Value of antique vs. re-creation

[Pinkmartini87]

@MiniMinerva here’s a ring I found very similar to yours in platinum and yellow gold, dating from the 1940s-50s. Note differences in the molding detail of your prongs/shoulder vs theirs. Their hallmark is a bit unusual too at least in my opinion. 18ct suggests European origin but more unusual (although not impossible) to have no other hallmarks (ie Birmingham, etc) for a UK piece unless hallmark was lost due to sizing, etc, or unless it’s a more recent piece.

Personally, I prefer yours (finer molding suggesting hand crafted to me than mold/cast produced). Again, if the hallmarks help in your case, I would date your ring most likely Edwardian, with maybe some rehab done in the years after.

This item is unavailable - Etsy

Find the perfect handmade gift, vintage & on-trend clothes, unique jewelry, and more… lots more.

www.etsy.com

 

[MiniMinerva]

Wow, @Pinkmartini87...thank you for taking the time to find a similarly constructed ring and pointing out the similarities and differences. I was a lurker here a long time before creating an account recently and I’ve been really touched by how kind and knowledgeable people are here.

Style/period dating seems like magic to me and I’m impressed by your eye for detail. I looked up a bunch of Edwardian jewelry today after your conclusion about my ring and I think I’m starting to see the differences between that period and Art Deco, but I’m a little confused by the period called Art Nouveau, which had more nature-inspired lines? I thought the prongs on my ring looked a little flowery, do you think this period could have had an influence?

I’m flattered that you prefer the molding on the one I selected! I was drawn to its delicacy and craftsmanship. I like the idea that it was hand-crafted...and depending on hallmarks, possibly Edwardian with rehab. I’m extra-eager to get the photos from the vendor now...I will be posting them here the minute I have them.

Thanks again for sharing your expertise!

 

[Pinkmartini87]

Wow, @Pinkmartini87...thank you for taking the time to find a similarly constructed ring and pointing out the similarities and differences. I was a lurker here a long time before creating an account recently and I’ve been really touched by how kind and knowledgeable people are here.

Style/period dating seems like magic to me and I’m impressed by your eye for detail. I looked up a bunch of Edwardian jewelry today after your conclusion about my ring and I think I’m starting to see the differences between that period and Art Deco, but I’m a little confused by the period called Art Nouveau, which had more nature-inspired lines? I thought the prongs on my ring looked a little flowery, do you think this period could have had an influence?

I’m flattered that you prefer the molding on the one I selected! I was drawn to its delicacy and craftsmanship. I like the idea that it was hand-crafted...and depending on hallmarks, possibly Edwardian with rehab. I’m extra-eager to get the photos from the vendor now...I will be posting them here the minute I have them.

Thanks again for sharing your expertise!

Art nouveau features can be found in Edwardian pieces since the two periods overlap by many years. In fact, many Edwardian pieces can also contain strong elements of nature in style/theme (for instance, lace-like patterns via intricate filigree echoing the Fibonacci sequence found in the natural world).

The textbook art nouveau tends to emphasize workmanship and theme over material, so often you may see gorgeous enameling and intricate sterling settings (neither of which are inherently expensive but then again the value of art nouveau is often in the aesthetic, the storytelling, and of course the maker’s reputation and pride of place in the craftsmen community—ie Lalique, for instance, made many beautiful jewelry pieces in addition to his more well known glasswork). Same with stones—pearls and opals and even frosted glass are selected for instance over diamonds or sapphires. Platinum is not a preferred material for nouveau.

Edwardian jewelry however, invests again in the intrinsic value of metal and stones. So we see again a resurgence of precious metals and the expensive stones.

To me at least, Victorian jewelry tends to embody a sentiment, Art Nouveau weaves a story/mystique, Edwardian is about showing off, and Art Deco bares modernism with new boldness of design and color (heyday of colored stones in a way not previously widely recognized. Think huge star sapphires of Hollywood stars like Carole Lombard, Cartier’s tutti frutti designs, etc).

