Featured Help identifying a rosecut ring- foil-backed?

Hello,
I have recently come across a ring made in the Netherlands in the 1940s. It is a rosecut diamond in a sterling silver setting and an 18k yellow gold band. It is closed back, which leads me to believe that the rosecut diamond is foil-backed. I would really like to know if this is the case so that I can be extra sure protect it from water damage. Based on its age, origin, and photos, does anybody have input on whether this could be foil-backed or not? Also any tips on how to determine this? I really appreciate any input!

 

Where did you get the 1940s date from? Is the front is a marriage with the band.

 

I agree, much older front. Late Georgian probably. Other than not wearing it to shower or wash up, it'll be fine.

 

Are you sure that's silver? If you have a diamond and an 18k gold band, the use of silver for the gem mount seems a bit down-market. Could it be platinum? Online sources say platinum was first used for European jewelry circa 1780 in France.

 

Silver is very very common as a setting for gems right up until about the early 20th. Platinum settings didn't really become common till the 20s.

 

Welcome @Billieb , that is a very nice ring, I love old diamonds.
I can't see 1940s in it, but I can see antique. Does it have any Dutch hallmarks?

I agree, silver was not considered down market before the widespread use of white gold from 1912 onwards. It was used to enhance the colour of the diamond. Yellow or rose gold would have a negative influence on the colour of the diamond.

 

Could you maybe link the source?
To my knowledge the use of Platinum in the European jewellery started around 1890; though I don't want to exclude some earlier examples. Platinum has a high melting point (1770°C) and until the 1830s/1840s you had to use chemicals to lower the melting point in order to work with Platinum. As Platinum was very expensive and is also very difficult to work on, I am 99,99% certain that the diamond is set in silver. You simply would not have wasted so much expensive material in such a setting. The setting also seams to be a bit tarnished, another indicator for silver. The silver setting of the diamond is also set in a bit clumsy way on the gold backing.
The radial indentions on the back of the ring try to imitate a 18th century setting. So given the pictures and the information we have, I would say the ring is a later copy of an 18th century ring (or inspired by 18th century rings), produced anytime between 1860 and today. Maybe the hallmarks can help us date the piece.

Regarding the foil backing: you can often see it with a loupe

 

https://www.jewelryappraisalservices.com/helpful-jewelry-information-about-platinum.html

 

That's a rather shallow exposition on that site, sadly. Whilst there might have been wee bits of platinum used earlier on, it really didn't get going as a setting till the 20th. Silver was the usual setting, then white gold as @Any Jewelry said.

My chemistry brain agrees with @MaJa that until ultra high temperature smelters and torches were available it was a pig to work platinum.

This is an excellent and scholarly article:

https://www.langantiques.com/university/platinum-2/

 

The sugar bowl and the buttons seem to be the "jewellery" in the above given link by @moreotherstuff.
The earlist piece of platinum jewellery I know date around 1890-1900; by ca. 1910 the use of platinum increased so much that the price of the metal had increased 6-7 fold. That's why white gold was invented and took off so quickly, it was cheaper than platinum (back then) and easier to work with.

 

It was the difficulty in working platinum that brought it to the attentions of the 16th C Spaniards in the Americas.

 

From this site:
https://www.technology.matthey.com/article/36/1/40-47/

The possibilities of platinum fabrication were acknowledged by experts in other European countries, dating it before the voyage of Antonio de Ulloa to South America. In a letter from William Watson to Georg Mattias Bose, dated 15th January 1751, (included in the review by M. Morin (8)), the following reference is made to “platina”:


“It is not possible to forge, but it has already been found in America the way of moulding hilts of swords”.


On the other hand, in 1750 Watson had already noted in the Philosophical Transactions :


“But the Spaniards have a way of melting it down, either alone, or by means of some Flux; and cast it into Sword-hilts, Buckles, Snuff-boxes, and other Utensils.” (2)

18th C platinum earrings:
https://www.royalfinejewelers.com/o...antoinettes-diamond-earrings-are-focus-today/

 

@moreotherstuff :
I am really sorry, but the setting is not 18th century. They were set in platnium in 1959 by Harry Winston (first part in German, a bit further down is an English translation):

https://royal-magazin.de/russia/jussupov/queen-marie-antoinette-diamonds.htm

 

Edit: I just saw that the English text does not match the German text, the old setting was made of silver and gold:

"Die Diamant Ohrringe waren bis in die 1920er Jahre in der Familie, erst dann im Exil, verkaufte Prinz Felix Youssoupov das Paar Diamantohrring 1928 an Cartier.
(Er vermutete, dass sie zu Beginn des XIX. Jahrhunderts von einem seiner Vorfahren als Teil der Sammlung von Marie Antoinette in Paris gekauft worden waren und gab diese Geschichte falsch weiter, das wurde inzwischen geklärt).
Damals war die Fassung dieser beiden großen Diamanten eine klassische Silber- und Goldfassung. Cartier verkaufte die Diamanten an Marjorie Merryweather Post. Sie bat Harry Winston eine neue Platinfassungen zu kreieren, und sie übergab die Tropfen Diamant-Ohrringe von Königin Marie-Antoinette an ihre Tochter Eleanor Post Close, die sie zusammen mit ihrem Blumentiara trug, schließlich spendete sie sie 1964 an den Smithsonian in Washington."

English translation:

The diamond earrings were in the family until the 1920s, only then in exile, Prince Felix Youssoupov sold the pair of diamond earrings to Cartier in 1928.
(He suspected that they had been bought by one of his ancestors as part of Marie Antoinette's collection in Paris at the beginning of the XIX century and passed on this story incorrectly, this has since been clarified).
At the time, the setting of these two large diamonds was a classic silver and gold setting. Cartier sold the diamonds to Marjorie Merryweather Post.
She asked Harry Winston to create a new platinum setting, and she gave Queen Marie-Antoinette's drop diamond earrings to her daughter Eleanor Post Close, who wore them with her flower tiara, eventually donating them to the Smithsonian in Washington in 1964.

 

Well, "classic silver and gold setting" describes your ring, which is what this tread is about.

 

I've a feeling they were recut, too.

 

At the beginning I thought so, too. But I haven't found any evidence to that effect. Also the weight of the diamonds seems to be more or less unchanged if you look at their description in the 1891 Christie's catalogue and also the modern descriptions.
If a stone is recut, it usually looses some of its weight.
Here is a pair of diamond earings in their original setting from 1819. They are a bit later, but still very similar (apparently the page only exists in German):

https://skd-online-collection.skd.museum/Details/Index/118136

 

If they had been recut, they probably would have made them more alike. Could just be my eyes, but the one on the right looks wider, rounder to me, something you also see in the faceting.

 

@Billieb , if you have time, could you check the ring for Dutch hallmarks? A Dutch gold ring would have an assay mark, whether it was made in the 1860s or the 1940s. Only filigree was exempt.

 

My late Mother had a similar ring which she had made using a diamond tie-pin that belonged to my Dad. I don't think this was an uncommon practice either? Many WWII widows would have done similar things too...