Help me id this chunk of abalone

[CLICLASP]

HI Adeline,
i was wondering if the biggest piece would be an Osmena (inside chamber of a nautilus polished for jewelry purpose and set as it is to exhibit its mother of pearl)
Good luck

 

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

HI Adeline,
i was wondering if the biggest piece would be an Osmena (inside chamber of a nautilus polished for jewelry purpose and set as it is to exhibit its mother of pearl)
Good luck

I doubt it. Adeline's pearl appears to be terraced aragonite with plenty of glycoprotein present. Nautilus are columnar in structure with only minor amounts of protein visible.

 

[Amanda]

I think it's lovely. What size is 3? Tiny, by the sound of it - but in the UK our ring sizes are by letters. Mine is N.

 

[CLICLASP]

If this can be of any help here, I put a photo I have made for a conference,
is is a natural abalone close to an osmena (never find this before, did you?).
All comments welcome.

 

[pattye]

Amanda, US ring size 3 would be F to you.

Adeline, what a lovely ring, my guess would be abalone blister.

Great example of osmena, Anna. I have some osmena in jewelry, too Osmena don't have deep a natural colors as Adeline's ring; come in solid colors from white/ivory to silver/blue. (Love osmena~)

 

[Adeline Leigh]

It looks like abalone alright. Abalone blisters are quite common, but are usually flatter than this piece. That's not to suggest it's not a blister, but it might be a conjunction. A conjunction is a pearl that became fused to the shell. I'd have to see an image of the back of the pearl to be certain though.

Not to be outdone, the three off round white pearls are quite nice too.

Hi Dave, as usual your comments are enlightening - "terraced aragonite with plenty of glycoprotein present" - I googled the terminology and laughed out loud at my naive description. "Ayers Rock"?!

I am attaching the photos from the vendor as they are in macro and show the pearl up close. Unfortunately, there is no back of the pearl, I'm afraid. But please go ahead and do a visual inspection and let me know if it is indeed a conjunction. I'm dying to hear what you uncover.

As for the pearls, only the littlest 2 are probably part of the original set. The larger pearl blob seems to have been glued on recently, so that mars it somewhat.

Anna: Osmena; now that is something new for me and I had to google that too. How interesting, shell material versus abalone shell. Glad to see the how lovely your osmena looks but that abalone pendant with the swirling rainbow of colours is outstanding.

Pattye, Wendy and Amanda: I posted the URL link to PG when I spotted it on ebay and when Caitlin mentioned the pearl might be an "abalone", I fell hook, line and sinker. It's my latest pearl fetish, (no thanks to Antz's natural pearls ), and I am a little sore I can't even wear it and show it off. Shank is so tiny it can't fit on my 8-year old's ring finger; only good on the 5-year old. Good grief, how much more bigger boned are we today than the ladies a century ago, that is if the art nouveau claim is indeed true.

 

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

Unfortunately, there is no back of the pearl, I'm afraid. But please go ahead and do a visual inspection and let me know if it is indeed a conjunction. I'm dying to hear what you uncover.

From the last two images posted, I can see the position and angle of the (mabe style) cuts. In this case they appear to support a blister. The base of a conjunction is very often slightly narrower than the middle margins of the pearl, afterall they are pearls concreted to shells. Also, the little black dots and bumps are very typical of parasitical blisters and rarely seen in loose pearls or conjunctions. These are thin spots where the little critter inside was breaking through, although the abalone did well to keep it contained.

 

[Amanda]

Pattye, Wendy and Amanda: I posted the URL link to PG when I spotted it on ebay and when Caitlin mentioned the pearl might be an "abalone", I fell hook, line and sinker. It's my latest pearl fetish, (no thanks to Antz's natural pearls ), and I am a little sore I can't even wear it and show it off. Shank is so tiny it can't fit on my 8-year old's ring finger; only good on the 5-year old. Good grief, how much more bigger boned are we today than the ladies a century ago, that is if the art nouveau claim is indeed true.

I don't think they were that much smaller - smaller to some extent, yes, but my Granny was born in 1915 and her finger was L. Pattye converted your size 3 as an F, so L is still a fair bit larger.

Perhaps it was a child's ring then, too?

 

[Adeline Leigh]

Ahh, abalone blister then. Thanks, Dave. A picture of a conjunction perhaps?

As for a child's ring? Possibly... but what a ring on a child.

 

[dmj]

its been made another size as you can see the color change of the bottom so it looks like its already made bigger

it can actually been older than 1920 could also good be 1830 to 50 s victorian looking at the shape and flower on it

150 years aggo people indeed had way thiner vingers as they where small compare to us

 

[dmj]

could have been for a child only rich people had gold jewellery with colored stones back then when you where rich and a girl in a good familie you had jewellery since you where born

i have seen some amazing child tiara s some time aggo victorian age

 

[Adeline Leigh]

Yes, I thought so too, I thought either enlarged or made smaller to fit. Thanks for all the comments, I am quite thrilled by its age. Now to enlarge it so I can wear it.

 

[MSC]

It does look Edwardian with Art Nouveau influences; all of those art movements sort of overlap time-wise, so it's not surprising to see a mix of design style in pieces. I think it's a lovely ring, indeed, and great find taboot! I remember seeing it on ebay and thinking: resist, resist, resist...