Featured Thoughts on this pendant please

It was my Mums but I know nothing about it. She had a large collection of jewellery and I eventually sold a lot of it intending to just keep pieces with special meaning but still have quite a bit left, no idea why I've held on to this one but find it intriguing.

 

I understand. This are intriging pieces.
The loose wiggling part in combination with the diamonds make it really shiny and atractive for your eyes.

But looking at the (worn?) metal, (misty?) diamonds and lack of hallmarks (?) i'm affraid it's nice regular bijouterie.

 

@Woutinc can't see any marks no.

 

Late 19th paste in a silver mount, gold backed. The lack of hallmarks means nothing: much was un hallmarked.

And actually, I'd get the stones tested just in case.

 

Pull one diamond over glass. It should scratch without any damage on itselve.

Zoom in on the diamonds. They really look horrible. If they turn out to be diamonds they are of worse quality, and very badly cut with abnormal facet structure.

I can't agree on this. All European (and beyond) silver and gold was hallmarked required by law from about at least 1800 and up. And before that it to was usual and often required by country laws worldwide.

And next to that makers were very eager to claim they've made it.

At the end i seriously hope your right and i am wrong. But i still doubt that.

 

My diamond tester thinks they're diamonds, I've tried it on every stone. I will try and get a better photo of them in daylight tomorrow. I'm gobsmacked really, it's been sat in one of my jewellery boxes since 1999 and I've never paid it much attention. I honestly don't mind whether the stones are real or paste! Thank you.

 

I'd say your diamond tester is right. Those are a really old cut , rose cuts, and were metal-backed as a standard. Looks like you found the Whoopsie!

 

That statement about hallmarks is, frankly, nonsense. I've a great many pieces sans hallmarks. And indeed, tonight's BBC Antiques Roadshow had a stunning 18 ct Scottish agate brooch with not a single hallmark in sight. Their own expert noted how common this was. Its dedication was 1848.

As to the diamonds, old cut and mine cut look just like those. If you've only ever handled modern cuts, then they'd look "abnormal" perhaps.

Actually, looking again at that setting, I think it's earlier than I thought.

 

To me all diamonds cuts look different and raw, where diamonds usually are set perfect. Therefore i think and said that.
And i miss diamond shining.

Still. A gold and silver piece with about 30 diamonds $$$ ... without makersmark?? I can't believe the maker of such a special expencive piece would not brand his ego (next to the hallmark laws).
And 30 diamonds in these carats in cheap silver? Those would at least be fit in gold.

I would say to crazycatlady to start with the simple diamond test. They don't look to me as modern zirconia era, so the test can tell a lot. And i don't see (regular diamonds) red and blue shining but only blue-ish white (glass then?).
If presumed diamond then run to a juweler for a gold/silver test (then i expect gold).

As again. Please let me be wrong.
If it is antique gold and silver with 30 diamonds in these serious carats it will have a royal worth counted up to 5 figures (10k or so?)
And mind that from pictures without 'in hand' always has a fault margin, so i can't say anything for sure.

 

The stones look like Polki diamonds from India.

 

I guess you know nothing about the laws in the USA,there no requirement to mark precious metal objects.

 

That's correct. I speak from European situation.
Still i know in the US makers also like to let know the've made it. Nice juwelery (like this one) there also mostly is marked by the maker.
I guess gold 'n diamonds Tiffany juwelery was always sold marked. Isn't it?
I even own nice stylish US objects not even gold or diamond and still is maker marked.
Makers worldwide love(d) to mark, even if not needed by law.

But i also know unmarked juwelery exists.
Do the diamonds test or let a juweler test the metal i would say, so we can say more for sure. I am hoping, but still not convinced.

 

Old Tiffany jewelry was not always marked,I repaired a necklace years ago with no marks,the owner had the original sales receipt from the 1930's and the piece was verified by Tiffany.

 

Usually/mostly it was and is. Isn't it? Exceptions conform the rule.
Don't want to argue about it.

crazycatlady go test

 

These may have been cut in the Netherlands, come to think of it. I don't think I've ever seen a really old piece with hallmarks, and silver on the front with a gold back is correct for diamonds in that era.

 

Do you have any idea what is antique jewellery and its style history?.....
Anyway, welcome on Antiquers

 

@crazycatlady, your piece is an European first third 19th rosecut diamonds set in silver and backed with gold single earring with shepherds hook system!
Very, very nice antique piece!

rolleyes: It seems we now have a new expert on board...)

 

@kyratango I also thought it looked more like an earring. Matching your rolling eyes - may I sit beside you?

 

yes, you can!
I even edited my comment to modify the time line to first third of 19th century!

 

Silver, diamonds, pearls. Completely unmarked except for the cameo itself, which was made in Italy sometime around the turn of the 19th century. Quite likely the silver is not even sterling, but diamonds nonetheless.