Antique 18ct Gold Ring w/ Ruby

[photoworks]

I have an antique ruby ring set in a 22ct gold ring... I would love any help with identifying its source.

As seen in the pics I have supplied, the markings are as follows:

SD - crown - 916 - F in octagonal box

Has anyone got any idea about the maker's mark SD...who is the maker?

The stone is pure red, 20mmx15mmx10mm, estimated at around 35cts weight.

I have tried to scratch a hidden area with a steel knife, but the knife was no able to make any marks.

Any idea what this beautiful item would be valued at?

The total weight for ring and ruby is 7gr.

 

[LD]

Nobody here will value from a picture I'm afraid. The one thing I would ask if how you know that's a ruby? You've said it's 35ct???? If that's the case then this is an exceptionally large gem. For a number of reasons I'm not entirely sure that's a Ruby. Do you have a lab report by any chance? IF it's a ruby and as clean as that then its worth a very large sum of money.

ETA The test you've done I'm afraid doesn't prove anything. I highly suspect this is synthetic or glass. I've looked at your other photos in your other thread and after looking at the inclusions I'm even more convinced this isn't a Ruby - I'm sorry.

 

[photoworks]

Thanks for the reply...

I don't know for fact that it's a natural ruby...

However, I have submitted it to a hardness test againt steel. Steel could not scratch or mark it.

It also sort of glows under UV light.

Yes, it is quite large...as I said above it measures 20mm X 15mm X 10mm. From these dimensions I have arrived to the conclusion that if it is a genuine ruby, it would be approx 34.05ct

 

[photoworks]

but glass would be scratched by steel yes? and it would leave a red mark if scraped against ceramic tiles? In both cases, this could not be scratched...and did not leave a mark on the tiles.

 

[LD]

but glass would be scratched by steel yes? and it would leave a red mark if scraped against ceramic tiles? In both cases, this could not be scratched...and did not leave a mark on the tiles.

No. The tests you are doing are inconclusive. If you take the ring to a jeweller who has a refractometer they can check the RI of the stone.

However, look at it this way ........... I have a 6.5ct Ruby and I very rarely see one bigger than that. Inside mine, you can see a wealth of inclusions with a loupe. Yours is 35ct. If it were a real Ruby it would be a museum piece and very rare, especially with the clarity your photos show.

The next clue that this is not a real gem are the inclusions you have shown in your other thread. From what I can see, the inclusions consist of bubbles and what look like dust particles inside the gem. These are both highly suggestive of glass or a synthetic.
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ruby-ring-inheritance.182723/#post-3323289#p3323289']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/ruby-ring-inheritance.182723/#post-3323289#p3323289[/URL]

Lastly, it was very common years ago to put large synthetic / paste (glass) gemstones into settings made from real gold.

For all of those reasons, I would say that this is not a ruby. Sorry.

 

[corundum_conundrum]

I think old synthetics can be valueable in their own right (not as valuable as a ruby of that size!) Lab created Ruby has been around for about a century, long predating synthetic diamond. Its worth taking to a jeweler with a refractometer if you are curious about value.

 

[VapidLapid]

please dont take steel knives to your gems, especially if you are unsure what they are. Also dont scrape them on ceramic tiles. These are destructive tests, that wont yield much information.

 

[minousbijoux]

One stamp looks like it is "18." Could it be 18k instead of 22k? How do you know its 22k gold?

It is a very pretty color

 

[LD]

I've done a bit of research for you but I need to caveat by saying that I am simply repeating what I have found during my search. I have no idea whether this is correct or not!!! What I have found is .............

The Crown, is the 'Quality' Mark introduced for 18ct and 22ct gold in 1798 and has been used ever since. The 18 most likely indicates the gold quality as 18k gold.

The 'F' might be the Date letter. The shape and typeface of the F can denote the actual year - however, I couldn't find a match in typeface or shape so I think that in this instance it may represent imported or foreign gold which is also when the F was used.

The linked circles are probably the maker's mark. I searched through about 20 pages of American marks but couldn't find anything similar.

 

[pregcurious]

We cannot tell you if your gem is a real ruby based on pictures. If I had a 35 carat gem that I suspected to be natural ruby that had the clarity of your stone, I would bring it to an appraiser experienced in rubies (and colored stones in general). If you live near DC, I can recommend Martin Fuller. Expert appraisers are not inexpensive.

I would also considering sending it to AGL. Here is one person's experience with AGL versus GIA with a natural ruby:
[URL='https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/agl-report-vs-gia-report-different-grading-results.176603/']https://www.pricescope.com/community/threads/agl-report-vs-gia-report-different-grading-results.176603/[/URL]

The cost of the different AGL reports is here. The Gembrief cost only covers rubies up to a certain size, so you would probably have to call them to find out for a stone of your size.
http://www.aglgemlab.com/Services/Rates.aspx

 

[davi_el_mejor]

7 grams is 35carats. Using your estimation there is only 1ct or .2grams of gold in the setting.

