[Valeria101]

Originally Posted by Pearls_by_Angela_Carol

The major problem that I have is the constant comparison to diamonds. ... I have to ask, why are you not a fan of a universal grading system?

Also, the "Certification of Origin" concept just would not be possible...

First of all, sorry for the long post... the summary: it looks like a universal grading system is a diamond thing and it would not fit pearls as well, or at all. IMO, it was a fluke of history that made the idiosyncrasies of standard certification match the diamond pipe line.

I wouldn't like to only find ten millimeter white pearls in shops, so... no universal grading, please... Since pearls are cultured, a centralized grading system would turn a normative thing.

[End of summary].



And the long form is:


Well, I am one of those buyers potentially duped by inconsistent in-store grading systems, so you are right to wonder why denying the clear benefits of standard grading. The ideal is great, of course. Unfortunately, I only have a small pool of implementation to draw on and that doesn't sound quite as great. This is where the comparison with the diamond grades comes from: I never meant to compare pearls and diamonds, only the institutional workings of the grading system - as GIA's potential pearl grading is the subject of the article cited and the prominent diamond standard is also one their prominent lines of business, the comparison seemed even more relevant.

Apparently, the grading plan does follow the obvious to take into account the characteristics of its object. However, I wonder how much of the corporate experience financing and promoting such a label will cross-over.

About the diamond grades, I happen to subscribe to THIS. Wouldn't it be a shame for the same to apply once to pearls?


Sorry for the round-about... There is a two word summary: information asymmetry. A grading system has to keep it in place to be economically viable (that funny article by Richard Hughes comes down to this, I believe). That is one part I do not feel so good about.

Also, it is quite accepted that any composite metrics have some typical biases: for once, they do promote uniformity (the article mentions that), but also, they tend to focus on extremes (the very bad and the very good categories are allot more reliable than anything in-between). Two mechanisms that don't agree with diversity very well: the first comes in the design phase and can be controlled. The other is just a fact of life that comes out of the use of ranking systems regardless of what they measure... diamonds, pearls, financial transactions, air pollution...

Perhaps none of this was a problem for the diamond industry with a relatively smaller number of sources and not much control of what comes out of the ground. Pearls don't seem much like that.

Why 'certificate of origin'. Because... pearls are cultivated. And product differentiation comes from the producer with a stronger argument than for any other precious stone. Clearly, that's a very inefficient idea for pearls that are pooled after harvest, but are they all? I was thinking of those that are not. Even a universal grading system would not favor all the crop. Neither would this.

The LJ article tells how centralized grading and the acknowledgement of origin did clash over product diversity anyway, with producers of various types of pearls concerned over the potential of uniform grading to enforce a uniform product rather than just uniform 'quality'.

Culture can adapt to a standard (even before the fact!). Extraction cannot. A pearl grading standard would likely be 'normative', in that way.

There's one more thing I was also trying to take in: the uniform grading can only be as reliable as the information accessible to the grader. The more difficult and controversial information acquisition 9or reporting) is, the worse... With mined precious stones, the characteristics of the material can be learned relatively easily and relatively once and for all by an independent agency. The finest is even volunteered... Keeping track of human intervention is the bigger challenge (say, keeping track of treatment by often uneasy communication across conflicting interests etc.). With pearls, the weight of human intervention seems orders of magnitude greater and the pressure on a grading agency to remain informed despite diverging interests that much worse! The only 'grading system' I know of that shifts the burden of proof where the information is for a cultured product, would be some sort of 'certificate of origin'... so that's where the unusual idea came from.

Oh well.. at least this is what crossed my mind while writing the previous post.

There's allot of 'what if', wishful thinking and inexperience, of course.

There could be an endless line of 'what ifs' ... Say, what happens with 'paper' online? For other precious stones it became more important, more expensive (relatively). Pearls' would not be the very first grading system to be made with the Net as a factor in mind, but nearly so. Pretty exciting, IMO.

[Zeide Erskine]

Hi Valeria,

I doubt there will be a uniform grading system anytime soon and the main reason is the Chinese freshwater product. Unless the other producers come up with a solid-nacre product, you have the enormous quality advantage of the cheapest product pitted against the Mystique machine of the most inferior product. On any kind of gemological quality standard (purity of material, lack of treatment) akoyas will drop out of the gem standard. The average nacre on akoya cultured PPBs would probably not even be close to the thickness of a slice of opal in a triplet cabochon. If you keep the Chinese cultured solid-nacre pearls in the same grading system as the PPBs, appraisers would be forced to apply values to Chinese freshwater cultured pearls that would entice about any living and breathing entity in China to try their hand at perliculture until the market cannot handle the flood anymore.

Zeide

[jshepherd]

Why 'certificate of origin'. Because... pearls are cultivated. And product differentiation comes from the producer with a stronger argument than for any other precious stone. Clearly, that's a very inefficient idea for pearls that are pooled after harvest, but are they all? I was thinking of those that are not. Even a universal grading system would not favor all the crop. Neither would this.

