T O P

A Mughal emerald and gold ring, 16-17th century CE, sold at Christie's in 2019 [700x680]

A Mughal emerald and gold ring, 16-17th century CE, sold at Christie's in 2019 [700x680]

North_South_Side

I don't think I've ever seen a ring cut from a single precious gem like this before. I've seen cut-crystal rings... but from a huge emerald? This is amazing. Thanks for posting.


dcmaven

Agree. Never seen anything like this. It’s truly spectacular.


LucretiusCarus

There's the so-called "[calligula's ring](https://i.imgur.com/qSernzi.jpg)", a sapphire and gold ring that gets reposted every other week. Keep in mind it's probably a renaissance forgery based on a coin type of Faustine, rather than Caesonia.


[deleted]

[удалено]


LucretiusCarus

I am glad you had the chance. The ring I linked pops up from time to time, always attributed to Caligula, always without any evidence.


Energy_Turtle

He had to stunt on them fools and this is one of the most ballin things I've ever seen.


crucifixi0n

Imagine how skilled the jewler was to be like.. you know what, I'm gonna risk it and make the ring out of the jewel itself.. like 500+ years ago with the limited tech of that time. Amazing.


hilarymeggin

Give it to us! Because we wants it and it's our birthday!


KatsCauldron

seen a few with ruby & other stones but never with emerald


Fuckoff555

It sold for 759,000 USD.


witcherarhaan

Damn that's high , but it's also pure gold & emerald and the ring is honestly really beautiful. Mughals really had luxurious artefacts like this.


KarelianAlways

Am I crazy or does this seem like a really low price? The “Charlie Bit My Finger” NFT was as much?


Love_God551

I’m with you… 😜


Prior_Egg_40

The NFT was too high.


thylocene06

Every nft that gets sold is sold too high


Prior_Egg_40

yes.


DontTakeMyNoise

Fiat currency is a scam.


Mescallan

There are legitimate uses even if the market is a super bubble


thylocene06

I'd love to hear what legitimate uses there are. Literally all I've heard about is supposed limited editions of art. Which is total bullshit


deprimada

Also how bad it is for the environment


Mescallan

There are environmentaly friendly coins that support NFTs its not just eth


neuralzen

Social credence and networking if you have a cryptopunk, plus privileged access to a lot of investors you wouldn't have access to otherwise. A lot of NFTs also come with bonuses, like bonus drops, access to events, physical items, and much more. Hell ether cards has a whole platform of uses, of games and puzzles, raffle systems etc.


Mescallan

As an independent artists you can use it to raise funds, and your backers get a percentage of the return upon sale. Say you find a no name band you like and buy $5 of their next album Their next album has a super hit on it, they sell rights to a major label. You receive a percentage of the sale for your investment. .... You are buying a collectors item, zthe NFT acts as a certificate of authenticity that is impossible to forge. .... Artists can collect royalties on their work indefinitely without lawyers or accountants. ... These use cases are on average worth dollars to tens of dollars. The market is a bubble, but NFTs are very useful. There are more environmentally friendly coins then ETH as well.


7LeagueBoots

NFT stuff is for idiots with a combination of less intelligence and more money than the6 know what to do with.


scierajj

Yes after looting poor people.. they had so much money.. so gotta put somewhere good right


AbbathOcculta

Who should they return the gold and emerald to?


Rockonfoo

I’ll take it for the betterment of mankind It would be a waste to not show this off on my finger for you all to see


AbbathOcculta

I'll sell it to you for a PS5.


Rockonfoo

No no…it’s for the better good I keep that too I keep your guys’ KD’s high by getting drunk


lelimaboy

To the government of India so it can be placed in a museum there.


scierajj

There's no one to return this now.. probably it will go in some collection or museum. And why so many downvotes on what i said😂 it's the truth what i said.. i guess people don't like truth🙂


MarigoldPuppyFlavors

Probably downvoted for triteness or lack of facts/details. If you want to argue that some group acquired their wealth through unscrupulous means, then make a real argument for it. Explain what happened and who it happened to. Maybe you're right; I don't know enough about the Mughals' wealth to say otherwise, but saying that they "looted poor people" is sort of meaningless as it provides no context. Accumulations of wealth often exist by way of it being denied to others.


