as this ring has no assayer mark, which for Birmingham should be a 'Anchor' & for London which is where it was done should be a Lions Head.
Therefore the only positive indicates are the Geo III head (gives date range), & the date letter, bearing in mind the need for an exact match in terms of style & stamp shape. London 1802 is a perfect match, have a look closely yourself & you will see. None match at the Birmingham assayer.

NB. The Lion passant mark of this period indicates 22 carat

Hope this explains it?

 

[Silver Searcher]

IP..... seeing as this ring is over Two Hundred years old , any chance of a better picture :P when you get time, and post it in the Best Gold/Silver Ring over 100years, then you will have double membership to that club

SS

 

[Iron Patch]

Your rings look brown. Do these words mean anything.
Was probably plated brass an older fake and maybe more common a find than you think. Your own words on another ring post.

If you can't tell why parts of mine look "brown" I'm guessing a lot of things on this website confuse you.

I'm not the one who's confused.

Yes you are on all counts, the dates you come up with and thinking my rings are brown, they're as gold as gold can look. Parts are dark from the lack of light shooting such a close picture.

 

[Iron Patch]

IP..... seeing as this ring is over Two Hundred years old , any chance of a better picture :P when you get time, and post it in the Best Gold/Silver Ring over 100years, then you will have double membership to that club

SS

Will do, but there's not much to see... just a real thin band. It is cool being that old and is by far the oldest gold we've found here assuming my snake is Victorian.