First Time Posting - Is It Art Deco?

[snaphappy]

I’ve recently learned that a lot of “art deco” pieces were actually made in the revival period after WWII.

We love the ring so we’re happy either way! But it’s still fun speculating about the age of this ring.

It’s stamped .9 plat which might mean it predates WWII?

The diamond is a “cape” that prioritized size over quality. Here are some specs: 2.78 carat, i1, k, 8.98 - 8.96 x 5.66 and Table is 50% Depth is 63.1% and Girdle is thin - medium. Culet small. So a transitional cut?

Some video:

and

 

[LilAlex]

Welcome!

Beautiful ring and diamond!

It does not look classically Deco to me. Very pierced like Edwardian but the finish on the inside of the shank is less refined than I would expect for that era. At first glance, it almost looked Art Nouveau but I don't think it's that either.

I can't tell -- is there a ring of single-cuts pointing outward where the girdle would be?

The design alone does not help me narrow down the date of manufacture. Others here will know more.

 

[snaphappy]

Welcome!

Beautiful ring and diamond!

It does not look classically Deco to me. Very pierced like Edwardian but the finish on the inside of the shank is less refined than I would expect for that era. At first glance, it almost looked Art Nouveau but I don't think it's that either.

I can't tell -- is there a ring of single-cuts pointing outward where the girdle would be?

The design alone does not help me narrow down the date of manufacture. Others here will know more.

Thanks for the reply!

I don't understand your question about the girdle, sorry, I'm new to all of this.

The filigree is so spectacular, that maybe, it's not Art Deco and someone was incorporating everything from the past? An homage to the early 20th century?

The appraisal does say 1920's but it was done by EGL. Apparently EGL can't be trusted? AI said the EGL inflates their appraisals. Suspiciously, it was also appraised by UGS and their conclusions match the EGL verbatim. Seems suspect

So I thought I'd ask you guys!

 

[glitterata]

What a beautiful diamond! The setting suits it well, too.

I would probably not call that style art deco, which I think of as more geometric. I would probably call it Edwardian. That style of filigree setting was popular in the 1910s and early 1920s. I guess this could be a reproduction or a later example of an earlier style.

I think @LilAlex is asking whether there are tiny diamonds set into the setting in a ring just under the big diamond, circling it. Is that any clearer?

EGL has been criticized for perhaps assigning better color and clarity grades to diamonds than stricter labs like GIA. I've never seen them criticized for assigning the wrong dates to finished pieces of jewelry.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Do you have any close up pictures of the diamond? I’d like a better view of the faceting to age it. But based on the more splintery look I would guess 30s and maybe even 40s which would be consistent with a revival setting.

It’s gorgeous!

 

[snaphappy]

What a beautiful diamond! The setting suits it well, too.

I would probably not call that style art deco, which I think of as more geometric. I would probably call it Edwardian. That style of filigree setting was popular in the 1910s and early 1920s. I guess this could be a reproduction or a later example of an earlier style.

I think @LilAlex is asking whether there are tiny diamonds set into the setting in a ring just under the big diamond, circling it. Is that any clearer?

EGL has been criticized for perhaps assigning better color and clarity grades to diamonds than stricter labs like GIA. I've never seen them criticized for assigning the wrong dates to finished pieces of jewelry.

Oh yes, the little diamonds go all the way around. One person on reddit suggested these little diamonds were cut off this diamond when it was a larger OEC or OMC. Pure speculation though. Fun to think about though

 

[glitterata]

Oh yes, the little diamonds go all the way around. One person on reddit suggested these little diamonds were cut off this diamond when it was a larger OEC or OMC. Pure speculation though. Fun to think about though

No, they weren't cut off the central diamond. That's not how diamond cutting works. They were bought separately when the setting was manufactured. If you had a very clear photo of the little diamonds, the way they're cut might give us a clue to the age of the setting. But I think c. 1920 is probably right.