Keep us all posted!

 

[MiniMinerva]

Art nouveau features can be found in Edwardian pieces since the two periods overlap by many years. In fact, many Edwardian pieces can also contain strong elements of nature in style/theme (for instance, lace-like patterns via intricate filigree echoing the Fibonacci sequence found in the natural world).

The textbook art nouveau tends to emphasize workmanship and theme over material, so often you may see gorgeous enameling and intricate sterling settings (neither of which are inherently expensive but then again the value of art nouveau is often in the aesthetic, the storytelling, and of course the maker’s reputation and pride of place in the craftsmen community—ie Lalique, for instance, made many beautiful jewelry pieces in addition to his more well known glasswork). Same with stones—pearls and opals and even frosted glass are selected for instance over diamonds or sapphires. Platinum is not a preferred material for nouveau.

Edwardian jewelry however, invests again in the intrinsic value of metal and stones. So we see again a resurgence of precious metals and the expensive stones.

To me at least, Victorian jewelry tends to embody a sentiment, Art Nouveau weaves a story/mystique, Edwardian is about showing off, and Art Deco bares modernism with boldness of design and color (heyday of colored stones).

Keep us all posted!

Ahh...I love this, especially your summarizing paragraph! You’ve put into succinct words what seems to be so hard to put one’s finger on with the overlapping periods/styles. Through your eyes I am now starting to see the Edwardian in the ring. Thank you so much! I am bookmarking your post for many future references

I will definitely keep you all posted...fingers crossed for Monday/Tuesday by the vendor’s estimate. The suspense is killing me already!

 

[Pinkmartini87]

@MiniMinerva I think you scored a beautiful ring (regardless of true age), so fingers crossed for you also. So exciting!

PS if I ever had the funds/time (unlikely), I would love to collect both the “real deal” antique and the reproduction copy. Would be fun to start a small personal showcase of these side by side. Sometimes both can be beautiful in their own way.

For instance, IMHO this is the real deal Art Deco ring (although possibly the center diamond was replaced given there’s a rim of space in the center setting as you can see; not an uncommon practice during the Great Depression to swap out larger stones, or maybe it was simply the style):


And many years later I saw at least what I believe may be a faithful and overall well done reproduction (others prefer the term inspired by or Art Deco style, since reproduction for some may carry a negative connotation although I have a healthy respect for well done reproductions). Note the small differences in details of the setting.

 

[MiniMinerva]

@MiniMinerva I think you scored a beautiful ring (regardless of true age), so fingers crossed for you also. So exciting!

PS if I ever had the funds, I would love to collect both the “real deal” antique and the reproduction copy. Would be fun to start a small personal showcase of these side by side.

For instance, this is the real deal Art Deco ring (although possibly the center diamond was replaced given there’s a rim of space in the center setting as you can see; not an uncommon practice during the Great Depression to swap out larger stones):


And many years later I saw a reproduction of it (to their credit they did use an OEC at least for the center stone, but you can see the difference in the work of the setting) pop up online, and being touted as the “real deal”:

What an awesome comparison to illustrate your point, @Pinkmartini87. There really are subtle differences but only identifiable to unskilled eyes like mine when placed side-by-side. The repro isn’t nearly as graceful in its lines as the original. The true antique is absolutely stunning.

”Real vs. Repro” would be an amazing personal museum and you might be able to make back some of the funds by charging “tuition”

Thank you for the kind words about my ring. There was a little while there when I had some buyer’s remorse after realizing it might not be truly antique, but the support and education I’ve gotten from you guys here have given it special meaning and I’ve decided that I’ll keep it whatever the outcome!

 

[ForteKitty]

@MiniMinerva I think you scored a beautiful ring (regardless of true age), so fingers crossed for you also. So exciting!

PS if I ever had the funds/time (unlikely), I would love to collect both the “real deal” antique and the reproduction copy. Would be fun to start a small personal showcase of these side by side. Sometimes both can be beautiful in their own way.

