Hello Mike! Mwaahh!
OK. One is certified hanadama, albeit not the best one possible and the other one is passing for Hanadama? That is creepy. The little one, though not unattractive, has flaws on almost every pearl visible in the first shot, esp. The big one has no flaws, no pits, no hammer marks, a perfectly smooth skin. I say you can not really see flaws on it, because there are none!!!! Show me where they are!
They are both pinked. That is the point on which they have the most in common. The small ones have an almost hammered look to the skin. Nothing wrong with that intrinsically, but to say they are hanadama or passed the Hanadama certification process is simply, not true. They are vastly inferior pearls to the actual Hanadamas pictured. If you can't see that, then you should not be opining.
I originally graded them at AA+ and Jeremy said it was too high a rating! I can't see them, so I trust Jeremy's assessment. If he says they are not even AA+, then it would be an actual crime to sell them as Hanadamas.
Listen to Jeremy, if you want to learn something and not just fling an opinion out there, LOL! So these pi**p**r pearls came with some kind of certification that doesn't match the strand, let alone appear to be an authentic Hanadama certicate or an old one reissued, or something. I am not sure about this part, but it is what I think I understand. Now, where are the ethical naysayers?
One last thing. I want to hear where those pearls came from......
Last edited by Caitlin; 03-08-2012 at 05:43 PM.
If JPSL's standards or consistency in grading isn't up to snuff, it not the end of the world for the people that bought Hanadama strands nor do I believe it would change the value of those strands at all. Pearls are generally sold without reports and I am not aware of any major (or minor for that matter) B&M stores that sell pearls with reports (GIA, EGL, JPSL or otherwise). People who need that proof of quality and need to buy their pearls in person are going to Tiffany or Mikimoto and they will pay top dollar for the confidence of owning a branded product.
Selling online is different because the customer is not able to touch or see the product and pictures just don't cut it for many people. Third party reports are a good way to build that confidence, provided the companies can be trusted. As far as I know, having any "certification" whether it's from GIA, EGL, JPSL or any other company doesn't have that much impact on the actual value of the pearls at all. It's not the value enhancer for pearls that it is for diamonds. If someone buys any strand regardless of the paperwork that comes with it and they have any doubt about the quality they should buy another strand of equivalent promised quality from a different seller/competitor to compare or bring the strand down to Tiffany or Mikimoto (if this remotely convenient) and compare for themselves against the branded strands. Finally, they can have it appraised by a a professional of their own choosing.
In any case, EGL and GIA also offer reports (not certifications), which I prefer on principle because they don't certify or promise a minimum level of quality but just give a third party assessment of the strand without a label proclaiming it the "best". Any "Certification" of quality (a stamp of approval) has the potential to lump strands of differing qualities into one indistinguishable category. For example, if Seller A is submitting a true top quality AAA strands and Seller B is submitting A+ or AA quality strands and both are strands are getting the grading company's stamp of approval that actually devalues Seller A's strands because if all a customer is looking for is the Certification as proof of quality, many will assume they are of the same quality when in fact they are not. The certification is only valuable if the standard for achieving it is very high and is consistently applied.
Good idea on both accounts. All we know for the moment is that one strand is superior to the other and both have a certification. We don't know how this came to be and it's too soon to lay blame on an party without knowing much more. Even when there is an answer, as much fun as it may be to discuss, PG may not be the best venue for addressing the issue.I don't think it's necessary to name names at this point. This thread is going to retire shortly anyway.
Last edited by est190; 03-08-2012 at 07:09 PM.
One of the largest jewelry chains in Canada (Birks) sells hanadama graded pearls. Most jewelry stores in Japan sell hanadama grade pearls. Nearly every wholesaler out of New York sells hanadama graded pearls at a premium. These are then resold all over the United States.
Selling sub par product as hanadama while claiming to be the industry quality and price leader in hanadama raises ethical questions. Believing every word one person tells you when you lack sufficient corroborating evidence is not wise.
I speak from experience here. I was one of those consumers I was talking about. I was fortunate enough to find PG before buying anything. Most buyers aren't. What we have here is a strand of pearls which was either misrepresented by the retailer or incorrectly certified. Either way, there's a problem. The certification process is no doubt imperfect, but any consumer ought to be able to buy a strand which is identified as hanadama by the retailer with the confidence that it can measure up to other hanadama pieces.
Another classic poster. from the "class" of 2005.
What is JPSL? Is that the one with the red tag that means nothing except the pearls were in Japan at one point?
My understanding of the hanadama lab is that they reject anything but the top few of the AAA quality, so a stand of lesser quality could NOT get the certification. If it could, the certification means nothing. For newbies, each grading category occurs on a spectrum, which runs from A, through AA to AAA. The best of the AAA continuum can certify as hanadama and the other grades, including much of the AAA grade doesn't make the cut.
I will retire this thread as soon as Jeremy gives the word, and we will just have to wait to see what is really going on here.
Do I detect defensiveness from someone who has no stake in the outcome?