Lapidary Journal Feature Article

[Zeide Erskine]

Hi Folks,

I think this is a highly topical article for this forum and deserves discussion:

http://www.lapidaryjournal.com/feature/pearls.cfm

Zeide

[Caitlin]

This is a very even-handed treatment of the subject- considered how high the passions ran here!

I noticed the article mentioned "The Pearl Society", so I Googled it. http://www.evejewelry.com/about/pearlsociety.html
and there is another page as well. What do you know about this pearl-loving group?

[Zeide Erskine]

Hi Caitlin,

I really do not know very much about the pearl society per se. It seems to me like the pearl guide forum for a fee with a junkmail option. But that's o.k., too. Maybe some members of this forum wish to contribute some poetry to bring us up to par with the literary side. We seem to be ahead on the academic score and recent rumors have it that some humor has been spotted on this very forum, too.

Zeide

[jshepherd]

Lop noors are red...
Abalone are blue...

Who wants to finish it?!

[Zeide Erskine]

...
I rhyme like a Vogon
and want junkmail, too.

In case you want to learn about Vogon poetry, please check here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vogon_poetry

Zeide

[Satine De La Courcel]

No NO not Vogon Poetry AHHHHHHH Run Away Run Away!!!!!!

[Zeide Erskine]

Hi Ash,

I see you take your literary clues from Eric Idle. Are going to fight a prattle with cattle?

Zeide

[jshepherd]

On a serious note, are you reading this Amanda?

I am sure many of you have followed Freeman's marketing of freshwater pearls as tissue-activated not tissue nucleated. But one thing I noticed in this article is his use of PurePearl with the "registered" trademark. As far as I know it is something that he 'wanted' to register, but cannot. It is owned by our very own Amanda Raab or Pure Pearls.com. Shanxiahu also tried to register their Chinese PurePearl line last year but were unable to for the same reason.

I just think you should keep an eye on that, Amanda. Use of your mark with a TM or an R is actually illegal.

[Kevin Canning]

I just finished reading the article and thought the same thing, some how I doubt Amanda is going to let that slide.

On another note, was it just me or did many of arguments in the article seem very similar to what has been discussed here?

I do think that a universal grading system can be put in the place, with the understanding that it is not intended to be used to compare different types of pearls to each other.

[Caitlin]

Here is what I wrote about Marc Freeman in my review "2 weeks of pearls in AZ" : from Feb 2005

Marc Freeman of Freeman Pearl Company in LA had lots of incredibly beautiful FW pearl strands of outstanding luster, roundness and etc. I though they were Akoyas. I asked if they were shell nucleated, which he denied. He said he bought them in China himself. When asked further, he said he goes directly to farms. He said he does not speak the language much. He must be making a tidy profit at $90 a loose strand for 6-6.5mm.

He really did have the best FW pearls at the AGTA show.

Here is another article about him:
Are CFWCPs 'activated,' or 'nucleated'? The issue of tissue.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1:133410451/Are+CFWCPs+activated,+or+nucleated%3F+The+issue+.h tml?refid=ency_topnm
Marc Freeman says his round metallicluster 10 mm and 11 mm Chinese freshwater cultured pearls are 100 percent nacre. There's no nucleus. And he challenges the gem-identification laboratories that call Chinese cultured freshwaters "tissue nucleated" but describe Japanese and Chinese akoya saltwater bead-nucleated pearls--with less than 10 percent nacre--as "cultured."
Freeman, owner of Freeman Gem Co. in Los Angeles, has spent a lot of money, time, and effort providing proof that his pearls are top quality--all nacre (no nucleus), natural color (not dyed or bleached), and ...

594 of 5076 Characters

You have to join to read the rest of the article (joining is free for a week ).

It looks like he has a way with words, "Metallicluster" is great. I like "tissue activated"- it is closer to the actual process than tissue nucleated because you don't have to clarify that there is no tissue left in the nucleus. And he obviously sees the truth of CFWP, so I hope he doesn't have too much invested in using Amanda's name!

I love it that people here and there are reaching the same conclusion about solid nacre pearls.

Hi Zeide
Where can we see Tavernier in English?

[jshepherd]

You know Amanda won't let that slide! I just spoke with her about it, as a matter of fact.

Regarding grading, this was a post I made to the thread a year ago.

I think there are a lot of hurdles to a good grading system for pearls. The first, of course, is that it would have to vary from type of pearl. The value factors of a freshwater strand will differ from important value factors of a cultured South Sea or Tahitian strand for example.

