Victorian 9ct Bloodstone shield ring!

I have been looking for a bloodstone ring for myself for quite sometime. I got lucky today at a flea market, I found a Victorian bloodstone shield ring, 9ct gold for $20. It really is a nice ring as the stone is in good condition. Would you all agree with Victorian on this one?? Thanks!

 

Unless you can date the company stamp,there is no way to put a time period on a plain low dome half round band and bezel.

 

Here We are https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Beautifu...-Pearl-And-Garnet-Flower-Brooch-/131718593240 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Antique-...603553?hash=item2388f4dae1:g:tPsAAOSwKoRZZlA5 Considering I can't find anything made by them that isn't Victorian I'd say it's a safe bet?

Could this be it? I think it could! https://legacyantiques.co.uk/9ct-gold-s-ward-and-sons-brooch-with-hearts-c-1908.html

 

The mark on the brooch at Britton's is the same mark, but surely S. Ward & Sons would be SW&S, not W&Ss?

 

You could be right On that but they do state is the description its marked W&Ss so who knows!

 

The edges of the stone are remarkably unblemished for the condition of the shank. Not sure if this means anything, such as a replacement, or not. Just unusual for a ring stone not to have some dings when it is clear the ring has been actively worn.

 

On the surface it's scratched up quite a lot, picture isn't the best but maybe I'll try and get a better one.

 

The amount of grunge caught around the edges underneath the stone is certainly consistent with its having been in place a good long time, as are many fine scratches. Think you just got lucky that previous owner wasn't prone to banging his hands into things since the bezel does not protect it from chipping. I imagine it was designed with the idea that owner could have it engraved, but someone preferred it plain, leaving a blank canvas for you.

 

I swear that shape makes me think of a cameo ring. Im not convinced that stone isnt a replacement,but Im often wrong.

 

My avatar is a cameo ring. Think you might mean an intaglio ring? Here's one of those, although it is so massive, I think it was made over from a seal that must have once belonged to a francophone supporter of the anti-slavery movement:

 

Very nice Bronwen!! Here are some better pictures showing the condition, might not be as good as you thought lol! Would you agree with late 1800s Victorian?

 

Clean under the stone and get another photo,something is very wrong.........
looks like it may be a replacement stone and the ring a "marriage" piece.

 

are u referring to the rear not fitting the given space...and having an over amount of glue to keep it in place ?

 

Hmm I may think that maybe the stone fell out and it was glued back in. You can see it's somewhat crooked? However if that were to be fixed it looks like it might fit? Here are some cleaned up pictures. It looks like it doesn't fit in the back part yes, but on top there is no space whatsoever so maybe the back was just wider? The stone is flush with the edges on top is what I'm trying to say.

 

Cleaned up it looks even more this way. I was also struck by how much newer than the shank the bezel looks. Kind of looks to me as though the upper part has been - best word I can think of - reframed, as though there is an old, slender inner bezel surrounding the stone, which is indeed much more battered than original pix conveyed, that has been contained in a newer box & the old shank attached to that. What is now the underside of the stone looks in worse shape than what is now the top. Is it possible the upper part of the ring was rebuilt & the stone flipped over? Or is some of what looks like roughness actually glue residue? This is your pre-cleaning photo cropped & doctored a little:

 

sorry yer getting such a rough going over, for something you've been looking for for many years....

 

I'm guessing all the glue has been removed and the "blobby" stuff around the bottom of the stone is metal.If I had the ring in my hand it would easy,but with reflections and perspective of photos I only only guess what is going on with the ring.

 

It's all good it was only $20 and I got way more in gold scrap, plus the ring still looks great besides. Just to clear up any confusion, if this is a replacement the original would have been the same shape though correct? The mount is in a shield shape so I assume a shield shaped stone would have been original?

 

My best take on it is that someone loved this ring very much, wore it regularly, maybe rarely took it off, to the point that the stone became so scuffed & unstable in its setting that some restoration was done. As the ring is not so valuable as all that, it must have had great sentimental value for the owner to invest in refurbishment. I'm making this up, but hey...could be. Or close, but no ?

 

You got a bargain. An attractive, sturdy ring. The bloodstone was meant for intaglio, but some stones were left plain.
I think Holly's and Bronwen's observations are correct, there are some questions about the ring. But that's history for you, and history is one of the reasons you like old and antique jewellery.
As Holly said, until you find out more about the manufacturer there is no knowing when the original ring was made. The delicate brooches in the links are all from the beginning of the 20th century. A company that was around in 1908 may not have existed in Victorian times. They may still be making jewellery today.
I am not sure the shank and the bezel started out life together. The inside looks like the bezel may have been mounted in a plain wedding band. That is not unusual.
I'm sure the stone is a replacement. It is also too small for the bezel, so get a jeweler to check if the glue is still in good condition, otherwise you could lose the stone.