Rockonfoo

Well said great last sentence


AbbathOcculta

Yes, you really cut to the heart of everyone's shallowness with your reminder that this ring was the product of a mughal's exploitation which cant be rectified due to time. You're a more moral person because you reminded everyone of this fact that everyone already knew but you think that it's bad the mughal had that power to exploit. Even though everyone also basically agrees with this, you're the good one in this situation which cannot be rectified because of your feelings about it. Congrats!


roarworsted

I dunoo where it came from. But if its really looted like above commenter say then it should go to poor people.


AbbathOcculta

Which ones?


roarworsted

The people in mughal empire


AbbathOcculta

Which mughal empire?


roarworsted

Whichever mughal period it was looted in according to original commenter


AbbathOcculta

As you can see, the OP didn't point that out. They pointed out that the mughals exploited people enough to become wealthy and create rings like this one. Also, that was ~~200~~ 400 years ago. Got an action plan for that?


throw_every_away

Unlike all of those other empires throughout history that never “looted poor people” lol


scierajj

I never said others were good. That system was bad, that's why we came up with democracy right


FreakindaStreet

and after that, no wars were ever declared, not even in iraq.


Lochcelious

Not really the fault of democracy so much as its the fault of some outstandingly greedy and evil-acting humans that hold reigns on so many systems


[deleted]

[удалено]


witcherarhaan

Looting poor people ? Dude Mughal Empire literally contributed to 1/4th of world GDP and had the highest per capita in 17th century , more precisely under Aurangzeb's rule.


scierajj

Where im from.. we had to fight for freedom from this ruthless empire, but obviously everyone have different perspective so I'm not saying you're Wrong n all.. thankyouu


Sellulose

You're from India? I'm a descendant of Prithviraj and lemme tell you that he was no gem either, socioeconomically. And the Mughals were only finally truly defeated by the British. Monarchism is always exploitative (not to speak of the current more benign seeming alternatives to it). That doesn't mean we can't appreciate the artistic accomplishments of humans under those systems. If it did, we'd be forced to throw away all the culture before the twentieth century. Yes, the Mughals were dogcunts (in addition to all the other monarchies of the region) but this is still a beautiful artifact and that's what this sub is about.


MuayThaiisbestthai

By "Mughal Empires" share of the GDP you mean India, and India's GDP in relation to world GDP was higher before the Mughals ever step foot on the subcontinent. By the time of the Mughal's, India's share had started to dwindle for obvious rings like this ring. Something that would continue for centuries and even when the British took over the colonizing from the Muslims.


witcherarhaan

India as a country wasn't a thing , it was the entire subcontinent ( Hind region ) in which various small independent kingdoms existed and it was like that since the Mahajanpadas from 1000 BCE. And , No the Economy was in shambles when Mughals just arrived . During Gupta Empire primarily , in the reign of 2nd and 3rd Gupta Emperor Samudragupta and Chandragupta 2 contributed 33% of World GDP share. But The economy was shattered after the Alchon Huns looted them. And from then northern india broke into several small kingdoms. Then it was Alauddin Khilji who for a short time took india's GDP to highest in the world almost 700 years after gupta. And it was the Mughals from Akbar onwards and with definitive control under Aurangzeb that Indian subcontinent was united into a single polity after 2200 years since Mauryan Empire ( who also contributed the highest GDP share in it's time ). It was the Mughals who built India as a single polity with a unified national govt. And a economy so high that it invited the british EITC who would later destroy the careless maratha empire and colonize india into dark ages.


