would you???????

[Melissa in Australia]

If you were from a family that were aristocrats pre ww1 and had heirlooms dating back to the 14 century (not me)

 

And you were the oldest granddaughter and you were given an heirloom ring that has been in the family since the 14 century.

 

Would you place the ring in a very safe spot, possibly in a vault or at least in a jewelry box and only look at it.

 

Or would you take it to a jewelers to get resized so you could wear it every day along with the other dozen or so rings on your fingers?

 

…And when the jeweler LOST the ring, would you be happy with the jeweler offering you a ring of same gold value (afar all gold for gold) or would you be calling the police.

 

I cannot believe my SIL did this. I cannot believe it at all. :banghead: I can not believe that she would say gold for gold what is the big deal! :banghead: And no she is not young (late50’s).

[Mama Geek]

I might take it to a jewelry to have it resized so I could wear it, but then I have family that works for a trusted jeweler. As far as it going missing I would have called the police.

 

I am sorry to hear it is gone.

[Rebecca VA]

I'd call the police immediately. Jewelers know better than to lose pieces of jewelry. I wonder if your SIL mentioned to him that the ring was an heirloom and very old.

 

This is very sad. Obviously your SIL is just oblivious to the importance of family heritage.

[IrishMum]

Lost? What a joke!

[Danestress]

I would call the police. But I don't think your SIL was wrong to take it to be resized. It's her ring and she is entitled to wear it.

 

I suspect, though, that she may have sold it.

[Guest inoubliable]

I would call the police, yes. I'm assuming that it was insured and you may need a police report to file the claim. I'm also a little :huh: that a jeweler lost it.

 

I wouldn't be upset that SIL took the ring to be resized so that she could wear it, though. If it was given to her, it's her business whether she wears it or no.

 

I'm sorry that it's gone. :(

[creekland]

I'm in the camp that suspects she actually sold it to the jeweler (or someone) and the "lost" story is just a feeble cover up.

 

Any chance she needed the money - or had something she wanted to buy?

 

I'd be perfectly ok with the ring being worn. What good is it if it lives in a box forever?

[Danestress]

I would call the police, yes. I'm assuming that it was insured and you may need a police report to file the claim.

 

Good point. Was it insured?

[Lisbeth]

I'd call the police immediately. Jewelers know better than to lose pieces of jewelry. I wonder if your SIL mentioned to him that the ring was an heirloom and very old.

 

This is very sad. Obviously your SIL is just oblivious to the importance of family heritage.

 

 

Police. Lost is BS.

[Garga]

Aaaaahhhh!

 

Police!!!!

[marbel]

I also agree that most likely she sold the ring.

 

But, it was hers to do with as she wished. Sad for a family heirloom to be "lost" in this way. My sister behaved badly with some family things that I'd like to have back. (Nothing as extraordinary as this ring!) But they were hers to do with as she pleased.

 

Oh, I also wouldn't leave such a piece of jewelry in a safe deposit box. Does no one any good there either. I don't understand leaving nice things locked away. If the value of the item is all in the dollar value, might as well sell the thing.

[Rebecca VA]

You know, if she did sell it, it's a shame she didn't offer it to another member of the family. With that kind of amazing family history, I imagine one of the other grandchildren would have jumped at the chance to have it.

[Murphy101]

I think the lost tale is BS too. Either hers or the store.

 

I think it is hers to do anything she wants with and she doesn't owe anyone else an explaination for it.

[Danestress]

You know, if she did sell it, it's a shame she didn't offer it to another member of the family. With that kind of amazing family history, I imagine one of the other grandchildren would have jumped at the chance to have it.

 

That is the problem with an heirloom like that. No one in the family can probably afford to buy it for it's market value. I suspect a nice gold ring from the 14th century is worth more than the house, cars, and other possessions of a prosperous but not wealthy modern family combined.

 

And further, the cost of insuring it would probably be a burden for most normal families.

 

This is why truly valuable heirloom jewelry can be a burden. The cost of insurance is quite high, and it is probably with soooo much money, so who wouldn't be tempted to sell it and use the money to fund college educations and/or retirement?

