I suppose the answer may lie in what you intend to do with your ring. For many of us, we want a ring simply be because we think it’s pretty damn cool. In that case, I would argue the best answer is to do whatever the ring-bearer thinks is "coolest."
:cool: 
Jeremy Corbally-Hammond;86665 wrote:
I suppose the answer may lie in what you intend to do with your ring. For many of us, we want a ring simply be because we think it’s pretty damn cool. In that case, I would argue the best answer is to do whatever the ring-bearer thinks is "coolest."
:cool:
In the argument over shield vs crest or badge maybe we’re forgetting the origin of the signet ring. It was the ring with the signetum - the small seal as opposed to a great seal or desk seal. The signet was the personal seal that was always with the person of the armiger (that’s why it was on a ring). It was used either for communication with intimates or to show that a thing was done personally rather than by the "office". The signet would therefore have to be a) small enough to go onto a ring and b) different from the main seal. Use of a crest or badge meets those requirements. Very often property and retainers would be marked with the crest/badge rather than the main arms so it would have been familiar to those who needed to recognise it. However, it could have disadvantages. Henry VI might not have lost at Barnet if the Lancastrians had not mistaken the de Vere star for the Yorkist sun in splendour and loosed their arrows at their own side.
This aside, its worth remembering that what goes on depends on what fits and the skill of your engraver. These two images show a seal of 2nd Earl Fife from the 1780s.
http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=29&pictureid=1231 http://www.americanheraldry.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=29&pictureid=1232
The original is about 2cmx2cm. I have no idea if the matrix was a ring or a desk seal. As a ring its maybe a bit big for modern tastes unless you’re into bling, but its not impossible. There’s a lot on there and even tinctures can be made out, so with a good engraver nothing is impossible.
James
James Dempster;86691 wrote:
The original is about 2cmx2cm. I have no idea if the matrix was a ring or a desk seal. As a ring its maybe a bit big for modern tastes unless you’re into bling, but its not impossible. There’s a lot on there and even tinctures can be made out, so with a good engraver nothing is impossible.
I would agree with everything James says, but of course for us to see the hatching for the tinctures with the naked eye the photograph of the impression has been enlarged several times over. Looking at the website of an engraver here in Alexandria, Eric Margry, he offers signet rings in four size categories, 22x20 mm (about the size of the one James shows here), 18x16 mm, 16x14 mm, and 14x12 mm. Those correspond with 7/8 by 3/4 inch for the largest down to 1/2 by 3/8 inch for the smallest.
Here’s a photograph close to real size of one of his rings and the impression in wax:
http://www.familycrestring.com/images/rw-large.jpg
The website is www.familycrestring.com.
If I could justify spending $2000 to $4000 on one of these, I’d probably have pictures of my own to share.
I had this made by a fellow in Toronto for far less money. It’s not reversed and shows both arms and crest. I’ve been intending to go back to have the arms of the cross widened a bit, but otherwise I’m pleased.
http://i873.photobucket.com/albums/ab296/bct74/P8030341.jpg
I actually directed the engraver to use the image of JFK’s signet at the AHS presidential arms page as a starting point.
This is interesting Benjamin because if a ring is engraved with the pictorial not in reverse but with the depth of a reverse seal, it is far cheaper. It’s certainly worth considering the high cost of an engraving in reverse if the signet will never actually be used for wax impressions.
I’ve also been told that a pictorial engraving also lasts longer - although I’m not sure what is meant by that.
It’s also not nearly to the depth (or quality) that Margry is providing.
On the price, part of Margry’s price is based on the cost of gold (as his website says), and 18k costs more than 10k.
I was just going with silver (prefer the color) and through Dexter it was still around $700
Joseph McMillan;86720 wrote:
It’s also not nearly to the depth (or quality) that Margry is providing.
On the price, part of Margry’s price is based on the cost of gold (as his website says), and 18k costs more than 10k.
True on all counts. This is 10k, and not nearly at the same level as Margry or Dexter or others. If you don’t pay top dollar, you can expect some corners cut.
Richard G.;86715 wrote:
This is interesting Benjamin because if a ring is engraved with the pictorial not in reverse but with the depth of a reverse seal, it is far cheaper. It’s certainly worth considering the high cost of an engraving in reverse if the signet will never actually be used for wax impressions.
Now, how does that work? How hard is it for the engraver to reverse the image?
Doesn’t seem like it’d be very difficult. If they had a digital version of the image, all it would take is to click "flip" on their editor.
J. Stolarz;86753 wrote:
Doesn’t seem like it’d be very difficult. If they had a digital version of the image, all it would take is to click "flip" on their editor.
I think it might have something to do with the 3d effect in hand engraving. Different depths give the seal a 3d effect.
J. Stolarz;86729 wrote:
I was just going with silver (prefer the color) and through Dexter it was still around $700
Margry also quotes $700 as the approximate price of a sterling silver ring.
Quite depressing for me. Once in a lifetime gifts are never cheap though I suppose :D. Well worth it though
Last year I had my seal ring done by Xavier d’Andeville .
The shield topped with helm ,mantling and crest ....all engraved on 9x12mm garnet .
