It's victorian. The halo has some seed pearls and I have the same carving of a similar flower on my grandmothers wedding ring. It had a red stone in it that was cut like this. It had some abrasions along the edges of the facets the same as this one. It was glass. Victorian jewelry frequently used glass stones. There's no way I'd take a chance unless you LOVE it. I don't *think* it's a real stone. That is a huge size for a stone and I think they would have had it tested because the color could be alexandrite, zircon, sapphire, aqua, etc. And it would be worth a LOT more than $210. BUT that's just my opinion.
Yes, it could be Victorian, but I’m thinking more in the Victorian style rather than a 100 year old ring.
That style is attributable to English Victorian but as such it will not have “14k” on it, it would be hallmarked “ct” or numerical ie 375, 585, 750.
The Asian countries (particularly India) are recreating the Victorian look in jewellery and tend to use synthetic or treated quartz. Some Asian countries fraudently hallmark junk metal as 925 silver and 14kt gold. Check out ebay.
If it was definitely 14kt gold, $210 is a fair price even with a synthetic gem.