| Yes, disclosure is very important. There is one big problem with that, however. The end retailer will almost never know what treatments have been done to their pearls. Disclosure must start with producers and factories.
For example, if you were to visit any jewelry store in any state and asked the salesperson with bright white strand of akoya or freshwater how they were treated, what will they say?
"No treatments, in any way, of course not!"
The truth is, they just don't know - treatments are completely universal in certain segments of the industry, as they have been since inception.
The truth of the matter is, the only accessible place for the consumer to find information on typical treatments is here on this forum. It is the only place for jewelers and retailers to find it as well. Suppliers do not always lean toward full disclosure. Even those that try really do not understand the processes. How many of you have been to a market in China and saw pearls that were "laser dyed", or "natural black"?
Now I propose this question; If it is not considered mandatory for akoya and freshwater sellers to disclose bleaching as it is universal, but it is mandatory to disclose dye (previously with an exception to pinking), why is it not the same for Tahitians? Because bleaching is not universal? Do you see all the gray area?
Why was the discussion of maeshori on South Sea pearls a big deal when maeshori is universal for freshwater and akoya pearls, yet almost no one even knows what this treatment is? |