MuayThaiisbestthai

>Hind region Not the hind "region" but just simply Hind or Al-Hind which referred to Sindhu, the sanskrit word for the Indus river. By the time of Alexander The Great, the Greeks who called India- the Indus, referred to the entire landmass, beyond the river, as a single group of people. Especially those living beyond the borders of Persia. >India as a country wasn't a thing That's why I said the subcontinent and not exclusively modern day India. Though considering two thirds of what constituted the Mughal Empire and the subcontinent IS modern day India it isn't a false statement to just say India. Let's be real here, the Hun's, the Macedonians, Mughal's and the British didn't invade the subcontinent because they wanted to conquer some backwater pind on the frontiers of the subcontinent, they wanted the heart and soul of the region like modern day Delhi. >independent kingdoms existed and it was like that since the Mahajanpadas from 1000 BCE False and we both know that. Ashoka / Maurya Empire & Gupta Empire's unified most of the subcontinent for several hundreds years each. You already know this so stop this lie that the subcontinent was never united before the wholesome Mughals came. >No the Economy was in shambles when Mughals just arrived It was declining because of foreign interference, just like with the Mughal's. This trend continues with the Mughals, they didn't reverse it and history shows it. Expansionist Empire's don't invade poor countries with economies in "shambles" nor do they make an effort to make poor regions into profitable ones, that doesn't make any sense lol >Alauddin Khilji who for a short time took india's GDP to highest in the world ...which was still lower than what India had achieved on it's own...and nothing Khilji did stopped the downward trend of India's share of World GDP. Nor did they stop the massive famines that obliterated millions of people. World's highest GDP my ass. >It was the Mughals who built India as a single polity with a unified national govt. No they didn't champ. If they had, they would've been the sole power when the British came knocking but the Mughals were on deaths doorstep and a pathetic shell of what they were. Their mark on India is only so large because various emperors went out of their way to destroy native Indian architecture & erase its culture much like the aforementioned Alchon Huns. >who would later destroy the careless maratha empire and colonize india into dark ages. LMFAO ah yes. It were the Maratha's that were careless not the dumbass Mughal's who couldn't stop butchering minorities and decided a war with Sikh's was exactly what India required for stability. Gimme a break with your whatsapp history lessons.


witcherarhaan

>Let's be real here, the Hun's, the Macedonians, Mughal's and the British didn't invade the subcontinent because they wanted to conquer some backwater pind on the frontiers of the subcontinent, they wanted the heart and soul of the region like modern day Delhi. Delhi wasn't even a thing in the times of Macedonians and Huns. The main richest and most civilized part & the soul of indian subcontinent was the Magadh province and it's capital Patliputra. >False and we both know that. Ashoka / Maurya Empire & Gupta Empire's unified most of the subcontinent for several hundreds years each. Wtf dude I already said that , "Maurya empire united india into a single polity for the first time" you should read my comment properly before making any statement , Gupta Empire only ruled northern india , you can check out the map. >It was declining because of foreign interference, just like with the Mughal's. This trend continues with the Mughals, they didn't reverse it and history shows it. >Expansionist Empire's don't invade poor countries with economies in "shambles" nor do they make an effort to make poor regions into profitable ones, that doesn't make any sense lol Huh ? Declined because of Mughals. And when the fuck did I say that Mughals weren't motivated to invade for riches. I literally said indian subcontinent as a "whole" , their economy was poor . only Delhi Sultanate and Vijayanagara in deep south were rich. The rest were poor. Mughals created massive industries and secured trade routes of sub continent and even used hidden wealth to finally use it for the betterment and development of their empire which started a much better living standard for the people >No they didn't champ. If they had, they would've been the sole power when the British came knocking but the Mughals were on deaths doorstep and a pathetic shell of what they were. Their mark on India is only so large because various emperors went out of their way to destroy native Indian architecture & erase its culture much like the aforementioned Alchon Huns. They mostly did , if you leave the deep south and Assam . And you can compensate for it with pakistan and half of Afghanistan. Deep south wasn't really a part of indian subcontinent back then. Not even Ashoka was interested in them . Alchon Huns didn't destroy any culture lol , they were culturally indian too , most of them were Hindus. There king Mihirakula was a Shavite. I don't what the hell do you even mean with that. And Mughals only brought new art culture and literature. >dumbass Mughal's who couldn't stop butchering minorities and decided a war with Sikh's was exactly what India required for stability. They didn't butcher minorities lol , Muslims themselves were minorities under Mughal rule. Upto 1947 Muslims constituted 20 % of populace of entire south asia subcontinent. And after division , Muslims of india were 9 %. A war with sikhs was inevitable as sikhs wanted a empire of their own and that would disconnect Mughals from Sindh and Multan region. Although it was a bad decision to kill their religious leaders. But the Mughal-Sikh war wasn't motivated by religion. Aurangzeb had no statement against religion of sikhism and neither tried to vandalise their holy sites despite facing a rebellion. Let's be honest he at least did far better than what Indra Gandhi did to sikhs. >Gimme a break with your whatsapp history lessons. Umm....seems to me you are the one who did that course , esp with your half baked information. PS : Delhi Sultanate brought the unified education system for the first time in history. Before that Lower castes weren't allowed to educate themselves.


