Repolish Georg Jensen cabochon moonstone?

[glitterata]

I have a sterling ring by Georg Jensen set with a large cabochon moonstone. The ring has the hallmarks they used in 1933-44, and the moonstone has gotten somewhat abraded over the years, so the surface is matte rather than shiny. I think it would look much better shiny--it would show off the moving blue glow more sharply.

Would it be a good idea to have it polished, or would that hurt its value as an antique? And if I do want to have it polished, how would I go about it--who does that kind of work?

I know there used to be a poster who was very knowledgeable about Jensen, Fire&Ice, but I haven''t seen her around for a while. Fire&Ice, if you''re there, I hope you''ll chime in!

Thanks.

 

[innerkitten]

I''m not sure but I would worry about hurting the value too. Maybe have it looked at by a jeweler who works with antiques and see what they say before having deciding.

P.S. Got any pics?

 

[glitterata]

Thanks, Kitten.

I''ll try to take a picture or two today.

 

[glitterata]

Okay, here you go. Hand shot:

 

[glitterata]

Profile:

 

[movie zombie]

Jensen fan but not expert: do NOT repolish the moonstone or the silver for that matter. it takes years to obtain a certain personality and that personality is all about how the piece ages. shining it up to look new is a waste of the piece....imo. i have a necklace of mexican metal beads that i bought as well as an antique chinese bracelet.....seller was definitely jensen fan as well as an antique jewlery expert and she advised me in no way to shine up my mexican beads. they are large like really large pearls and with the patina they developed over their history, they look like really expensive grey/black pearls.

wear your piece a lot to add to its history and patina.

just my thoughts,

mz

 

[glitterata]

Thanks, Zombie.

I completely agree with you about the silver and the personality. In general, I hate it when people polish away the patina that speaks of age and experience. But I wish the stone weren''t so abraded--it''s a beautiful moonstone, and the abrasions really obscure the movement of the adularescence. It looks much better wet, when you can see the blue "moon" moving around instead of hiding behind a cloud.

Oh, well. I expect you''re right and I should leave it alone.

PS: Pix of your beads?

 

[Fly Girl]

I understand that antiques should stay the way they are. But I don''t see the point of having a lovely moonstone if you can''t see it.

This reminds me of Ellen''s problem about whether or not to recut an heirloom aquamarine. She finally recut the stone, and wears it much more often.

I think it comes down to your preference as to preserving the item, versus wearing the item. I''d vote for wearing it.

 

[canuk-gal]

HI:

I vote stay as is.

I have a Jensen piece I bought in Copenhagen; it was an estate piece from their studio and the cab. amethyst is in need of polishing. But after professional consultation and much thought I decided to leave it as is. It is "that way" for a reason.......

cheers--Sharon

 

[chrono]

I would leave the silver as is. As for the moonstone, I would not do anything until after a consultation with an experienced lapidary.

 

[glitterata]

Here it is wet. See the difference in the blue glow?

 

[glitterata]

Another wet shot.

I guess I''ll probably leave the moonstone as it is--that seems to be the general opinion. (I was never even considering buffing the silver.)

 

[stepcutnut]

GL-I really love the moonstone while wet, I can see your dilemma! I understand preserving a piece of the past, but it were my piece and I knew I would wear it all the time if I polished it-then that''s what I would probably do.

 

[crown1]

i do antiques. i am into antique and vintage jewelry also. if it were mine i would use neverdull wadding on the silver. i say this because if i was the original owner i would have been using it all along to keep it looking nice. since you mentioned the 30''s it is not so old that cleaning products were not available. i am against fooling with things vintage for the most part but i don''t think i would object to polishing the moonstone if it is doable and easily accomplished. i am not knowledgable on the mechanics of stone polishing nor do i know a lot about moonstone but if it is simple i would go for it. i do have a moonstone i have had since the 70''s and if it were abraded looking i think it would definitely distract from the ring. it is not a jensen piece and is in white gold so we are talking apples and oranges. just my thought. it is a lovely piece.

 

[glitterata]

I wear it pretty often--it''s one of my favorites--so the silver is bright and clean, except in the deep parts of the pattern, where the tarnish adds depth.

I don''t actually object to lightly cleaning silver to remove surface tarnish, though I believe in leaving any oxidation that the designer originally applied, and I wouldn''t use dips, which remove so much tarnish that they leave things looking flat. But I do object to buffing out the tiny scratches that give metal its patina.

With this piece, it''s really a question of whether to polish the stone.

I''ll guess I''ll leave it along for now and go on thinking about it. After all, I can always change my mind and polish it later, but once I do polish it I won''t be able to unpolish it again.

Thanks for your opinions, everyone!

 

[partgypsy]

I vote for polishing the stone (leaving the silver as is). Are you going to sell the piece or wear it? If you are going to keep it then what other people feel is not so important. Get it polished and enjoy the stone. To me this is akin to looking at chips in a faceted stone. It shows the age of the piece but it was not intended to be viewed that way. And heck if you end up wearing it for another 30 years by the time it will pass on to others it may have developed the patina again and then everyone will be happy.