Biwa pearls from 1930-1940s

[aerinha]

Hi, I dabble in antique jewelry, so I am by no means an expert but I'm pretty sure your ring would be pre-1940 if it's indeed vintage. White metal was in during the 1920-19302, but so passe in the 1940s (itwas yellow gold or pink gold for them).

Close up it has nice milgraining, like my antique pieces, but I couldn't say for sure it was old from the pic.

750 is the stamp for 18Kt, usually used outside the US, but even my 18Kt vintage stuff from Europe uses 18Kt stamp, not 750.

 

[GemGeek]

Good job! Of course, I want more. Set the ring face down in something soft that will hold it there, like a wash cloth. Try to get a photo of the underside of the gallery (the inside of the ring, under the pearl). Then see if you can get anything on the inside of the band. I know the top of the ring is large enough to make it very difficult, but give it a try. And I'd like to see a photo of the diamonds straight on.

The more I see of it, the more I like it. Did you notice that a diamond is missing? It's definitely been worn.

Thanks!

 

[olmander]

Here we are! I did what I could with the new pics, see it below.

What I noticed is that the diamonds are indeed more in the old style with flat and big front facets (table cut is it?). This is the reason why one diamond looks like missing. Some of them are really flat and look like worn for quite some time . I looked through a magnifying glas, none is missing but some are either smallish, or jusy worn out. But generally the quality of diamonds is perfect, one can easily see it (I have other items of different quality to compare with).

What looks like imperfections or scratches on the pearl under the magnifying glas is just dust I got during my attempts to install it upside down . I checked: it is flawless

 

[pattye]

Wow! Such interesting details when shown up close, thanks for all the additional photos. It is truly a gorgeous and mysterious ring!

1. Interesting that the mounting shows wear, but the pearl none! I have no explanation for that, but it is wonderful!

2. I have seen very beat up mountings with diamonds--diamonds are so hard they don't show wear at all, the faceting is just sharp and bright as the day it was done. Probably if you are seeing a small table and faceting on top of the diamond, it is a "rose cut" an older style of cut. Also it is possible the stones also may be cut with fewer facets than what we call "full cut" now--57=58 facets. That would indicate age. If the stones appear worn, perhaps its that they were not real well cut because they are so old, or they may not be diamonds at all?

Just my musings, of course---

Awesome job on the photos,

pattye
so many pearls, so little time

 

[Sueki]

Good heavens, what a beautiful ring olmander.
It's just gorgeous.
And my two-penneth - it looks Edwardian/Deco to me.
European stamps often used 0.750 or .75 or .750, or 18K or 18CT.

 

[aerinha]

Diamonds could be old mine or European cut, although they sparkle close to a modern brilliant cut. A rose cust would be flat on back and sort of organically shaped. They usually only really flash in half-light as they were cut to refract in candle light (diamonds only being worn at night and no electricity).

The setting almost looks Edwardian. Very similar to an engagement ring a jeweler let me try on for fun that turned out to be a 9 carat solitaire $125,000 diamond ring. Oh, my. That ring had a rounded bottom under the stone only it was tiny leaves instead of a cross-hatch and the leaves were set with teeny tiny diamonds.


Maybe your ring originally held a large diamond or something and was reset with the pearl?

 

[olmander]

That's exactly the puzzle. I also see the setting as an Edwardian-deco or something like that but then the pearls that large did not exist then... It is still too large to be designed for a diamond and too perfectly rounded to carry anything but a pearl. I am completely confused.

About diamonds: I just compared two of my rings, the modern cut from Korloff and the old cut from the 1930-1940s (with a bigger upper surface). It looks like my pearl ring has rather the old cut, that's why being magnified the smaller stones sometimes look worn out, - it is just because of a flat surface. But the richness of colours if they are under a good light - Christ, this is really amazing!

Olga

 

[aerinha]

I'm not sure how big your pearl is, but that 9 carat diamond was about the size of a nickel. It did not fill the bottom "bowl", just the top.

You certainly have a mystery piece. Antiques Roadshow coming your way anytime soon?

 

[GemGeek]

The diamonds look like single-cut brillants and old europeans, so they would be older diamonds. Pattye is right -- they might not be worn from use, but just not cut to the standards we are used to seeing today. That could lead to the lack of brilliance in the diamond that is transparent enough to see through. Diamonds were often re-used and different types were often combined in one piece

The mystery is what was in the basket, because clearly, the pearl is new (and incredible!). It could have been some kind of round stone or an artificial pearl. Would you mind if I post the photo on another forum where there are appraisers and other gem geeks who would like to have a look?

Thanks for the terrific photos!

 

[olmander]

No, of course I would not mind, I am so curious to learn more about it! Can I also get access to it so that I can read the discussion?

About the stone or the pearl which has been supposedly in the basket before. I just read the article of C.Dennis George (in the 'news' section of this forum, plus the original in the International Pearling Journal) where the story tells us that it is quite possible that an Australian marine biologist William Saville-Kent was in fact the first to cultivate pearls on his farm in Australia at the turn on the centuries (1896-1906), but he never registered his method, and then the Japanese took over.

Could it be that my pearl is coming from that farm from that time, was sold to one of the Europeans and placed in this beautiful setting indeed around the Edwardian times? There is no word in the article how large those first Australian pearls were but can it explain the unusual orient of the pearl? Because all the modern South See pearls I see around have a beautiful luster but hardly any orient. This was why I easily believed buying this ring that this could be some rare or previously unfamiliar type of pearl.

Olga

 

[Valeria101]

...all the modern South See pearls I see around have a beautiful luster but hardly any orient.

Well... there are some, just not exactly many. Think big

Trying to figure out where did 'orient' as the paragon of pearl quality gone, I came up with this story. Got to explain things - it's (obsessive?)compulsive!

I doubt orient has any need for advertisement, so there's no mention in most 'educational' guides put up by commercial sources. Those airy shades of floating color single out awesome pearls from any pile of stark, polished white anyway. So do the price tags - no lack of recognition. The problem/ - there are probable fewer strands of cultured pearls with orient then there are sellers, or buyers wanting the other pearls. It is a bit annoying, but adds just do not seem capable to tout subtle trade-offs and compromises... the nature of the Ad. beast, perhaps: can't tell 'interesting' from 'second best' on a billboard . Wish things worked otherwise... maybe they do, and I have not found the right place to look other then a forum or two .

There was a bit of talk about orient earlier on here: take a look if not done already.

 

[olmander]

Thanks for the link, it is indeed very informative. I think in my case this would be indeed rather overtones than orient, although overtones (if this is then the right word for it) very strongly pronounced.
Or do I see it wrong?

 

[jerin]

Hi Olmander,

orient shows a play of different colours, whereas overtone mostly is one colour, silver, rose, blue, gold or whatever.
Your pearl shows strong orient in my opinion. There are some great posts somewhere here on the forum to learn about the difference.

 

[GemGeek]

I posted on the ring at www.GemologyOnline.com

http://gemologyonline.com/Forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=42719#42719

Hopefully, we will find out more about the ring we all want to steal from Olamander!