Vanity Fair

[jshepherd]

I just happened upon this article last night in Vanity Fair. I know it was written in July, but I don't think it was ever posted here. The article is amazing. The depth of information is not what one would expect from a non-trade publication. Steve King even discusses the Mikimoto Saville-Kent correlation.

My hat is off to Mr. King.

http://www.vanityfair.com/style/feat...industry200907

[Caitlin]

It is a good article! A really good article full of facts. It's broad, readable and interesting, especially his valuation of natural pearls during the 20th century and that he even included that.


My only reservation is he did the grain of sand thing as a cause of pearl formation. He left the impression pearls always form around a worm or parasite. They can do so, but any injury to the mantle that carrys some epethelial nacre-forming cells to the inside of the mantle, can cause a pearl to form. A hungry critter trying to take a bite of a pinctada can start a pearl.

[GemGeek]

Someone posted this a while back. It wasn't you?

[Nerida]

Maybe Effisk?

[knotty panda]

Definitely Effisk.

[Caitlin]

Got Links?

[jshepherd]

I looked for it before posting but didn't find one.

[Hanaleimom]

It's under Pearling Industry News Naked Lustre

[jshepherd]

I missed it the first time 'round

[Hanaleimom]

I would not have found it but "effisk" was a valuable clue.

[jshepherd]

I used the Google custom search box and searched Vanity Fair and it didn't come up. That's strange...

[Hanaleimom]

That's interesting. It just goes to show how we see and function differently. I never saw the Google search until you mention it . I tend to skip over things a lot. I've always use the "Search" in the green tool bar, next to "New Posts".

[jshepherd]

Yeah, that one probably (obviously) works better. Most of the time the Google search works fine though. Very strange...

[judimcc6]

Ah, but thank you for the re-posting or I never would have read it. Nice review.