MuayThaiisbestthai

>Delhi wasn't even a thing in the times of Macedonians and Huns Like Delhi but not exclusively. I'm aware it wasn't a thing back then lol I only used it as an example to show that the main objective were kingdoms that reside in modern day India, not like I said, some backwater pind on the frontier. >Wtf dude I already said that , "Maurya empire united india into a single polity for the first time" No. You contradicted yourself in your own post. Initially you said India or "Hind" had been a collection of various small kingdoms since 1000 bce. Then you said it was was Mughals who had the definitive control 2200 years after the Mauyra, who then built India into a single polity with a "national govt". >And when the fuck did I say that Mughals weren't motivated to invade for riches You said said earlier than the Mughal's invaded when the economy was in shambles, then you said because of Mughal rule the economy was so great it invited the EIC to invade....the underlying issue here being you asserting it were the magical mughals who turned India's economy around and made it the talk of the world when in reality they did nothing of the sort. >which started a much better living standard for the people Absolutely ZERO proof for any of this. Mughal's didn't give a shit about its people and they destroyed and looted native temples (amongst other things) to help fund their demented empire. >Alchon Huns didn't destroy any culture lol Bruh what? They literally decimated Gandhara, destroyed 100s of Buddhist temples in the area and destroyed all of the writings and arts of the culture???? Hell just Wikipedia Alchon Huns and they have an entire subsection devoted to the destruction wrought by the Huns 🤦🏽‍♂️ >they were culturally indian too My man, they were Central Asian not Indian. They had their own culture unless you're gonna tell me Shivaism was practiced all the way in their homeland? A few of their kings only started worshipping Shiva AFTER they had already settled in India, not before. >And Mughals only brought new art culture and literature. Yes of course, Mughal's did no wrong, never, nope! Not like we have records of Mughal's destroying countless temples for one reason or another! Nope! They only ever enriched the culture never took anything away. >They didn't butcher minorities lol Amazing. I, as a Sikh can personally attest to the fact that my people were never persecuted and genocided under Mughal rule. Nope. Not like the Sikhi, who were a pacifist religion literally started militarizing after our Guru, Guru Arjun was executed by a Mughal Emporer for refusing to convert to Islam which caused the birth of the Sikhs to become armed and would eventually start the first of the Mughal-Sikh wars. >Muslims themselves were minorities under Mughal rule. Yeah and the British were both Ethnic and Religious minorities when they were in India, I suppose they were also too weak to cause any major and few in number to cause any atrocities. What shit tier logic. >bad decision to kill their religious leaders "Bad decision to kill and butcher their leaders and bury their children alive" . Yeah no shit. Mughal's did it because that's how they rule, through intolerance and hate for non Muslims. >Aurangzeb had no statement against religion of sikhism The motherfucker executed our Guru, Guru Tegh Bahadur for refusing to convert to Islam what the fuck? Guru Tegh came to Aurangzeb to ask him to stop forced conversion of Kashmiri Pandits and in turn he was tortured and beheaded on the orders of Aurangzeb. Nothing Indira did even remotely compares to such a cruel act. >esp with your half baked information You literally said a man who had beheaded one of my Guru's made no statement against Sikh's lol you also said the Alchon Hun's destroyed nothing in India. >PS : Delhi Sultanate brought the unified education system for the first time in history Yes of course, The Delhi sultanate, which enforced Islamic bans on art as dictated by their religion, also championed education for all, especially lower caste. Makes sense. LMFAO.


