[salem]

Hi Sweetfrock,

I see what you mean about the scratches, especially in the third and second to last shots. Couldn't really make out the dull spot though, maybe because of reflection from the flash. I thought the pearls photographed beautifully. I can't imagine what the saleslady meant by chalky since they seemed to be swimming in colors to me. I have read on here that the main difference between freshwaters and Akoyas are that Akoyas do have that mirror like quality. Some people really love it, some people don't. I have read that the Freshadamas have a softer glow to them. There is a great forum called "show us your pearls" on here that has a lot of posts of pearls, some from PP. I will see if I can find the thread and post the name for you. It has some incredible pics in it.


Well...I found it. Don't know how to add the link though. Go to the "Show Us Your Pearls" forum and find the thread "some of jerin's pearls" The first post shows a custom Freshadama double strand and later a double of Akoyas. You can see a bit of a difference, although I find both stunning. Salespeople seem to want to make their own product seem the best, so I am not sure how much to trust what she said to you. Is it just the scratches that boher you, or is it what the saleslady said? If you prefer the Akoya luster, I would exchange them for what you want. If Jeremy doesn't see these posts, please write him. I am sure he will help you out. Maybe some of the experts here will drop by and give an opinion of your photos. Good luck!

[jshepherd]

Originally Posted by sweetfrock

Orchard Road is really expensive but it's convenient for me during lunches so I was looking through the shops to aid what I'm reading here, with real-life examples. As for freshadama quality, I went pearl-windowshopping today and saw some pearl earrings in a store off Orchard Road, it had some really pretty pearls, very good luster, water and orient. They were akoyas, and so I took out my freshadamas to compare, but mine didn't look as clear. The lady commented that the freshadamas looked chalky, and I actually saw what she was saying. So I'm confused now.

I would try rubbing that tiny scratch with a soft cloth. It looks as though it is a surface abrasion.

Your strand is definitely a freshadama. I actually checked that one before it went out. Mistakes are very difficult to fix with International orders.

With the Akoya pearls what you were seeing was surface reflectivity. Akoya pearls do not, cannot, have orient or water. But they do have a ball-bearing like reflection. This is, however, an enhanced effect. While the freshadama will not have that ball-bearing like reflection, they have something that the Akoya do not. They have depth, and that is where the orient comes from. The reflection comes from within the pearl, not the surface. To some, the Akoya is more beautiful. To others, it is the freshwater.

As for the chalky comment, that was just a salesperson discrediting the nicest freshwater strand I am sure they have ever seen in their life, trying to sell you pearls. As a loose-pearl-quality matched strand, it is impossible to buy in hank form.

[Valeria101]

Oh! Thanks for the fine pictures!

God knows what 'gem quality' pearls are... but those in your picture sure do look great. Very impressive. Would hope that some day Freshadama will get the honor to be represented by at least as good images, it's the greatest luxury on the Net - great pictures

Correction welcome about my interpretation of the 'gem pearl' label, but to me it sounds like 'old mine emerald' and 'pidgeon blood ruby' - not a precise definition that could be translated in scientific measurements and exact standards, but a fancy way to say 'as good as it gets'. With precious stones, it is quite difficult to get to see the whole range of quality possible, so there is some mystery involved in the grading of the best. I would call 'gem' the most remarkable pearls I have ever seen or heard of and not pretend to make a 'standard'. When someone does, it rises a red flag, as much as I am concerned

Would imagine that the return policy is a way to please both camps: the one that doesn't see fault with a little pinch and patch as long as the background is gorgeous, and the perfectionist crowd.


And no... don't ask competing sellers for their opinion. I could tell some horror stories - really bad. Not everyone does 'scare tactics', but it is really unpleasant and asking folks you do not already have a very good reason to trust can lead to tasteless behavior.

