Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

unassumingdink t1_iwzihek wrote

Auction listing has the pictures that should have been in the article. It's actually really cool looking!

712

DrLongIsland t1_iwzjp9w wrote

Those dudes looking at the rings give me strong LOTR villain vibes.

374

beanakajulian33 t1_ix074of wrote

Are we SURE that it's not the One Ring?

76

Miskatonic_River t1_ix0obg9 wrote

Yes. In contrast to the other Rings of Power, the One Ring bore no gems while the Lady Brook Medieval Diamond Ring has a diamond set in a bezel. Furthermore, the One Ring was famously destroyed in the fires of Mount Doom at the end of the Third Age.

67

nickkom t1_ix0trr7 wrote

How do we know we’re not in the second age?

18

Son_of_Kong t1_ix1l912 wrote

According to Tolkien himself, we're in the Sixth or Seventh Age.

10

EZpeeeZee t1_ix1pwuk wrote

And who would you say is the current necromancer now?

6

Son_of_Kong t1_ix63lom wrote

The lore answer is that there's no more unified force of evil, but Morgoth's last act was to infuse his essence in the earth, which is why sin and corruption still exist.

2

its_justme t1_ix1kn4m wrote

That sounds like something Sauron would say…

“Oh that’s totally not the one ring, let met throw that away for you…” sweating heavily

10

BeautifulStranger80s t1_ix2g43l wrote

Sauron at the auction nervously trying to outbid everyone

3

its_justme t1_ix2gvdm wrote

“Ok big S, just stay calm. World domination is in your grasp, just don’t look too needy. Also don’t spend more than 1 mil, you’ve already taken out a reverse mortgage against barad dur and you can’t dodge Saruman’s calls forever”

3

Bimimans t1_ix2rj4e wrote

>the One Ring was famously destroyed in the fires of Mount Doom at the end of the Third Age.

Thats what they want you to think. Wake up sheeple.

2

abominabot t1_ix0whdi wrote

No way. Isildur was attacked and lost the ring hundreds of years ago. Its probably at the bottom of some river, hidden in the mud. Seems very unlikely some random guy would just find it

33

___zero__cool___ t1_ix191tl wrote

The article title literally states this ring was found in the mud. What are you not telling us?

8

Bimimans t1_ix2rhcv wrote

It's a joke. In the Lord of the Rings this is what happens to the one ring and it does indeed get found in the river by a hobbit who would then turn into Gollum.

2

Touchit88 t1_ix14eti wrote

I can hear it calling to me, so probably.

4

LazyLich t1_ix0ob61 wrote

Their faces say: "After all why not? Why shouldn't I keep it?"

21

KudaWoodaShooda t1_iwzwlmc wrote

Is it really necessary to show people with bad teeth smiling next to it? So gross

−63

eveningthunder t1_iwzz2mt wrote

Nowhere near as gross as unnecessary comments on people's physical appearance.

62

Cethinn t1_ix0t70j wrote

Is it really necessary to show people with bad personalities in the comments? So gross

16

True_Trueno t1_iwyx353 wrote

A gold medieval ring wedding mud in the found worth is thousands.

334

Potatoswatter t1_iwyyoub wrote

A gold ring wedding medieval mud found in the worth is thousands

84

Laziezt t1_iwz5gss wrote

A thousands medieval wedding mud found is gold in worth the ring

35

ActivisionBlizzard t1_iwz6rkn wrote

Thousands ring mud is worth medieval gold found

18

frix86 t1_iwza47h wrote

Medieval mud, found in gold ring is worth thousands.

5

[deleted] t1_iwzdhvf wrote

[deleted]

7

KobblestoneMC t1_iwzex6f wrote

Thousands medieval muds found in the gold is worth weddings

4

KingoftheMongoose t1_iwzq90h wrote

A wedding mud ring found in medieval is worth thousands gold

3

Letmefadeaway t1_iwzrv7i wrote

What is actually happening here with this comment chain?

2

KingoftheMongoose t1_iwzsoyf wrote

OP’s post title is grammatically incorrect due to word misplacement; so we are having a fun jest at OP’s expense by jumbling their words up further to make even more nonsensical titles.

Moral of story: proofread or end up with Titlegore jokes!

8

MazDanRX795 t1_ix126hz wrote

Ah, thank you! I couldn't figure out the title. Much clearer now.

2

CaptainMacMillan t1_iwyuo8h wrote

So really it’s only worth 4x more than a high end engagement ring

268

underboobfunk t1_iwzpc2q wrote

That’s typically the case with antiques.

47

eisme t1_iwzxcyy wrote

Antiques and medievel isn't the same. For instance, one would imagine a suit of armor would be more valuable than a flak jacket from WW2.

69

hotlikebea t1_ix086sq wrote

History aside, the materials and labor that go into a handmade suit of armor are much more valuable than what goes into a jacket.

22

HandsOnGeek t1_ix08zvz wrote

A flak jacket is not just a jacket. Flak is in fact the explosive shrapnel-generating anti-aircraft cannon fire that was used to defend cities from flights of bombers in World War II. A flak jacket is what you wear to protect yourself from that shrapnel.