MuayThaiisbestthai

>Delhi wasn't even a thing in the times of Macedonians and Huns Like Delhi but not exclusively. I'm aware it wasn't a thing back then lol I only used it as an example to show that the main objective were kingdoms that reside in modern day India, not like I said, some backwater pind on the frontier. >Wtf dude I already said that , "Maurya empire united india into a single polity for the first time" No. You contradicted yourself in your own post. Initially you said India or "Hind" had been a collection of various small kingdoms since 1000 bce. Then you said it was was Mughals who had the definitive control 2200 years after the Mauyra, who then built India into a single polity with a "national govt". >And when the fuck did I say that Mughals weren't motivated to invade for riches You said said earlier than the Mughal's invaded when the economy was in shambles, then you said because of Mughal rule the economy was so great it invited the EIC to invade....the underlying issue here being you asserting it were the magical mughals who turned India's economy around and made it the talk of the world when in reality they did nothing of the sort. >which started a much better living standard for the people Absolutely ZERO proof for any of this. Mughal's didn't give a shit about its people and they destroyed and looted native temples (amongst other things) to help fund their demented empire. >Alchon Huns didn't destroy any culture lol Bruh what? They literally decimated Gandhara, destroyed 100s of Buddhist temples in the area and destroyed all of the writings and arts of the culture???? Hell just Wikipedia Alchon Huns and they have an entire subsection devoted to the destruction wrought by the Huns 🤦🏽‍♂️ >they were culturally indian too My man, they were Central Asian not Indian. They had their own culture unless you're gonna tell me Shivaism was practiced all the way in their homeland? A few of their kings only started worshipping Shiva AFTER they had already settled in India, not before. >And Mughals only brought new art culture and literature. Yes of course, Mughal's did no wrong, never, nope! Not like we have records of Mughal's destroying countless temples for one reason or another! Nope! They only ever enriched the culture never took anything away. >They didn't butcher minorities lol Amazing. I, as a Sikh can personally attest to the fact that my people were never persecuted and genocided under Mughal rule. Nope. Not like the Sikhi, who were a pacifist religion literally started militarizing after our Guru, Guru Arjan was executed by a Mughal Emporer for refusing to convert to Islam which caused the Sikhs to become armed and would eventually start the first of the Mughal-Sikh wars. >Muslims themselves were minorities under Mughal rule. Yeah and the British were both Ethnic and Religious minorities when they were in India, I suppose they were also too weak and few in number to cause any atrocities. What shit tier logic. >bad decision to kill their religious leaders "Bad decision to kill and butcher their leaders and bury their children alive" . Yeah no shit. Mughal's did it because that's how they rule, through intolerance and hate for non Muslims. >Aurangzeb had no statement against religion of sikhism The motherfucker executed our Guru, Guru Tegh Bahadur for refusing to convert to Islam what the fuck? Guru Tegh came to Aurangzeb to ask him to stop forced conversion of Kashmiri Pandits and in turn he was tortured and beheaded on the orders of Aurangzeb. Nothing Indira did even remotely compares to such a cruel act. >esp with your half baked information You literally said a man who had beheaded one of my Guru's made no statement against Sikh's lol you also said the Alchon Hun's destroyed nothing in India. >PS : Delhi Sultanate brought the unified education system for the first time in history Yes of course, The Delhi sultanate, which enforced Islamic bans on art as dictated by their religion, also championed education for all, especially lower caste. Makes sense. LMFAO.