 

[snaphappy]

Do you have any close up pictures of the diamond? I’d like a better view of the faceting to age it. But based on the more splintery look I would guess 30s and maybe even 40s which would be consistent with a revival setting.

It’s gorgeous!

Here are a few. I was trying to get a pic of the big yellow inclusion under the prong. I think this is the reason for the low price. It’s a pretty nasty inclusion. But since it’s near the prong, when my wife is wearing it, she can’t even see it. I told her it’s there, but she doesn’t believe me. Some people don’t seem to notice inclusions.

 

[snaphappy]

No, they weren't cut off the central diamond. That's not how diamond cutting works. They were bought separately when the setting was manufactured. If you had a very clear photo of the little diamonds, the way they're cut might give us a clue to the age of the setting. But I think c. 1920 is probably right.

Here are some I just took. My poor diamond looks so yucky in these pics. She’s better than this! Ok but little diamonds. Here ya go. This filigree is handmade? Looks wonky up close.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Thanks! It remind me a lot of Circe’s transitional. She says hers is probably 1920s and apparently Al Gilbertson says in his book American Cut that some cutters were doing very long lower girdle facets in the 1920s… so it’s possible your stone is from that era. Plus it had a frosted/bruted girdle. I associate the more splintery look with slightly later, but then again by the 30s and 40s the crowns of the diamonds and tables were getting flatter and bigger. So given the similarity to Circe’s Diamond (a transitional with an OEC crown and MRB pavilion) I’m going to tentatively say 1920s is a good estimate.

#JOTW Thread 'Vintage Anniversary Ring- 2.5 carats of transitional-cut joy'

Sep 29, 2011

When I got engaged, I knew that I'd never want to upgrade ... but I never said anything about not adorning the other 9 fingers! In point of fact, I kidded about it from the get-go: my husband was my best friend before we were ever together in a romantic fashion, and he knew what he was getting in for.

This year we're celebrating our fifth year of being together, fourth year of being married: we're expecting our first child; and, well, there's just an awful lot to celebrate. So I got an awful lot of ring.

Back in the summer, we started talking a little more...

• Circe
• jotw
• Replies: 77
• Forum: Show Me the Bling! (Rings, Earrings, Jewelry)

Those diamonds in the setting are single cuts right @glitterata? And the setting looks hand carved. Could be contemporary to the diamond.

 

[Dreamer_D]

BTW I would bet GiA would say much much more tinted than K (maybe OP?) color and I2. Is the inclusion entirely internal and have you asked a reputable independent appraiser to ensure it’s not a durability risk? I also don’t care about inclusions if I can’t see them but that’s a biggun’

 

[snaphappy]

BTW I would bet GiA would say much much more tinted than K (maybe OP?) color and I2. Is the inclusion entirely internal and have you asked a reputable independent appraiser to ensure it’s not a durability risk? I also don’t care about inclusions if I can’t see them but that’s a biggun’

Yeah we're comfortable with the idea that it's more tinted than k. It's like a mood ring. It changes constantly. But it has so much fire!! It's like a disco ball. Sometimes in the car, the entire cabin has rainbows everywhere.

I tried to research inclusions to determine if this thing could grow. A local jeweler told me the inclusion could grow like a crack in a windshield. But then he scolded me for buying antique jewelry. He told me if it grows I should file a claim with my insurance. I have it insured with Jeweler Mutual. So I just don't know if he's trustworthy or if I should be concerned.

Edit: Oh also, first thing he told me was: "this is a fake lab grown diamond. You should never buy anything off the internet". So I just don't trust him.

 

[Dreamer_D]

Yeah we're comfortable with the idea that it's more tinted than k. It's like a mood ring. It changes constantly. But it has so much fire!! It's like a disco ball. Sometimes in the car, the entire cabin has rainbows everywhere.

