Quote:
|
Originally Posted by perlas May I also add that why is thick nacre associated with luster? Isn't it a reasonable assumption that luster depends on the nacre quality, not the nacre thickness? |
Both... I think. Structure and thickness - as you say with the example.
And treatment is obviously more reliable way to get lustre than scouring for natural quality.
I don't think there is any natural counterpart to the mirror shine of fake or (some) inexpensive treated pearls. Not sure how to 'show' what I am talking about here, but I am quite sure everyone has seen such examples somewhere. Think cheap!
Anyway, just an opinion (the same as yours, I guess).
Would add a question:
It seems reasonable to think that a lower limit for nacre thickness that may produce the very same visual effect as on an all-nacre pearl could be determined - it should be a matter of how deep through the nacre does reasonably strong light get into the pearl. Which can't be all that deep... no matter how much more desirable all-nacre pearls might be
Does anyone know what this thickness is for any type of pearl? (would imagine that candling half a pearl would give such result; Don't have a microscope with darkfield at hand...).