For instance, IMHO this is the real deal Art Deco ring (although possibly the center diamond was replaced given there’s a rim of space in the center setting as you can see; not an uncommon practice during the Great Depression to swap out larger stones, or maybe it was simply the style):


And many years later I saw at least what I believe may be a faithful and overall well done reproduction (others prefer the term inspired by or Art Deco style, since reproduction for some may carry a negative connotation although I have a healthy respect for well done reproductions). Note the small differences in details of the setting.

I don't think that first one is Art Deco. They didn't stamp the diamond weight into the inside of the shank back then. Repros commonly do that. The gallery design is also common among reproductions.

 

[Pinkmartini87]

I don't think that first one is Art Deco. They didn't stamp the diamond weight into the inside of the shank back then. Repros commonly do that. The gallery design is also common among reproductions.

@ForteKitty The shank may be a replacement. This style of ring had two main components (you can see the marking/scoring on the shank b/l just beneath the shoulder of the ring).

But agree with you I’m never 100% certain! Again, dating is HARD!

To me the detailing seems finer on the first example. I’ve actually seen the second ring pop up for sale several times so I’m inclined to believe it’s a reproduction. I did take the vendor info off as not to offend since that vendor is on our preferred list lol. Again, it was sold as “genuine Art Deco”. Here’s a photo of the side gallery on the second ring:

 

[ForteKitty]

@ForteKitty The shank may be a replacement. This style of ring had two main components (you can see the marking/scoring on the shank b/l just beneath the shoulder of the ring).

But agree with you I’m never 100% certain! Again, dating is HARD!

To me the detailing seems finer on the first example. I’ve actually seen the second ring pop up for sale several times so I’m inclined to believe it’s a reproduction. I did take the vendor info off as not to offend since that vendor is on our preferred list lol. Again, it was sold as “genuine Art Deco”. Here’s a photo of the side gallery on the second ring:

The scoring/lines are common. It's a style and frequently copied, they're all over the shows. They won't engrave diamond weight into a ring unless they made it. I've seen even better repros than that, quality doesn't make it antique.

 

[Pinkmartini87]

The scoring/lines are common. It's a style and frequently copied, they're all over the shows. They won't engrave diamond weight into a ring unless they made it. I've seen even better repros than that, quality doesn't make it antique.

Thanks for sharing—How would you date each ring then if I may ask? Is it even possible to date based on the photos? Are both reproductions and one is better in quality? (Sorry I did not save more!)

 

[ForteKitty]

Thanks for sharing—How would you date each ring then if I may ask? Is it even possible to date based on the photos? Are both reproductions and one is better in quality? (Sorry I did not save more!)

The second ring's first photo is so bad i can't tell, but the second photo makes me thing the milgrain is more delicate than pic 1 shows. Hard to tell which is better by these pictures. Usually in person you'd hold it up to the light and check for gaps around and between the stones. Poorly made repros usually have gaps, lumpy metal work, and sloppy gallery. The gallery would have metal bits left over from not being polished. they may be hand made and hand filed, but if they aren't polished right it'll look terrible and chunky. Or they'd have really heavy milgrain/large beading and authentic deco wouldn't have that.

 

[Pinkmartini87]

The second ring's first photo is so bad i can't tell, but the second photo makes me thing the milgrain is more delicate than pic 1 shows. Hard to tell which is better by these pictures. Usually in person you'd hold it up to the light and check for gaps around and between the stones. Poorly made repros usually have gaps, lumpy metal work, and sloppy gallery. The gallery would have metal bits left over from not being polished. they may be hand made and hand filed, but if they aren't polished right it'll look terrible and chunky. Or they'd have really heavy milgrain/large beading and authentic deco wouldn't have that.

Thanks!

