Question : Gold color in antique pieces vs modern pieces (high carat)

[Mreader]

One of the things I would like to eventually have (among the many of the long list...) is a high carat gold band. Like 22k. I would prefer antique because of the romantic nature of it of course, but over the holiday I almost pulled the trigger on a 24k band that was vintage but not antique bc the price was really good. I kind of regret it because it was my size and 5 grams and $380 w a best offer button and it sold. I was wondering if the antique lovers out there though notice a difference in color between antique and modern bands even if the gold is the same content. It seems that the antique just have that lovely warm buttery color. I have two photos, the first one is the 24k I passed on (I tend to have reverse buyers remorse lol), and the second picture is a true antique. It is 22k and more money; but the shape and color is so pretty. The pic is of my monitor so it may look weird.

So anyway do you all think that the antique bands have a nicer color? Maybe just the patina with age is what I am seeing? Would love to know your thoughts. Tagging antique lovers @PreRaphaelite and @stracci2000



AI love

 

[stracci2000]

You are going to get a more yellow color with 22k gold. But the difference may be really subtle. It may also depend on the alloy used.
I do not have a 22k ring, but I have a 21k ring.
In this pic below, all the rings are 18k, and the one on the far right is 21k.
The first 18k ring on the left almost looks greenish compared to the other 18ks. It's from Turkey, so who knows what the alloys were, but it tests 18k.
Anyway, see how the far right 21k compares to the 18ks. Some 18ks can look really yellow compared to others.
Also, keep in mind that 22k will be much softer and will eventually get a softer look from tiny scratches over time, with wear.
In your first pic, that ring is really scratched up! (I would be itching to polish that baby)

So to answer your question, an older and worn unpolished ring will have a softer look, if that's what you mean by patina in this case.
I hope this post made sense!

 

[Mreader]

You are going to get a more yellow color with 22k gold. But the difference may be really subtle. It may also depend on the alloy used.
I do not have a 22k ring, but I have a 21k ring.
In this pic below, all the rings are 18k, and the one on the far right is 21k.
The first 18k ring on the left almost looks greenish compared to the other 18ks. It's from Turkey, so who knows what the alloys were, but it tests 18k.
Anyway, see how the far right 21k compares to the 18ks. Some 18ks can look really yellow compared to others.
Also, keep in mind that 22k will be much softer and will eventually get a softer look from tiny scratches over time, with wear.
In your first pic, that ring is really scratched up! (I would be itching to polish that baby)

So to answer your question, an older and worn unpolished ring will have a softer look, if that's what you mean by patina in this case.
I hope this post made sense!

It’s helpful thank you!!

 

[yssie]

Alloy colour can vary rather noticeably even in 22k. My family’s 22k from India is much more orange than most of the 22k I’ve seen in the US, which errs green to my eyes. Presumably the Indian gold is alloyed primarily with copper and the US stuff with silver.

Alloy composition explanation - this is a patent, but there’s some discussion of material preference for different uses. Just as an example how how much alloy variance there can be even in high-karat gold.

WO2002018664A1 - 22k gold alloy compositions - Google Patents

Novel 22k gold alloys including silver, boron, cobalt and copper. The alloys meet modern jewelry fabrication techniques requirements and exhibit pleasing yellow color. They are stable under normal use and do not appreciably tarnish. They also have substantially no discoloring effect on the skin...

patents.google.com

Chart from that link above for quick reference:

 

[diamondyes]

I find that brand new gold looks so yellow to me and the antique looks more brown yellow or copper yellow which I love and greatly prefer.

 

[lala646]

I don't know if these photos capture the nuance well, but these rings are 22/24K on the left (it's Chinese gold, so we don't know the exact content), 18K for the middle two, and 14K on the right. The tone is definitely rich. I love it, even (or maybe especially) with its million little scratches.

 

[Mreader]

I don't know if these photos capture the nuance well, but these rings are 22/24K on the left (it's Chinese gold, so we don't know the exact content), 18K for the middle two, and 14K on the right. The tone is definitely rich. I love it, even (or maybe especially) with its million little scratches.

So beautiful!

 

[LilAlex]

I have two photos, the first one is the 24k I passed on (I tend to have reverse buyers remorse lol), and the second picture is a true antique. It is 22k and more money; but the shape and color is so pretty. The pic is of my monitor so it may look weird.

That second picture is not reliable. I would not infer from this that new and old 22K are different. (But maybe you were just using that as an example of what you have already noticed in person.)

We have a new 22K gold ring that is custom and US-made by a very experienced goldsmith. It is bright yellow almost leaning toward orange, as @yssie says above, and not at all green. I can try to find out what the alloy was since I know who made it (literally). It is very different from any of our 18K yellow gold. I don't know about scratches -- I mean I am expecting them but it is matte-finish.

 

[Mreader]

That second picture is not reliable. I would not infer from this that new and old 22K are different. (But maybe you were just using that as an example of what you have already noticed in person.)