So the flak jacket is the modernish to antique equivalent of a middle ages suit of armor.

−11

TheKingOfTCGames t1_ix0aafd wrote

and plate armor in the middle ages is basically the total sum assets of a upper middle class person.

10

big_tom t1_ix05bs1 wrote

Suits of armor are a lot less common than pieces of gold. The armor rusts away, the gold does not.

21

Swiggy1957 t1_ix1lilw wrote

Ah, but the rarity of this ring is that it is GOLD.

This was at a time when gold was, well, worth it's weight in gold. The only ones that could afford a gold ring were those of wealth: nobility, royalty, high ranking church and military members, and, of course, rich merchants. Wedding rings of that era were often made iof Iron so they wouldn't be destroyed when the lady of the house cleaned, cooked and did other various chores around the place.

6

DingyWarehouse t1_ix1vez0 wrote

>worth it's weight in gold

*its

worth its weight in gold, not "worth it is weight in gold"

−6

Swiggy1957 t1_ix2f7em wrote

Sorry, on phone and Otto Kerr-Wrecked has his hand in my comments.

9

USCanuck t1_ix0ek06 wrote

Depends on what you consider high-end I guess

7

wygrif t1_iwzn21u wrote

$47,000 is surprisingly low for a 600 year old object in "perfect" condition. That's less than some magic cards FFS

201

mynewaccount5 t1_ix05pvc wrote

To be fair most gold and precious gems are pretty old.

39

LazyLich t1_ix0ot02 wrote

tbh all gold on Earth is billions of years old

26

Aozora404 t1_ix22me7 wrote

Everything is 13.7 billion years old

5

YoureGrammerIsWorsts t1_ix230jj wrote

Gold is newer than that, it wasn't formed as part of the big bang

8

Aozora404 t1_ix2c7h0 wrote

The elementary particles forming them were

5

trafalmadorianistic t1_ix2gy31 wrote

Yes, but they wouldn't have been gold, not until they were all together.

6

Aozora404 t1_ix2ryfn wrote

Is a pile of sand younger than the grains that make them?

2

GiveMeChoko t1_ix2ntpc wrote

Then you and I must be 13,7 billion years old too.

1

Aozora404 t1_ix2rvy6 wrote

That is what I’m saying, yes

1

GiveMeChoko t1_ix2srx4 wrote

You sure it's 13.7 billion? Me personally I think we're a couple of years older. Like a decade or so

1

GiveMeChoko t1_ix2ssj7 wrote

You sure it's 13.7 billion? Me personally I think we're a couple of years older. Like a decade or so

1

LazyLich t1_ix383ic wrote

Yeah but the specific GROUPING of particles wasn't.

Like, yeah human tribes have existed for thousands of years, but the group "America" has only been around for a couple hundred.

1

WrathOfHircine t1_ix10utz wrote

If the ring was magical it’d probably be worth more

6

wygrif t1_ix2g48c wrote

Clearly it's just a lousy fortify alteration or something

1

Jjex22 t1_ix2vcjd wrote

It’s still a fair old chunk of change, and doesn’t have a cool story attached to it. It’s worth a lot more than the gold it’s made of, but there’s also a lot of 600 year old things in the UK.

Special but not so special basically.

1

jinxed_07 t1_ix31xrl wrote

To be fair, there's only a handful of Magic cards worth that much.

1

Hahanohahanohaha t1_iwzdah6 wrote

>"There will probably never be another one like it," Board told CNN.

I have a sneaking suspicion there might be at least one more like it, but maybe I'm just being a whacky goofball

75

SnowyLocksmith t1_iwzlso4 wrote

Are you saying that they were all deceived and another was made?

48

Hahanohahanohaha t1_iwzoat0 wrote

Or, and just hear me out on this one, it takes two to get married

16

helbury t1_iwzty5q wrote

Historically, it would be uncommon for a man to wear a wedding ring. It’s a modern thing to have both husband and wife wear a ring.

19

Thebluefairie t1_iwzjcvx wrote

That looks like a crown of thorns and with that inscription "ieo vos tien foi tenes le moy" — or "I hold your faith, hold mine" I think that it is intended to be

60

CordeliaGrace t1_ix21yn4 wrote

It says the inscription is French too. I’m wondering if I could replace the foi with coeur and still have it grammatically be accurate? So it would say “i hold your heart, hold mine”.

3

Alc2005 t1_iwztf6f wrote

This post was sandwiched between two lotrmemes posts. Had to do a double take at first

32

superskidrow t1_iwzjvst wrote

One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them.

27

innovatedname t1_ix1r1fi wrote

It took far too much scrolling to find someone bring up the marvellously similar circumstances.

2

pernologos84 t1_iwzkt1a wrote

Funny. What if she lost it wandering around the country and remained there for almost 700 years.

24

Technomage1 t1_iwzlbrf wrote

I wondered too if she lost it. We will never know but I pictured a martial spat and throwing the ring.