scierajj

Wow.. its awful how you guys praise this empires... Bharat varsha concept is obviously older than your dear Mughal empires. But yeah it's obvious you won't see that.. good luck broo.. i don't see any point to argue with you..🙂


Casper-2223

Ik you love to get cranky anytime someone doesnt praise Indian kings but you gotta realise history is not about just your opinions about someone. Its about recorded facts.


witcherarhaan

>Bharat varsha concept is obviously older than your dear Mughal empires "Bharat varhsa" didn't existed it's a mahabharata fiction concept , the Mahajanpadas were most likely the inspiration for that concept. If you mean empires who ruled over almost entire indian subcontinent then I have already mentioned the great Mauryan Empire. Alauddin Khilji to some extent did it too but it wasn't completely a national territory.


ecodude74

That doesn’t really argue where the money came from, if anything it lends credence to the claim that they acquired money from pillaging others. Same can be said for every empire and society ever, but it’s weird to argue against that concept by pointing out an empire’s obscene wealth.


roarworsted

Lol this reply makes no sense to the above comment but still its upvoted cuz "reddit".


witcherarhaan

My reply is a factual info and it made perfect sense for his false statement of saying Mughals looted india.


roarworsted

High gdp per capita of mughal empire explains that mughal wealth wasn't looted from poor people?


witcherarhaan

Yes , because per capita means the amount of wealth per person and giving a share of high per capita into Empire's treasury will mean the empire distributing the wealth in all fields. And the output from those fields will benefit the citizens of that empire.and that benefits reaped form the output is again citizen money or per capita income. Now they will again give a share of it to empire and the above cycle continues.


blishbog

You mean every ruling class everywhere in history?


gilga-flesh

[https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-6211908](https://www.christies.com/en/lot/lot-6211908) Price realised: USD 663,000


ardbeg

Probably the first price includes the buyers premium. Seems close to 15% at a glance


Fuckoff555

Oh you're right, i got the price from [here](http://www.alaintruong.com/archives/2019/06/21/37447578.html), I should've looked at Christie's website.


DsWd00

Eh, what’s 100,000 between friends


SombreMordida

murder in the wrong neighborhood, but hey bruh sometimes a bitch will kill her sister for some french fries


fletchowns

The higher number might be including the buyer's premium (fee to the auction house)


mdneilson

Yep. [Or something like that.](https://i.imgur.com/JzsHTvF.jpg)


What-one-earth-600

Dude thank you for sharing the Christies link. Went down the rabbit hole for over an hour. I am an Indian expat and let me tell you, it was an absolute pleasure being able to see the photos of some of the treasures that once belonged to us but now sits in private collections or museums around the world.


clouddevourer

I couldn't afford like 1/10000th of that, but the price seems kinda low to me for such a precious, unique and historic piece of jewelry?


colewinkle

Thank you /u/Fuckoff555


Fuckoff555

You're welcome


VitaLp

Just wanna say I just found this sub and saw that you’ve been posting consistently for at least 3 years. Pretty much keeping the sub alive. I’ve just spent ages scrolling and seeing heaps of awesome stuff, thanks for all the posts!


Fuckoff555

You're welcome, I'm glad you enjoyed my posts.


PrognosticatorMortus

What enchantments does it confer?


MagnusBrickson

Poison resistance


RedGriffins

\+10% Conversion \+25% Damage against Temples


wierdness201

Looks so much like a render


BishmillahPlease

I made the joke to my husband that this is what happens when you accidentally switch materials, hit render thinking you're fine, and come back six hours later to the highest quality of render that still makes you headdesk


benicetogroupies

Did he laugh?


BishmillahPlease

He looked puzzled until I explained the humor away We have very different skillsets


arvidsem

I came into the comments specifically looking for someone explaining that it's just a render and not a real item.


