Mikimoto vs. everything else

[PerfectPearls]

I recently decided I wanted to upgrade my current pearls since the ones I have from the past are mediocre to poor quality akoyas. I cannot afford Mikimoto AAA's, so that leaves me with a few other choices. I see that I could get a relatively new strand of Mikimoto A or A+ on ebay for a decent price (50-60% off the retail). (These are real Mikimotos..I know to avoid Blue Lagoon and Sea Magic). But to what do these compare? Are they like AAA akoyas from companies like PP, etc.? How would the Freshadamas compare to A or A+ Mikimotos? For that matter, if you wanted the "best" 7mm pearls to leave as heirlooms, would you go with akoya or gem quality freshwater? So far I have just bought some freshadama earrings just to see what they look like, and they are lovely! But I have never seen any quality Mikimotos in real life, so it is hard for me to compare! The name does add some heirloom value, but I won't pay for the name unless I can buy second hand. I have a couple of fw questions, but I'll post those over on the fw forum! Thanks in advance!

[boo]

Generally speaking, many, many eBay sellers "inflate" the quality of their pearls. I believe it is much more realistic to say that A or A+ from PearlParadise or one of the other trusted vendors on this site would be equivalent to AAA on eBay. (Obviously, there are some honest sellers an eBay, but far too often the grades are very misleading or downright dishonest). Freshadamas get their name from the fact that they are the freshwater equivalent of Hanadama akoyas, which are the finest pearls of that type. I believe that the general difference you will see between the akoyas and the Freshadamas will be that the freshwater pearls have a softer luster than the more metallic luster of the akoyas. However, Freshadamas will be "nicer" than A or A+ akoyas just by virtue of being a finer grade of pearl.Of course, the other big difference is that the Freshadamas are all-nacre, whereas the Mikimotos are just nacre-covered beads and will eventually wear through to the bead underneath. If you are considering the worth of the pearls as an heirloom item, I would definitely choose the freshwater.

Here is a link to a post with a photo comparing Freshadama (freshwater) and Hanadama (akoya). The Freshadama strand is the bottom strand.
http://www.pearl-guide.com/forum/cul....html#post2276

[PerfectPearls]

Wow, incredible picture! I really did not think the Freshadamas could be compared to Hanadamas, but they look terrific! I really do favor the solid nacre. I just didn't want to sacrifice the surface beauty.

Thanks!

[pearlescence]

I don't even bother to re-stock Akoyas.
While I was in Manchester I did see some top end Mikis but they were priced at £42,000 in a top end b and m. They were nice pearls, round and good lustre - but a quarter the price of a small house?

[dkan 168]

I replied to your thread in FW already, and I shall add my support in favour of gem quality CFWP

Why pay way over the odds for the brand name? For better resale value in the future? Have you tried selling second hand jewellery? You'd be lucky to get 20% back!

You really cannot go wrong with gem quality CFWP IMHO, and that is speaking from experience as a proud owner of 3 gem quality strands from 3 different vendors - PP, TPO and POJ

DK

[Pearl Dreams]

I think the only think that worries me whenever we show the photo linked in post 2 is that the Freshadama strand was one of the early ones Jeremy first got together. I wonder whether a Freshadama strand randomly selected from current stock would look indistinguishable from Hanadamas; I think not.

The reason I say this is I did take my Freshadama strand to a Bailey Banks & Biddle store that sells Mikimotos and laid it side by side with their Mikis. My strand was comparable in luster with their A1 (a grade below A). That was the highest quality strand they had on hand, but I did see higher grade earring studs and the luster of the Mikis was sharper and more metallic and mirror-like than that of the Freshadamas.

My point is that I do think there is a definite difference in luster between Hanadama quality Akoyas and Freshadamas. The Freshadamas have a softer glow rather than the hard metallic look. We who love the freshwaters appreciate their glow-- but if you are really looking for the hard metallic look, then get the Akoyas.

But they won't be as durable. And if you are getting them second-hand, their durability is even less.

For that matter, even my baroque Akoyas have a harder and more metallic luster.

[pearlescence]

I think all sea pearls have a harder and more metallic finish - they even feel different when stringing

[Pearl Dreams]

I dug out this post by Jeremy on the difference:

http://www.pearl-guide.com/forum/con....html#post8585

Mind you, I love the Freshadamas and definitely think they are the way to go if cost and durability are issues. But if I had unlimited funds and didn't care that they wouldn't last as long, I'd also get a Hanadama strand.

I'll add my photo of my own Freshadamas (taken in available light indoors):

[PerfectPearls]

I think the only think that worries me whenever we show the photo linked in post 2 is that the Freshadama strand was one of the early ones Jeremy first got together. I wonder whether a Freshadama strand randomly selected from current stock would look indistinguishable from Hanadamas; I think not.

The reason I say this is I did take my Freshadama strand to a Bailey Banks & Biddle store that sells Mikimotos and laid it side by side with their Mikis. My strand was comparable in luster with their A1 (a grade below A). That was the highest quality strand they had on hand, but I did see higher grade earring studs and the luster of the Mikis was sharper and more metallic and mirror-like than that of the Freshadamas.

My point is that I do think there is a definite difference in luster between Hanadama quality Akoyas and Freshadamas. The Freshadamas have a softer glow rather than the hard metallic look. We who love the freshwaters appreciate their glow-- but if you are really looking for the hard metallic look, then get the Akoyas.

But they won't be as durable. And if you are getting them second-hand, their durability is even less.

For that matter, even my baroque Akoyas have a harder and more metallic luster.

This is exactly what I needed to know! The fact is, I have never seen high quality akoyas, apparently! The ones I already have have a softer glow rather that a mirror-like finish. I really dress casually most of the time, so I don't have a need for super-dressy pearls and I perceive the hard metallic look to be more dressy.

[boo]

I think the only think that worries me whenever we show the photo linked in post 2 is that the Freshadama strand was one of the early ones Jeremy first got together. I wonder whether a Freshadama strand randomly selected from current stock would look indistinguishable from Hanadamas; I think not.

This is a good point - does anybody happen to have both types of pearls they can do a side-by-side with? The best I have is a AA+ strand of akoyas but with my meager photography skills it doesn't matter anyway!

[dkan 168]

This is a good point - does anybody happen to have both types of pearls they can do a side-by-side with? The best I have is a AA+ strand of akoyas but with my meager photography skills it doesn't matter anyway!

Cue for Jeremy perhaps?

DK

[Pearl Dreams]

A friend of mine had 4mm gem grade Akoyas given to her for her wedding-- they were astonishingly metallic. I have never since seen white pearls that metallic.

This may be comparing apples and oranges but here is my baroque akoya strand and it does have that metallic look:

[Pearl Dreams]

One more thing-- the Miki strand that resembled my Freshadamas cost about 8X as much.

For nacre over a bead.

[dkan 168]

BTW, this month's special at TPO is 8.5-9mm gem quality CFWP at 350 USD for a 18in strand, bargain IMHO!

DK

[Pearl Dreams]

I see they are 8.5-9mm but still a bargain.