I tried to research inclusions to determine if this thing could grow. A local jeweler told me the inclusion could grow like a crack in a windshield. But then he scolded me for buying antique jewelry. He told me if it grows I should file a claim with my insurance. I have it insured with Jeweler Mutual. So I just don't know if he's trustworthy or if I should be concerned.

Edit: Oh also, first thing he told me was: "this is a fake lab grown diamond. You should never buy anything off the internet". So I just don't trust him.

Yes that is clearly not a reputable source of info.

I brought up the color and clarity only as info for you to ensure you paid a fair price. It’s a beautiful ring.

 

[glitterata]

Thanks for the additional photos. I THINK those little diamonds are (somewhat wonky) single cuts, though I'm not 100% sure there aren't some rose cuts in there too. Anyway, the cut is in keeping with a 1910s-20s date. I'm not really sure about the manufacturing technique of the setting. You would expect something from that period to be die stamped, but it looks blurry enough that it might be a cast. I see some small hand-engraved details, but I'm not sure if it's hand pierced. It might be. I'm no expert.

The setting is not the highest quality, which makes sense because the center stone isn't either, but overall it's a fantastic look! Just magical. I would be very proud to wear it myself.

I personally LIKE inclusions, as long as they don't threaten the durability or ruin the sparkle. They add personality.

The diamond looks a bit dirty in these photos. If you keep it clean (soak for a few minutes in a little bowl of room-temperature water with a few drops of dishwashing liquid added, brush gently with a soft toothbrush, rinse by swirling in a bowl of clear room-temp water, pat dry with a paper towel or glasses-cleaning cloth), it will sparkle even more.

 

[snaphappy]

I’ve learned a lot! I feel confident it’s not a postwar revival piece. It’s really neat knowing we have something that’s 100 years old! I like imagining the flapper that wore it.

I think sacrificing quality in favor of size is a lot of fun. Getting a big ol diamond on the cheap is very exciting when you grew up poor.

 

[VRBeauty]

The setting is almost certainly cast. That doesn’t mean it’s not authentic to the 20’s or 30’s. I’m sure jewelry was offered in a variety of price ranges then as it is now. I have some rings inherited from my father that I know are from that era. They’re ni filigree, but… in some cases the settings don’t fit the stones exactly, or vice versa. It’s as if they ordered the nearest best setting from a Stuller catalog! We tend to focus on the exquisite handmade antiques, but I’m sure many people were wearing beautiful pieces that were made using less expensive techniques.

I think that “pretty nasty” big yellow inclusion is fascinating! I wonder if it’s an included crystal? If you have a chance, take it to a jewelry shop where they’ll let you see it under a good microscope! (The center stone in my favorite ring has a little tiny carbon crystal right near the culet. It looks almost like a bird in flight! I used to be able to pick it out - barely - without a loupe, but since I got my vision “corrected,” I can barely pick it out even with a loupe. I miss seeing it!)

If you haven’t already done so, take it in to a good jeweler and have those prongs checked - especially the prongs on the little stones surrounding the center stone.

BTW the cut looks a lot like the big (~2 ct) diamond I inherited from my grandmother, via my mother. Not perfect, but beautiful in its own right.

 

[snaphappy]

The setting is almost certainly cast. That doesn’t mean it’s not authentic to the 20’s or 30’s. I’m sure jewelry was offered in a variety of price ranges then as it is now. I have some rings inherited from my father that I know are from that era. They’re ni filigree, but… in some cases the settings don’t fit the stones exactly, or vice versa. It’s as if they ordered the nearest best setting from a Stuller catalog! We tend to focus on the exquisite handmade antiques, but I’m sure many people were wearing beautiful pieces that were made using less expensive techniques.

I think that “pretty nasty” big yellow inclusion is fascinating! I wonder if it’s an included crystal? If you have a chance, take it to a jewelry shop where they’ll let you see it under a good microscope! (The center stone in my favorite ring has a little tiny carbon crystal right near the culet. It looks almost like a bird in flight! I used to be able to pick it out - barely - without a loupe, but since I got my vision “corrected,” I can barely pick it out even with a loupe. I miss seeing it!)

