How is this determined? In brief, by the ornate designs to the domes holding the diamonds. And the use of enamel in the two diminutive flowers. As well as about 20 other points of construction and design.

Those two tiny flowers in opaque blue and yellow enamel are a holdover from the 17th century's reliance on enamel.

Enamel, rather than the use of gems, enlivened a majority of jewelry from prior to 1700. Both front and back were often enameled elaborately. At the turn of the 18th century, this use began to wane, then often only the front was enameled, or partially so.

By around 1730 or so, enamel disappeared entirely except for certain mourning rings.

Weighty and complex, this pendant was likely worn on a ribbon at the neck or sewn to a dress or bodice. Note the two openings on the reverse at each side of the top fitting that would have been utilized for the thread.

The surmount is in a regal double bow form. The articulated drop holds nine teardrop shapes against a backdrop of leaves.

Highly usual, all the largest diamonds are coppery brown in hue. These chocolate rose cuts are not merely dark white diamonds, but specifically chosen for their amber to brown hues.

Indescribably rich in hues, the diamonds glint bronze hue like no diamonds we have encountered before.

They are set into rub-down or rub-over silver deep domes, and raised designs cover the lower 3/4 of them with curves and patterns.

Note the heavy and weighty use of metal as well as the organic treatment of the leaves. Each of the smaller rose cuts reads silvery white and were set deep within smaller mounds of silver.

The reverse was entirely covered in a thin layer of gold to protect the skin and clothing from the silver patina. However, this surface has worn away from all the bottom dangles, leaving the silver.

Both the original slide fitting (for the ribbon) and pendant bale are still intact and this treasure is overall in remarkable condition for its 300-plus years of age.

See item 22089 for a closely matched pair of earrings.