 

Eta: I take most of that back. A google search surprised me by revealing that there are simple 14th century gold rings on the market for a few thousand dollars. Who knew? I assumed a ring that old would be very expensive. In that case, if it's just a basic gold ring objectively worth under, say, $25k, I think she should be able to afford to insure it and should have offered to sell it to a family member.

[Night Elf]

Based on her attitude, I'd be inclined to think it was not insured and that she had no idea of its true value. Of course you can keep an eye on whether or not she suddenly owns some nice new stuff. Even if my ring wasn't an heirloom, I would call the police if a jeweler had told me my jewelry was lost. How on earth do you lose a piece that you are either working on at a table, or is in a bag/box in a safe place? Did someone take it home? That's theft and the police should be called. Did it roll under a large piece of furniture that they cannot move? Only an investigation would find out I guess.

[Word Nerd]

I don't believe for a minute that the jeweler "lost" the ring. Either they're lying or SIL is. I don't think it's a big deal for someone to want to wear it or keep it on display instead of keeping it hidden away in a locked box. I can't imagine having it resized, though, as I wouldn't want to risk ruining the ring.

[Slartibartfast]

I would think she willingly exchanged it for something she preferred.

 

In such a situation I would have called the police.

[Murphy101]

Based on her attitude, I'd be inclined to think it was not insured and that she had no idea of its true value. Of course you can keep an eye on whether or not she suddenly owns some nice new stuff.

 

Why? It's not anyone else's business either way. Far as I'm concerned she has every right to hock it for a trip to Disney for all I care. It's her ring.

 

I'd wear it. I don't understand the point of locking something up and just looking at it. Well unless I was planning to keep it as a rainy day fund or something.

 

Me too. Rings were made to be worn.

 

huh, interesting...maybe...why wouldn't she just admit that though..it's her ring right?

 

I'm guessing bc she doesn't want to deal with other family members giving her attitude about what she did with her own stuff as though they have some entitlement to tell her what to do with items she owns. Really this is fairly normal. Most people who have family items of worth just quietly do what they want with it and when family asks them about whatever item they lie about it to avoid confrontation or avoid those less than story family members who would take it first opportunity they got. yeah. Ask me how I know about those types. :/

[marbel]

huh, interesting...maybe...why wouldn't she just admit that though..it's her ring right?

 

Well, I could imagine that someone might have a family heirloom that they don't want and would like to "cash in" for something else, but would know the family would be upset by it. So it is completely conceivable to me that a person would lie about what happened to it.

 

Seems like a stupid lie, to me, but people lie stupidly all the time.

 

We (myself included) are making a lot of assumptions though.

[Slartibartfast]

 

huh, interesting...maybe...why wouldn't she just admit that though..it's her ring right?

 

If it was my family and someone did that the whole family would be mad at them.

[Murphy101]

I agree. I'm just posing possiblities. :)

[Slartibartfast]

I guess I don't agree that one is allowed to hock the family heirlooms for a mundane reason, it seems to me more like it is her descendants's ring and not hers. If someone hocked an heirloom for a Disney trip I would be angry, but if it was for a good reason like buying a family member a kidney on the black market or something then I would not say anything. (not that buying organs on the black market is very cool, but I cannot think of a good example :lol:)

[Murphy101]

Well you're allowed an opinion. :)

 

I simply disagree. I don't think anyone is entitled to a single thing I own. I sure don't think they have claims to ownership just bc of being a relative. At best, even by your opinion, only her descendants have an itty claim to being upset. My brothers wife can take a hike. They are not my descendants and have zero claim on my possessions.

[Farrar]

From a legal perspective, of course it's hers to do with as she pleases. But the things i have that are heirlooms are things I think of as having been given to me in trust. I am the caretaker of these items, like my great-great grandmother's signet ring.

[Guest]

Police should be called! The jeweler didn't "lose" something that important.

[unsinkable]

How much is it worth?

 

Any ballpark idea?

 

Are we talking thousands or tens of thousands?

 

Is it gold or gold and precious stones?

[katilac]

 

huh, interesting...maybe...why wouldn't she just admit that though..it's her ring right?

