Treated 'Chocolate' Pearls (SSEF)

[Valeria101]

No real news, just another quick summary of the matter from a top lab, including a sad note on available testing (or lack thereof).

I'm attaching the document because the article ends with an invitation to submit pearls for the lab to learn from - which seems to fit here. What might they make of the copper freshwater pearls?

LINK to "Facette 2007" (see page 7)

SSEF has quite some reputation for providing 'paper' for important pearl jewelry. Which, of course, is prominently stated in their public communication. Why not!

 

[CortezPearls]

I don't know exactly what is happening with the tahitian "chocolate" pearls...I guess we all lack the information regarding their processing, but this is my personal experience:
A visitor walks into my store, she has a big chocolate pearl strand and asks me to see if I see something wrong. I grab the strand...it feelt odd, unnatural...I tought these were faux (I knew the color was artificial from afar, of course) but closer examination revealed something was really wrong: they had a sticky residue, sillicone-like, the pearls had an unusual surface. Our visitor said her pearls "changed" when the air temperature increased.
She tought her pearls were Natural Colored, untreated...told her they are everything but that. Left the store in a second...all fired up. I guess there is a sad jeweler somewhere in the United States, and a very angry customer that will never buy pearls again.

From my viewpoint: You CAN treat pearls. If your pearls NEED the treatment go ahead...do it! But you have to tell your customers that your pearls were: bleached, dyed, irradiated, coated, polished, etc. Anything else is what it is known as FRAUD. Plain and simple.
Imagine this if you will...the 2010 Miss Universe pageant (I am not a fan of these, but will serve this purpose), drawing contestants from all over the planet. Every single young woman that attends this future pageant will be allowed to have plastic surgery in up to 90% of her body. In the end there is a winner. Who will win??? The one with the best plastic surgeons or higher cosmetic surgery expenditure? What has won? True female beauty or botox? In the end we all know the answer.

Why do we need a Gem Lab to hunt down the answers? Can't we find any honest people in this industry saying: Yes, we did this and that to the pearls. They look better than before, they are uniform in looks (clones) and they fit a special market niche.

But -sadly enough- we all know the answer to that as well...

 

[KAC]

if only "old school" jewellers had the same attitude you do Doug. Unfortunately I don't see this changing anytime soon, its good for the online guys that practice transparency but bad for the customer.

 

[knotty panda]

Mr. McLaurin: Hear that roar in the background? That is the sound of consumers everywhere applauding your posture on their behalf.

Unfortunately, caveat emptor prevails and it is always the consumers responsibility to educate themselves. That is the very purpose of this forum.

 

[jshepherd]

I am chiming in from Dusseldorf just in from the hotel Bier Garten!

I think the lab is interested to obtain chocolates to possibly do similar tests like GIA did.

The problem with the chocolates is the way they are processed. It probably would not matter, but they are very hot right now thanks to designers like Erica Courtney. This also makes the business big money.

There are two types of chocolate Tahitian pearls. Those that have had color added, and those that have had color removed. The original chocolates are of the color-removed variety. The copycats are those that have had color added. They say the color-added pearls often come out of China, but they are coming out of Japan as well.

What is the difference? To me, I still say they are both treated. Why the uproar? Emiko Pearl (the big US distributor of color-removed chocolates) collected pearls from competitors, presented them to the GIA for testing, and proved that their pearls are different. Emiko is a member of CPAA, so the CPAA backed them up (of course) and then took it to the AGTA (I believe it was the AGTA...). Now disclosure is required at the Tucson show. But there are two kinds. One will say color treated (the "fake" chocolates), and one will say something like bleached.

There is the "Chocolates" article in last Winter's Gems and Gemology. I would advise against attempting to wade through the feature article and go straight to the blurb in gem notes. It will tell everyone who is not a lab techie a better story.

There is also an article in the last Modern Jeweler about chocolates. The issue also has an entire feature section on pearls. Unfortunately it is full of mistakes though. But it is a nice feature.

