Topic: Caithness ring, for show.

[chopin-liszt]

I'm sure somebody here used to manage to take pics of teensy things by putting a loup inbetween the camera and the item.
I haven't a clue how they got it to focus.
I used to have to clamber up onto chairs in a dark room to take photographs down a microscope, fiddling around with f-stops. Unfortunately, I no longer have access to those facilities. I even had to do my own developing.

[keith]

I've tried using a lens, the macro setting on the camera won't let me turn off the flash, very annoying 

[chopin-liszt]

Have you tried forcing the flash off before changing the setting to "flower"?

[KevinH]

Thanks Keith. Good efforts and the pics show the ring just fine - as Sue says, a very "wearable" shape.

https://www.ysartglass.com/PaulYsart/PYP5over.htm gives details at the bottom of the page for the "maker" marks. CJ = Cox Jewellery.

Unfortunately, my recognition of Peter Holmes' versions of the "stones" is very limited but I have no problem in beleiving this one from 1977 was, indeed, made by Peter. Particularly as the later Caithness Glass items with "millefiori stones" tended to be much simpler in design.

I could have a go at photographing my few items of Caithness jewellery with Paul Ysart "stones" and add them here for comparison.

[chopin-liszt]

CJ for Cox Jewellery is with the Birmingham stamp, not the Edinburgh one in which, according to the thing I put above, stands for Caithness Glass.
But your article says the the Edinburgh pieces were made by Scotia silver. 

 
(I gave up on working out hallmarks a long time ago.)

In the article, it says too, that the later bits used less silver metal (for the cost), but I don't think this particular ring is one of those - the metal is quite solid there and definitely looks individually worked by an artist who knows what they are doing.

[keith]

Sue, thought about forcing the camera into the bin a few times ! 
Kevin, I'll have another go at the hallmarks but don't hold your breathe !

[chopin-liszt]

If whoever made it had been trying to reduce the amount of metal used, the band would have been flat, with a slim ring attached to the surface to hold the cabochon, not built up from the sides in that very solid and chunky manner from the band.
(I've had a go at doing a little bit of silversmithing myself.)

[Anne]

Keith, your ring looks like R16 shown here (middle pic, 2nd row) http://colinterris.co.uk/CGjewels/CGjewel_rings.html and see more about it on Frank's site here

[chopin-liszt]

The drawing in the second link there (R16) shows a ring with a flat, upright, thin ring of metal attached to the main band holding the cabohon - as I described it would be if they were trying to reduce the amount of metal used.
Linda's ring has the cabochon holder built up from the original band, it's a lot heavier.
(The photos in the other link don't really give a great idea of precise details.)

[Anne]

The problem is the Colin Terris photo is very small and the drawing on Frank's site may not match exactly the finished article (it may not have worked as drawn so was amended). Frank has a bigger scan drawing here https://www.ysartglass.com/PaulYsart/PYP5ring.htm - there doesn't appear to be another ring closer in design to Keith's.  It's a puzzle isn't it?

Edited to add: This appears closer to the R16 https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Beautiful-Rare-Large-Vintage-Caithness-Glass-Silver-Ring-By-Caithness-Jewellery/153449426590