 

 

Like others noted, perhaps b/c she knew certain relatives would freak out. After all, several people on this thread have posted that they don't think she had the right to sell it, even if it was hers.

 

If she was the sole owner, I think she had the right to do as she pleased, and I don't think a family vacation or such is necessarily a 'bad' reason for selling it. It's a piece of jewelry, a material item, an object. It can be argued that creating living memories is more important than caretaking old ones.

 

Regardless, if it's hers, it's hers. She can do with it what she will.

[marbel]

From a legal perspective, of course it's hers to do with as she pleases. But the things i have that are heirlooms are things I think of as having been given to me in trust. I am the caretaker of these items, like my great-great grandmother's signet ring.

 

That's how I would view it. But I can see the other side. Some families put so much store into stuff like this, it can become a burden.

 

This thread is making me glad there are no priceless, ancient heirlooms in my family. I think if one ever turned up (how that would happen, I don't know), my inclination would be to give it to a museum. Then the family members can go visit it.

 

OP, I hope if you find out what really happened you will update. All this speculation is fun (because all of us but you are viewing it from a distance) and it would be nice to know how far off we all are.

[Mama Geek]

Maybe the OP will answer some questions tonight. She is in Australia so there is a major time difference.

[Ruby Rose]

Rings aren't lost. They are STOLEN!

[*Lulu*]

Well you're allowed an opinion. :)

 

I simply disagree. I don't think anyone is entitled to a single thing I own. I sure don't think they have claims to ownership just bc of being a relative. At best, even by your opinion, only her descendants have an itty claim to being upset. My brothers wife can take a hike. They are not my descendants and have zero claim on my possessions.

 

I can see your position. I have some relations, especially on one side of thefamily, that treat used Kleenex found in the favorite sweater of a deceased relation as a family heirloom. (I wish I was kidding.) Stuff, and its maintanance, can over take your life.

 

 

At the same time I am in the position of coming from a massive extended family where possessions belonging to my great and great-great grandparents, some of considerable value, are dispersed far and wide within the family. (And a good many on loan to museums)

 

If my mom's second cousin sold her great-great grandmother's hope chest mom would be very upset. The cousin has it because, at the time we broke up the estate, she was the one with room for it. Mom had as much right to claim it as she did, but worried about her dog damaging it. If my cousin got rid of it without checking to see if anyone else in the family wanted it you can bet there would be hurt feelings.

[Murphy101]

I get the other side. But IMO, most families know which members are going to add sentimental value and which aren't. They tend to know who they can have hold something vs who will view it as theirs.

 

And whoever currently owns it dispenses accordingly.

 

It's when those it wasn't given to start making demands that I get twitchy.

 

For example, my grandmother repeatedly said she wanted her dd to have a certain item. Her granddaughter who handled the estate (not me) decided to refuse to give it to that dd bc it's well known that dd would have probably hocked it within a week.

 

My opinion is that is not relavent. Grandmother wanted her to have it and that's where it ends. Don't care how much it's worth or how old it is. I doubt it's possible the granddaughter had more sentiment attached to it than the women who had it in their home their entire or most of their lives. So no, just knowing my long dead relative once had it does not give me any proprietary rights to something.

[Murphy101]

Btw the same grandmother did leave her granddaughter many other things that she knew would be kept by her specificly bc she knew that person would want to hold it for future generations.

[Seasider]

I'd call the police immediately. Jewelers know better than to lose pieces of jewelry. I wonder if your SIL mentioned to him that the ring was an heirloom and very old.

 

This is very sad. Obviously your SIL is just oblivious to the importance of family heritage.

 

 

Yes, I am afraid I would not trust the jeweler! Even if she didn't mention it, if he is an aficionado of heirloom pieces, he may have recognized its value.

 

I may have considered wearing it for special occasions, but not daily with several other rings. I would certainly have had it appraised (by at least two reputable folks) and insured accordingly.

 

[Candid]

I agree with others.

 

As an aside, my mom's family was not in any way noble, but they were around for a long time and what they did was destroy furniture. Like, if they wanted a desk to fit in a certain spot they'd cut it down to size. I occasionally shake my head, but hey I've been thinking about turning the rope bed (that my great, great, great, great, great grandmother supposedly shortened the legs on) into a shelf, so I know why they did it.