16

Tsu-Doh-Nihm t1_ix0hmnh wrote

There is some lost story behind how the ring got there. She probably expected to wear that ring until death, and then maybe be buried with it.

11

jjjam t1_iwziwhl wrote

I'm very suspicious of this, especially the suggestion that it is from 1388, which might make it the oldest diamond wedding band ever, as some sources suggest diamond wedding bands began being made in the early 1400s. (and that it is being evaluated by an auction house and not an archaeologist. Also, that it was found in Britain and is being auctioned and not being preserved, as you have to report all finds there and presumably a museum would be interested in the oldest known diamond wedding band.)

23

arklenaut t1_iwzk0rd wrote

Read the article and your suspicions will be assuaged, my good fellow.

27

pernologos84 t1_iwzm9fo wrote

An article quoted in another comment says it was brought to the British Museum for evaluation

21

Lord_Ezkaton t1_ix0iiy7 wrote

It matches closely with known typologies of rings (particularly of stirrup-shaped type) from the period of the 14th to 15th centuries. Also the Black Letter script helps date it to this period too.

And yep, the ring was reported and recorded as part of the UK's Treasure legislation and recorded by the local Finds Liaison Officer. The issue may have been that a museum was interested in acquiring the object, BUT the Treasure Valuation Committee price was too high and the museum pulled out, thus meaning the object was then disclaimed and returned to the finder.

12

Severe-Kumquat t1_iwzvdmw wrote

Trying to read this title gave me the black plague.

21

Jacob216216 t1_ix0abyu wrote

“And some things that should not have been forgotten were lost."

9

quirkycurlygirly t1_iwzpq47 wrote

Some poor peasant woman was pulling up carrots and lost her most prized possession, then searched the garden in vain her whole life to find it. 'Someone's found your ring, Love. We'll honor it for you.'

5

HandsOnGeek t1_ix09cs4 wrote

I am tickled that you think that a medieval peasant woman could afford a gold ring with a diamond set into it.

28

Surgeboy99 t1_ix0qf7k wrote

>acquired by Henry de Broc (or de la Brook) from Reginald de Mohun (1206–1258), Feudal baron of Dunster in Somerset, who had inherited this land from his first wife Hawise Fleming, daughter and heiress of William Fleming. It then passed by descent through the Brook family, coming into the possession of the wealthy landowner Sir Thomas Brook (c.1355-1418). Due to the exceptionally fine quality of this ring, it was, quite possibly, the wedding ring given by Sir Thomas Brook to his wife Lady Joan Brook for their marriage in 1388

7

Fmanow t1_ix06ski wrote

I’m surprised he was able to part with his precious.

4

d-arden t1_ix0zaaf wrote

From now on I’m measuring everything in Mud Worth

4

MKVIgti t1_ix1leu3 wrote

This is so damn cool.

Blows me away how people accomplished so much with tools they had to create and processes they had to create as well. The craftsmanship is incredible and I’m glad these rings have been discovered so we can see and enjoy them.

3

AbbreviationsGlad833 t1_ix1tkdz wrote

Must be nice to be a metal detectorist in Europe. Oldest things I find if im lucky is rusty iron things maybe from the colonial era.

3

panckage t1_ix0r1z1 wrote

She must have been pissed when she lost the ring. Imagine if she lost it on her wedding night!

2

_deedas t1_ix1ntsm wrote

I would imagine most gold wedding rings would be worth thousands. Dunno for sure, what's the price of gold now day?

2

HungryCats96 t1_ix2bs90 wrote

I'm surprised it's not worth more, for its historical value, if not for the materials and craftmanship.

2

anfuman t1_ix2tkuy wrote

How do we know it’s wedding ring?

1

ContentsMayVary t1_ix2zew2 wrote

According to the Treasure Act 1996 this ring would be classified as treasure, and thus the finder would be compelled to first offer it for sale to a museum ("that belongs in a museum"). Only if no museum wants to buy it can it go on general sale.

This ring would fall under the definition:

>Any individual (non-coin) find that is at least 300 years old and contains at least 10% gold or silver.

None of this is mentioned in the article, which makes me think some information is missing... It's possible that no musem wanted to buy it at £40K.

1

Puzzleheaded_Cut3634 t1_ix6hqw1 wrote

Imagine losing your ring and someone finding it 800 years later

1

neighbor_jim t1_ix0ixno wrote

Wedding ring antique gold is this, hmm?

0

[deleted] t1_iwyq1jk wrote

[deleted]

−20

Dawg_Prime t1_iwzf60f wrote

I don't know what this means nor do I know why people are down voting it

23

nerveonya t1_iwzh3u3 wrote

'Half his luck' hurt my brain to read

10

jjjam t1_iwzi5gk wrote

It's not that hard to get from context, the poster is wishing they had half the luck of the guy who stumbled across a valuable find.

7

gwaydms t1_iwzi6vf wrote

I assume they meant "[Oh, to have] half his luck" or some such.

7