If you haven’t already done so, take it in to a good jeweler and have those prongs checked - especially the prongs on the little stones surrounding the center stone.

BTW the cut looks a lot like the big (~2 ct) diamond I inherited from my grandmother, via my mother. Not perfect, but beautiful in its own right.

I need to find something that shows the difference between cast and hand made filigree. I want to learn about it! My wife is obsessed with filigree

 

[Dreamer_D]

I need to find something that shows the difference between cast and hand made filigree. I want to learn about it! My wife is obsessed with filigree

Best quality from that era is die struck so look into that too.

 

[LightBright]

I’m pretty sure this is a post-Edwardian repro of an Edwardian filigree setting.

The diamond is a circular brilliant, I’m guessing one of the earliest examples. It has a tiny culet and a bruted girdle, so I’m guessing it’s a true antique.

Gilded Lane has a similarly cut stone. I can’t find a photo of her onyx art deco style repro setting, please anyone post here if you find it. I think her diamond has similar faceting.

The setting is very puzzling. The .9 Platinum is not a stamp commonly used (please correct me if I’m wrong). If it was iridium plus platinum alloy from the 1920s-1930s it could say Platinum, or 10% irid etc. I’ve never seen 0.9 Platinum used as a purity stamp in USA. Setting does look cast to me.

The tiny diamonds around the girdle on the setting are single cuts, rose cuts andwhat looks like very old square mine cuts. This is also puzzling. Jewelers didn’t usually mix melee diamonds like that in one setting. They still look cool and are pretty but it’s not usually mixed to that extent. The single cuts mean Edwardian or later. Maybe they are replacements? The other cuts are much older.

It’s still a beautiful ring. I love it. And I think it’s at least early 20th century or the components are at least.

 

[LightBright]

This ring is an example of typical Edwardian filigree. I think!

See how crisp it is? Because it’s so symmetrical, I think this might be an example of “die struck”.

Art Deco White Gold Rose Cut Fancy Jubilee Diamond Engagement Ring 14k Stamped | eBay

Diamond Specs: 1 fancy jubilee. rose cut diamond 4.8mm. Hallmarks: 14k. Specs: face 11.8mm wide, side band. diamond and ring is due. Condition: excellent antique.

www.ebay.com

OTOH My original Art Deco setting has some lacy elements that are lopsided and asymmetrical! I’m positive mine was hand soldered, prior to the die struck filigree being invented. The ring I link to is perfectly symmetrical, indicating mechanical standardization (eg die struck filigree).

 

[snaphappy]

I’m pretty sure this is a post-Edwardian repro of an Edwardian filigree setting.

The diamond is a circular brilliant, I’m guessing one of the earliest examples. It has a tiny culet and a bruted girdle, so I’m guessing it’s a true antique.

Gilded Lane has a similarly cut stone. I can’t find a photo of her onyx art deco style repro setting, please anyone post here if you find it. I think her diamond has similar faceting.

The setting is very puzzling. The .9 Platinum is not a stamp commonly used (please correct me if I’m wrong). If it was iridium plus platinum alloy from the 1920s-1930s it could say Platinum, or 10% irid etc. I’ve never seen 0.9 Platinum used as a purity stamp in USA. Setting does look cast to me.

The tiny diamonds around the girdle on the setting are single cuts, rose cuts andwhat looks like very old square mine cuts. This is also puzzling. Jewelers didn’t usually mix melee diamonds like that in one setting. They still look cool and are pretty but it’s not usually mixed to that extent. The single cuts mean Edwardian or later. Maybe they are replacements? The other cuts are much older.

It’s still a beautiful ring. I love it. And I think it’s at least early 20th century or the components are at least.

