[Valeria101]

The valuation of two natural pearl items in a current action seemed interesting enough to post about: a pair of large, classic baroque drops and a pair of conch dangles (so similar to the type and composition of a necklace from AllNaturalPearls that it got me wondering, but that's another matter).

Such different images of natural pearls! The auctioneer's estimate make these share the start line. It should be interesting what buyers will make of it when the hammer prices come in

Sale: N08350 Lot No. 44
PAIR OF CONCH PEARL AND DIAMOND PENDANT-EARRINGS

Sale: N08350 Lot No. 432
PAIR OF NATURAL PEARL AND DIAMOND PENDANT-EARRINGS, CIRCA 1900

[knotty panda]

Both pairs are really HUGE! I wonder how much the diamond value factors into the conch pair.

[Caitlin]

Those drop pearl earrings are as good as it gets for natural drop pearls- and a matched pair at that!

I don't know why people want to cap the pearls with diamonds though. It is what a gifted wordsmith I once knew called, "mabel-swining". I would like to see such beautiful pearls stand alone. They don't need little diamond caps to have a lot of presence on their own merits. The diamonds also make it so you can't wear them as often for looking overdressed. Yeah, those pearls are overdressed for many occasions.....

That pair REALLY makes me want a CFWP knockoff- sans rhinestones (or cz's) of course......

PS If you would like to add these pearls to your personal pearl gallery, do it now. the pictures disappear after the auction and who knows when they will be available again. That is the mistake I made with that Ellen Barkin natural 5 strand multi-color necklace. Fortunately, a member has the catalog and sent me a copy of it.

I am still unclear about our status as an educational site, which I believe allows us a small amount of copying and pasting pictures, as long as the source is cited and full credit is given and it is obviously for edification. Many pictures we see are part of press releases and intended to copy and post for maximum coverage. I think it is the perfect time to capture those images, because they will often disappear off the web after the show or auction.

[GemGeek]

Originally Posted by Caitlin Williams

I think it is the perfect time to capture those images, because they will often disappear off the web after the show or auction.

What a great idea. I think I'll make a folder just for saving auction photos.

[Valeria101]

Originally Posted by Caitlin Williams

I am still unclear about our status as an educational site, which I believe allows us a small amount of copying and pasting pictures...

Wondered the same before deciding no to post screen captures... But you know what? Th 'Email this page to a friend' (or such) option on the auction includes pictures. So where does copyright of those images end anyway? Silly stuff.

Originally Posted by Caitlin Williams

I don't know why people want to cap the pearls with diamonds though. It is what a gifted wordsmith I once knew called, "mabel-swining".

Hm... Right for the 'over-dressed' part. Definitely so for me - I'd look so ridiculous with such dangles in public all but 2-3 times a year! However, I wonder if the the folks more likely to buy them wouldn't find more use for a dressy setting. And to me, fine workmanship is the stamp of approval for the materials. Unfortunately, it is more common to see fine gems in C&*^$Y settings then fine work with relatively inexpensive materials... And it wasn't always that way.

Given how much more valuable those naturals are compared to cultured counterparts, it seems normal that they would be used in settings unlikely to have been made for any less valuable gems. And that might as well involve some diamond lacework. Why not.
No "mabel-sw..." ... just some logical show-of-manship Pearl rhetoric ? something like that.

Now, I doubt that a pair of gracious freshwater drops would look any less respectable under the same treatment. Wonder what most would think of them...

The other way around? N'ah...


Not sure why most folks are reluctant to put inexpensive (but beautiful) gems in sophisticated settings anymore. Even buyers who make decisions about their personal jewelry. On the sellers' side, it seems logical - yet another case of economics meddling with design. There are way more pearl farmers (let alone pearls) then jewelers capable of making setting like that!

Just an pinion. Contrary... Hopefully not unwelcome

In short: M'am, take the pearls and give me the settings so I can wear them with a pair of dried peas! LOL!

[Valeria101]

Originally Posted by knotty panda

Both pairs are really HUGE! I wonder how much the diamond value factors into the conch pair.

Twenty single cut pointers. $200 ? Relatively nothing anyway..

Would guess that the settings would be a couple thousand, but that mostly goes to the work, not materials.

At least that' what I could have them made for as nice as the images suggest. Flexible... light... As one might want for the pearls' sake.

