Cameo Help Needed

I know more than I used to about cameos, thanks to the experts on this website, but overall I know very little. I recently bought this sort of crude-looking cameo brooch at a thrift store ($3.99) and would like to know more about it--I especially liked the face. I'm wondering about its (1) age, (2) origin, (3) whether man or woman, (4) real person or mythical, (5) whether the clasp is original, and (6) if it looks like solid gold (it's unmarked, tested as 10K, but could it be rolled gold or gold filled).

 

just some observations...
the last pic of the item, looks like rolled gold to me, as it looks like the silver under neath is showing thru..
helmet shell....looks like..
and the quick lacklustre carving of the robe, suggests maybe 1970's.....or there abouts.... imo....which is based solely on what I've picked up here...

 

I'm sure it's coincidental, but it looks Egyptianesque to me.

 

because of the long drawn out eye ..????

 

I appreciate your comments. I'll take a closer look at silver possibly showing through. Sometimes the camera plays tricks--I polished it as much as I could with a sunshine cloth. I won't be able to check my phone for the next few hours, but will check back later.

 

As said, I think it's coincidental:

 

That does have some similarities, but the cameo looks like a slap-dash carving job except for the face. I looked at the setting again, and I don't really see any places where it looks like it's worn through to silver. I don't know if it's worth taking to a jeweler to have it tested.

 

You're referring to the composite pose used in Egyptian representation. Two different viewpoints: The head is seen in profile. The torso is seen facing forward.

Debora

 

The lady appears to have finger waves in her hair.
This could place it in the 1920s-30s.

 

the fit...the placement of the prongs...the oversized neck...the quickly carved robe.....none of this screams 20's to me...imo

we need @Bronwen to weigh in !! ....Please..

 

As komo said, helmet shell; cameo would have been cut in Italy & set elsewhere. As stracci noted, style of the lady is 20s/30s. This one is quite plain; it is usual for them to have flowers in hair, on shoulder, or both. Cameo representations of contemporary women tend to lag behind the fashion a bit. I would put this piece to later 30s into the 40s.

I would not expect the mount to be solid gold, but quality of cameo & quality of setting are not always commensurate. Doubt this would be gilt silver either. Rolled gold/gold filled are most likely. Clasp looks original to me.

 

Thank you for your always insightful & compelling expertise !!!

 

I was guessing at 70's.... cuz to me this one just looks....off , in several ways!

but I could imagine that in the latter dirty 30's to 40's....they could have been rushed for quicker production and lower cost.

 

To stay in Italian art terms, my mother used to call those eyes "Giotto eyes", after the ca 1300 Italian painter who painted similar eyes. Maybe too much praise though.

 

Giotto eyes: "Death of Saint Francis", fresco in the Santa Croce Basilica, Florence:

 

Just wondering @Bronwen and others, I see the cameo is chipped on the back. I have a charming 1920s-30s (I think) helmet shell cameo with a similar chip, only the chip on mine is more on the edge and a very thin bit is visible on the front.
The lovely lady herself, a Flora type with a beautiful face, is unharmed. She is set in a silver and marcasite brooch/pendant.

I don't expect it to have been a valuable cameo in the first place, but she is nicely carved, better quality than most.
How much would damage like that influence whatever value there is? Is there anything that can be done to make damage on a helmet shell cameo less visible?
(No, I don't have a photo, and I don't know where she is hiding.)

 

sounds like a job for Super Kyra !!!!

Up Up & buff Away !!!!!!

 

I really appreciate everyone's comments--thank you so much. I feel more confident now in describing this cameo brooch appropriately, but will probably try to find out definitely if it's solid, rolled, or filled gold. As Bonwen mentioned, "quality of cameo & quality of setting are not always commensurate." I once sold a brooch for much more than I expected because it had a crudely-carved and very unattractive cameo, but the minimalist setting was marked 14K.

 

No buffing, I won't take it out of the mount for fear of doing more damage, it is set with prongs on the back. And if I buff anything on that side, the balance of the carving will be lost and it will be too small to fit in the mount,
I have thought about possibilities to fill in a slither on the side, but there is the translucent quality of the shell to consider. Anything you add will be visible I think.
I've thought of covering that bit with small pearls, tried to see what it would look like, and it made no sense at all.
A pearl surround, all the way round, would cover part of the carving as well, making it look unbalanced and frankly ridiculous.
Hoping our cameo maven knows a brilliant solution.

 

@komokwa and @Bronwen, you are both right about the cameo setting not being solid gold. I took it to a jeweler today for testing (fortunately no cost) and was told it's plated base metal. Now I'm wondering about a few other pieces of my unmarked gold jewelry that tested 10K or 14K with my testing kit. I thought about getting an electronic gold tester until I saw the prices, so will probably take them to the jeweler (she charges if doing more than one piece, so I'll have to find out if it's worthwhile).

On the upside, I stopped at a thrift store on the way home and found a necklace, which I'm wondering might be Neiger....I'll post it separately.