 

[knotty panda]

Perhaps they should take a queue from M&M "Melts on your neck, not on your hands."

 

[CortezPearls]

Panda,
I have a hernia...please don't make me laugh so much!

 

[CortezPearls]

The problem with the chocolates is the way they are processed. It probably would not matter, but they are very hot right now thanks to designers like Erica Courtney. This also makes the business big money.

There are two types of chocolate Tahitian pearls. Those that have had color added, and those that have had color removed. The original chocolates are of the color-removed variety. The copycats are those that have had color added. They say the color-added pearls often come out of China, but they are coming out of Japan as well.

I agree entirely with Jeremy...ANYTHING you do to a Pearl is a treatment, if you give or take (a tit or a tat) is no different. And the real issue behind this is DISCLOSURE. People -customers- deserve the right to KNOW what they purchase.

Once more, talking about the movie "Blood Diamonds" (someone mentioned it in the forum) and let us say -for the sake of an example- that if you believe 10% of what is depicted in the movie is true (I've heard some people in the industry say that the movie is a "sanitized" and "light" version of what really happens) and you are in the process of buying diamond jewlery and ask a question like: "Are these blood diamonds?" and the answer is "YES". How would you feel as a customer? Bad? Really baaad???
So, now let us turn this scenario upside down...you are buying pearls and you ask: "Are the Pearls treated?" and the answer is "NO", but then -eventually- you find that THEY ARE TREATED (and in some instances, the pearls ARE Faux!!!)...well, people FEEL CHEATED.

Some Customers demand to know EVERYTHING about their Gemstones -not only about treatments- such as: if the gem was obtained using an environmentally safe manner, if child labor was involved, if the company that produces the gems gives back to the local community, etc. For these customers there is a good alternative in the Fair Trade Gems Protocols, but all customers should DEMAND Full Disclosure. This is our Right as Customers.

 

[jshepherd]

Yes, disclosure is very important. There is one big problem with that, however. The end retailer will almost never know what treatments have been done to their pearls. Disclosure must start with producers and factories.

For example, if you were to visit any jewelry store in any state and asked the salesperson with bright white strand of akoya or freshwater how they were treated, what will they say?
"No treatments, in any way, of course not!"
The truth is, they just don't know - treatments are completely universal in certain segments of the industry, as they have been since inception.

The truth of the matter is, the only accessible place for the consumer to find information on typical treatments is here on this forum. It is the only place for jewelers and retailers to find it as well. Suppliers do not always lean toward full disclosure. Even those that try really do not understand the processes. How many of you have been to a market in China and saw pearls that were "laser dyed", or "natural black"?

Now I propose this question; If it is not considered mandatory for akoya and freshwater sellers to disclose bleaching as it is universal, but it is mandatory to disclose dye (previously with an exception to pinking), why is it not the same for Tahitians? Because bleaching is not universal? Do you see all the gray area?

Why was the discussion of maeshori on South Sea pearls a big deal when maeshori is universal for freshwater and akoya pearls, yet almost no one even knows what this treatment is?

 

[CortezPearls]

You certainly have a good point there Jeremy. But now I have a question (arising from you mentioning it): what do you mean by maeshori? Never heard this japanese word before.

Anyway, going back to the original premise...there should be a way to organize a commercial region (say NAFTA, UE, etc.) into establishing certain laws or regulations towards the disclosure of pearl imports. Basically: your pearls WILL NOT enter this market UNLESS you do a FULL DISCLOSURE. If you do not comply you will not be able to export your product. It should not always have to rely on the final customer, although in an ideal World this should be the case.

I don't know about those reading this thread, but in Mexico we have too many congressmen and senators and bureacrats just sitting around doing nothing...maybe we should poke them in the ribs and get them movin' to do something about this issue. If every country does the same, the producers, processors and distributors would be compelled to comply.

