Modern roman ring fake or genuine?

[Kilian O]

Hello I would love a second opinion on this ring

[Kilian O]

Anyone know where I can contact somebody who will be able to do this or does it usually take a while for people to see the post and answer?

Thanks.

[Jay GT4]

Hi Kilian, welcome to Forum.  It might take a while for someone to chime in.  I'm not familiar with this particular style to give an opinion but I'm sure someone will...

[SC]

Stylistically I see nothing problematic.

That doesn't mean it is genuine.  No one can do that from a photo.  But I see nothing to worry about. 

Maybe others with more experience with rings will chime in with their views too.

SC

[Mayadigger]

Ave!

I agree that Kilian's ring appears to be Roman in style; 1st-4th Cent?

Typology of such rings can be rather problematical, as stylistically it could be medieval as well.

Early 1st Cent BC -1st Cent AD Roman rings tended to have (but not always) an ovoid shaped band as presented in the following three photos.

Others from the 1st-3rd Cent had bands described at "shoulder-type. Photo #4 and #5

To be continued if anyone is interested...?

Best to all,

Kevin

[JBF]

I like what you have said so far, Mayadigger, and would love to hear more details.

[Mayadigger]

Ave!

Roman rings continued...

Other 1st-2nd rings are called "Hunch Shoulder-type" as seen in the first photo

But not all Roman rings have such odd and clunky appearing bands.
Many feature thin round bands with cast or engraved intaglios/signets as seen below.

One of the ways to discern Roman rings from Medieval is the intaglio.

As seen in Photo #2, this rings features Victory holding a palm (?) branch.
In photo #3, we see infant Jupiter riding a goat.
Photo #4 - The Capture of Pegasus by the Greek hero Bellerophon using the magic bridle given to him by Athena. Wow!

No such pagan images would have been used after Rome became Christianized and please note that all have a raised bezel of one sort or another.   

The last photo is a Medieval ring that could easily be confused with a Roman ring; the subject of the intaglio is a bulls head, ears and muzzle down, star between the horns. Again, note, no raised bezel.

Just saying, but I'm no expert and these are just my thoughts.

Best to all,

Kevin

[Peter B6]

Very crude, no patina, all wrong stylistically, wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole l am afraid, modern.

[Mayadigger]

Ave Peter B6,

Very crude, no patina, all wrong stylistically, wouldn't touch it with a barge pole l am afraid, modern.

What I see on Kilian's ring is a polished off eagle. Yes or No?

Just because it's crude, no patina, and wrong stylistically, doesn't equal modern, amigo.

Crude? Perhaps provincial made? No patina? Some of my best rings looked like squat until the patina was removed and the brass was polished.

For instance, this Roman ring with Lapis Lazuli Jewel, ca. 3rd-1st Cent BC (Roman Republican era) Copper alloy; 6.6gm,
arrived in horrible encrusted condition, but the jewel was still in place.

This ring has the typical compressed shape of the era and has not been bent. The stone is original (Roman glue was tough stuff) and has been re-polished to "like new" condition. Lapis lazuli was quite rare in Roman times; the only source for lapis was Afghanistan. My cost was $5, the restoration cost $20 and I sold it for $105.

Peter, can you please share with all of us your experience and expertise with rings?

Best regards,

Kevin
 

[Jay GT4]

Beautiful ring Kev. 

[Kilian O]

I'm still 50/50 on this ring as the sellers has still quite some rings for sale and i'm not sure about authenticity. Would it be normal that the hole where the finger has to go through is only 18mm?

Greetings Kilian

[Joe Sermarini]

Romans were smaller. Rings were also made for children. Also, it seems they did not always push rings all the way to the base of the finger.  It seems odd, but I recall hearing somewhere that they would also wear them higher up on the fingers.

[Mayadigger]

Ave Joe,

Romans were smaller. Rings were also made for children. Also, it seems they did not always push rings all the way to the base of the finger.  It seems odd, but I recall hearing somewhere that they would also wear them higher up on the fingers.

You are absolutely correct.

If you note the very first ring photo I posted, it is super tiny, just large enough to insert a common wooden pencil.

Much too small for anyone to wear other than an infant.

Seems to me that I read somewhere that Augustus made some sort of luxury tax for citizens of Rome who wanted to wear gold rings.

I also read somewhere that Roman slaves, and only slaves, were required to wear iron rings as an identification of their status?

These three iron rings; left, ring size 10, right, ring size 12 1/4 (!), center, ring key.

Best to all,

Kevin