New CIBJO PEARL book out.

[Caitlin]

details here: LINK

[IMG]file:///C:/Users/Caitlin/AppData/Local/Temp/moz-screenshot.png[/IMG]

Milan, Italy--Jewelers and manufacturers that sell cultured pearls have a new set of guidelines in regards to nomenclature, grading standards and terminology thanks to the recent release of a new Pearl Book from CIBJO.

Following the 2010 CIBJO Congress meeting held in February in Munich, Germany, CIBJO, the World Jewellery Confederation began releasing the latest, updated versions of its Blue Books. The CIBJO Blue Books are a definitive set of standards for the grading, methodology and nomenclature standards for diamonds, colored gemstones, pearls, precious metals, and recently, also for gemological terminology and nomenclature.

The Pearl Book, which was the first book to be released since the 2010 Congress meeting, is 48 pages long and includes details on everything from abalone to waxing of pearls. Click here to download the book.

Among the sections that are most applicable to retailers is a section on the type of information that should be declared to the customer at the point of sale.

CIBJO Pearl Book section 4.3 on modifications and treatments, for instance, explains that there is no requirement to declare at the point of sale that cultured pearls have been drilled, polished, buffed, peeled and/or cleaned.

However, the section says that bleaching, coating, cutting, dyeing, including tinting, filling, heating, irradiation, oiling, waxing and working are modifications and treatments that must be declared at point of sale. For example, jewelers should use terms such as black (irradiated) cultured pearl, or yellow heated cultured pearl in describing the materials.

Those selling imitation or simulant pearls should describe them as such and should not use terms such as "faux pearls" or "semi-cultured pearls," the book says.

The CIBJO Blue Books were originally compiled, and are now continuously updated, by a number of committees comprised of representatives from trade organizations and laboratories in the diamond, colored gemstone, cultured pearl, precious metals and jewelry industries.

The standards set for each subject represent a consensus derived from both the expertise of committee members, and input from individuals outside the committees who had expressed an interest in participating in the development of the guidelines.

Initially, the first three publications were printed with different colored covers; blue for the Gemstone Book, gray for the Diamond Book, and green for the Pearl Book.

In 2007, the Precious Metals Book was launched and in 2010, the CIBJO Gemmological Book was released. Today, each of these publications are generally referred to as the CIBJO Blue Books.

[Joe Zhou]

Thank you so much, Caitlin.
It is very helpful.
You have done a good job.

[GemGeek]

The big freak-out is that any cultured pearl that doesn't have a mother-of-pearl bead is not a real cultured pearl. So much for souffle's and fireballs, not to mention bironite beaded south sea pearls - they are now imitations.

[smetzler]

The big freak-out is that any cultured pearl that doesn't have a mother-of-pearl bead is not a real cultured pearl. So much for souffle's and fireballs, not to mention bironite beaded south sea pearls - they are now imitations.

You're seeing something I'm not. The definition appears to continue to incorporate all the current types of cultured pearls, beaded or not. But the nacreous requirement keeps conchs on the sideline—very surprising given GIA's involvement in that project from its early stages and Ken Scarratt's prominent role on the committee. Will be interesting to discover what the politics or economics were on that one.

5.51. Cultured Pearls
a pearl produced with or without the insertion by man of a bead (5.16) by grafting (5.81), followed by maintaining the mollusc in culture until the pearl is harvested. Cultured pearls are nacreous (5.131), unattached formations, secreted in the interior of pearl oysters (5.151) including Pinctada maxima (5.164), Pinctada margaritifera (5.163), Pinctada mazatlanica (5.165), Pinctada fucata (5.162), Pteria penguin (5.177), and Pteria sterna (5.178) as well as the freshwater mussels Cristeria plicata (5.49), Hyriopsis schlegeli (5.95) and Hyriopisis cumingii (5.94). The surfaces of cultured pearls are composed of nacre (5.130); laid down in concentric layers while within the pearl sac (5.153). The secretion of the nacreous layers from the mantle (5.112) of the pearl oyster (5.151) is natural process instigated and partially controlled by man. This applies to all cultured pearls whether grown with or without a bead (5.16). The term ‘cultured’ is applied to pearls that have been cultured (5.50) it is not applied to other pearls.

Here's another mystery to me, although nothing new. Bead material is often described as 'mother-of-pearl' and in the definition below, from 'a nacreous shell.' As nacre and mother-of-pearl are synonymous and beads used in culturing, from mussel, clam, etc are typically porcelanous, I am in need of further explanation. I am aware that nacreous shells such as P. margaritifera are also used.

5.16. Bead for cultured pearls
a sphere (usually) or other shape (occasionally) formed only by cutting and polishing a nacreous shell used to accommodate the nacre (5.130) secreted from a graft (5.80) of mantle (5.112) tissue, that eventually forms the centre of a beaded cultured pearl (5.17).

[GemGeek]

They are saying that only a bead cut from nacreous shell can be used for a bead-nucleated cultured pearl. Anything else is an imitation. GIA has nothing to do with CIBJO.

It makes you wonder if the advisory board makes these things up to keep their competitors at a disadvantage. When they said that keshi could only come from saltwater mollusks, it wasn't to protect consumers.

Tridacna gigas is not nacreous and is used primarily in creating enormous freshwater pearls that are poised to compete directly with South Sea pearls.