The pearls, and the auctioneer's clout do the rest.

IMO, the last factor must be HUGE. How many even know what conch pearl are worth? Let alone be prepared to acquire them for the stated estimate. And the auction is not even in HK...

As much as I guess. And I am really not sure if such 'break down' is fair treatment for a rare jewel (i.e. the sum total of all parts). Once something is so desirable and so hard to replicate, it is worth whatever anyone wants to pay. And there's allot of 'want to pay' out there!


Those earrings and the natural Abalone pearls set also listed really, really make me think of ANP. Could it possibly ... Coincidence? Oh well...

[knotty panda]

So it's just like you said, gotta track it to see what unfolds. I wonder if these folks know they are providing such entertainment.

[Caitlin]

Although our policy is, no doubt, don't use copyrighted photos without permission, many sites give permission to copy images for educational purposes. Some sites tell you who to contact for permission.

Most times, before the sale is the time to post a picture and a link. Press releases are the best source. The photos in a press release are meant to be circulated publicly. also there are some pictures that seem to have escaped out to the net and can be found in so many locations (like La Regente images) that all images couldn't be policed if one had a sqaud doing just that. Scanned photos in catalogs that were not made public would be going a little too far- unless the photo was in a press release too.

An educational intent for using an image is rarely offensive- especially if the credit is there. For historical puposes, I myself, I am not speaking for Jeremy or Kevin or any other authority, like to post what I perceive public images and I do because I dislike reading a thread after the image came down and not be able to see what the thread is about. In these cases -with an image in place- we become part of the historical record and are a usable resource that links to the source.

Remember, ALL Dover books, including "The Book of the Pearl" By Kunz & Stevenson (1908) are no longer under any copyright rules. Anyone could republish all or part of it, in print, or on the web. That includes the pictures. If that weren't true, Dover could not reprint the pictures, either. And the people who even have a frontespiece in color on the web would not be able to do that, either.

In tracking mussels (unios) and their travails, I often include large chunks of an article. Long after the article fades into obscurity and can't be googled as "news", you can read it and get the link here.

I see it as a service to the public record and I see it as adding tremendous dimension to an educational site that only provides information and opinions and does not exploit the (fully credited) images to promote anything or for any other reason.

I even think that one is allowed to quote short passages for review purposes. I would put forth that the use of a single public image to make a point is as important as using a quote to make a point.

Anyway, however torturous my reasoning, I take responsiblity for what I put up and hope for the best.

[Caitlin]

PS The Dover Press paperback of the Book of the Pearl is out of print. Copies are hard to locate and the most easily found copies, such as on Amazon, are over $100, at the moment.

Now is the time to reissue the book. The prices for an old Dover paperback copy are high because it is in demand. (The cover price for the earlier edition was $24.00 so no doubt it will go up.)

The whole world is becoming pearl conscious and that is simply the best book ever written on pearls before cultured pearls. Dover already has the plates so I hope they will reissue it.

Soon.

[Valeria101]

Originally Posted by Caitlin Williams

I take responsibility for what I put up and hope for the best.

Precisely. Besides, these folks do not make it easy to link to their images at all. If NYT made their archives public, hope it is just a matter of time...

Pictures are everything!



The relevant screen captures to follow.

[GemGeek]

Valeria101 Precisely. Besides, these folks do not make it easy to link to their images at all. If NYT made their archives public, hope it is just a matter of time...

I subscribed to the New York Times online until about ten days ago, when they decided to make it free and utilize online ads to make up the revenue.

You can search the archives for free all the way back to 1851. Knock yourself out!

[Valeria101]

Originally Posted by GemGeek

New York Times online... back to 1851. Knock yourself out!

...........I did!

[Valeria101]

I think that more recent catalogs keep images in public databases, but nonetheless:







I hope that linking to the original pages will be made possible at some point: via Permalink or some similar system. It's nuts to post links that require (free!) logins etc. Not that I know how many would link to the archives at Sotheby's' and Christies anyway.

[GemGeek]

Originally Posted by Valeria101

...........I did!

I knew that would make your day! Those new photos are superb, thanks

[Caitlin]

Nice.

That unmounted pearl is really something.......

Thanks for the info on the Times. It used to be free, then they made some content paid. Now it is free again...........