I Was Given a Ring as a Treasured Heirloom. Can I Sell It?

[misbegotten]

Source:

I was recently gifted a family heirloom — a century-old five-carat diamond ring. It is most likely worth six figures. I was shocked; I am not very close with the relative who gave me the ring, by his choice. There are a lot of painful relationships in this particular branch of the family tree. As an adult, I have always tried to be kind and respectful to all of these relatives, while keeping my distance.

The relative who gave me this ring had used it to propose to his now ex-wife, and it was implied that I might use it to replace my engagement ring. (I have no idea why, as I love my engagement ring.) That is the only reason I can surmise that he gave it to me and not to any of his own children. He also said the ring originally belonged to my great-great-grandmother, but it actually belonged to her childless sister (who long survived her). I’m fairly certain that my mother was the only one of her siblings who visited my great-great-aunt on a regular basis.

My husband and I are newly married, and we find ourselves thinking about the value of this ring and how it could change our lives. A down payment on an apartment? A college fund for future children? And so on. We neither come from money nor make much money. If we sell this ring, it is a once-in-a-lifetime windfall.

I’m worried my relative would want the ring back if he knew I was considering selling it. But this is not the kind of sentimental heirloom that everyone in the extended family knows about, and part of me would not be surprised if he never asked about it again. He is also very wealthy, so as a financial asset the ring matters much more to me. Still, he could, one day, ask about the ring, and who knows what ugliness might ensue from this complicated family if I sold it. But I’m more concerned about my own ethics here — what are my rights regarding this gift, and what explanation do I owe? — Name Withheld

From the Ethicist:

First, a gift is a gift, and this one had no explicit strings attached. There was perhaps a background assumption that it would be appreciated for its sentimental value; selling it shows that its sentimental value for you is less than the giver supposed. But a rich family member is in no position to condemn a much poorer one for thinking of the ring’s value in financial terms rather than entirely sentimental ones. You have to be pretty well off to view a six-figure piece of jewelry only as a memento.

Second, though, it’s worth reflecting on what the giver’s motivations were. You say that you haven’t been close, that relationships with his part of the family have been fraught. Maybe he hoped to remedy this situation, in some measure. Or maybe he believed that your mother had a real connection with the ring owner and simply thinks of you as your mother’s heir.

Either way, it would be courteous to tell him that you decided to sell the ring (I’m assuming that’s your wish) and to explain why — e.g., because doing so would provide the down payment on a new home for your new marriage. Telling him openly should help convey that you aren’t doing anything wrong, which would be less obvious if it came up only later. This sale would surely give you a more meaningful connection with your great-great-aunt — and, indeed, with him — than keeping an expensive item of jewelry, and you might say so.

If you say nothing, your relationship is more likely to be damaged were he to find out later than had you been open about it. If you say nothing, you will also spend time fretting about this eventuality, perhaps needlessly. So tell him your plans and thank him for helping you on your way in your married life. It’s possible that his reaction will confirm your worst fears; it’s also possible that it will alleviate them.

Comments

[lannamichaels]

There are too many relatives in this letter.

Dude used it to propose to his ex-wife and he has kids, unknown with her or not. Maybe giving it to LW spites his kids, maybe it's a way to get a ring full of emotions away from people who have emotions about it.

Either way, he could ask for it back, he could exchange it for money, or he could not care. But he is rich, he has kids, he gave something expensive to someone else, along with the gift of stress.

Just sell it or give it back. (Personally I'd want to follow up on whoever appraised it, because if the dude gave it to LW along with its value, on top of the emotions, he's also gifting her a need for an insurance policy on it)

[conuly]

Several commenters at the NYT point out that if LW hasn't had the ring appraised they may be unpleasantly surprised when they do.

[jadelennox]

I had this thought.

I also thought "I wonder if the giver knows about some way they've harmed LW, like, covered up for a misappropriated actual inheritance from the great-great-grandmother, and this is by way of a sin-offering."

(I also speculated that he may be at odds with his own kids and it's a spite-gift.)

[lannamichaels]

Yeah, I was about to edit my comment for that. If she's doing the appraisal herself, no matter what, she's probably wrong, due to not being an expert. And if the dude is getting the ring away from his descendants, it's possible that the value of the ring-as-exists is not what they would expect from the ring-as-heirloom-piece. On top of the fact that people overinflate what they think heirlooms are worth on the market, just because they're heirlooms. (and a century old ring dates to the 1920s)

[nineveh_uk]

I suppose it could be a highly collectible piece by a notable designer, complete with receipt and original box, the kind of thing that wows the Antiques Roadshow expert. But otherwise, yeah, she's been given a nice but not life-changing on that scale ring.

