Could this be a trade ring?

[VThistorybuff]

Found this brass & glass ring in the yard of a 200 year old house in VT. The site has yielded items from as far back as the 1700s (eg, 1751 KGII halfpenny; pewter buttons & spoons) but mostly 1800s. The ring was about 10?-12? down. It?s crudely made. Nothing is symmetrical, not even the facets on the glass jewel. The patina seems quite advanced to me. The only other ring I?ve been able to find online that bears any similarity to mine is one that?s purported to be a 1600s fur trade ring from upstate NY (see pic). So my question is whether mine could also be a fur trade ring, even if from a later period. Thoughts?

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Agony and Death on a Gold Rush Steamer: The Disastrous Sinking of the Side-Wheeler Yankee Blade - Grab it through Amazon!

[VThistorybuff]

IMO .. the cut of the stone points to something other than a fur trade ring

Absolutely the faceted stone isn't typical of trade rings. But the trade ring I posted was the closest match I could find online to the one I dug. I *do not* believe my ring dates to the 1600s. But the trade era lasted into the early 1800s and by the late 1700s faceted stones were available & commonly used in jewelry. Or it could very well be that the ring isn't related to the fur trade at all. It's still a bit of a mystery where the ring came from and how it ended up where I found it

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Treasure of Victoria Peak - Grab it through Amazon!

[Muddyhandz]

I have found a lot of trade rings that all had faceted glass stones but none of them had any metal claws holding the stones in place.
They are embedded in oval slots with little pinholes underneath to catch the light.
Based on the construction of your ring it is definitely old but it's not what I know as a trade ring.
Nice find!

 

[VThistorybuff]

I have found a lot of trade rings that all had faceted glass stones but none of them had any metal claws holding the stones in place.
They are embedded in oval slots with little pinholes underneath to catch the light.
Based on the construction of your ring it is definitely old but it's not what I know as a trade ring.
Nice find!

Yes, the more I research the ring, the less likely it seems that it was a trade ring. But the prospect that it simply belonged to someone who lived at this homestead is pretty nice, too, since I know the history of the family well

 

[Ia.FurTrade]

I have found a lot of trade rings that all had faceted glass stones but none of them had any metal claws holding the stones in place.
They are embedded in oval slots with little pinholes underneath to catch the light.
Based on the construction of your ring it is definitely old but it's not what I know as a trade ring.
Nice find!

I concur...........

Iowa Dale

 

[ARC]

In this case, you probably should?ve heeded your mama and kept your negativity to yourself. First, I never *claimed* it was a trade ring. I *asked* because of the general similarities to the one I posted (which btw differs from most other trade rings I?ve seen as well). But whether it is or isn?t a trade ring, it?s absolutely not a gumball machine prize. In fact, you ought to be embarrassed to have even suggested that, for many reasons. Second, since I originally posted here, I?ve shown the ring to several curators at museums in New England and while no one has yet been able to determine a specific origin, *no one* has doubted that the ring is old, with a general agreement that it dates from 1780 - 1830, a period still within the trade era and when faceted stones were common if not the norm. At the same property, in addition to numerous other 18th & 19th cent relics, I found a legit gold & ruby ring from the 1920s. It?s a special, historic site and I know its history quite well. I didn?t find this ring at a local ballfield.

If you want to question the ID as a trade ring, that?s totally cool. That?s why I posted here: to get feedback on that possibility. But you went way beyond, calling my find essentially a piece of junk in a rather obnoxious (and uninformed) way. But that?s always a risk when we post in online forums. There?s always someone eager to sh*t on other people while pretending to offer ?just my opinion.? Peace, bro.

Arrg the asinine-ness.

1. I never claimed that you claimed anything.
2. I am not embarrassed over anything.. especially my opinion on this.
3. Your "curators" are either a figment of your imagination OR... well... IF REAL... lets just leave them out of it.
4. Facets YES... Faceted completely- NO... NOT... NEVER.
5. Old is a relative term... which is exactly what this thread to me has now become.
6. No one called it a piece of junk... I stated my opinion... EVEN GUMBALL RINGS are collectible and some valuable... so even the term "gumball machine ring" is not necessarily an insult.
7. "if you want to question the I.D." - What the heck are you talking about... WHO I.D'd this ? ? ? AND.. I am not questioning the I.D... YOU ARE... I solved it.
8. "in a rather obnoxious (and uninformed) way" - Uninformed ...lol... its YOU... who is... and has been uninformed.
9. "someone eager to sh*t on other people while pretending to offer" - Eager ? Pretending ? lol
10. I definitely ain't your "bro".

