[butterfly]

Could anyone tell me how to identify those big round 10mm+ Chinese black freshwater pearls with peacock overtones just like Tahitian pearls?

Thanks.

[Zeide Erskine]

Hi Butterfly,

The easiest way is to compare them to known Tahitians of similar quality. If you do not have any on hand, just go to a jewelry store, ask for their Tahitians, and compare them there.

Zeide

[operavopera]

Most people on this board have already heard about my 10mm FW pearls that were supposed to be Tahitians that I bought on eBay. 3 jewelers couldn't tell for sure if it was FP or Tahitian and they all said it was good quality if FP. It wasn't until it was examined by a "pearl specialist and vendor" that I was told that it's FW. I still like them and wear them with my Tahitian pendant.

[jshepherd]

Originally Posted by operavopera

3 jewelers couldn't tell for sure if it was FP or Tahitian and they all said it was good quality if FP. It wasn't until it was examined by a "pearl specialist and vendor" that I was told that it's FW.

I really do find that disheartening. Did you ever ask the seller for an explanation? They did outright lie to you in the email after all.

Did Mia help you out with that thing last week? I will be back on Thursday if not.

[Zeide Erskine]

Hi Jeremy,

I still think that Opera got a good deal if the dye job on her pearls was good enough to fool 3 jewelers and she paid US$200.00 less than brandname retail on a comparable. I do not think the seller should have declared them to be Tahitians, but they were not priced as Tahitians either.

Zeide

[jshepherd]

Yes, but how many jewelers would you be able to fool with a strand of shell pearls? My guess is most. That is disheartening. We are constantly dealing with jewelers who tell our customers our freshwater pearls cannot be genuine because they are too round, or that our Tahitian strands could possibly be shell pearls if they are clean. Consumers just assume that their jewelers know, when most do not, and very, very few will ever admit it.

Was a fair price paid for the earrings? I do think so. But the seller told her that they were Tahitians - they were not. The seller knew this and lied. That is fraud. I do not care if she paid 50 cents for the earrings, it was still fraud. I personally feel she should file a complaint with eBay and her credit card because doing nothing just tells the seller that it is ok to lie and misrepresent. He made a 3-400% margin on the sale. He would not have been able to sell the earrings for a 1/3rd of that price if he disclosed the truth. So, what has he got to lose? It is all in a day's work for him.

[Zeide Erskine]

Hi Jeremy,

On eBay you have the option to leave negative feedback. In bricks-and-mortar world you don't. For over a decade entirely fake mabé pearls were sold for lots of money in US jewelry stores. If you look today, most of those are gone but what is being sold as mabés are "mabé-like" pearl-cultured domes filled with epoxy glue and backed with mother of pearl but only in a few select stores will you be able to get actual pteria penguin pearl-cultured domes with epoxy filling and a mother of pearl backing. Is that fraud? I think so. However, it has become industry standard to call these things by their process of manufacture rather than species of origin. Is a freshwater pearl plated bead an akoya just because it has been produced and treated in the same way as an akoya? I don't think so, either.

Zeide

[jshepherd]

At a brick and mortar store you do have other options, many of which you do not have on eBay. You have the BBB, the FCC, and the local jurisdiction. Any B&M that intentionally, consistently committed the type of fraud seen on eBay would be shut down.
If you are in the "right", you can win against a B&M. With eBay, the only thing you can typically succeed in doing is starting a "he said, she said", or "tit for tat" war. Why do you think all those scam artists (like pearlcity1998) can survive? Easy, no one is willing to risk reciprocal negative feedback for a few dollars, even though they know they were defrauded.

I feel your take on Mabe as being fraud is not correct. The culture of blister pearls in the Pteria Penguin, also known as "Mabe gai" or "eboshi gai" led to the trade term Mabe. The Japanese did not invent this method, they borrowed it from the Chinese. Mabe is now a trade term for all worked blister pearls which came before the name. It has been this way for decades. The GIA approves it, and it is described as such in every recent pearl book including Strack. I see no fraud there. The entire industry is in agreement on this one.

If we took this argument to bead nucleated freshwater, that would mean Tahitians, South Sea and Kasumi pearls could be called Akoya. But they cannot - they each have their own defined trade name as they always have.