I don't know what more to ask from freshwater pearls (or cultured pearls, in general) than what you are holding in the picture. While not a fan at all of the ball-bearing look, I have seen nicer natural pearls that could be described as slightly more translucent - just a few in impressive old jewelry, never a whole strand of them. For me, the difference between the fabled natural ones and the cultured is least for top freshwater. To me, the nucleated ones are an entirely different thing, with their own merit - extremely impressive in their own right, but a different story.

My 2c (a fan, not an expert).



If you don't like what you see, maybe it is just that you prefer the look of nucleated pearls... why not. There's a long run between 'chalk' and what you are holding, unless the images are unrealistically flattering for the pearls. Maybe you would like the brighter baroque pearls better... Seeing is believing.


PS: Could be crazy, BUT - who would stand to loose from a publicized grading range of pearls? If GIA can't make money out of it, it can't mean that no one in interested... Unpleasant scare tactics would be banned to the back water they belong to. A freely accessible high standard would single out the ones that shy away from it.

[sweetfrock]

Dear salem, Jeremy and valeria101, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. I had a look at jerin's freshadamas compared to her akoyas and I do see what you all meant by a mirror-like and ball-bearing quality. I recalled seeing some of the strands at that lady's store which really did look like ballbearings, sort of glassy. They had orient too, but not as much depth.

I took too much of that lady owner's word for it when she commented that the freshadamas were chalky since her pearls are reputed to be superior in quality to mikimoto (highly recommended by my colleagues) and supposedly very knowledgable in pearls. I'm sorry that the consumerism part of my being got the better of me!

The freshadamas do have a lot of depth; and to me it makes the pearls look more mysterious. They are a beautiful lot; I just didn't have a basis to determine just how amazing they are. It just shows how much more I have to learn about pearls

[salem]

Oh, I am so glad to see your last post Sweetfrock. Glad to see you happy again. They really do look like a beautiful strand. Although I have been in a similar boat when I bought something I loved and then someone I consider more-expert verbally dumps on them. It can be very disheartening because it makes us question our own judgement. Now, personally I don't agree with comparing Akoyas with ball-bearings or calling them PPB's. I find good Akoyas to be very beautiful. But there is another thread somewhere where Jeremy posted a poll to have people guess which were Akoyas and which were freshwater...most people thought the freshwater were the Akoyas. So it really is a matter of what speaks to you. Since you took such wonderful pictures, I hope you will post one of you wearing them. Would love to see them on.

What I seem to be more interested in now are the longer lengths(opera and rope). Jeremy, if you don't mind telling me(or privately messaging me), what would a 36 inch 7-8mm Freshadama run? What about 48 inch? And opinions please, how long of a rope can a short woman get away with? I am only 5'3". And would 7-8mm be the best size for a longer strand for me? I don't want to look like a kid playing dress-up.

[Valeria101]

Originally Posted by salem

... Now, personally I don't agree with comparing Akoyas with ball-bearings or calling them PPB's.

Fair enough. No doubt what PPB wants to say, what to do with the superficial shine on them pearls? The result of vapor deposition looks like nothing in nature and 'mirror' is a term for something looking rather different on pearls. 'Ball bearings' were meant to be a good thing, if it doesn't sound that way, I am ready to change, but with what... 'Metallic lustre'? (thinking of Victorian strands of polished precious metal beads - beautiful!). I'm out of pearl words.

Would really love to see some natural (or at least not nucleated) akoya for reference. I know fairly well what bleaching, polishing and reflective coating does to pearls each in turn. 'Know that akoya affected by pollution, rushed harvest etc. are not that gorgeous and need help - it even made sense as long as no other decent pearls were around (=pre freshwater invasion). But do the treated pearls look anything like the real deal? Never seen anything like them, but again, 'haven't seen the original akoya either. Thoughts?


There are few (if any) precious stone enhancements that produce 'unnatural' results on purpose. Whatever is done to pearls seems quite the exception to that rule... if I am right. Chances are I am not... without disclosure of treatment for pearls it is quite difficult to know what on Earth you are seeing in them Pretty disheartening that.