Here’s a better photo of the second ring (not sure why that one came out so bad on the earlier post). The reason I picked up on the second one as repro is I thought the milgrain was too uniform, “pristine” aka no wear, and a bit heavy:

 

[ForteKitty]

LOL both look like repros to me.

 

[Pinkmartini87]

@ForteKitty Hahahaha well I appreciate all your time and expertise. I knew #2 was a repro, but definitely appreciate learning that #1 may be also (even if better done). This is why I love PS, one never stops learning here! Both rings were listed as “the real deal”. I actually saw the first ring in person in the store and tried it on. Would be helpful to see the second ring in person too I’m sure.

@MiniMinerva Well and there you have it! An example right here of how hard it is to date pieces!

If you love it then that’s what’s most important! And it’s clear you do!

 

[MiniMinerva]

@Pinkmartini87 and @ForteKitty, this exchange was bonus educational for me! It was fun for me to be a fly on the wall during this discussion between masters. Definitely above my head. But I still love the idea of the Real vs Repro museum.

I do love the 5-stone and can’t wait to have you guys decode it‘s hidden hallmarks! Thanks again for all of your input.

 

[Pinkmartini87]

@ForteKitty May I borrow your eyes on one more example? What do you think of this ring (real or repro?), again, marketed as Art Deco. Again, another vendor on our preferred list.

To me, of all 3, I would pick this one as the real Art Deco as I feel it’s the best quality (very snug fitted center stone) and also less “fuss” (no heavy milgrain, no “wasted” details like score marks) and more streamlined/stylized feel overall in the setting design suggesting deco. But maybe I’m wrong again!

 

[ForteKitty]

@ForteKitty May I borrow your eyes on one more example? What do you think of this ring (real or repro?), again, marketed as Art Deco. Again, another vendor on our preferred list.

To me, of all 3, I would pick this one as the real Art Deco as I feel it’s the best quality (very snug fitted center stone) and also less “fuss” (no heavy milgrain, no “wasted” details like score marks) and more streamlined/stylized feel overall in the setting design suggesting deco. But maybe I’m wrong again!

This one looks old to me. I want to clarify that scores were indeed present in art deco rings. I have some really old and falling apart solitaire mountings that still have them, albeit faded and worn by now. The absence or presence of them do not indicate reproduction.

The listing says there are French markings. European markings can date a piece, depending on how they look. You can find all that info online.

 

[Pinkmartini87]

This one looks old to me. I want to clarify that scores were indeed present in art deco rings. I have some really old and falling apart solitaire mountings that still have them, albeit faded and worn by now. The absence or presence of them do not indicate reproduction.

The listing says there are French markings. European markings can date a piece, depending on how they look. You can find all that info online.

Thanks! Sorry, I did not mean to mislead anyone who might be reading that scoring rules in or out authentic vs repro per se, as I don’t believe it does one way or another on its own, but rather the overall look of this ring with all its other features
feels more true to me. Since I have lots of learn still, I try not to use hard and fast rules or be completely inflexible when it comes to discerning antiques because there are always exceptions (I’ve seen hallmarks faked also including French dog’s head mark!), and I don’t want to miss the forest because of the trees as they say. For me, I try instead to take in the whole piece and the gestalt of it all, in other words, do most of the features fit together and suggest a common place or origin and time of manufacture, while taking into account that some parts may have been altered with time.

Just curious, about when would you say folks started to mark some rings with the carat weight of center stones, if it was not as you say something done during the Art Deco era? Does it help you date or no?

I’ve seen some carat weights even of side stones too on the shank. Some are obv better made than others so personally I wouldn’t say the presence of carat weight markings of stones always implies lesser quality or repro (which are again two separate things as you pointed out and I agree with. There are poor quality originals and high quality reproductions).
But curious if the presence of it helps dating in any way, just as how most Georgian pieces are not marked even for metal karat weight, much less the stone carat weight. Metal karat marking became more common with Victorian pieces for pieces make across the pond (ie UK), but in the US we often did not see karat metal marking until even much later than that.