It says .9 plat but yeah all your comments are very compelling. Maybe WWI just ended. Or the pandemic just ended. The person who makes the band is old school? Makes an edwardian type band? Maybe they’re getting rid of old inventory? Maybe they don’t have a lot of little diamonds and use old ones? Maybe they melt down a platnium piece or two, make this from an older piece (s) and that’s why there’s so many different cuts? I’m just having fun making up different scenarios haha

Do you have any thoughts on the filgree? Is it die cast? I just started researching die cast today.

Ty for your feedback

 

[snaphappy]

This ring is an example of typical Edwardian filigree. I think!

See how crisp it is? Because it’s so symmetrical, I think this might be an example of “die struck”.

Art Deco White Gold Rose Cut Fancy Jubilee Diamond Engagement Ring 14k Stamped | eBay

Diamond Specs: 1 fancy jubilee. rose cut diamond 4.8mm. Hallmarks: 14k. Specs: face 11.8mm wide, side band. diamond and ring is due. Condition: excellent antique.

www.ebay.com

OTOH My original Art Deco filigree setting is asymmetrical! I’m positive mine was hand soldered, because it’s not as ornate and slightly lopsided. The ring I link to is perfectly symmetrical, indicating mechanical standardization.

So in your opinion it’s not die cast? Does that mean the filigree is all made and assembled by hand?

Perhaps we have an edwardian designer who is very forward thinking and this setting would’ve been “modern” to their eyes?

But then, the main diamond poses a problem, because the cut is too modern for edwardian?

 

[LightBright]

So in your opinion it’s not die cast? Does that mean the filigree is all made and assembled by hand?

Perhaps we have an edwardian designer who is very forward thinking and this setting would’ve been “modern” to their eyes?

But then, the main diamond poses a problem, because the cut is too modern for edwardian?

No I agree with the previous poster that it is cast. To me it looks like a “revival” not an original. The diamond looks like it was cut in the 1920s-1930s.

Stop the presses. We need an evaluation of die struck versus cast.

Because I am finding examples of die struck that are rougher than the link I posted.

Anyone have thought on this?

 

[LightBright]

Maybe the one I linked to above was hand soldered? it’s so crisp, but it’s so symmetrical.

For comparison this ring i link below is considered die struck. It’s pretty rough compared to the one I posted above. It looks similar to yours in some ways.

Hopefully someone will educate us soon.

Size 5.5 Art Deco Diamond Die Struck Filigree Ring For Sale on Ruby Lane

For Sale - Vintage Rings from PrettyImpracticals - Art Deco Engagement Ring — Genuine Diamond — Solid GoldA gift box will be included. Condition as pictured.Approximate Dimensions—size 5.5—5/16 tall face—8.2 x 19.9 mm ‘spread’—band tapers to 0.9 mm—2

www.rubylane.com

But this one looks very crisp. Also die struck filigree. Stones look like single cuts.

Size 6.75 Art Deco Midnight Sapphire & Diamond 900 Platinum Ring For Sale on Ruby Lane

For Sale - Antique Rings from PrettyImpracticals - Size 6.75 Art Deco Midnight Sapphire & Diamond Platinum RingThere are some 'flea-bite chips on the stones. The ring was likely sized by the original manufacturer to size 6.75 using gold solder. Pre-owned condition as pictured. Approximate

www.rubylane.com

 

[Ibrakeforpossums]

Love the ring! Perfectly imperfect, in the best way.
What a great thread you've led us down!

 

[LightBright]

I found Gilded Lane’s ring. Her diamond is modern; a modern round brilliant in a repro art deco setting.

I’m also going to post a link to an early modern brilliant with a culet and a bruted girdle.

I think the diamond posted by OP looks similar, maybe it’s one of the early MRBs. I think it’s old because it has a bruted girdle and tiny culet. But how old, not sure. Mysterious.

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

Thread 'What kind of diamond is this? Early RB? Late transitional? Poorly cut modern round?'

