Featured Date of glass and gold Raj trophy brooch, Victorian. Help please.

It is a Victorian(?) unmarked gold brooch, made like Raj period tiger trophy jewellery.
The tiger claws or teeth are actually a one piece glass replica. Obviously made for those who couldn't afford the real deal, but could afford a little gold.
The gold tests as ca 9k.
I found a similar style one on Etsy, but that one had two separate glass pieces, set in brass, and no useful information.

My question is, does anyone have any idea when this style tiger trophy jewellery was made? Victorian is such a long period, can anyone narrow it down?
The hinge could be 1890s, so my guess is after 1890.
And would this have been made in the UK or in India, Malaysia, etc?

It is about 5 cm wide. The pin has a slight bend in the middle. The 'horns' are slightly irregular in length and curve. The dangle is teardrop shaped.

Thank you for looking.

 

Sweet piece, AJ! And no animal was harmed to make this
I never seen faux teeth or claws on period pieces before. Only on 70s jewellery and after.
Maybe the original organic ornament was damaged and replaced?
I agree with you for the construction's date, but can't place it in a geographic area

 

Thanks kyra.

Exactly, I wouldn't have bought it otherwise.

Could be, it is a very simple construction, so parts can be replaced easily.

 

Love it! What is the stone in the center--glass or ruby?

 

Thanks Barn.
The centre stone is good old glass.

 

The 9k argues strongly for Britain. No Indian jeweller would even consider that real gold. Visually, the claws are very realistic. Suspect mold taken from real thing; otherwise, why bother with that little split on the back, which no one is going to see. Faux, but quality.

Hinge too late for brooch to have anything to do with Victoria's being proclaimed Empress of India.

 

True, but in colonial times people would also take gold or silver to a jeweller to be made into whatever they wanted. Not saying that was the case here, this could have been a larger scale production line made in Birmingham.
I have a ca 9k antique Malaysian gold item, and Malaysia was also tiger hunting territory.

Absolutely, and there is nothing that indicates a commemorative piece of jewellery. Just commemorative of hunting glass tigers.

Yes, that adds to the realism. In fact I studied the seller's photos very closely to make sure it wasn't real. It was difficult to see, the brooch was filthy with dirt stuck in all the little roundels, but then I saw the two claws were actually one piece. So I gave myself the go ahead.

 

That's a claw....



that's a tooth.........

does no one here have a cat ....

 

that's a really nice replica......the lines in it make it look real !!!!

 

Even had a big cat, not a tiger though. I actually thought these were meant to be teeth, but kept the claw option open:

 

The gold colour looks British to me, as does that back. Cultural appropriation was our speciality in the 19th C.

 

Thanks. Any thoughts on the date?

Most European countries, Orientalism etc.

 

Found this from the Royal Ontario Museum- they are not getting any more specific than "late 19th c." , stemming from the popular elite hunting parties of the British Colonials. There is also a short video https://www.rom.on.ca/en/blog/new-to-rom-tiger-claw-necklace

Another parure example is engraved 1883.
https://www.thehairpin.com/2011/09/the-week-in-estate-jewelry-tiger-claws-secret-hearts-and-opal-madness/

 

Late 19th makes sense to me.

 

Wonderful info, Darkwing, thanks. It is beautiful jewellery, but sad to think what was the cause of such beauty, the slaughter of beautiful creatures.
I am very happy to know my glass tiger didn't suffer.
The other jewellery on the hairpin site is gorgeous!

Thanks, late 19th it is. In this case 1890s, given the hinge.

 

I'm going to offer the dissenting opinion, long after the fact, that this might be an actual tiger claw, sliced in half and mounted symmetrically. Here are my supporting facts. There's that little cavity in the back of the claw on each side as tho an organic piece were split in half. it seems unlikely that someone would have set a piece of glass in real gold. Also-- I can't see the ruby clearly enough to be certain, but on first glance that certainly looks a lot like those beautiful cloudy rubies that you see in Indian jewelry, not the transparent rhinestone type. I had a jewelry making instructor once who was teaching us about buying gems, and he would hold a ruby in his palm, open it for a split second then close it, and say Real or fake? the point being that your initial gut reaction is probably right., that is my gut on that one. And likewise it also seems unlikely to me that someone would set a piece of glass in gold, at least I've never seen it. And the whole piece just has the feeling of a "real" jewelry piece, and it is definitely old -- tiger claws and teeth were likely more available than a glass replica in this time period. Well, these are just my thoughts, but altogether they add up to a feeling that its a real hunting trophy piece. Thanks for letting me share my opinion.

 

Thank you for looking and replying @lewp.

It is definitely one single piece of glass, made to look like two claws.
It is deceptive, I realize that. And it is much easier to assess the material when you have it in hand, like I have. Which also helps to see that it is one continuous piece of glass, from left to right, not two.

Why they made it is a mystery. Maybe a case of keeping up with the Joneses? "Mrs X has a real trophy brooch, I want one too but my goldsmith doesn't have access to real claws"? So glass makers came to the rescue of people who wanted to keep up with colonials? Some whys and wherefores we may never know the answer to.

 

Well, excellent! And to be enjoyed guilt free as others have noted. Thanks

 

@IvaPan Thanks for giving me my 60,000th 'Like'.

 

@Bronwen You are mostly welcome Respect for your broad knowledge and patience to explain!

On the subject, items like this make me sad