foil-backed diamond ring

[zhuzhu]

Could someone please help me understand how the foil-backed ring got made? Why are they closed-in in the back, is it to "hide" some flaws or make the ring look whiter? Are these rings ultra-sound cleanable and good for everyday wear?

Thanks!

 

[stone-cold11]

From what I understand, they are just normal ring with the basket for the stone covered with a foil, to increase reflection of light like a mirror, probably for stones that are cut with too much leakage, to improve the light performance.

 

[Lestat]

I've read around the internet a bit and it seems like most sites recommend not to immerse foil-backed rings in liquid because you may lose the foil. One site recommends cleaning like this:

"If your piece has small, foil-backed stones, you have to carefully wipe the tops of the stones with a damp cloth, being careful that no water seeps onto the mounting."

Might make it difficult for everyday wear in my opinion, you might have to remove it if you're going to get your hands wet.

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Yep, foil-backed diamonds cannot be immersed in water. They''d be fun special-occasion rings, but not a good idea to wear when hanging out at the house and/or if you wash your hands a lot.

Have you found one of interest?

 

[WinkHPD]

My question is are these foil backed diamonds or foil backed glass? I can not imagine why you would foil back diamonds, the light you are seeing is coming in from the top, not the bottom of the diamonds.

Not saying that they are not out there, I just have never seen one using diamonds. All of the foil backs I have ever seen have been glass.

Wink

 

[Dreamer_D]

I have never heard of such a thing!

 

[Mrs Mitchell]

Here's one. It's a pendant, not a ring, but it's foil backed. I think it was a fairly common way of setting diamonds in the Georgian and early Victorian eras.
I didn't know you couldn't put them in water, it's been in the ultrasonic many, many times. Oops. It seems fine (clean!).

It's a Georgian rose cut pendant foil backed with silver and set in rose gold. I got it as my giving up smoking incentive and it came from Faye Cullen.

 

[Mrs Mitchell]

Here it is from the back.

 

[Mrs Mitchell]

Ooops, sorry. Here it is now.

 

[Mrs Mitchell]

http://www.laurelleantiquejewellery.co.uk/store/catalog/product_2498_Georgian_Five_Stone_Old_Cut_Diamond_18ct_Gold_Ring_cat_21.html

Here''s a link to a ring set this way. It''s Georgian. There are plenty more on the site linked, Laurelle Antiques. None of them look at all like modern styles, but they have a charm all of their own. I wanted one piece like this, but I probably wouldn''t start a collection!

Jen

 

[MichelleCarmen]

Date: 2/28/2010 1:06:45 PM
Author: Wink
My question is are these foil backed diamonds or foil backed glass? I can not imagine why you would foil back diamonds, the light you are seeing is coming in from the top, not the bottom of the diamonds.

Not saying that they are not out there, I just have never seen one using diamonds. All of the foil backs I have ever seen have been glass.

Wink

What about when there is a doublet. . . such as a ruby? Is there such a thing as a diamond doublet?

 

[zhuzhu]

Date: 2/28/2010 1:42:48 PM
Author: Mrs Mitchell
Here''s one. It''s a pendant, not a ring, but it''s foil backed. I think it was a fairly common way of setting diamonds in the Georgian and early Victorian eras.

I didn''t know you couldn''t put them in water, it''s been in the ultrasonic many, many times. Oops. It seems fine (clean!).


It''s a Georgian rose cut pendant foil backed with silver and set in rose gold. I got it as my giving up smoking incentive and it came from Faye Cullen.

Mrs. Mitchell,

Your pendant is beautiful! May I ask what ct weight and color the center diamond is? Have you noticed the color change after cleaning it in water?

Thanks!

 

[Mrs Mitchell]

Thank you!
I don''t actually know the carat weight - it was sold as a complete pendant, since it''s an antique, so it was only a best guess measured in the setting. It''s looks fairly big, but since rosecuts are flat on the back, I think it''s hard to estimate on measurements.

The colour hasn''t changed, I''ve cleaned it in mild soda crystals solution, along with my other sterling stuff. It removes tarnish so I suppose it stops the backing from darkening. It was cleaned in an ultrasonic by the vendor, so I assumed it was safe. I''ve had it for a few years now, so I guess it''s ok.

