The picture looks like numbers scratched into a composition/ resin sort of material. It looks like theyw ere scratched in when the material was soft and not yet hardened. and the interior of the ring looks very rough....not like it was ever worn.
What does the front look like? how big is it? And what sort of museums have you taken it to?
linda C
Can we see a view of the whole ring?

Heres another shot Linda:

If that ring is gold - the 750 may be the marking for gold content, in this instance 750 (75%) gold = 18KT.

Pat

I'm wondering if the design has a Mason's influence? Just a gut feeling.

I don't think it's all that ancient. There's a lot of jewelry makers working in this style--take a look at the fine jewelry sections at Neiman Marcus and Barneys. Rather than a museum, you might want to take it to a high-end jeweler (not a mall shop, obviously).

If it were large enough, I'd call it a napkin ring.

There is no reason a real jeweler can't tell you a gold content of the ring with a simple test. From this test you can narrow down the likely country of origin. Given that it has a 750 on it, it's likely European (18k in the US. A piece with a 750 quality mark would also be qualified to have a makers mark on the piece.

I also don't think it's too ancient. I collect antique jewelry and most often see higher gold content from my european antique pieces, plus significantly better quality in the pieces made over 100 years ago. An older european piece might not say 750 on it...but again, a jeweler can tell you what the content is easily. Even my older pieces, which are rougher in construction than a piece made say in the 1880's are all made with more detail than that piece.

Celtic pieces with designs as simple as that wouldn't have had the 750 mark. Even pieces from the early 1700's and down into the 1600's would have more done on the workmanship side than that piece.

This does not mean it's not a nice piece of jewelry. It has a high gold content, and it's a decent piece, I just would be pretty shocked to find out it's ancient. I'm guessing (as guessed above) that it's some sort of lodge piece (which would explain the rustic design and masculine styling) from anywhere from the 50's on.

Personally, I'd never count on a museaum to date my jewelry. I'd count on a historical jeweler, but if I walked into our local museaum (a very nice museaum) they'd ask to do a display of my collection, but I'd bet you a billion bucks they could never identify the pieces individually. You need a jewelry expert for that. And even a great shop can't tell you much about a piece if they don't understand the basics of jewelry design over the centuries.

Let me guess value....ok not specifically, but I'd guess it's worth it's weight in gold :oP Not much else given the workmanship (again it's nice but not spectacular given it was probably a lodge piece) but it's a very good quality gold if the mark is right and worth whatever 18k gold is trading for by the ounce lately :)

The shape of the band and hole suggests that a piece or pieces are missing. Something could have been fitted into the trapizodal hole like a bezel with a facteted stone, or a birthstone. I am ruling out 'class ring' because these usually have features about the school and class year cast on the band. However, there could have been a second decorative band wrapped around this band and was keyed in place by the hole. Thus, a single 'base' band design could have been used for several different purposes.

I have examined a lot of antique jewelry with a loupe. I have seen markings of "fineness" in numbers that are different from the US marks...I have studied books on the marks on old jewelry....and never ever seen any mark that gives the appearance of being scratched into clay as this mark does. I am totally puzzled.
From hundreds of years ago, gold and sliversmiths used a die to mark their wares for purity, not scratched the numbers in as this appears.
Sure, some individual craftsman could make a ring with no regard for resale and mark it with his own code.
I would like to see another picture with a coin for size refernce.
The pieces that I have which are older than 1880 are very finely detailed.
I would never count on a museum to date everything, but museums often retain experts in certain areas of antiques and art who are experts in their field.
I would not expect a member of the staff of the local museum displaying fine art prints to give any valid information on antique jewelry. Mut museums in larger cities often retain an expert on jewelry, textiles and such.
The ring is a puzzle for sure....I would love to see more pictures.
Linda C

18K was my first thought as well.

Given that it was found on a beach, it should be taken into account that it has probably been beaten up for an indeterminate amount of time by rocks and sand and brutal waves. The gold would be soft enough to show the wear. That might answer the question regarding quality of the workmanship.

Just a thought.
B

How long ago was this found? I don't think it is old, it looks like modern work in precious metal clay. The numbers in particular have a raised clay-like bur on the edge that is unlike the burr raised by any metal-working tools. (I am a jeweler) Precious metal clay (made from gold or silver powder mixed with a petroleum based binder)
is worked like clay, and can be textured like clay, but fired at high temperatures in a special kiln that burn away the binder. The textural details look like the kind precious metal clay artists often use.