Thoughts on how old this ring might be?

[ANTIQUARIAN]

This gold ring with red ruby stone was found in an old park in Toronto by a friend. (y) It wasn’t deep, mainly because the roots of a tree stopped it from sinking too deep, it was maybe 4 - 5”. It looks old to me, like it’s been in the soil for quite a long time. The weight is 7.7 grams, the hallmarks are very small. The larger mark has two Fleur-de-lis flowers, the other stamp has 3 digits, which are either 900 or 800.

Any thoughts about the age or maker of this ring would be appreciated. 😃

Thanks,
Dave

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

A History of Mining on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska - Grab it through Amazon!

[Blak bart]

Not sure dave....I think its mid to late 19th century would be a guess from Me. The stone appears to be glass as it is eroded like sea glass in one pic. The hardness of genuine ruby would would not allow this kind of wear unless it was in sand of a harder rating (diamond) i hope someone will have a better date range....what a beauty...congrats to your friend !!

 

[ANTIQUARIAN]

Not sure dave....I think its mid to late 19th century would be a guess from Me. The stone appears to be glass as it is eroded like sea glass in one pic. The hardness of genuine ruby would would not allow this kind of wear unless it was in sand of a harder rating (diamond) i hope someone will have a better date range....what a beauty...congrats to your friend !!

Thanks very much for posting and sharing your thoughts Bart, if anyone knows jewelry you certainly do. I'll pass along what you mentioned to my friend.
Hope you and your family are all well,
Dave

 

[ajaj]

I am not an expert, but it has an Art Deco look to it. My guesstimate…1930.

aj

 

[ANTIQUARIAN]

I am not an expert, but it has an Art Deco look to it. My guesstimate…1930.

aj

Thanks very much for your post aj, I appreciate it.
Dave

 

[randazzo1]

Looks like high karat gold. I can't make out the marks, but I would agree with the comment above - I'm thinking 1910s-1940s.

 

[jewelerguy]

looks 1930's to me

 

[Red-Coat]

Your picture is a bit out of focus but, from in-hand examination, can you confirm whether the hallmark with the gold fineness number matches this?:

If so, I believe it's a Portuguese mark, in use between 1938-1984 and the cartouche shape is that used in the city of Porto. Note that the mark may be accompanied by either '800' or '900'.

The double fleur-de-lis mark would then be for the maker, but I don't know who that is,

 

[ANTIQUARIAN]

Thanks very much for your help guys, I'm sure my friend will be very interested in what you've all had to say about his ring find.

Hope you all have a great weekend,
Dave

 

[angelito1]

Doing just a cursory check on the old Internet, it seems that ring may be 19+ carats . It sure is nice

 

[Red-Coat]

Doing just a cursory check on the old Internet, it seems that ring may be 19+ carats . It sure is nice

It is indeed a nice ring. I don't doubt it to be gold (19.2K if marked 800, or 21.6K if marked 900) but there are a limited number of countries who use or have used such marks. I think it more likely to be 800 (for hardness reasons) and Portugal would be my bet.

 

[islamoradamark]

handsome ring for sure nice find

 

[ANTIQUARIAN]

Thanks again for your help guys, I'll pass on the info to my friend.
Dave

 

[OBN]

Very Nice save!
I would say the 1950's, I have several similar. The stone is not a ruby so I would buff the ring with some mothers polish, and get some clear fingernail polish and put a nice gleam to the stone.
See if I can find some of my pictures..

 

[ANTIQUARIAN]

Very Nice save!
I would say the 1950's, I have several similar. The stone is not a ruby so I would buff the ring with some mothers polish, and get some clear fingernail polish and put a nice gleam to the stone.
See if I can find some of my pictures..

Thank you for sharing the pics of your cleaned ring finds OBN, they all look amazing!

You're right, my friend took the ring to a jeweler and was told that the stone was a natural unpolished garnet and the 'pitted' look is how it was designed to appear.

Thanks again to everyone who took the time to post their thoughts to the thread! 👍
Dave

 

[Clay Diggins]

You're right, my friend took the ring to a jeweler and was told that the stone was a natural unpolished garnet and the 'pitted' look is how it was designed to appear.

This makes no sense. The back of the stone is clearly faceted and polished. Unpolished Garnet does not have a rough surface as seen in the picture. The front of the stone may have been cushion cut but no lapidary would intentionally create a rough surface on a cab or a faceted stone.

It looks like mid 20th Century design and manufacture. This style of hollow casting was very popular in the 1940 - 1960 time period.

 

[OBN]

This makes no sense. The back of the stone is clearly faceted and polished. Unpolished Garnet does not have a rough surface as seen in the picture. The front of the stone may have been cushion cut but no lapidary would intentionally create a rough surface on a cab or a faceted stone.

It looks like mid 20th Century design and manufacture. This style of hollow casting was very popular in the 1940 - 1960 time period.

I agree 100%... The Jeweler is wrong, pitting and dullness is cause by wear. I've got about 30 gold rings with the same wear on the stones, all from rolling around in the surf.