[Orthodox6]

If the woman sold the ring, I would think it "best policy" to have offered it to other family members first. Even if she were genuinely hard up for money and felt embarrassed to admit it.

 

If the ring was lost (or "lost") by the jeweler, there should be a paper trail documenting every place the ring went. (I'm guessing that it may have been shipped somewhere to a specialist.)

 

As this is playing out like a mystery episode, maybe the woman never took the ring to a jeweler in the first place.

 

If there had been insurance, it would (call that, should) have been covered by a separate rider.

[unsinkable]

Just for fun, I was looking for 14th century jewelry and found this article.

 

What a pretty little brooch.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2138354/Amateur-treasure-hunter-finds-tiny-14th-century-gold-brooch-worth-25-000-farmers-field.html

[gardenmom5]

is your sil really accepting a ring of similar gold weight? or just saying that? if she is going for that deal, I'd say she has NO clue about the historical value of a ring that old and what the age would do to it's monetary value - which would be considerably MORE than the gold karat weight.

 

in that case, I'd be filing a police report with concerns about the jeweler, who most certainly knows that ring was worth considerably more on the open market than the gold weight.

 

as for resizing a ring - it would decrease the value. I can see wearing it on a chain or different finger on special occasions. I would consider a family heirloom as something I was holding in trust for future generations. (and I have somethings hanging around. some I use, some I wish hadn't been given to me.) I still cringe at the guy on antques roadshow who refinished an 18th century armoire, then was angry when the appraiser told him becuase it was refinished it was *only* worht $10K. if it had been left alone, he could have sold it at auction for 10X's that.

[Mrs Mungo]

I would call the police. But I don't think your SIL was wrong to take it to be resized. It's her ring and she is entitled to wear it.

 

I suspect, though, that she may have sold it.

 

I tend to agree. I would not assume that she was telling the truth.

[Slartibartfast]

Well you're allowed an opinion. :)

 

I simply disagree. I don't think anyone is entitled to a single thing I own. I sure don't think they have claims to ownership just bc of being a relative. At best, even by your opinion, only her descendants have an itty claim to being upset. My brothers wife can take a hike. They are not my descendants and have zero claim on my possessions.

 

That isn't what I said, I said descendants. That doesn't really entail SIL, IMO. I don't know where your brother's wife came into the discussion.

[Slartibartfast]

I get the other side. But IMO, most families know which members are going to add sentimental value and which aren't. They tend to know who they can have hold something vs who will view it as theirs.

 

And whoever currently owns it dispenses accordingly.

 

It's when those it wasn't given to start making demands that I get twitchy.

 

For example, my grandmother repeatedly said she wanted her dd to have a certain item. Her granddaughter who handled the estate (not me) decided to refuse to give it to that dd bc it's well known that dd would have probably hocked it within a week.

 

My opinion is that is not relavent. Grandmother wanted her to have it and that's where it ends. Don't care how much it's worth or how old it is. I doubt it's possible the granddaughter had more sentiment attached to it than the women who had it in their home their entire or most of their lives. So no, just knowing my long dead relative once had it does not give me any proprietary rights to something.

 

 

I agree there, if she wanted her to have it then it should have been given to her. But really this, IMO is why people should have wills. One never really knows what someone would have wanted unless they leave instructions.

 

People have the right to do what they want with their property but if it was my family in the scenario then my family would be MMMAADDD.

[annandatje]

If you were from a family that were aristocrats pre ww1 and had heirlooms dating back to the 14 century (not me)

 

And you were the oldest granddaughter and you were given an heirloom ring that has been in the family since the 14 century.

 

Would you place the ring in a very safe spot, possibly in a vault or at least in a jewelry box and only look at it.

 

Or would you take it to a jewelers to get resized so you could wear it every day along with the other dozen or so rings on your fingers?

 

…And when the jeweler LOST the ring, would you be happy with the jeweler offering you a ring of same gold value (afar all gold for gold) or would you be calling the police.

 

I cannot believe my SIL did this. I cannot believe it at all. :banghead: I can not believe that she would say gold for gold what is the big deal! :banghead: And no she is not young (late50’s).

