Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 19
  1. #1
    Super Moderator Senior Pearl-Guide.com Pearl Expert jshepherd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Marina del Rey, CA
    Posts
    5,545

    Default CIBJO Definitions

    This is in response to the thread "Hong Kong-China's Pearl City".
    http://www.pearl-guide.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1686

    I thought it warrented a new thread as the topic I rambled into is quite heavy.

    From what I understand, keshi pearls are quite acceptable in the Middle East as real pearls. We cannot refer to them as natural pearls here, and in fact CIBJO calls them keshi cultured pearls.

    CIBJO on keshi pearls
    Page 16 of the recently published ?Blue Book?.

    5.102 Keshi Cultured Pearl
    A trade name that designates a non-beaded cultured pearl formed accidentally or intentionally by human invitation in marine pearl oysters such as the Akoya oyster (Pinctada fucata), Silver/Gold lipped oyster (Pinctada maxima) and Black lipped oyster (Pinctada margaritifera) and is a byproduct of the culturing process. The creation results from the formation of a pearl sac? etc.

    You have to watch out for that human ?invitation?

    Now for my little rant about the new definitions which I believe CIBJO released TOO EARLY!

    According to the above definition keshi pearls are indeed cultured pearls, but they can only be formed in marine mollusks. That, of course, goes against industry standard terminology. Is it a snub to the freshwater industry?? The biggest enemy of nearly every participant of the blue book?? They are defining keshi as a ?trade? term, yet ignoring ?trade? use of the term in freshwater keshi production. They cannot claim defense on original terminology, otherwise any keshi larger than the head of pin could not be called a keshi.

    I submit that 5.95 (Hyriopsis schlegeli) of the same page 16 is incorrect. It is not a mistake of definition, it is a mistake of omission.

    I also submit that 5.104 (La Paz Pearl Oyster) of (again) the same page 16 is incorrect. The mollusk is defined as: Pinctada mazatlanica, from the eastern Pacific Ocean, presently cultured in the Gulf of Mexico for blister and cultured pearls.

    My question is this. When did the Gulf of Mexico jump Central America and become a part of the eastern Pacific Ocean? Are they confusing the Gulf of Mexico with the Gulf of California, by any chance? Clearly!

    I believe the CIBJO book was released too early. If we went through all 60 pages of definitions and really scrutinized them, I wonder how many mistakes we would find. What is dangerous is that organizations, such as the GIA, are adopting the new terms as law. Did you know that the term ?nucleation? is not even in the book, or an allowable term any longer?

  2. #2
    DFrey
    Guest

    Default

    Hi Jeremy,
    What is "CIBJO" ?

    DFrey

  3. #3
    Super Moderator Senior Pearl-Guide.com Pearl Expert jshepherd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Marina del Rey, CA
    Posts
    5,545

    Default

    A confederation of jewelry trade organizations. Here is a link to the blue books.
    http://www.cibjonews.com/index.php?o...d=25&Itemid=43

  4. #4
    Pearl Maven Senior Pearl-Guide.com Pearl Expert Caitlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    near Tucson AZ
    Posts
    8,830

    Default

    Hi Jeremy
    I am glad you are taking a stand. I hope you have some influence.
    Caitlin

    How to hand-knot pearls without a tool

    My avatar is a Sea of Cortez mabe pearl. One of a pair of Mexican handmade earrings.

  5. #5
    Natural Pearl Senior Pearl-Guide.com Pearl Expert
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,679

    Default

    Quoting from CIBJO introductory comments:

    "The application of the Blue Books standards is voluntary."

    Jeremy, please tell us about the inevitable (and possibly suicidal) politics that would result from your?and other on-line pearl dealers?simply going your own way? I realize you do a bit of that already.

    Seems to me that the overwhelming commercial influence at CIBJO is inorganic gems, which are reliant upon manipulation (cutting, polishing) for their gem application, and upon source monopolies. Given their distinct aesthetic, the advent of an independent authority for pearls would seem appropriate.

    Of course, the pearl world has not lacked for its own monopolistic and manipulative commercial entities. Perhaps their alignment with CIBJO could become a convenient manner of self-identification?


    Steve
    Seattle

  6. #6
    Valeria101
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jshepherd

    I believe the CIBJO book was released too early.

    All links I could find on the CIBJO website either to or about the book are apparently broken. Maybe I missed the crucial one... or my computer plays dead... or the material is under 25 o'clock revision

  7. #7
    DFrey
    Guest

    Default

    I down loaded the pdf format pearl book from the CIJBO site about seven hours ago and everything was working fine then.

    Dfrey

  8. #8
    Super Moderator Senior Pearl-Guide.com Pearl Expert jshepherd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Marina del Rey, CA
    Posts
    5,545

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Valeria101
    All links I could find on the CIBJO website either to or about the book are apparently broken. Maybe I missed the crucial one... or my computer plays dead... or the material is under 25 o'clock revision
    Nope, it is still there.
    http://www.cibjo.us/pearl.pdf


    Jeremy, please tell us about the inevitable (and possibly suicidal) politics that would result from your?and other on-line pearl dealers?simply going your own way? I realize you do a bit of that already.
    Well, for the most part my disagreements with CIBJO are the same disagreements others in the industry will have. To me much of it is academia taking its own approach and asking the industry to follow its lead. This does not make sense as the academic side of the industry exists because of, and in order to serve the industry. In that sense I feel safe enough to continue with my current terminology usage.