Another very difficult hurdle is the education. I spend a lot of time in the jewelry district in Los Angeles as we outsource a lot of our stringing there. In my years of commuting to the city I have become friends with a lot of jewelers. One thing that stands out more than anything else is the lack of pearl knowledge in the jewelry profession. A lot of jewelers cannot even tell the difference between high quality freshwater pearl and an Akoya, or a small Tahitian and a dyed Akoya. Here is a test that I would be willing to bet very few jewelers would pass:
Take a dyed, 9mm Japanese akoya with green overtones to a jeweler. I would be willing to bet 9 out of 10 would grade it as a Tahitian pearl. A pearl professional, however, would never make such a simple mistake.

With all the factors making up a value system for pearls, I do not think a standardized grading system would work well for pearls, unless it grades each facet individually. Even this can cause problems, however, unless the appraiser has a grading board.
Why?

We have all examined pearls in poor light. What do we see? Beautiful, high luster pearls. This is an old Chinese trick. Even comparing the pearls against an actual high-luster strand is difficult without good natural sunlight.

Also, unless the grader is comparing a strand against another, it can be extremely difficult to grade the subtle differences in the luster. This is exactly why, although I have been traveling to Asia purchasing pearls for nearly 10 years now, I still carry sample strands every trip. I would never make a purchase without them.

If a standardized grading system does come into play - one that grades all value aspects of the pearl strand - a grading board with become an absolute necessity. I do not believe even 1% of retail jewelers in the USA would be able to grade pearls without it. The problem is this means having a board for cultured Akoya, freshwater, Tahitian, and South Sea. This would be a large board if we are only grading the rounds. If you factor in the other shapes it becomes an enormous challenge. When buying just Tahitian pearls, for example, the grading is as such:
Round - A, B, C, D (and many farms also incorporate AB, AB- BC, etc.)
Near Round - A, B, C, D
Off Round - A, B, C, D
Semi-Baroque - A, B, C, D
Baroque - A, B, C, D
Circled - A, B, C, D
And of course they always separate nice drops and pear shapes.
This is only based on the size, surface quality, and luster. This does not even factor in the color which is a huge end-consumer value factor.

The GIA currently has a class which teaches students to identify the value characteristics of a strand of pearls. But, this class is only 1 day long, and is an elective. Even if every GIA graduate was required to take the class I still do not believe they would universally be capable of grading pearls. Is the diamond grading class only a day? Or is it more like 3 months of classroom every day?!
__________________

[Satine De La Courcel]

I am sure amanda will NOT let it slide!!!! I read teh article twice! My Head hurts!!! holly cow. Maybe Vogon poetry would have been better!!

[Valeria101]

What I found surprising in the article is that identification of type and of treatment is considered a problem. Bogus? If so, what is the word of current lab reports worth?

Just wondering.


I am not a fan of such 'universal' grading system' as a concept, much like the article puts it in comparison with diamond grading. Certification of origin sounds a bit more natural - if anything I might be wondering why this idea never came up about pearls ('Paspaley' as exception? don't even know if truly their mark is always on own production, but it seems to imply so). Obviously, a pipe dream topic.

[Pearls_by_Angela_Carol]

What I found surprising in the article is that identification of type and of treatment is considered a problem. Bogus? If so, what is the word of current lab reports worth?

Just wondering.


I am not a fan of such 'universal' grading system' as a concept, much like the article puts it in comparison with diamond grading. Certification of origin sounds a bit more natural - if anything I might be wondering why this idea never came up about pearls ('Paspaley' as exception? don't even know if truly their mark is always on own production, but it seems to imply so). Obviously, a pipe dream topic.

The major problem that I have is the constant comparison to diamonds. We are really talking about two different things - pearls are organic, not a stone or gem (apples and oranges).

I have to ask, why are you not a fan of a universal grading system? Without some type of universal standard it opens the door for retailers to make up their own system (such as calling their highest quality pearls AAAA grade). This causes two issues. First, their highest grade may not be as high quality as someone elses. It may just be the highest grade they have been able to procure. Second, if the quality is equal then it implies to the customer that it is not - making them wonder why no one else is able to procure AAAA grade pearls.

In both cases this is misleading to the customer. I have actually had one pearl retailer tell me they simply made up their grading system to make it appear they had better pearls. They said they could do this and it was perfectly legal because there was no standard grading system and they were free to grade their pearls any way they wanted to.

Also, the "Certification of Origin" concept just would not be possible. Take for instance the Akoya pearls. When you have between 70% and 85% of the pearls cultured in China, imported by Japan, mixed in together with the pearls cultured in Japan and then sorted and graded, it is impossible to specify the origin of either a pearl or the strand.

[jshepherd]

In both cases this is misleading to the customer. I have actually had one pearl retailer tell me they simply made up their grading system to make it appear they had better pearls. They said they could do this and it was perfectly legal because there was no standard grading system and they were free to grade their pearls any way they wanted to.

One must assume you are speaking of PearlsOnly.com. Is that the retailer you are referring to? He actually told you he made it up to make them appear better?!?! It would not surprise me, and it is the only one that uses that AAAA grade.