When you ask for a bone and your tossed one... i could give 2 Sh--t's if it tastes good or not to you.

You join a website... post an item... and then this.

This is why i refrain from "helping" much on here anymore... and just observe the crap instead of standing in it.

 

[ARC]

Whether or not it turns out to be a trade ring, it’s absolutely not a gumball prize. In fact, it’s absolutely not 20th century at all. This dude is embarrassing himself.

Your right... your ring is NOT a "Gumball prize"... for there is no "prize" in gumballs.

lol... i haven't been embarrassed since i was your age... not sure what grade your in... but.

 

[VThistorybuff]

Arrg the asinine-ness.

1. I never claimed that you claimed anything.
2. I am not embarrassed over anything.. especially my opinion on this.
3. Your "curators" are either a figment of your imagination OR... well... IF REAL... lets just leave them out of it.
4. Facets YES... Faceted completely- NO... NOT... NEVER.
5. Old is a relative term... which is exactly what this thread to me has now become.
6. No one called it a piece of junk... I stated my opinion... EVEN GUMBALL RINGS are collectible and some valuable... so even the term "gumball machine ring" is not necessarily an insult.
7. "if you want to question the I.D." - What the heck are you talking about... WHO I.D'd this ? ? ? AND.. I am not questioning the I.D... YOU ARE... I solved it.
8. "in a rather obnoxious (and uninformed) way" - Uninformed ...lol... its YOU... who is... and has been uninformed.
9. "someone eager to sh*t on other people while pretending to offer" - Eager ? Pretending ? lol
10. I definitely ain't your "bro".

When you ask for a bone and your tossed one... i could give 2 Sh--t's if it tastes good or not to you.

You join a website... post an item... and then this.

This is why i refrain from "helping" much on here anymore... and just observe the crap instead of standing in it.

Dude, just stop. Spare yourself the shame.

 

[ARC]

Dude, just stop. Spare yourself the shame.

I should post my trade rings... talk about sparing the shame. heh

I guess you take / think i am some sorta duck just pulling my info outta my arse.

Just because you believe something is something... does not make it something you think it is.

 

[pepperj]

I was taught growing up that if you dont have something nice to say dont say anything at all...

Welllll... damnit.

Um... it is not a trade ring... sorry.

Wanna know "why" i say this ? ? ?

Trade rings did not have faceted stones or glass.

The key thing that clues this out are those facets.

And to make matters "worse"... errr... or not neccessaily worse... but...

I believe this may be a vintage bubble gum ring... Hong Kong.

Sorry... but again... in my opinion.

I have found a lot of trade rings that all had faceted glass stones but none of them had any metal claws holding the stones in place.
They are embedded in oval slots with little pinholes underneath to catch the light.
Based on the construction of your ring it is definitely old but it's not what I know as a trade ring.
Nice find!

Now this is kind of interesting as the OP posted a photo from Worthpoint.
AARC and Muddyhandz had their views on what they thought/know about the styles and era.

 

[pepperj]

Now this is kind of interesting as the OP posted a photo from Worthpoint.
AARC and Muddyhandz had their views on what they thought/know about the styles and era.

Now for what it's worth, here is another pull of 5 rings from Worthpoint, that I have highlighted a faceted stone on the left, and metal claws on the right.

 

[ARC]

Arrrg...

Yes many trade rings have "facets".

But OP's ring IS completely faceted.

Am I the only one here who can SEE the difference in these ?

LOOK CLOSE at OP's ring... not the ring NEXT TO his..

OPEN and LOOK close at the facets.

THEN look CLOSE at the facets on VERIFIED / KNOWN trade rings.

They are NEVER FULLY faceted... Facets yes... Fully faceted NO.


PS... there is the REMOTE but yet very real possibility that the stone was replaced... but i wouldn't bet on it.

 

[pepperj]

Arrrg...

Yes many trade rings have "facets".

But OP's ring IS completely faceted.

Am I the only one here who can SEE the difference in these ?

LOOK CLOSE at OP's ring... NOT THE RING HE POSTED NEXT TO HIS> !

OPEN and LOOK close at the facets.

THEN look CLOSE at the facets on VERIFIED / KNOWN trade rings.

They are NEVER FULLY faceted... Facets yes... Fully faceted NO.

