It's around 2.6 ct, in 15ct gold, from 1900-1910. The setting is missing two rose cuts that I can replace. Do I need another ring? Or a pendant? I don't have an emerald pendant.
Why not a ring? Who cares if it's missing a rose-cut or two -- I can hardly tell in the blown-up photos. Stone N/S but the major axis E/W, imo, like your final photo.
Single drop earring, while retaining half the "bar" above and below?
That’s a nice size emerald. If you didn’t want to do a ring, you could use it in a lariat style necklace. It would keep the vintage piece mostly intact that way. and be very lovely.
For some reason, I keep picturing it in a short, simple necklace, bezel-set and horizontal, with the chain attached at both ends. Maybe just because you said you don’t have a pendant, I don’t know.
Or maybe the necklace made to be convertible, so it could also be worn as a bracelet (so you could see it too when you wear it) if you prefer a pendant to a ring.