    The GIA is quick to accept the terminology proposed by the confederation, as an academic authority. But the powers that be at the GIA do not understand the pearl industry, or the science of pearls (for the most part).

    Other misgivings I have about the terminology are that there are too many mistakes. Page 16 was a case in point. Only one of my assertions can be debated - the use of the term keshi. The others, even the tongue in cheek reference to human invitation instead of human intervention, are real mistakes.

    A single member of CIBJO (H.A. Hanni) was responsible for the omission of terms such asnucleation, nucleus, bead-nucleated, and tissue-nucleated. As he put it, for the sake of clarity we are now to use only the terms beaded cultured pearl and non-beaded cultured pearl.

    His basis of reasoning is that the terms bead nucleated and tissue nucleated are confusing as bead nucleation always is a combination of bead and tissue. Furthermore, tissue nucleation does not mean that the tissue remains in the pearl - it is not a nucleus.

    The above reasoning is not completely correct in my opinion. In second generation production a tissue piece is not used in bead-nucleated pearls. Also, there are several thing that can happen in tissue nucleation, one is the tissue becoming the nucleus.

    My biggest problem with these changes is the fact that they were proposed and accepted to alleviate confusion. In fact, they create the confusion.

  9. #9
    First-graft Pearl Mandy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    145

    Default

    Is it me, or do these guys who proposed these definitions seem really ignorant? The fact that they can get something like this published is unreal! It only makes sense to me that they'd get help from those who know the business and the actual nature and situations that are involved when it comes to the pearl industry. They can't even understand all the processes that can happen when creating cultured pearls >.< Creating confusion, indeed!
    ~Mandy
    A semi-serious beader with a newfound love for pearls

  10. #10
    Third-graft Pearl Senior Pearl-Guide.com Pearl Expert barbie biggs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    848

    Default

    This seems to some degree like acadamia assuming it knows more than the people who do the actual work. Not an uncommon problem.
    I still don't know what the initials mean but am getting a good feel for what they do. Not a pretty picture!

    Thanks for your lucid definition of keshi, Jeremy.
    barbie

  11. #11
    purveyor of pearls Senior Pearl-Guide.com Pearl Expert pearlescence's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Europe
    Posts
    3,587

    Default

    May I just quibble or question the use of academia. Are the people who compiled and published this independent university teaching or research staff or students? If not then they are not academia. They are just people employed by someone to do something - quite different

  12. #12
    thou shall read the book Senior Guide Member effisk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Bordeaux, France
    Posts
    410

    Default

    Conf?d?ration Internationale des Bijoutiers, Joailliers et Orf?vres (CIBJO)

    There's a more recent version of the book here:
    http://perles.effisk.net/blog/images...-Blue-Book.pdf
    I haven't taken the time to compare both versions.

    quote:
    The draft was prepared by The Pearl Steering Committee, which was appointed by CIBJO President Gaetano Cavalieri during the 2005 Congress in Hong Kong. The committee includes Swiss-based Suzy Jarell, of the South Sea Pearl Consortium; Gina Latendresse, president of American Pearl Co.; Roland Naftule, president of the Sector III of CIBJO; Ken Scaratt, Gemological Institute of America (GIA), Thailand; Tom Moses, GIA New York; Shigeru Akamatsu, vice president of the CIBJO Pearl Commission; Raitu Galenon, product manager at Perles de Tahiti; and Martin Coeroli, CIBJO Pearl Commission president and the steering committee's chair.

    source: http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-tr...4240341-1.html

  13. #13
    Satine De La Courcel
    Guest

    Default

    quote:
    The draft was prepared by The Pearl Steering Committee, which was appointed by CIBJO President Gaetano Cavalieri during the 2005 Congress in Hong Kong. The committee includes Swiss-based Suzy Jarell, of the South Sea Pearl Consortium; Gina Latendresse, president of American Pearl Co.; Roland Naftule, president of the Sector III of CIBJO; Ken Scaratt, Gemological Institute of America (GIA), Thailand; Tom Moses, GIA New York; Shigeru Akamatsu, vice president of the CIBJO Pearl Commission; Raitu Galenon, product manager at Perles de Tahiti; and Martin Coeroli, CIBJO Pearl Commission president and the steering committee's chair.

    [/QUOTE]

    Yeah okay sure because one has a business background and can "run things" does not mean they know their product, what is best for that product line. or what they are doing ...


    Many of those names are rinning bells in my head and not possitive ones either maybe its still early yet for me to really think.. Oh wait that was the taster and coffee(well I drink tea with it) machines both going off at the same time....

    cheers
    Ash

  14. #14
    thou shall read the book Senior Guide Member effisk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Bordeaux, France
    Posts
    410

    Default

    Yeah okay sure because one has a business background and can "run things" does not mean they know their product, what is best for that product line. or what they are doing ...
    I absolutely agree. Some of these guys are however experts and do know the product. Ken Scaratt for instance.

    It looks like they overlooked the "details"... the odd pearl types... and the freshies. I'm actually wondering if The Pearl Steering Committee actually did write the blue book or just let some ghostwriter do the writing.

  15. #15
    Satine De La Courcel
    Guest

    Default

    It just seems to me that when too many big names get together to review or make stuff better. It often leads to the "little guy" being "forgotten" in this case its freshies and odd pearls....

    why let a ghost writer do it and just let it "Slip" by??


    Cheers
    Ash