There's the "fully" which makes sense over just faceted.
Then there's the partial facet terminology
https://byangeline.com/collections/partially-faceted

What about the claws and the others with no claws? Gives an example of both

https://www.gemsociety.org/article/gemstone-facets/

Then the question always begs "Is Worthpoint a "verified" site of knowledge?
Only bringing this up as the site does the Ebay selling examples-and are the descriptions always verified on the sellers site-I think not.

Just showing in the 5 rings examples of the 2 rings from the same era

 

[ARC]

There's the "fully" which makes sense over just faceted.

What about the claws over no claws?

https://www.gemsociety.org/article/gemstone-facets/

Then the question always begs "Is Worthpoint a "verified" site of knowledge?
Only bringing this up as the site does the Ebay selling examples-and are the descriptions always verified on the sellers site-I think not.

Just showing in the 5 rings examples of the 2 rings from the same era

When you say "claws" I assume your referring to the prongs... AKA the tabs that hold the stone in place ?

Normally... generally... commonly... MOSTLY... (from my experience) they were made of a triangular cut ribbon of of sheet silver or other metals.. making the "prongs".

 

[ARC]

I know a little about alot in the antiquities field.

BUT... i specialize... errr... or my "expertise" lies in a handful of things.

One of which is jewelry... with a particular interest in the rare and very old.

I have a solid 40 years studying it... Ever since I handled the first pieces of 1500's and 1600's gold jewelry at age 12.

VERIFIED jewelry... that remains in private collections and museums to this day.

Trade rings were "crude"... not "finished" so to speak... they have a unpolished look to whatever is pronged in em.

Remember these were not made in some jewelry master makers shop with proper tooling.

There were made by hand in crude manners... and polishing... most times rubbing the glass upon a smooth stone etc.

 

[DigToChina]

So my question is whether mine could also be a fur trade ring, even if from a later period. Thoughts?

Do you really want people?s thoughts on this because your response to varied opinions suggests otherwise?

 

[VThistorybuff]

Now for what it's worth, here is another pull of 5 rings from Worthpoint, that I have highlighted a faceted stone on the left, and metal claws on the right.

The only ring I could find online that resembled mine in any substantial way was the one from Worthpoint that claimed to be a 1600s Iroquois trade ring. So I posted here to *ask whether* I'd found something along the same lines. The title of the thread begins with "Could" ffs. If the answer to that is No, I have no prob with it. I just want to know what I found bc the site where I found it has some local importance. In fact, I'd actually prefer it *not* be a trade ring bc I'm hoping it belonged to someone specific who lived at that site. Whether it's a trade ring or not, it's definitely not from an effing gumball machine and the dude who keeps saying so is really just embarrassing himself. I've shown it to curators at major history museums and so far *not one* has placed it later than 1830. It's a legitimately old ring whose origins are still unknown.

 

[VThistorybuff]

Do you really want people?s thoughts on this because your response to varied opinions suggests otherwise?

Go back through the thread. I have no problem with anyone who says "not a trade ring." I have a problem with someone who says "It came from a gumball machine."

 

[ARC]

I know a little about alot in the antiquities field.

BUT... i specialize... errr... or my "expertise" lies in a handful of things.

One of which is jewelry... with a particular interest in the rare and very old.

I have a solid 40 years studying it... Ever since I handled the first pieces of 1500's and 1600's gold jewelry at age 12.

VERIFIED jewelry... that remains in private collections and museums to this day.

Trade rings were "crude"... not "finished" so to speak... they have a unpolished look to whatever is pronged in em.

Remember these were not made in some jewelry master makers shop with proper tooling.

There were made by hand in crude manners... and polishing... most times rubbing the glass upon a smooth stone etc.

My avatar picture is a picture of the exact day / moment... that my interest is such began for me.

Click my profile and then "album" to see it bigger / clearer.

Too bad i dont have any other pictures of the stuff i held that day... definitely a regret... but i was not fond of my picture being taken in those days.

 

[Doubter in MD]

AARC expressed an opinion that it wasn't a trade ring and that it may in fact be a "toy" or costume type ring. Why are you bothered by that? It's his opinion. If anyone is embarrassing themselves, I think it's you, VTtreasurehunter, for your over the top reaction to AARC's post.

EDIT: Removed cartoon.

 

[Tpmetal]

My avatar picture is a picture of the exact day / moment... that my interest is such began for me.

Click my profile and then "album" to see it bigger / clearer.

Too bad i dont have any other pictures of the stuff i held that day... definitely a regret... but i was not fond of my picture being taken in those days.

why so abrasive lately?