I didnt consciously base this silver ring set with Baltic amber on Iron Age designs, though it does bear some resemblance to a Roman Iron Age (1-400 C.E.) gold ring set with carnelian from Sweden I just saw the other day. I made it at the request of a friend to re-purpose part of an old amber bracelet she had inherited from her mother. Im showing it as an example of age patina on amber. I believe the bracelet was made in the interwar period, meaning that amber was last finished over 70 years ago. That has been more than enough time for the amber to acquire a patina. Thats the reason for the bulls-eye effect, in which the center of the cabochon is a darker, richer yellow than the edge; I just polished the top, but I filed several mm off the edges for a better fit into the oval setting, which was enough to remove the patina layer. I believe this may be due to exposure to oxygen and may be accelerated by exposure to UV light. Can anyone tell us more about this ageing process? P.S. Interesting that the gold ring was set with carnelian, no? It looks very similar to amber, both in color and in its tendency to split via conchoidal fracture. This, despite their vast differences in composition: carnelian is SiO₂ (just like ordinary quartz sand!) tinted by Fe, whereas amber is a blend of organic compounds such as succinic acid [HOOC-(CH₂)₂-COOH]. I wonder if carnelian may have been more valuable in Northern Europe because it was physically harder while being rarer than amber, but sharing some of the same sun-like warmth (Though, unlike amber, it would have been cool to the touch.) More questions to ponder... Please share your answers here!
Posted on: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 20:39:45 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015