Most US Art Deco pieces are not even marked for metal karat unless made by a larger manufacturer (Cartier, Tiffany). One is lucky to even get a manufacturer’s mark on a non-big name US Art Deco piece.

Case in point, my most likely American made sapphire platinum Art Deco ring (I could be wrong in dating however haha, although for what it’s worth the ring was bought from a preferred vendor and looked at by two other independent antiques dealers, but hey, we are all but human and can be wrong!) has no karat metal marking, only a presumably maker’s stamp (F star S) that I’ve not able to attribute (and likely won’t ever be able to):

 

[MiniMinerva]

“Oh! That sapphire looks stunning on @Pinkmartini87 !” said the fly on the wall.

 

[Pinkmartini87]

“Oh! That sapphire looks stunning on @Pinkmartini87 !” said the fly on the wall.

Thank you and no, you’re not a fly on the wall, although very, very sorry to you and OP if @ForteKitty and I kind of took over for a bit given how excited we got, back to regular programming!

PS the hunt for antique jewelry is addictive, can’t you tell? Welcome to the club!

 

[MiniMinerva]

Oh my gosh I didn’t mean that at all @Pinkmartini87 and @ForteKitty ! I was just making a silly joke since I‘m too new to this to have anything useful to contribute, but am having a great time being in the room. I can’t speak for OP but am genuinely enjoying your excited chatter and would love it if you continued!

 

[Pinkmartini87]

Oh my gosh I didn’t mean that at all @Pinkmartini87 and @ForteKitty ! I was just making a silly joke since I‘m too new to this to have anything useful to contribute, but am having a great time being in the room. I can’t speak for OP but am genuinely enjoying your excited chatter and would love it if you continued!

Glad to know we haven’t bored you to tears lol; we get carried away sometimes as all folks with hobbies do.

Can’t wait to see the hallmarks on your lovely ring!

 

[ForteKitty]

Just curious, about when would you say folks started to mark some rings with the carat weight of center stones, if it was not as you say something done during the Art Deco era? Does it help you date or no?

No clue, just that at shows, there are trays and trays of newly made repros with carat weight stamped inside the shank. But they've been making reproductions since the 50s, this isn't a new thing.

Most US Art Deco pieces are not even marked for metal karat unless made by a larger manufacturer (Cartier, Tiffany). One is lucky to even get a manufacturer’s mark on a non-big name US Art Deco piece.

I don't think that is true. I have many non-designer rings marked "platinum" "Irid", it was pretty standard for deco. All of the following are stamped, and I have many old bands that are stamped platinum/plat & Irid as well:

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

www.instagram.com

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

www.instagram.com

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

www.instagram.com

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

www.instagram.com

 

[Pinkmartini87]

No clue, just that at shows, there are trays and trays of newly made repros with carat weight stamped inside the shank. But they've been making reproductions since the 50s, this isn't a new thing.



I don't think that is true. I have many non-designer rings marked "platinum" "Irid", it was pretty standard for deco. All of the following are stamped, and I have many old bands that are stamped platinum/plat & Irid as well:

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

www.instagram.com

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

www.instagram.com

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

www.instagram.com

Login • Instagram

Welcome back to Instagram. Sign in to check out what your friends, family & interests have been capturing & sharing around the world.

www.instagram.com

Hmm, perhaps I will respectfully disagree. I’ve actually seen many deco pieces including at Lang’s and other “reputable” vendors that are not marked. Certainly for me lack of marking of karat material does not ring suspicious for me necessarily, and just because a piece is marked doesn’t mean it’s correctly marked also. Marks are often also probably lost too with sizing or simply worn down with age (on some I can just barely make out the outline of a prior marking). I remember a gem “expert” appraiser with the antiques roadshow told me once this about often how many American Deco and earlier pieces may not bear metal markings hence why it has stuck with me.