SumDux

This was my exact first thought.


Cat__Wrangler

It’s an NFT 😆


Bard_Science

Like it would have been badass enough to have a solid emerald ring, they were like 'nah put some gold in it too.


The-Sand-King

Absolutely. When you wear it you can’t even see the gold but *you’ll know*


bennyboy545

In brightest day, in blackest night, no evil shall escape my sight. Let those who worship evil's might, beware my power, Green Lantern's light!


Jokerang

So you're saying Akbar was a Green Lantern?


fomorian

All I'm saying is we've never seen them in the seen them in the same room together


Nelliebaby08

Would this ring scratch easily? Btw it’s so beautiful. I want one. It’s so beautiful.


memento22mori

It wouldn't scratch easily but if it were hit against something really hard it could shatter.


Butterbean-queen

Whoever wore this did not work with their hands 😂


botany5

If it were hit against something lightly, it might shatter. Emeralds are notoriously fragile.


javoss88

One wrong smack on the handrail


dandy992

Emerald is very hard, not as hard as hard as diamond but harder than quartz


nefarioussweetie

Hardness is not about whether it shatters easily or not. Hardness is one of many criteria used for identification. It measures how easily one can scratch the mineral. In this category, emeralds are quite hard. Tenacity is also another trait used to identify minerals. It measures how they deform under pressure. And in this case, emeralds are brittle.


dandy992

I know, they asked whether it stratches easily which it wouldn't. Like you said it would chip or shatter much more easily


nefarioussweetie

My bad. I must have mixed this up with some other reply or some reply within this one. I was sure it was a question about shattering. 😬


bradygilg

Emerald is one of the softest materials you will see in a ring.


dandy992

Softer than silver or gold?


bradygilg

Softer than corundum (IE ruby, sapphire). Softer than cubic zirconia, moissanite, and diamond. Softer than topaz and spinels. Softer than some garnets. Of course it is harder than many other materials, but in terms of the common gemstones it's on the soft side.


IEatBabies

I mean softer than sapphire can still be incredibly hard. Sapphire is harder than like 99% of materials we encounter on a daily basis.


beennasty

Sapphire is basically blue diamond


GreyHexagon

All these things are pretty hard. They'd all probably scratch glass, but at the same time you could shatter them with a hammer. You could hit a diamond and it will still explode. But yes, as far as gemstones go emerald is usually on the soft side. Harder than Opal and Amber tho.


Nelliebaby08

Wow you guys are so knowledgeable! Thanks so much!


Tupac-Babaganoush

What are the stats on this loot?


FarmandCityGuy

I too took the picture to use as a magic item handout on Roll20.


laceandhoney

Holy cow, didn't look at the subreddit at first and thought it was a 3d render. Absolutely stunning.


jugalasher

*rips bong* guys hear me out, what if the ring WAS the emerald?


RudeBoyVxo

it sold cheap actually


breovus

If close to $800,000 is "cheap", could you lend me a "couple dollars"?


RudeBoyVxo

I wish I could ! But I would have sold that more expensive TBH, there are NFT'S that sold way higher then that in 2021


SzurkeEg

Modern art often sells for more than artifacts and older art, that's just how the market is. Lots of reasons, like easy provenance, fashion among the rich, and using modern art as a store of wealth due to how hot the market is.


RudeBoyVxo

some are quite unique , but you are right fashion is a really important metric in determining the price...


robbynopants

Damn... delicate


not_throwaway_fornow

Craftmanship level +1000. Holy smokes.


ReddiTat15

I've always wondered if this was possible! My skin is sensitive to pretty much all metals but I love gems so much! 😍🤩


FlagFanatic02

It’s looks immaculate


kayelar

It looks like the toy rings that used to come in my Pretty, Pretty Princess board game as a kid.


OkkkComputer

“in brightest day, in blackest night no evil shall escape my sight...”