 

The ring belongs to the person it was given to, the original poster's sister-in-law. What good would it do for original poster to get involved? If police are called, wouldn't the rightful owner, the sister-in-law, be the one to lodge the complaint against the jeweler?

 

Wearing the ring would be the best way to honor the family's history. I agree with other posters who suspect that s-i-l exchanged it for something she preferred or sold it. Either way, it was her property to deal with as she wished.

 

I do wonder, though, why she felt should could not be honest with her family about the disposition of the ring.

[Mrs Mungo]

I do wonder, though, why she felt should could not be honest with her family about the disposition of the ring.

 

I agree with other posters that my family would be upset if an heirloom item was traded to a jeweler instead of being offered to the family.

[Melissa in Australia]

Well I am not going to ring the police. My SIL lives in a different country (Canada). When my Dh was there last she showed him the ring that she had got from the jeweler of around the same weight of gold. It wasn't until DH pointed out to her that the jeweler stole the ring and it was possibly more valuable that she even seemed to have an inkling that something was up. her very elderly relative gave the ring to her only 3 months before SIL lost it. and I am not joking when I say that SIL wears a dozen or so rings every day. Every single finger has at a minimum of one ring (including thumb).

[Melissa in Australia]

Most of the family heirlooms were lost during WW11 . they were in a part of Germany that was taken by Russia. Their house was searched many many times. Some of the heirlooms were saved by being buried in the back garden. My Mil has told about how the Russian soldiers would come to the house with long iron rods and poke them into the ground all over the yard looking for buried items.

[Garga]

It wasn't until DH pointed out to her that the jeweler stole the ring and it was possibly more valuable that she even seemed to have an inkling that something was up.

 

 

How can someone be that clueless! *shaking head*.

 

What a shame. Sounds like she didn't sell it for money but she really was taken in by a thief. Seven hundred years in the same family and then *poof*--gone forever out of ignorance. What a shame.

 

I have a special place in my heart for antiques and heirlooms. This makes me so sad for your family.

[marbel]

Well I am not going to ring the police. My SIL lives in a different country (Canada). When my Dh was there last she showed him the ring that she had got from the jeweler of around the same weight of gold. It wasn't until DH pointed out to her that the jeweler stole the ring and it was possibly more valuable that she even seemed to have an inkling that something was up. her very elderly relative gave the ring to her only 3 months before SIL lost it. and I am not joking when I say that SIL wears a dozen or so rings every day. Every single finger has at a minimum of one ring (including thumb).

 

 

How can someone be that clueless! *shaking head*.

 

 

Sounds like she wasn't informed about how valuable the ring was. At least, that's what I get from OP's comment.

 

It is sad.

[Murphy101]

 

Sounds like she wasn't informed about how valuable the ring was. At least, that's what I get from OP's comment.

 

It is sad.

 

Yep. Not every old thing passed on to us is valuable. Why would she assume this old ring is valuable unless someone told her it was? She probably thought the relative just thought she might like having just another ring.

[Tammyla]

I would be sad, but it was her ring to do with as she wanted. However, I would have called the police if it was lost at the jeweler; I don't buy that story either. And I have to agree, it might not have had the sentimental value to her or a large retail value other than the gold.

[katilac]

Well I am not going to ring the police. My SIL lives in a different country (Canada). When my Dh was there last she showed him the ring that she had got from the jeweler of around the same weight of gold. It wasn't until DH pointed out to her that the jeweler stole the ring and it was possibly more valuable that she even seemed to have an inkling that something was up. her very elderly relative gave the ring to her only 3 months before SIL lost it. and I am not joking when I say that SIL wears a dozen or so rings every day. Every single finger has at a minimum of one ring (including thumb).

 

 

But it's also possible that is was just not that valuable. if it were, it seems hard to believe that no one along the line had it properly appraised and insured, and it seems hard to believe that they would then pass it on to her without saying, by the way, you're going to need an insurance rider for this!

 

I don't see why it matters how many rings she wears. They are objects - an antique ring isn't going to get its feelings hurt because she wears other rings, lol.