We have a new 22K gold ring that is custom and US-made by a very experienced goldsmith. It is bright yellow almost leaning toward orange, as @yssie says above, and not at all green. I can try to find out what the alloy was since I know who made it (literally). It is very different from any of our 18K yellow gold. I don't know about scratches -- I mean I am expecting them but it is matte-finish.

When you say the 2nd pic isn’t reliable do you think there is a filter or it’s been altered? And nope I haven’t seen or compared in person.

 

[LilAlex]

When you say the 2nd pic isn’t reliable do you think there is a filter or it’s been altered? And nope I haven’t seen or compared in person.

i don't mean maliciously altered -- just that pure gold does not look like that. I have seen enough 0.999 gold or whatever it's called in coins and medals to know that that is not a color that gold comes in -- that fluorescent sulfur-yellow in the screen grab in your post. So do not go by that. Maybe go to a coin shop or look at a Krugerand, etc. (I know your and @yssie 's point was that 22K is not the same as 24K and not all 22K is exactly the same, so maybe that is not helpful.)

A matte finish cuts down the reflection and I do think that plays up the actual color of the metal (just like for platinum). I love the the look of a colored stone in antique high-karat gold.

Also, the skinnier the band, the less obvious the color difference from the adjacent stacker.

 

[PreRaphaelite]

I love the colour of old gold - and the differing alloys make such a subtle contrast when worn together. It's gotten so that my eye is cast askance at new gold, as much as I love it on other people. Call it quirky, but if a piece is nearly brown-gold, I snap it up.

Peach gold is the closest match with my skin, and I seek it out, so I know what you mean when you talk about the glow. It's almost from-within.

 

[theredspinel]

The discrepancy in colour specifically between very old and new gold (with the same karatage say 21k) is down to the other alloys mixed with the gold having reacted with oxygen, over time.

This is why antique gold is usually darker, whilst the actual gold doesn’t react with oxygen, the other alloys do thus altering the overall colour slightly.

ETA: this post is in addition to @yssie one, which describes how the same karatage of gold can be different colours due to using different ratios of the additional alloys.

 

[LilAlex]

but if a piece is nearly brown-gold, I snap it up.

I just saw a "sponsored" IG post pop up shilling a brown-ish "Fawn Gold," which they claim is particularly well-suited to darker skin tones. Gotta say it looks like it would be, but I can do without the mind-reading targeted ads...

 

[Mreader]

I just found a 22 karat band that I almost pulled the trigger on but then I saw it has been “professionally polished“ . Probably not good right? The patina will be buffed off?

 

[LilAlex]

I just found a 22 karat band that I almost pulled the trigger on but then I saw it has been “professionally polished“ . Probably not good right? The patina will be buffed off?

Is it detailed or smooth? If smooth, you will create your own "patina" pretty quick in 22K.

 

[Mreader]

Is it detailed or smooth? If smooth, you will create your own "patina" pretty quick in 22K.

It’s smooth. It’s just a plain band.

 

[Mreader]

Is it detailed or smooth? If smooth, you will create your own "patina" pretty quick in 22K.

How long do you think? Also tagging @stracci2000 and @PreRaphaelite . This band is from 1855 and I got more pics and it’s is quite shiny. the first pic you don’t see it bc shows more the rim and inside but the second shows the shininess. Would it take another 100 yrs to soften lol? Frustrating bc perfect size and weight for what I’m looking for and in a good price point.

 

[stracci2000]

How long do you think? Also tagging @stracci2000 and @PreRaphaelite . This band is from 1855 and I got more pics and it’s is quite shiny. the first pic you don’t see it bc shows more the rim and inside but the second shows the shininess. Would it take another 100 yrs to soften lol? Frustrating bc perfect size and weight for what I’m looking for and in a good price point.

I would think that if you wore this constantly, the shine would soften up in several months, easily. Maybe not as much as you would like, though. You can speed up the process with steel wool, if you really want to.
I have several 14k bands that I rarely remove, and I have to re-polish them every several months because they get scratched up. I polished them last month, and look at them now.

ETA:
I did an experiment for you just now.
I rubbed this one gently with steel wool, and rolled it over some fine sand paper to further enhance that aged look. (It's the one in the above photo on the left)

 

[PreRaphaelite]

Thanks for the tag!

If the ring pictured above intrigues you, grab it!

"Professionally polished" almost certainly removed the patina - but also may have improved deeper scratches, and that will be a benefit. The new polishing job will have increased the reflection ability of the gold, smoothing the surface reflection lengthwise (looooooooong shiny) but you can reduce that shine into a satin, non-mirror effect.

Generally, you can re-patina the ring easily, both in the short term using Magic Eraser using small circular strokes, and in the long term from regular wear. But since the seller had it repoloshed, you could also request them to have a satin finish put on by the same bench.

It's beautiful!

 

[LilAlex]

This band is from 1855 and I got more pics and it’s is quite shiny. the first pic you don’t see it bc shows more the rim and inside but the second shows the shininess. Would it take another 100 yrs to soften lol?