Aug 7, 2023

Hi all, I just purchased this stone because I couldn’t get over how interesting it was and pretty to my eyes. GIA calls it a round brilliant and the stone has a culet. The proportions on the stone are also numbers I can’t really interpret. I’m not a modern cut expert but I thought the arrows were a little fat for an MRB. I think I got a really good deal for it and have no plans of selling it so at the end of the day I don’t really care what it is, but thought I’d share and get people’s thoughts.

• sweetpea&babycorn
• Replies: 4
• Forum: RockyTalky (Diamond Discussion)

• 

 

[glitterata]

Here's some info about the die-striking process:

Die Striking Jewelry | Whitehouse Brothers

Every Whitehouse Brothers piece of jewelry is manufactured using the die striking method. Hundreds of special dies have been handmade in our shop over the past 120 years. Our precious metal sheet is forged into dies under many tons of pressure to shape our jewelry.

www.whitehousebrothers.com

 

[snaphappy]

I found Gilded Lane’s ring. Her diamond is modern; a modern round brilliant in a repro art deco setting.

I’m also going to post a link to an early modern brilliant with a culet and a bruted girdle.

I think the diamond posted by OP looks similar, maybe it’s one of the early MRBs. I think it’s old because it has a bruted girdle and tiny culet. But how old, not sure. Mysterious.

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

Thread 'What kind of diamond is this? Early RB? Late transitional? Poorly cut modern round?'

Aug 7, 2023

Hi all, I just purchased this stone because I couldn’t get over how interesting it was and pretty to my eyes. GIA calls it a round brilliant and the stone has a culet. The proportions on the stone are also numbers I can’t really interpret. I’m not a modern cut expert but I thought the arrows were a little fat for an MRB. I think I got a really good deal for it and have no plans of selling it so at the end of the day I don’t really care what it is, but thought I’d share and get people’s thoughts.

• sweetpea&babycorn
• Replies: 4
• Forum: RockyTalky (Diamond Discussion)

• 

Her diamond is much much cleaner and prettier!! Stunning!

 

[snaphappy]

AI thinks it's die struck. Based on some very amateur research here I'm starting to think that way too. Die struck doesn't actually add any monetary value right? Just a neat historical anecdote?

I noticed some of you mentioned bruted girdle. I just researched that. I had no idea what this meant. Based on very little research, it seems bruted girdles were not exactly common in the 1920's.

I wasn't really open to the idea of this being an edwardian piece. But bruted girdle, odd mix of old (melee?) diamonds, and open windows in the filigree, oh and die struck filigree (if that's the case here).... well it all does seem to point to the edwardian period. Or maybe 1918-1922, when edwardian influences were still lingering.

I've learned so much and can't thank everyone enough!

 

[LightBright]

AI thinks it's die struck. Based on some very amateur research here I'm starting to think that way too. Die struck doesn't actually add any monetary value right? Just a neat historical anecdote?

Looking closely at this metal work I think it’s die struck, yes. If it’s die struck, it’s valuable for collectors because it’s a rare technology now. And die struck presumably dates the piece to early 20th Century. And we love that ornate detail/filigree. I don’t think the price difference would show up in a vintage piece because no one seems to price according to the immense amount of labor and craftsmanship that went into antique settings. Just think, they had to hand select melee. They engraved They hand bruted the girdle, even if it is a more modern stone, the bruted girdle is done by hand, etc.

Pre-owned seem to cost roughly the same no matter the technology usually priced by metal weight, and if you had a setting like this made today it would cost much more than a pre-owned piece.

Regarding the “clean-ness” of your stone, have you tried gently soaking it with warm water and Dawn dish soap and gently using a baby toothbrush carefully to get it clean? Your stone looks lively and the color is gorgeous. I wonder if you could start by home cleaning, always in a bowl never near a drain. Be careful about prongs, check every prong to make sure you don’t lose stones.

I just rewatched your video and the rainbow flashes (Fire) coming off your diamond are awesome. Setting is intricate and perfect for this diamond. Fantastic.

Let us see more photos! Hand shots! Beautiful ring!