[jshepherd]

Yes, ball-bearing is definitely meant to be a good thing. If it were not for the metallic sheen of Akoya, they would have likely fallen out of favor as soon as Chinese CFWP came even near round. Akoya can definitely be beautiful, and to many the aethetic value of the metallic sheen is better than any orient.
If I did not believe in Akoya I would not have invested in my own Akoya pearl farm - which I did last year, as many of you know. We are going to debut out first harvest in Hong Kong soon.
The term PPB came from Madame Z... true in a sense, but I believe the gem deserves more respect than that.

[Caitlin]

Originally Posted by salem
... Now, personally I don't agree with comparing Akoyas with ball-bearings or calling them PPB's.

Doncha you know that them’s fightin’ words on this here forum?

I agree with V-ana, that “ball bearing” is not an insult but an attempt to put the singular shine of the akoya, as it is sold today, into words. Their luster, at its best, is brilliant, hard edged, and metallic.

And, even though PPB has been used (and taken) as an insult to akoya pearls, it is also an attempt to describe modern akoya cultured pearls accurately. They are in fact, the cultured pearl with the thinnest of coatings and the most artificial enhancements and skin-protectors added post-growing time. They also have the shortest growing time in the mollusk of all PPB’s, prompting me to refer to them as, “MOP beads being dipped into the oyster for short periods of time”. These pearls of all cultured pearls MUST be bought from a reputable dealer.

Remember, I own a copy of Strack's fine textbook called "Pearls" and read it. And a number of other folks on this forum have read it also. After reading Strack, you are no longer an ignorant customer. Also, I went to her lecture about artificial enhancements and coloring of pearls at the gem show. Just because the treatments and processing are as secretive as possible, does not mean they do not happen. …..


There is no attempt to protect the ignorance of the consumer here on this forum, so be prepared for the truth.

BTW, I just heard a rumor at the Gem show that akoyas have to be kept in distilled water after being harvested and before being processed or they will dry out and crack!!! Then, after processing-you do not want to get them wet, ever again, as water will now have a negative impact on the nacre. Any comments on that you genuine, good quality, PPB experts?

[Caitlin]

Hi Jeremy
Your post went up while I was composing mine. I am glad to hear about your upcoming akoya harvest. I am sure the quality will be as stated, and not one whit less. I think your nacre will be up to, if not exceeding standards for thickness.

I recognize that for many people, akoyas are the only pearl -as witnessed by the sales numbers, which are holding steady and even growing- but popularity doesn't preclude getting educated about akoya pearls, their inate delicacy, and how to care for them to get the longest use.

In spite of the ZESPA'S introduction of the term, PPB. I think use of the term is having little effect on people's opinions: it just educates them and maybe they won't go for the cheapo akoyas on eBay, but will understand why they need to spend a little more and get the best possible quality akoya from a reputable dealer.

[Valeria101]

Hm... glad to hear PPB has a bit of a niche left, Caitlin It might be a bit too radical to 'catch', but would miss the pearl-plated-beads concept if no one ever mentioned them again.

When I first found the forum and the term, I thought it was about the artificial coating process used to make shell pearls Silly, no? It took reading a couple of posts to realize that it was a mollusk doing the 'plating' still.


The news of a controlled Akoya batch are news to me. Anything done differently than for the current 'Hanadama' stock? (haven't searched through old posts yet).

[Caitlin]

Sorry to post 3 in a row, but I wanted to comment on the pictures above.


Pic #1` shows one dimple on all the beads in the picture. The skins on the rest are excellent, unless there is something hidden on the bottom of a pearl, the strand looks way above a 95% blemish free standard.

Honestly, if a blemish here or there or a dull spot makes you not like the pearls, then I would recommend some high quality faux pearls. They never have off shapes, dull spots or dimples. In fact, on an incredible number of pearl sites, including this one, there are instructions on how to tell faux pearls from real pearls. The reason is so many people think faux pearls are real and ask for a way to tell the difference.