 

[Mrs Mitchell]

Here's a neck-shot, for perspective. I wear it pinned on a black velvet choker occasionally, and sometimes with three silver chains all threaded through the bale, which I fondly imagine looks edgy and cool

 

[zhuzhu]

Date: 2/28/2010 5:59:49 PM
Author: Mrs Mitchell
Here''s a neck-shot, for perspective. I wear it pinned on a black velvet choker occasionally, and sometimes with three silver chains all threaded through the bale, which I fondly imagine looks edgy and cool

I LOVE how it looks! DO you think wearing it on the hand (with much more frequent washing in water) will be a problem?

 

[Mrs Mitchell]

Now that I know you''re not supposed to get them wet, probably! I think if I was having this made as a ring, I would take it off before I washed my hands. It probably would need babying a little.

I''ve often thought that it would make a fantastic ring and a while ago, David at DBL had some pics of a really gorgeous diamond that I wanted to do this with. It was a pear shaped old-style cut, closer to and OMC than a rose cut, and a lovely soft warm colour. I was seriously tempted to have him copy the pendant using that stone, as a match to the necklace, but a few folks there suggested that it wasn''t the most practical design for a ring because of the foil back. I don''t think he stocked the stone in the end, but I''m sure he would find other good candidates. I wonder if a similar effect could be created without enclosing the back entirely?

That said, the rings on the site I linked to above are Georgian. They have survived up to a couple of centuries worth of wear and they''re still wearable. That suggests to me that they are reasonably robust. If you''re interested in the style, keep an eye on that site, their inventory does turn over quite quickly.

 

[tyty333]

Thats really pretty Mrs. Mitchell! Is it missing one of its little stones? It would be so cool to have something that
had so much history behind it.

 

[Mrs Mitchell]

Thank you! I like to guess about it''s past. I don''t suppose I''ll ever know, but I think it may have been part of a bigger, altogether grander piece.

It has all it''s stones, but the little round rose cuts are fairly poorly cut, I think. One is amost totally see-through. The bale isn''t its best feature, which was what made me thing it would be a good ring. I''d be sorry to break it up, though.

 

[Circe]

Date: 2/28/2010 5:59:49 PM
Author: Mrs Mitchell
Here''s a neck-shot, for perspective. I wear it pinned on a black velvet choker occasionally, and sometimes with three silver chains all threaded through the bale, which I fondly imagine looks edgy and cool

Mrs. Mitchell, I love that necklace, and I love your posts! It takes a lot to make me literally LOL.

Wink, I believe that diamonds were foilbacked pretty regularly until the advent of the OMC, and for a good bit after: the sparkle-factor of the cuts that had preceded them tended to need a boost, and for a while it was just habit. So if you''re in the vicinity of Georgian era, it''s not impossible ....

 

[Lestat]

Date: 2/28/2010 6:46:33 PM
Author: Mrs Mitchell
Thank you! I like to guess about it''s past. I don''t suppose I''ll ever know, but I think it may have been part of a bigger, altogether grander piece.

It has all it''s stones, but the little round rose cuts are fairly poorly cut, I think. One is amost totally see-through. The bale isn''t its best feature, which was what made me thing it would be a good ring. I''d be sorry to break it up, though.

I wonder if the see-through stone is simply missing it''s foil backing? Could explain why all the others are bright and shiny and not that one. But I''m no expert

 

[zhuzhu]

Date: 3/1/2010 3:55:33 AM
Author: Lestat

Date: 2/28/2010 6:46:33 PM

Author: Mrs Mitchell

Thank you! I like to guess about it''s past. I don''t suppose I''ll ever know, but I think it may have been part of a bigger, altogether grander piece.


It has all it''s stones, but the little round rose cuts are fairly poorly cut, I think. One is amost totally see-through. The bale isn''t its best feature, which was what made me thing it would be a good ring. I''d be sorry to break it up, though.