[smetzler]

They are saying that only a bead cut from nacreous shell can be used for a bead-nucleated cultured pearl. Anything else is an imitation. GIA has nothing to do with CIBJO.

I'd need to check prior editions of the Blue Book, but the reference to beading material as being mother-of-pearl/nacreous is not new to me. I've just always thought there was some sort of loose application of the term 'nacre' in the bead industry. If this is new to CIBJO then that is definitely radical.

Scarratt's work on the committee (I believe he was or is chairman) is no doubt independent of his position at GIA.

[GemGeek]

I forgot that Ken was on the pearl committee, but yes, it's in his capacity as an expert. Let me know about the old CIBJO version. Other people were up in arms about the nacreous thing, so I assumed it was new.

[smetzler]

I'd need to check prior editions of the Blue Book, but the reference to beading material as being mother-of-pearl/nacreous is not new to me. I've just always thought there was some sort of loose application of the term 'nacre' in the bead industry. If this is new to CIBJO then that is definitely radical.

Scarratt's work on the committee (I believe he was or is chairman) is no doubt independent of his position at GIA.

Just returned to my desk and found my copy of the 2008 CIBJO Pearl Book:

5.16. Bead for cultured pearls
a sphere (usually) or other shape (occasionally) formed only by cutting and polishing a nacreous shell used to accommodate the nacre (5.130) secreted from a graft (5.80) of mantle (5.112) tissue, that eventually forms the centre of a beaded cultured pearl (5.17).

So nothing new in 2010, rather a continuing enigma regarding why the world's greatest experts and scientists in the field insist on informing the trade that bead material is universally nacreous. Maybe we can get some clarification from Ken Scarratt himself, of from practitioners such as Mikeyy.

[GemGeek]

Thanks for the clarification Steve!

[CortezPearls]

And let us not forget that many cultured pearls have also used other kinds of nuclei:

1. Semi-precious stones (such as Turquoise) - as in those Tahitian "carved" pearls (remember them? wish I had a photo).
2. Precious Metals (like Gold and Silver) - as was the case for many of the "early" experimental pearls produced by William Saville-Kent in Australia and Nishikawa in Japan.
3. Non-nacreous shells (from the Conch and Giant clam shells) - as in experiments conducted in pearl culture attempts in Mexico (La Paz) and the "Fireballs" from China.

It could be another attempt at setting (or re-setting) a "standard" for the industry. Last time I spoke with Mikimoto's Shigeru Akamatsu, he was quite interested in knowing if we supported the initiative of establishing a de-facto standard for a pearl bead: American Mussel Beads only. Since this is what we always use it doesn't affect us the least.

[Caitlin]

If Galatea does not produce pearls, they do produce nacre covered gems. CIBJO's silly ruling tries to eliminate creativity in their search to create consumer protections--That is the reason, right? Right? It's not just to protect the nucleus industry as it stands?

I saw Terry has some Galatea pieces LINK turquoise and citrine nuclei. The nacre is very,very thick. What a knock out! CIBJO will just make itself seem silly if they call this an imitation pearl or even rule it not a pearl, that is so beside the point in this Nacre covered gem.

What about the principle of full disclosure? This is a mud-nuked pearl, a bironite-nuked pearl, a turquoise nuked pearl? a clam nucleated pearl? If it has a nucleus, then declare it, even if it is Mikimoto's clam shells.

That is far more comprehensive and leaves room for imagination in the future. When we get nacreous manufactured materials- now that is truly fake, but I am looking forward to seeing it appear!

I have to say that all these nucleated cultured pearls are PEARL-PLATED BEADS anyway!

If all-nacre were the standard, then only some cultured freshwater pearls would be true cultured pearls. What natural pearl has ever had a bead nucleus? The closest imitation of the natural process is to stick some epithelial mantle cells into the mantle

Removing 98 percent of the nacre (the part that can't be seen with the naked eye) and starting with a huge prosthetic and just coating it with pearl is a radical departure from all-nacre pearls. These aren't just cultured pearls, as so many freshwaters are, they are nacre-covered mussel beads, ahem, pearl-plated beads.

Nucleated manufactured pearls make the most profits because culturing time is far less to get much bigger pearls, with the side effect that confers the bead's shape -perfectly round- to many of the manufactured pearls. In fact, the manufacturer's emphasis centers on the roundness, first, and now we expect even cheap pearls to be round. Generalization of observations of the industry.

There is no reason not to make a jade nucleus, or even pearl plate a tiny animal carving or amulet. It's all pearl-plating and I really think the manufacturers of the nacreous shell nuclei are in league with Miki to preserve their uncontested place in the market. HaHaHa to consumer protections.

I do not understand why the pearl-plating business can't think of anything else to pearl-plate but round nacreous shells... well, past coins, sticks, stars, etc, too.

[smetzler]

I did get a rather careful reply from Ken Scarratt to the effect that CIBJO is a trade organization (between the lines: the bead industry had their say). Ironically, while from a nacreous shell, freshwater mussel beads are quite clearly cut from the non-nacreous shell layer. This goes back to my earlier point about misleadingly describing such beads as 'mother-of-pearl.'

[CortezPearls]

I agree with Caitlin. The issue would have to be FULL FRONTAL DISCLOSURE... who cares what the bead is made out off. If we ALWAYS had full disclosure this would not even be an issue.