www.925-1000.com

Hi all. Newbie here. First off, thanks for putting up this site. Very informative.

I came across an intriguing solitaire diamond ring with some hallmarks that I've already partially decoded, but I still need help with the other marks. I was hoping some of you guys here could help.

Here are the photos:

The ring:



The hallmarks:










In case the images are not clear enough, Here's what they say, from left to right:

"BDCo", "276", a crown, "18", a leopard's head (I think), and an "S" which isn't clearly uppercase or lowercase to me. All of them are in octagon shapes (or rectangles with the corners cut off) except the numbers "276."

Based on the information on this site (correct me if I'm wrong), I know that the ring is British probably made in London, and made of 18 karat gold. What I'd like to ask are the following:

1. Do you think the maker is the same "BD" as the Benjamin Davis whose hallmark appears on this site, with a different style? It also seems a little odd to me that the hallmark reads "BDCo" instead of "BD&Co."

2. What do the numbers "276" mean?

3. What year was this piece hallmarked? I tried looking at the date hallmarks for London, but aside from not knowing whether the "S" is uppercase or lowercase, none of the S hallmarks on the list are in simple octagon shapes--all of them have some sort of wavy line at the bottom side of the octagon, so I'm still stumped.

Thanks for any help you can extend.

- K
.

I forgot to add that I'm not sure if one of the hallmarks is really a leopard's head since it's not as clear as I'd like it to be. I initially couldn't figure it out, so I assumed that the ring was probably made in Sheffield, because of the crown hallmark. Any of you think it definitely is a leopard's head?

Thanks!

- K
.

Welcome K
I am not a gold person, and cannot help with the maker of ring. The 276 I would suspect is either a pattern or catalogue number. The Crown and 18 is the carat mark for 18ct gold, Leopards Head for London and whilst the date mark as you say doesn't exactly look like the book mark, to me it looks to be 1973. This gold marking style is 20th century.
.

Thanks for your reply, Larkfield.

I checked all the 20th century gold hallmarks for London (well, at least 1916 onwards), and none of them look exactly like the mark on this ring. I initially thought 1973 also, but all the letters in that series are in lowercase and italics, so I didn't think it was a correct match either.

Because of the cut of the diamond (old mine cut), I was thinking more of late 19th to early 20th century, but I don't have access to the gold hallmarks for London in that century (only the silver date letters are available online), so I turned to this forum for help.

Also, since the leopard's head appears to be uncrowned, I figured I could narrow the date to between 1821 and 1915.

I find it interesting though that you mentioned the gold marking style is 20th century--is it because of the quality of the marks or the shape of the cartouche?

Anyway, thank you very much for your thoughts, and the warm welcome.

-K
.

I checked out the Birmingham Assay Office site, which is very informative (unlike that of London), and it says that "The same letters [as for Silver] were used for Gold, which has been marked in Birmingham since 1824, but with a background of a square with cut corners."

Could the same be true for London? I've compared the silver and gold date letters for 1916 to 1974 (I don't have the gold date letters before 1916) and they are exactly the same.

If the same is true for London, then the possible dates could be narrowed down to either 1833 or 1893, with 1893 being a better match, in my decidedly non-expert opinion.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

-K
.

I'd guess 1893, but the sponsor's mark may also read as a smudged 'SD Co' . Someone with Culme's book should be able to resolve.
.

Why I say the markings are 20th Century style is that as far as I am aware, the seperate punches for the Crown and 18 which is the 18carat quality mark was from about 1904 from memory, and prior to that was an alternative mark for about 8 years to the Crowned 18 mark in a single punch which was used in earlier years.
From your first photo of the marks below the makers mark, comparing the Crown , 18, leopards head and S, all in cut corner squares as is the 1956 London series, the only difference to me is that the S is not italics.

Whilst really not the place, somebody might like to comment on the use of old mine cut diamonds in a Solitaire ring in the later half of 20 century. I would not be surprised to find old mine cut used in small back up stones.
.

The first impression of this ring would be a C.1900 gypsy mount with an old mine cut diamond. Looking at the marks would lead to some head-scratching. If I were researching this ring, I would have come to the same conclusions of: Assayed at London, 18Kt, 1973.

Next question is how could a C.1900 ring have been assayed in 1973?

A. The ring has been re-shanked where the origional hallmarks were on the part of the shank that was replaced and it was sent to the Hall to be re-assayed. This is quite possible as the back of the ring could have worn (being soft) and while I have no knowledge of how the law treats a repaired piece, if I were the owner I would want it to be fully hallmarked as a safeguard that I got what I paid for. One way to tell is to let the ring go cold and breath on it, solder may show where the new shank was added. Also look at the back of the stone, does the ring have a simple hole drilled through it just smaller than the stone (more likely found on an old piece) or does it look like the metal was hollowed out behind the stone (more likely on a more modern piece.)

B. It could be a newly made-to-order ring. The use of the old style is very popular (I am an estate jeweler who in the past year has made almost a dozen rings of a similar design). It is possible the diamond came down through the family when jewelry was broken up to settle an estate and the recipient wanted the stone used in a ring.

C. It could be a commercially made ring. It is not uncommon for jewelers to buy old pieces to break-up and re-use the stones in new settings. From the 1930's to 1970's the diamonds would have been re-cut into modern brilliant cuts, this was not always the case. Re-cutting reduces the diamond's weight and for larger stones this can be appreciable, therefore it is not always done. In the 1980's estate jewelry came into vogue and the older cuts were better respected for their own beauty and used accordingly. There has been a resurgance of diamonds being cut as old mine cut and even rose cut stones (though this has been a fairly recent developement).
.

Thank you salmoned, larkfield and JLDoggett for the input on my "mystery ring."

Salmoned: I initially thought the maker's mark was SD Co too. I wish I had access to Culme's book. Knowing who the maker/sponsor was would certainly help in dating the piece. I live in Southeast Asia, so I doubt if I could find the book in a library here. No British hallmark experts here either.

Larkfield: Wow, I was not aware of the crowned 18 mark in a single punch as I had not come across it in my online research. I tried looking for the exact year of the change to separate crown and 18 punches, but I couldn't find it. Thanks for the new information.

JLDoggett: I tried breathing on it while it was cold, and I couldn't see any solder marks. I looked at the back of the stone, and there is just a hole slightly smaller than the stone; the metal around the hole has not been hollowed out. Thanks for the tips.

Part of the reason I'm still scratching my head is, in an article I found online written by Christie Romero of the Center for Jewelry Studies, she says that when looking at British date letters, "It is important to remember to match the style of letter and shape of its surrounding shield or reserve. Occasionally there will be a discrepancy between what is in the books and the mark on the piece, in which case the style of the letter takes precedence over the shape of the shield."

Do you guys agree with this statement? This, plus the statement I read from the Birmingham assay office (which I posted earlier), will date the ring to around 1893, while if the shield takes precedence over the letter style, it should be around 1973--a difference of 80 years.

Thanks, guys, for helping me piece together this puzzle.

-K
.