Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;Bronwen, post: 3734854, member: 5833&quot;]Most of what I can say has already been said.&nbsp; It looks heavily worn but not nearly so old as Georgian, more trying for Renaissance revival.&nbsp; As has been noted, a man&#039;s signet ring, unengraved, probably pinky at size M.</p><p><br /></p><p>The marks are not at all like the tiny, largely pictorial marks used by the French.&nbsp; Was any representation made about the fineness of the gold, what karat it is?</p><p><br /></p><p>The stone is what is called &#039;nicolo&#039;.&nbsp; The blue is an illusion created by the black showing through a thin layer of white.&nbsp; I too was struck by the condition of the stone compared with the condition of the shank.&nbsp; I can&#039;t spot any signs in the surrounding metal of one stone being prised out &amp; another fixed in.&nbsp; Maybe the original cracked.&nbsp; If this was a pinky ring, the stone would have taken a beating.</p><p><br /></p><p>Simona, when buying for investment purposes you really need to know exactly what you&#039;re getting.&nbsp; As AJ said, auctioneers mostly rely on whatever the consignor tells them about an item, they do not test metal or do research, unless you pay them to do it, not worth it if the item is not going to sell for thousands of dollars.</p><p><br /></p><p>I&#039;m not sure citing the opinions expressed in this thread is going to be adequate to make a case with the auction house that the item is not Georgian.&nbsp; It becomes we said/they said.&nbsp; &quot;Probably French&quot; doesn&#039;t count for anything, you can&#039;t hold them to that.&nbsp; &nbsp; If it&#039;s not actually a size M, you would have measurable evidence of misrepresentation.[/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in