 

[chrono]

Beautiful colour coupled with the huge size and very clean clarity makes one extremely cautious as to whether the stone is a synthetic. Trying to scratch a stone is not only destructive but is rarely conclusive. The safest and better method is to check the refractive index to narrow down the possibilities. Even then, it does not always differentiate a natural from a synthetic, much less treatment. This is one stone that could potentially be worth either a whole lot or practically nothing, and being optimistic, I would send it to AGL.

 

[Tierra-b]

Hey did you ever find out about your ring I have one that's very similar

 

[Tierra-b]

I have an antique ruby ring set in a 22ct gold ring... I would love any help with identifying its source.

As seen in the pics I have supplied, the markings are as follows:

SD - crown - 916 - F in octagonal box

Has anyone got any idea about the maker's mark SD...who is the maker?

The stone is pure red, 20mmx15mmx10mm, estimated at around 35cts weight.

I have tried to scratch a hidden area with a steel knife, but the knife was no able to make any marks.

Any idea what this beautiful item would be valued at?

The total weight for ring and ruby is 7gr.

I have a similar ring did you find out info on yours

 

[Tierra-b]

 

[chatoyancy]

What will you do if you find out the stone is not natural? Would you keep the ring as is or place a natural gem in it?

 

[Tierra-b]

I had it tested by a local gemologist who told me it had a Few inclusions, that it had great chance of being a natural and if I could send it off to get gia certificate but I opted. To take it myself. But the ring is marked with K18 a X inside a square and it has a dot stamp. I was told the ring dated between 1897-1898 and the dot stamp means Ruby and K 18 gold purity and the stone is kinda loose in the setting because of age

 

[Tierra-b]

My in-laws are foreign so I trust their sources. I also received pearls that I had appraised already.

 

[Muhammad_Ali]

If this is a natural, unheated ruby, it's worth somewhere in the 20 million USD mark, 40+ if it's Burmese...I would definitely send it to GIA via priority shipping. Where are you located (city), GIA has offices in NYC, London, Carlsbad, etc., I would get it to a lab ASAP.

Its antique nature make it interesting. Personally, it doesn't look like a ruby to me, but whatever it is. It's worth getting checked out!

 

[OreoRosies86]

My in-laws are foreign so I trust their sources. I also received pearls that I had appraised already.

Just by my eye and the size of the stones both ruby rings posted here look synthetic. But fun costume jewelry for sure! I recently went on a merry go round ride of rubies replacing natural rubies for lab rubies when I thought I wanted to do a reset. Now the natural rubies are back. The difference is subtle but I can indeed tell.

 

[arkieb1]

SD - crown - 916 - F in octagonal box

The hallmarks are crown is the Assay office mark, the 916 is 22K gold the F in the box is a year/date it was made which is according to the chart of marks 1941 back then synthetic rubies were all the rage and could cost quite a lot. Just looking at the magnified photos of it I think it's a synthetic stone because it lacks the natural internal inclusions rubies have, but you could have a really valuable clean ruby so take to to either a good respected valuer - click on the resources box and then click on valuers or send it to AGL or GIA.

If you don't want to pay, a pawn shop with lots of jewellery or a good jeweller that is familiar with gemstones should be able to tell you if it's real or synthetic.

 

[Muhammad_Ali]

What will you do if you find out the stone is not natural? Would you keep the ring as is or place a natural gem in it?

That would be an expensive replacement stone indeed.

 

[chatoyancy]

That would be an expensive replacement stone indeed.

Absolutely, if it was replaced with corundum. I guess I was thinking amethyst, citrine, sherry topaz, kunzite or ametrine. I was thinking 70s cocktail ring because I just love those (though they are not everyone's taste). I just bought a 6.4 carat sherry topaz from mastercut and I'm totally going to make a cocktail ring. Anyway, I think Tierra-B would like to keep the ring as is.

 

[Muhammad_Ali]

Absolutely, if it was replaced with corundum. I guess I was thinking amethyst, citrine, sherry topaz, kunzite or ametrine. I was thinking 70s cocktail ring because I just love those (though they are not everyone's taste). I just bought a 6.4 carat sherry topaz from mastercut and I'm totally going to make a cocktail ring. Anyway, I think Tierra-B would like to keep the ring as is.

You need to post that topaz!!

 

[chatoyancy]

You need to post that topaz!!

Here you go! It's not quite as brown in real life and it's more sparkly, but my iPhone camera can only do so much.

 

[chatoyancy]

You need to post that topaz!!

A better pic. It was cut by Dana Reynolds.