To describe faux pearls:
Faux pearls have fantastic luster on 100% of every part of all the surfaces- NO dull spots ever, anywhere.
They have perfect skins, never a blemish or dimple anywhere.
They are absolutely, perfectly round. Never anything but 8 way rollers on a good faux strand.
There is never a deviation in size in a matched for size strand. Nor is there a deviation in the rhythm of size increase in a graduated strand.
Not one faux pearl ever has a hint of a ring anywhere on it, not even around the drill hole.
Faux pearls never have differences in color from pearl to pearl, no matter how slight. If you take a photo, they will all photograph the same.
Faux pearls never have the slightest of color discolorations anywhere under the surface.
You can’t look into or through the surface layers of any part of any faux pearl, ever.

If you look at a string of pearls that exhibits all above traits, they are either faux or they are worth more than most people can pay.


Under magnification, Faux pearls usually have a plastic or glass bead visible at the hole’s edge. Also under magnification, the edges of the hole may show slight separations from the bead or even chips missing.


The ultimate test for the usual faux pearl is the “tooth test. Rub a pearl surface on the edge of a tooth. Faux will be smooth, “real” nacre will be slightly gritty with tiny grits.



This above list does not apply 100% to a lot of shell pearls and high grad faux pearls made from compounds. Some even pass the tooth test.

Most faux pearls except brand name ones such as Majorca don’t have any iridescence. The iridescence on Majorcas, is equally distributed everywhere on the surface, from all angles.

In general, Majorcas cost way more than any other faux pearls, even rivaling all but the best cultured pearls, if they have the clasp certificate and box.

[Valeria101]

Originally Posted by Caitlin Williams

If you look at a string of pearls that exhibits all above traits, they are either faux or they are worth more than most people can pay.

For some reason never thought of fake pearls as 'good' fakes (a fan of Ramaura, Gilson and AOTC speaking)... 'Seen the better ones, and still - there's something wrong with how matched they are - 'perfect' ruby and emeralds and opals are way more credible. 'Baroque fake pearls - nevermind, they're strange

For no there isn't much reason to 'fake' freshwater pearls (too cheap), but the good, untreated (i.e. coated or colored) ones would really not match the current types of fakes, would they? Hope I'm not the only one with that impression (and hope things stay that way too - 'nough confusing synthetics around).

[Pearlgully]

I believe that pearls are like beautiful women..........beautiful women
have birthmarks and so do pearls!


Gail
Pearl Girl, LLC
New York

[salem]

Err..I feel I have mistread? I didn't mean to imply that anyone was insulting Akoyas. I just *personally* wouldn't use the word ball-bearings because I don't find ball-bearings to be particularly attractive...shine or no-shine. So Jeremy, Caitlin, Valeria, I am very sorry if I caused offense. Didn't mean to, just wanted to express my own opinion of the word. Now PPB, I have read enough posts to know "them's fightin' words". But I didn't mean them to be...should have known better to refrain I guess.

let me give an example, one night at karaoke(yes, it is fun in Japan...You can get private rooms), a friend of mine told me in all sincerity" Jennifer, did anyone ever tell you you look like a dog?" Several other friends being surprised quickly spit out their drinks laughing so hard. Now, Shuji, my friend meant it as a compliment. He meant to say I have a small, cute face. (Small faces are very attractive to Japanese) Even though I KNOW and KNEW he meant it as a compliment, I couldn't help feeling a bit slighted. LOL, After all, being called a dog in America is hardly favorable.

BTW, totally agree with Pearlgully, the flaws make a more beautiful and interesting pearl.

[jshepherd]

Ahh, karaoke-box! Natsukashii desu ne!

I completely understand what you mean. I was often admired for having a larger than local average nose while there.