Garnet Intaglio Ring Shocker

[Al Kowsky]

A garnet intaglio ring ring of Caesar Augustus estimated to sell at auction for 200 GBP ended up selling for 117,000 GBP 😮! Obviously the auction house thought the ring was a 19th century copy, however, it turned out to be a period piece 2,000 years old ☺️.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11994287/Ancient-Roman-ring-valued-200-sells-auction-117-000.html

                           

             

 

 

[Kaleun96]

Did some expert come out and say it's likely authentic or is the assumption it's authentic based only on two bidders willing to pay so much for it?

[Ryro]

I'm not even sure it is Augustus led alone that it's authentic. Looks more like Tiberius to my eye. 

ah well, the rich are being allowed to hoard so much wealth these days is nice to see them get screwed. 

ps, the article said nothing about the auction house thinking it was a 19th century copy. Merely that it was purchased in the 19th century and that the house underestimated what two idiots would bid. Anyone able to find the original sale listing?

Edited April 20, 2023 by Ryro

[Herodotus]

4 hours ago, Ryro said:

Looks more like Tiberius to my eye. 

 

I agree.  That was my first thought as well.

[DonnaML]

6 hours ago, Ryro said:

ps, the article said nothing about the auction house thinking it was a 19th century copy. Merely that it was purchased in the 19th century and that the house underestimated what two idiots would bid. Anyone able to find the original sale listing?

You are correct. But if they did think it was authentic, the estimate was preposterously low. Regardless of emperor, anything genuine of the kind would clearly sell for five figures at an absolute minimum. Even a cameo without the ring in that condition, even if it portrays a deity or animal rather than an emperor, costs at least something in four figures.

Edited April 21, 2023 by DonnaML

[Kaleun96]

11 hours ago, Ryro said:

ps, the article said nothing about the auction house thinking it was a 19th century copy. Merely that it was purchased in the 19th century and that the house underestimated what two idiots would bid. Anyone able to find the original sale listing?

I noticed that too but managed to find the original listing and it was listed as being a 19th century copy. I'd link to it but you actually need to register and apply for a 1-week free subscription to access their lot archives even though the auction was last week 🙃

[Al Kowsky]

NVMVS FORVMS members have raised some interesting & valid questions about the garnet intaglio ring 🤔. Thankfully Kaleun96 found & posted the original auction listing that only suggests the portrait may be Caesar Augustus. More importantly the auction house lists the mounting as 18ct gold, meaning the mounting is either marked 18ct or it has been tested & verified as 18ct. Roman goldsmiths, to my knowledge, didn't use 18ct gold (.750 fineness), rather their gold was nearly pure like their solidi. So the mounting isn't ancient. This has no bearing on the age of the garnet intaglio, which could be ancient & most likely is. The craftsmanship on the mounting is far superior to ancient Roman work of that time period. Many ancient cameos & intaglios were mounted in fine gold settings in the 18th & 19th centuries. Ryro & Herodotus also suggest the portrait looks like Tiberius, & it certainly does resemble the coin portraits of Tiberius 🧐. Tiberius became emperor of Rome at the age of 55, & died at the age of 77, but his coin portraits nearly always depict a young man. So you must ask the question, why would a personal seal ring of Tiberius bear an unrealistic portrait 🤔? Pictured below are two large coins of Caesar Augustus & Tiberius that I sold at auction, along with a better photo of the garnet ring.

[Finn235]

@Al Kowsky it's the nose - on official imperial iconography Augustus' nose is always nearly straight while Tiberius' is markedly aquiline.

Through the reign of Caligula, it was the norm for the emperor to want to be depicted as they were in the prime of their life, i.e. as a young man of about 25-35. I don't think there are any surviving portraits of Augustus or Tiberius in any medium that depict them otherwise.

[kirispupis]

Granted, I'm not expert in Roman intaglios (nor in Roman coins, nor even with the Greek coins I collect 🙂) but based on what I've seen, I'm extremely doubtful that the stone is actually ancient.

• While Roman emperors were the subjects of intaglios, from my reading people back then preferred images from mythology or animals. Wealthy individuals (and a garnet intaglio would have been an expensive item) preferred more personal images.
• From my reading of Mary Beard's Twelve Caesars, images of Roman emperors in all sorts of venues were popular in the 19th century, even of emperors that weren't so popular in their own time (such as Tiberius).

I'm therefore inclined to believe that this is a 19th century revivalist garnet intaglio ring (both the mount and the stone), as the auction house states, but with an image of Tiberius. I have no idea what the value should be. Given the value of gold and garnet, 200 pounds seems a bit low, so my guess would be 500-600 pounds.

Since I'm not an expert, I could very well be mistaken, but I certainly hope that anyone who bid 100k on this would inspect it personally beforehand and be an expert in Roman intaglios. Otherwise, I'd like to auction on the same site a bridge that will also have an estimate of 200 pounds.