I wonder if the see-through stone is simply missing it''s foil backing? Could explain why all the others are bright and shiny and not that one. But I''m no expert

That''s an interesting hypothesis. I wonder if there are any experts on antique diamond jewelry on Pricescope who can enlighten us on the topic?

 

[tyty333]

Date: 2/28/2010 6:46:33 PM
Author: Mrs Mitchell
Thank you! I like to guess about it''s past. I don''t suppose I''ll ever know, but I think it may have been part of a bigger, altogether grander piece.

It has all it''s stones, but the little round rose cuts are fairly poorly cut, I think. One is amost totally see-through. The bale isn''t its best feature, which was what made me thing it would be a good ring. I''d be sorry to break it up, though.

I wonder if you could have a jeweler just make the bale smaller? Use the same bale just cut it and bend it so it is a smaller
loop. You would still need to make sure you could fit your 3 chains through and the ribbon.

 

[Mrs Mitchell]

Circe, glad it amused!

Lestat, I don''t think the little stones are actually foil backed. It''s in the safe, but I''ll dig it out and have a look tomorrow. I think either they''ve all lost their backing along the way, or it was made like that (or that the decorated bit at the top is a later addition?).

tyty, I do need to have the bail changed at some point, it doesn''t look right on the pendant. Maybe something hidden at the back would work better.

 

[Rockdiamond]

Nice piece Mrs Mitchell!!!

To me, it looks like a closed back using gold ( or platinum)- could that be different from a "foil back"?

 

[zhuzhu]

Date: 3/1/2010 3:39:34 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Nice piece Mrs Mitchell!!!


To me, it looks like a closed back using gold ( or platinum)- could that be different from a ''foil back''?

Hi David! Long time no see!

Do you mean that there may be nothing between the diamond itself and the metal backing? Therefore the "foil back" is just a name? If so the reflection of light in such a closed-back piece should only come from the table only, right? What if the bottom of the diamond gets dirty? How should it be cleaned?

Thanks!

 

[Rockdiamond]

HI zhuzhu!

I''m very experienced with closed backs- as many fancy colored rings are made this way- but not with "foil" backs.

You point out a common problem with closed backs- that being cleaning.

We don''t close the backs of rings like that for a number of reasons.
1) I believe that light entering the bottom of the stone gives it additional brilliance-
2) it''s almost impossible to clean some type of dirt from a closed back ring......

 

[zhuzhu]

That will make me sad that my diamond can''t be cleaned and smells nice.....
I guess it will be wise to pass up my foil-backen ring....

 

[Mrs Mitchell]

Date: 3/1/2010 3:39:34 PM
Author: Rockdiamond
Nice piece Mrs Mitchell!!!

To me, it looks like a closed back using gold ( or platinum)- could that be different from a ''foil back''?

Thank you, David.

It was sold as foil backed on rose gold, but for all I know, it could be something totally different (and I will look like a complete muppet for dominating the foil backed diamond thread with my other type of setting hahaha).

I know the rest of the metal is silver (it tarnishes) but it could be a totally different setting technique.

That pear shape you had would have been sooooooo nice in a setting like this, btw. I remember it fondly.

Jen

 

[oldminer]

A lot of really antique jewelry has foil back stones in it. Many of these stones are colorless and the color one sees is the color of the foil itself. These can be ruined with cleaning solutions as the old dye stains readily. Many of these colorless stones are quartz, topaz, beryl and sapphire although foil backing for rose cut diamond was also very common. Sometime colored glass or colorless glass was also used and foil backed, too, to give more light return and sparkle.

We used to buy Victorian antique reproduction pieces made in Portugal in the 1970''s. Some of this is still being produced. They did not use foil, but used what we''d call "Lamp Black" to make the small rose cuts dark rather than white looking. Just a different look which they found appealing. These were very difficult to clean, too, as the lamp black will rinse out over a few washings.

 

[Rockdiamond]

You''re welcome Mrs M!
zhuzhu- don;t fret- some types of closed back rings can be cleaned- also some type of dirt is easier to remove.
Try not to apply hand lotion when wearing the ring- that''s a biggie.
It goes without saying that if you''re going to reach into a vat of boiling sulphuric acid, remove the ring first