Featured Three Gold Rings

It's my favorite of the lot too. The others are those honking great 1970s styles.

Fun fact to know & tell: 5 golden rings are not an anomaly, they are also birds, ring-necked pheasants.

 

If that's the Birmingham anchor on its side next to it, that B mark is for 1850, which would agree with the look of the ring.

 

Thanks. Some days the eyes & brain get it right, & then on others...

 

It looks like a B in italics? Ratsy, could you take a closeup of the marks? Difficult, I know.

 

I will get a photo for you but when i checked earlier i was fairly sure its 1976

 

Which assay office is that chart for?

 

The entire site is a Birmingham site, so Birmingham.
https://theassayoffice.com/help-with-hallmarks/date-letters2

 

Here is the bit which has 1850 as well:

1774-1775


1799-1800


1825-1826


1850-1851


1876-1877


1901-1902


1926-1927


1951-1952


1976


2001
https://theassayoffice.com/help-with-hallmarks/date-letters2?searchLetters=b

 

I see you found it.

 

Definitely an anchor, so Birmingham is the right assay office. I still see the 1850-51 B.

 

In 1976 the turquoise cabochons would all have been the same size & shape, the same uniform pale blue. These stone are characteristic of jewellery typically assigned to the Georgian period, although we know from the date letter the ring is about 13 years too late to qualify as Georgian.

[Photo is not loading, no warning file too large, so what the hey?]

 

If the date were during Victoria's reign (which 1851 would be) there would be a monarch's head duty mark within the array of punches. I'm with 1976.

 

I dont want to argue with your excellent knowledge of antique jewellery, but the B in my hallmark is definitely italic and has that small flick at the top left of the letter. Its not 100% identical but they rarely are

 

I'm still not persuaded (trying to get you an antique here). Looks like there's an imperfection at that point. Not clear to me if the 'flick' is a little introductory flourish, as on the 1976 B or the remnants of the serif on the 1850 B. What I do note is that the bottom loop of your B is decisively closed, while 1976 is not, a distinguishing feature of that B.

https://blog.sugaretcie.com/interpreting-the-english-hallmarks-on-your-antique-jewelry/

Here is an example of a fully hallmarked ring. Meaning (from left to right) it has a maker’s mark, a duty mark (not always part of a full set of hallmarks) [emphasis mine], a metal mark (gold), a purity mark, a city mark, and a date mark. The ones to focus on that will give you the basic information are the last three. The purity mark, what carat gold is it? The city mark, this will help you when looking up the date mark, and the date letter so that you can look up the year the piece was assayed.

Your piece has other marks we haven't even considered yet.

 

That eliat stone is gorgeous.

 

Definiutely not 1850, there's no monarch's head or duty mark. And the style is typically 70s Victorian revival here. Also, the anchor shape is wrong for the mid 19th, and the cartouches are too crisp. Looking at both Bradbury and Jacksons, I'm with 1976, dead match on letter and cartouche. 1850 is a quite different font and shape. Most probably Birmingham assay, but London is also possible.

 

I'd add that mid 19th C low carat rings here are generally either unmarked at all, or simply have 9 ct as a mark. They were below the weight mandated by law and it cost too much.

 

I was thinking that as well, 9 ct being too low for 1850 hallmarking, and they marked the fineness in carats. Which you can also see on the site Bronwen posted. The marks are very crisp too.

Stylewise I was thinking maybe a Middle Eastern goldsmith in Birmingham?
It reminds me of an Armenian-Persian ring I have.