I did not know the tidbit re stone carat marking being not a thing during the Art Deco era so that’s good to know. Wonder why it was not...Seems arbitrary to me is all. It’s actually nice IMHO to have a way to keep track of the carat weight of a piece this way so wonder why it wasn’t done “back in the day”. One hypothesis:
if this makes assembling the whole reproduction piece faster/easier (read, more $$$ earned) by letting people know which stone goes with which setting, if it’s more of an assembly line production type associated with churning out these reproductions. Who knows.

 

[ForteKitty]

Certainly for me lack of marking of karat material does not ring suspicious for me.

I did not say the lack of material marking is suspicious. You made a comment that most deco are not marked unless it's a bigger name, and I said that is not true. I have many pieces, both marked and unmarked. You keep putting my comments into narrow categories of "this" must equal "that", and there are too many grey areas in antiques. I don't have anything else to contribute, but please don't put words into my mouth.

 

[Pinkmartini87]

@ForteKitty Apologies if it came across that way to you, I certainly didn’t mean it. I’m simply drawing my own conclusions as one does when one is learning, and to me at least that’s not putting words in anyone’s mouth. Just my words and my opinions.

Asking questions is my way of learning but I can see how it can annoy some folks. Maybe to you I’m putting words in your mouth, whereas to me your comment seems unnecessarily accusatory and perhaps even snarky for otherwise a fun/friendly forum.

Agreed, perhaps if this is no longer pleasant for one (or both of us) then best not to continue. I’ll put the ignore button for you and feel free to do the same for me.

 

[ForteKitty]

It's one thing to learn, but stating speculation as full fact is misleading and can cause others to believe speculations as truth. It is especially dangerous when significant amounts of money and human emotions tied to jewelry are involved.

I don't care enough to ignore anyone here, but I don't appreciate people making assumptions based on things I didn't say.

 

[Pinkmartini87]

Perhaps if I may clarify (although not sure if doing so might annoy you more):

I did not say YOU said “the lack of material marking is suspicious”. I simply said the lack of marking for ME is not suspicious.

“You made a comment that most deco are not marked unless it's a bigger name, and I said that is not true.”

Again, I’ve been told the exact opposite by other folks, so I simply just stated what I believe is true.

Why is it when I state something it’s speculation touting as fact, when one could say the same for you?

Take home message: I’m not saying I’m right, I never have, just that I have a right, just as you, to state what I believe. It is after all a public forum with public opinions.

I do always say take what folks say on the Internet (and in life) with a pinch of salt. Why should @MiniMinerva believe you or me or any of us? For all she knows we could all be robots or monkeys hiding behind our PC screens.

@MiniMinerva Hope this does not dissuade you from asking questions in the future! Rarely do folks get a WWE smack down when they do LOL. You’ll get often lots of different opinions and YOU can decide who to believe.

Maybe it’s the pandemic. At least I’ve never even bothered to reply like this to folks who I feel is getting a wee touchy. But I suppose with all this extra time being cooped up at home I’m starting to engage in Internet pettiness uh-oh

 

[ForteKitty]

take what folks say on the Internet (and in life) with a pinch of salt

Absolutely! All I can offer is what I've seen and examined in person, I don't take hearsay as fact. And I've seen plenty of both. At the shows, there are so many bracelets, watches, and brooches that have markings. Stuff not worth reproducing because they simply don't bring the same kind of money as rings, as labor and materials outweigh what they're charging. To see you write "lack of marking is suspicious" as a general term just wrong, so I had to say something. Sure, there are plenty without markings, but certainly not "most".

You think I'm annoyed. Where are you even getting this? I just said don't put words in my mouth, which you just did, again. I'm very straightforward, and if you take that as "touchy", I can't control that. How is this a WWE smackdown? Are you reading tones when there aren't any?

 

[Spring Day]

Whoa.... ummm what just happened here? This just seemed like an educational thread and then for some reason turned into a WWE smackdown? Or is this high school cuz someone is getting a bit dramatic.