[lannamichaels]

I feel like if there's any value it's in the stones and metal, and those are pretty notorious, even to a non-expert like me, in having Not The Resale Value You Want. And that's assuming it's not fake stones, which I'm willing to believe it is. The dude doesn't want to have much of a relationship with her and then gives her an expensive ring? Or he gives her a costume jewelry ring because of sentimental value. He's already lying to her about who owned the ring to begin with.

[ethelmay]

Yeah, my great-aunt (who never married) had something she called a "dinner ring" that was a showy piece of jewelry with three diamonds in it. She had, according to lore, been engaged three times, kept all the rings, and had a new one made with the three diamonds and possibly the gold. One of my sisters still has it. It's not worth anything like six figures, or five. I think it's probably low four digits, but I wouldn't be more than mildly surprised if it was less.

On the other hand, you never know what bloody rich people might have knocking around, especially in the way of jewelry and artwork.

[ethelmay]

Oh, and I missed it was a five-carat diamond, which really is unusual. But apparently a ring with a five-carat diamond currently retails for $100K-$120K (if https://www.iconicjewelry.com/how-much-does-a-5-carat-diamond-ring-cost/ is any evidence), so what one would get from a dealer would be much less, unless there is something else incredibly special about it.

[dissectionist]

If it is in fact from the 1920s, it’s not cubic zirconia because that wasn’t commercially produced until another fifty years later. But I wouldn’t be surprised if they’re paste jewels, which are cut glass designed to look like gemstones. That being said, being paste doesn’t necessarily make it worthless. But there’s a huge difference between 3-4 figures and the 6 figures they’re imagining.

First step is to look at guides online about distinguishing paste from diamond; LW can likely determine themselves what it is. If it actually seems like it might be a diamond, then get it appraised, because there’s no point twisting yourself into knots preemptively over something that is likely to be a far smaller payout than you expect.

[purlewe]

Funny enough I watched antiques roadshow this week and there was a VERY fancy ring. Yes 1920s. Yes platinum. And yes in 2008 when this roadshow aired it was about 10k. If she had the original bill of sale it would be 50k. But the value today (15 yrs later) definitely went down. So the last time it was appraised it might have been appraised at insurance value and not say auction. And it might have depreciated. And. Someone might have gotten it in their head to remove any gemstones and not say anything. So get it appraised first. Then make some plans. And they likely won't be the type of plans you think.

[ethelmay]

It also occurred to me that quite a lot of people think of expensive jewelry as insurance of a sort - something you could sell if you were in a serious jam (like your husband turns out to be abusive and you need to escape). But in that case you'd think the guy would have explained.

[minoanmiss]

Is it unethical that I don't think she should tell the giver she sold it? I can't imagine getting a good reaction frm him.

[green_grrl]

I was honestly thinking the same. Tell him you’re so honored and going to keep it in a safe deposit box, then sell it for as much as you can get.

[oursin]

Quite aside from all the value/monetary/ethical issues here. is anyone else thinking 'NO! WHATEVER YOU DO, DON'T SWITCH IT FOR YOUR ENGAGEMENT RING AND ACTIVATE THE CURSE!!!' because all that rather woolly family backstory and the rather tenuous relationships, and the contradictory info, sounds like a setup for something along those lines.

[movingfinger]

The LW should get the ring appraised, possibly twice, and get real numbers for insurance value, LW's sale value, and retail. Those are all different numbers. The retail is nice to know but LW isn't going to realize that much from selling it. Appraisal of the stones individually or as a set if they're nicely matched is also a good idea. It's possible that the stones could be sold and the ring reset with zirconia and LW need say nothing more. There has been an uptick of interest in old diamonds lately, so this might be the moment for those on the market.

Generally, a ring like this is an annoyance and a burden, and in this case as in so many others it comes with a sticky spiderweb's-worth of strings. Selling the ring appears to have the long-term potential to burn down the LW's relationship with the giver and that branch of the family. If LW doesn't care about that, LW should sell it and invest the money in a handsome set of T-bills.

[ethelmay]

It's possible that the stones could be sold and the ring reset with zirconia and LW need say nothing more

A very Victorian solution! Aren't there various books where someone suddenly finds out Mamma's tiara has paste rocks in it and it turns out she sold the stones to pay her brother's gambling debts or something? Now of course I can't think of an example.

[ellen_fremedon]

Maupassant's "The Necklace" comes to mind.

[movingfinger]

Yes, I think this was, if not common, at least a known hazard of inherited jewelry. I believe mme_hardy or someone else would be better informed than I on the references.

And the thing with cubic zirconia is, if the stone falls out of the ring, you won't want to kill yourself for losing $50,000 or whatever the diamond would be.