A certificate of origin would have no merit whatsoever (unless you are referring to the type of pearl). It would be impossible to police. Pearls go from farms to factories and wholesalers who cannot simply source from one farm or area. The Japanese have been buying Chinese Akoya since the 60's and selling them as Japanese Akoya (Strack, pg. 393) because the Chinese production was considered as good and even better than the Japanese. They once purchased Chinese freshwater and sold them as Biwa until their own production halted completely. Tahitian pearls are cultured in the Cook Islands, no one differentiates them. South Sea pearls that go through the trading houses of Hong Kong are only differentiated at auction. When they are composed into strands, Australian mixes with Indonesian and Indonesian with Philippine.

Made in Hong Kong, or Made in Japan really means nothing as this is not a certificate of origin - the pearls were not cultured there. Those little tags and claims of origin are simply a deception on the part of dishonest dealers who want to charge more than they should for the same product.

[Zeide Erskine]

Hi Jeremy,

So we finally agree that a cultured pearl is a cultured pearl and should be graded and differentiated by typical gemological criteria? Then where would that put your standard AAA akoya compared to a freshadama? In particular, how are appraisers supposed to treat them?

Zeide

[jshepherd]

They are a different type of pearl, and each type should be graded on its own merits.

I still feel that aesthetically a strand of AAA akoya is better than any freshwater pearl strand most consumers will ever see. Compare a top of the line freshadama with a AAA akoya, I would recommend choosing the freshwater. But, when we are comparing and grading, we compare and grade the same types of pearls against each other. Each has its own merit and market.

[Pearls_by_Angela_Carol]

Jeremy,

That is a good way of putting it. I think that I was trying to get there but just could not put the thoughts together on less than 2 cups of coffee

A good example might be the differences in AAA and AA+ (on the most accepted grading scale) in Akoya and Freshwater. In Akoya pearls, the AAA and the AA+ grades will both have excellent roundness. However, in Freshwater, while the AAA grade will have excellent roundness, the AA+ might be slightly off-round. This only speaks to one characteristic of the pearl though.

On our grading scale, we grade for Luster, Surface Quality, Nacre Thickness, Roundness and Matching (in the case of a complete strand). This gives an overall view of the pearl within its classification. I must also stress that this is "grading" not "appraising". In one of the previous posts these two actions crossed paths. While they are related, appraising also speaks to market conditions, consumer buying strength, economy, location...

Grading can be more quantitative. For instance, if the surface area of a pearl has less than 5% of it surface with inclusion, then it is an AAA grade is surface purity (not an AAA+ and not an AAAA grade). This does not speak to price, appraised value, worth... only grade. This is what is sorely lacking in the industry. Not an industry accepted grading system, but an industry indorsed grading system. Again, I stress this is independent of appraisal and value.

Yes, every system like this has it flaws and drawbacks. However, not having some type of accepted/endorsed system in place breeds a marketplace that is overrun with false claims and deception and ultimately cheats the consumer. Just imagine if there were no regulated system for measuring octane levels in gasoline. There are so many variables that "could" effect the reading that might be taken by some independent "gas appraiser" but without a regulated grading system, I could be selling you gas that was 84 octane and call it my "Super Ultra High Performance Octane Racing Fuel" and be perfectly within my rights if I also told you it was the highest grade we sold.

[mikehrz]

Originally Posted by Pearls_by_Angela_Carol

However, not having some type of accepted/endorsed system in place breeds a marketplace that is overrun with false claims and deception and ultimately cheats the consumer.

Did someone say "eBay?"

I think I remember reading in this forum about the controversy surrounding eBay and diamonds, and how the bogus diamond sales were eventually pretty much killed off because of pressure from the diamond industry and, if I remember correctly, the standardized grading system that exists for diamonds.

I agree that each type of pearl would indeed need its own system. And grade should be kept distinct from value or appraising. As always, any product, regardless of objectively measured, quantifiable quality, is worth as much as the public at large is willing to pay for it.

Along those lines, though freshadama are, IMO, the best cultured pearls you can buy, they do face an enormous hurdle: the dominant position of the akoya and the mystiquery machine that's put it there. The simple fact is that hanadama akoya remain, for the foreseeable future, the standard for pearls as far as the public at large is concerned. This is why:

Originally Posted by jshepherd

I still feel that aesthetically a strand of AAA akoya is better than any freshwater pearl strand most consumers will ever see.

I have to agree. I was one of those consumers not too long ago. When I walked into the rodent-owned store in Las Vegas, their AAA exceeded everything I'd seen up to that point, and that was after I'd visited Pearl Paradise the first time. Freshadama simply didn't exist then, at least not in any form I was likely to have ever seen. For those average consumers who aren't aware of freshadama and want the most beautiful pearls they can get, I'm afraid akoya are still the way to go due to a lack of any other real option. It would be hard to walk into an average jewelry store and tell the customers that they should buy the chalky roundish things instead of the ball bearings that at least look like they're worth something. Those customers should have a standardized grading system to help them avoid getting ripped off, though. (I'm sure Zeide would edit that sentence to read "getting ripped off more than they are already.")

I have to admit, I'd still take a hanadama strand if you gave it to me. But there's no way in Hades I'd buy one, not any more.

One down, uncountable millions of yet-to-be-educated pearl consumers to go.

[Zeide Erskine]

Hi Mike,

As a regular reader of this forum you may recall that when I first tried to tell forum readers in general that gem quality freshwater pearls exist that even the sellers here would not believe me. Actually, that is how Pearl Paradise's Freshadama collection came to be in the first place.

Zeide