Wow -- the inside is gorgeous!. I would get it and get to work on that patina! My point somewhere up above is that if there had been a lot of contrast with deeply engraved recesses, that could look hokey for a while. But this should be fine.

Kudos to @stracci2000 for doing the actual experiment! My smooth, shiny 14K wedding band acquired a lot of "character" from all the rock handholds needed where we used to hike (and live). A (terrible) jeweler practically pulled it off my finger to "polish" and I was really unhappy with the result. Looked like I just got married that morning . Two decades later it still does not have its granite gouges but it definitely has that post-steel wool look above.

 

[Mreader]

Wow -- the inside is gorgeous!. I would get it and get to work on that patina! My point somewhere up above is that if there had been a lot of contrast with deeply engraved recesses, that could look hokey for a while. But this should be fine.

Kudos to @stracci2000 for doing the actual experiment! My smooth, shiny 14K wedding band acquired a lot of "character" from all the rock handholds needed where we used to hike (and live). A (terrible) jeweler practically pulled it off my finger to "polish" and I was really unhappy with the result. Looked like I just got married that morning . Two decades later it still does not have its granite gouges but it definitely has that post-steel wool look above.

Thanks for all the advice guys I did purchase. I have been searching forever. You would think a plain gold band would be easy to find! But they were too skinny or flimsy or not the right size. This one is 3.5mm and 5 g so seems perfect. It’s coming from UK which I typically avoid overseas purchasing but it hit all the marks

 

[PreRaphaelite]

Can't wait to see it!

 

[Mreader]

I would think that if you wore this constantly, the shine would soften up in several months, easily. Maybe not as much as you would like, though. You can speed up the process with steel wool, if you really want to.
I have several 14k bands that I rarely remove, and I have to re-polish them every several months because they get scratched up. I polished them last month, and look at them now.

ETA:
I did an experiment for you just now.
I rubbed this one gently with steel wool, and rolled it over some fine sand paper to further enhance that aged look. (It's the one in the above photo on the left)

That’s such a cool experiment @stracci2000 ! Thanks for sharing!

 

[stracci2000]

That’s such a cool experiment @stracci2000 ! Thanks for sharing!

The things I do for the love of jewelry!

 

[stracci2000]

@Mreader
It's a really beautiful ring! I'm looking forward to seeing it on your finger!

 

[Rhea]

Be careful of sellers claiming 1850's and 1860's date letters. The font styles are reused so those look similar to the 1930's and 1940's and seller will say they've gone by the background shape, but those are looked up in silver books (there are no gold books that I know of) so aren't always right, the background shape was different for silver and gold. The assay office would be able to say for sure, but I'm guessing it might be 1931 rather than 1855, both years are the same font, but with cut corners for gold in both cases according to the assay office that hallmarked it (see attachment).

 

[Mreader]

Be careful of sellers claiming 1850's and 1860's date letters. The font styles are reused so those look similar to the 1930's and 1940's and seller will say they've gone by the background shape, but those are looked up in silver books (there are no gold books that I know of) so aren't always right, the background shape was different for silver and gold. The assay office would be able to say for sure, but I'm guessing it might be 1931 rather than 1855, both years are the same font, but with cut corners for gold in both cases according to the assay office that hallmarked it (see attachment).

Thanks for this! The 1931 symbol in this chart has that little point at the end though, which I don’t see in the pic.

ETA better photo from listing of the Hallmark.

 

[stracci2000]

Be careful of sellers claiming 1850's and 1860's date letters. The font styles are reused so those look similar to the 1930's and 1940's and seller will say they've gone by the background shape, but those are looked up in silver books (there are no gold books that I know of) so aren't always right, the background shape was different for silver and gold. The assay office would be able to say for sure, but I'm guessing it might be 1931 rather than 1855, both years are the same font, but with cut corners for gold in both cases according to the assay office that hallmarked it (see attachment).

@Rhea
This is a really great resource.
Can you share the website where it came from? Thanks a bunch!

 

[Mreader]

Now I’m becoming more intrigued because there are initials too and I think those jewelers were not around in 1855 but actually in the late 1800s… This is not a dealbreaker for me but I do want to do more digging to see if I can more accurately pin down the year. And it just shows how important it is to do homework and not rely always on what the seller says even if they are an antique dealer!

 

[Rhea]

@stracci2000 It's the Birmingham assay office website - the people who hallmarked the ring, that's the anchor symbol.

I agree @Mreader but it also shows that as well not just relying on the seller, sometimes it's just impossible to tell. There is very little difference between the two marks. I tried to find the maker to back up my thoughts but couldn't find them. If there's an exact match for the 1855 and the seller can't find the maker either than it's a deadend with a very educated 1855.

I saw that a seller recently said it could be this or that, about 2 decades apart, and gave reasons why they thought it was the later. But I see sellers all the time who assume it's the earlier one including a couple of big Etsy and Instagram sellers.