Hmmm...I am starting to listen to Supertramp's "Dreamer" song. Oh well, guess I had to vent some steam.

 

[nlerner]

Jeremy, Douglas and all,

I've been reading this thread about treated pearls, sellers and customers. From what I've seen, the reality is far from any of your comments. I meet people with pearls in Israel and abroad. No one has any idea about their pearls except the price and that is the only indicator for their quality and value.

In jewelry stores, even in the expensive brand-name stores the sellers have no idea about the type of pearls, not to mention details about treatment.

I just came back from a wedding in Mykonos, the most luxurious Greek island. Lots of pearls of all kinds and value in the shops, but the attitude is the same. No one knows what he is selling or buying.

I just bought pair of 22kt. gold earrings with cfwp from the most celebrated Greek jeweler and designer, very expensive, but the pearls are of low quality. They clean their pieces, pearls included, by ultrasonics - which tends to prove my point.

 

[Valeria101]

I am not sure I am getting the point of the discussion around disclosure here because of at least two reasons: #1. that voluntary disclosure in absence of feasible independent verification is not a win-win scenario, #2. that price is only somewhat reliable as a mark of quality in the extreme low and high ends of the spectrum.

It doesn't sound very clear how these two (or more than two) aspects may play out on the long run, but it sounds like 'hard core disclosure' is not the sensible winner here. Not as soon as it goes beyond the understandable goals of product differentiation (like Burger King v.s. McDO, sorry for the comparison). And some independent arbiter seems sensible even for such mellowed down forms.

Does this reasoning make me love pearls less? No. Of course not. Quite the contrary. It is great to know that the good ones NEED WORK to acquire at any price, anywhere. Because that, in my opinion, is what makes pearls a personal statement... doesn't it


PS. About the lalaounis earrings... I wrote the same on their thread: I believe that the choice of pearls is related to the underlying concept and image of the brand and the particular design. It wouldn't be the only example. The ultrasonics is yet another issue - that sounds embarrassing

 

[louie913]

Jeremy,

Thanks for your sharing of treatment on Tahiti & South Sea's pearls. You mentioned the good point of the Gray area and the universal of processing.

Actually, I find it now the market is quite messy. Though almost everyone know Chocolate pearl are being treated. But how about Maeshori?! Do you accept selling the Maeshorised pearls? In the market now, i can say over 50% white SSP are Maeshori pearl, no matter from Japan/China/India, but the fact is, they are mixing with natural Australian pearl in market.

How can customer judge, and even, how can the wholesaler judge? Only bidding from Paspaleys? Its make the wholesaler who stand for selling natural South Sea's pearl much hard to survived! And finally there are no more natural pearl in the market.....

P.S. I'm new here, this is my first post. Working in a pearl company in HK

 

[Raisondetre]

As far as I know there are no natural pearls in Australia. Treated or not, they'd still be culture SSP.

 

[jshepherd]

Douglas,

Maeshori is a preprocessing treatment done to akoya, freshwater, and often South Sea pearls in Japan and to a lesser extent Australia. The term actually means preprocessing in Japanese. The process, however, is dynamic from processor to processor. There are probably a half dozen different forms of maeshori in Japan and China.
True maeshori should not really do anything to the pearls, other than prepare them for treatment. But some forms of maeshori actually enhance the luster. It is done by basically tightening the surface nacre, like stretching the skin. It is often done with heat treatment.

Louie,

South Sea pearls that I have seen are very rarely described as treated. In fact the only company I have seen take a defensive stance toward this is Emiko, but this is likely related to their stance on Chocolate Tahitians as well - they do not want to take a chance with their credibility after that fight.
But is there any way to test for maeshori unless it is the Japanese silicone treatment? I do not know of any. The only way to be reasonably certain is to buy from PS.

No, I would NOT refuse to sell South Sea pearls based on maeshori. I think it would be a bad business move and a hypocritical stance on my part. Should it be disclosed? Yes, at some level that allows certainty - the producers level. But it is not.