Silverpool2018

Now this is spectacular! Does a ring like this one even exist elsewhere in the world?


kabuki7

I would like the post more if it said "sits safely in a museum for all to see"


IndividualAd5378

I can give u 3 beard for that


SimonBakker

More like mughal looted ring.


monarchontulip

Incredible


ifinallyreallyreddit

You want some gold with that emerald??


djlittlemind

It is good to be king.


Metrilean

In brightest day....


Colin1023

Wow that looks like a rendered ring you get from a game quest


Exo-Observer

Now 'that' is worth stealing.


turnipsnbeets

What magic rings look like IRL


Otherwise-Can-3702

This is insane.. I've never seen a ring as beautiful as this one


GatrWNoToofBrush

That's cool asf


TunnelRat1

Mughal artefacts are beautiful


ErnestKim53

I wonder if it was for royalty in South Asia in 17th century AD.


Y-Bakshi

It was! Mughals were the kings who ruled the Indian subcontinent.


Y-Bakshi

Wow. Another Indian artifact ended up in a british auction house. Why am I not surprised lol.


rac3r5

Another stolen artifact thats sold at these auctions. Sigh.


clintecker

this is some lil uzi shit


Yurprobleeblokt

Is CE BC or AD? Edit: dick your karma just answer the fucking question


Fuckoff555

It's AD, and I'm not the one who downvoted you.


Yurprobleeblokt

I don't give a shit about the karma. I just want the answer which came less than a minute after the edit.


PMmeifyourepooping

Aw you dirty deleted your comment where you called me a cunt that’s no fun :[


PMmeifyourepooping

https://lmgtfy.app/?q=ce+bc+ad


agayplaguedoc

That isnt a mughal emerald and gold ring that my friend is a Lantren ring


Dbelowsomething

I’d like to see a ring made out of emerald and a gold gem


lactointolerant_milk

The foundation is looking for it


Zero8282

For a moment I thought that this doesn’t look real


Khysamgathys

Looks like those lollipop ring candies back in the 90s.


_DigginInTheCrates_

Fuck the Mughals


qpple

Why?


_DigginInTheCrates_

Look at their history in India. Pretty much the original ISIS


witcherarhaan

If they were the ISIS of india then they wouldn't have worked with hindu kings and they would never had hindu governors , administrators , and hindu armies. If they truly did what ISIS did then , hindus wouldn't be the majority now in india. You are absolutely wrong in your statement. Mughals were one of the most tolerant empires in history.


_DigginInTheCrates_

Look at their history with the Sikhs. I don't think they were tolerant in the slightest. Only reason Hindu's are majority is because the Sikhs were the empire that pushed them back. If the Mughals had their way, India would not be what it is today


witcherarhaan

I do , and it wasn't motivated by hatred for sikhism.Mughals didn't vandalise any sikh holy site and they only killed Guru teg bahadur because he was leading a revolution against them. Sikhs revolted against them and formed punjab. How does that affect hindus of rest of india ? Who saved those hindus who were under mughal control ? The answer is No one. Because Mughals were completely tolerant and respective of Hinduism. Hindus formed majority of Mughal Bureaucracy , administration , millatry and nobles. I don't know how can you even say a absurd thing like Mughals were intolerant of hindus.


_DigginInTheCrates_

The Mughals killed more than Guru Teg Bahadur. They killed guru Gobind Singh's two youngest son's.. I think maybe ages 8 and 10. Bricked alive. The Sikhs pushed the Mughals out. Who was the ruling kingdom when the British landed ?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


__PrathamYadav__

Yes true!


__PrathamYadav__

Yea 😈


Tudz

Repost look at top posts on this sub, this is like #2


Fuckoff555

Are you for real or are you trolling? Cause the [artefact](https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtefactPorn/comments/fw72av/wonderful_2000_yearsold_sapphire_ring_presumably/) you're talking about is a 2000-year-old roman sapphire ring and not a Mughal emerald ring. Also it's not the 2nd top post of this sub, it's the fourth.