[Zeide Erskine]

Hi Jeremy,

I hope somebody will convince this Japanese company (http://www.tasaki.co.jp/english/jewelry/pearl2.html) that it is o.k. to call all epoxy-filled pearl-cultured domes with a mother of pearl backing a mabé cultured pearl. They seem to be rather insistent of the view that only pteria penguin cultured pearl domes may apply.

Zeide

[jshepherd]

Yes, the same company who (for the last 40 years) is the only of which culturing Mabe in the Pteria Penguin. This is the same Tasaki company that boycotted the first world pearl symposium because it served to cut off the Japanese from world pearl domination. The same Tasaki company that preaches Japanese Akoya is the only way to go, yet opened a factory south of Shanghai in 1994 (Nanhui Factory) processing Akoya and freshwater pearls to be sold as "products of Japan".
Of course they say that. Does that mean it is fraud for every other pearl producing country to call their worked blister pearls Mabe, and fraud for the GIA and every other gemological institution to accept it?

[Zeide Erskine]

Hi Jeremy,

I think it is definitely a question of the standard for judging them. If you say that all PPBs are supposed to be judged and called by their origin, I do not see why this same standard should not then apply to filled pearl domes or for that matter to tissue-only nucleated cultured pearls. Under the bottom line that standard really only serves the interests of mystiquery providers and certainly not consumers. This is not a standard worthy of any gemological standard-setting body. Unless the GIA takes a stand that opal doublets or triplets deserve a special exalted place in the gemworld far ahead of solid opals, it is just playing to industry demands and a shame for the GIA, about as bad as lowering the standard for thick nacre on akoyas to 0.25mm.

Zeide

[jshepherd]

Mabe's typically are called by their origin as Tahitian Mabe, and South Sea Mabe. But the simple term "mabe" has become as interchangeable as the word "pearls". It is no longer strictly associated with the Mabe Gai no matter what Tasaki wishes. What was considered a "pearl" 200 years ago would not be a pearl today - nothing cultured would, and that includes freshwater.

[operavopera]

[quote=jshepherd]I really do find that disheartening. Did you ever ask the seller for an explanation? They did outright lie to you in the email after all.

Ha ha - I did not mean to open up this can of worms agains! I did email the seller last week, informing her that 4 different jewelers in a row said that the pearls are FW. I never heard back. I have been in a quandry about what to do about this because I already gave her stellar feedback (before I knew the truth) and don't think there is a way to change feedback. I can complain to eBay, Paypal, and dispute the charge on my credit card, but I do not want to return the earrings. For a resolution, I think it would be fair to dispute part of the charge and only say that I'm responsible for paying for FW pearls @ eBay prices. What would that amount be? $20 max? Does that sound reasonable? I just got the bill and it was $90, including S&H + insurance.

Mia said she'd take care of my project today (Monday). I'll call her tomorrow. Thanks.

[jshepherd]

I am not surprised to hear that the seller has gone silent. She received her feedback and nothing else really counts.
To be honest, the actual value of the pearls depends heavily on the button grade, the size, and the source. In button, there are typically 3 grades sold as "earring quality".
Now if the pearls were 9-10mm, there is a substantial difference in price from 10-11mm. So, to find the actual cost you will need to start with that. But, we are only talking a difference in price in the range of $3-$6 for the pair.

There is one grade of button which is considered the highest that can cost quite a bit more. But this is rarely ever black, as black freshwater are simply dyed, lower grade (regular) freshwater. In order to have this grade in black, you must special order from a factory and wait through a complete processing cycle. This takes a couple of months, and is something only a company with buying power can achieve - you won't find it on eBay.

Next, you need to determine the gold weight of the post and backs. I assume your pair has friction backs, and I hope your pair has at least medium to heavy backs, not light weight. If they are slipping from your ears they are light weight. If they are holding tight, they should be at least medium. If they are light weight, the rough approximate cost is $5 for the pair of posts and backs. If they are medium, the same approximation is closer to $10 (just for the gold).

I am making an educated guess when I say the pair of earrings your purchased cost the seller approximately $20 to produce, if, and only if, he purchased them from the source. His cost could have been up to $30 (total) for the pair if he purchased the matched buttons from a wholesaler.

[operavopera]

Okay, being a person of principle, I filed a complaint with eBay and PayPal. I offered to settle for $35 (including S&H, ins), instead of the $90. We'll see what happens. The posts are medium.

Re feedback, all I can do is add a follow-up to my unfortunately stellar feedback. I doubt that anyone will read it, and seller still has 100% positive reputation!