Naturals and nuclei?

[Nerida]

I thought it meant cultured. Anyway, surely the Chinese molluscs naturally (but obviously very rarely) produce a pearl?

 

[Valeria101]

Oops, now that you meantion... the sentence with it in the previous post is wrong. Rewriting correctly:

"Natural freshwater pearls -Scottish and US natural freshwater pearls have been discussed here quite a bit already. I think there are other (very) occasional sources in Europe. No mystery."

Now, IF pearls can be soundly attributed to a species of mollusk, these wild European freshwater pearls should have a smooth ride though identification as naturals: they come from species that have never been cultured yet, I believe. [a thought - I have not checked any of he 'if's; mostly because each step is a whole ''project"!, it seems]

 

[Valeria101]

I thought it meant cultured. Anyway, surely the Chinese molluscs naturally produce a pearl?

Yeah! Wonder what history these freshwater naturals would have. Know next to nothing about traditional Chinese jewelry - including where pearls were being brought from.

 

[SteveM]

No, not reliably at all. One lab may cert a keshi as a natural and another may cert it as a keshi. One lab may cert a cultured freshwater pearl as a natural and another may cert it as a cultured freshwater pearl.

And we're sitting on pins and needles waiting for GIA Bangkok to unveil their certification of Dr. Tom's (and the world's) only Nautilus pearl? Talk about the blind leading the blind?

 

[Valeria101]

Talk about the blind leading the blind…

... maybe, but once established that everyone is suffering of the same, no longer the same issue, is it. (i.e. legitimate demand for research, rather then ... well...)

GIA is not an oracle, although...I think they, as well as many commercial labs, know all too well that some of their sales depend on clients wishing they were Tough, this. Besides, the content we followed from GIA, is from their research side, not commercial services (conferences, books in preparation, etc.) The link between the two... Heck! I believe that is a rich object of discovery in itself; and probably a bit of a headache for all parties concerned - one reason why I like being here

Clearly, your way of buying relieves all such issues!

 

[SteveM]

Excellent commentary.

 

[Slraep]

To ask my questions again, and to reclarify:

1. Is there really such a thing as a "natural" CFWP(Chinese freshwater pearl)? Taking into account that CFWPs are predominantly tissue nucleated, so a lot of them will come back from labs as "naturals" even if they are not.

2. If a lab or two does give you a "natural" verdict for a CFWP, how much are they worth?

3. Who collects this type of "natural" CFWP? And is it on par with collecting other natural freshwater pearls?

 

[pearlescence]

are you advocating a fraud Slraep?

From what Jeremy said above, the certiificates seem to be largely worthless anyway.
I did wonder when they certified an object as the first and only nautilus pearl. If it is, how do they know?

 

[Slraep]

are you advocating a fraud Slraep?

Hi Wendy. I'm not sure what you mean. Am I supporting a fraud???? Or am I supporting it is a fraud???

CFWPs(Chinese freshwater pearls) with two certificates from certain labs stating that they are naturals, are being sold as naturals. I understand what Jeremy wrote, but nonetheless, they are being sold by certain people as naturals. I wouldn't buy one, though. Do you understand now?

 

[knotty panda]

Wendy, I can assure you Slraep is NOT advocating a fraud. If you understood her history and contributions to this forum, you would not have asked such a question even in gest. It was insulting to her and on your behalf, I apologize to Slraep for such a remark.

I don't glean the same information as you do from Jeremy's response. A cert from an accredited lab is never worthless. I interpret his answer as two different accredited labs can certify the same pearl as either natural or cultured. While he didn't say certification is not an exact science, I think the door is open for that possibility. We have an example of that on this forum. Search for the accounts of "Preswine."

 

[pearlescence]

My remark was not meant seriously. Consider the use of irony

If one lab finds a pearl to be cultured and another finds the same pearl to be natural of what worth is a certificate? Does it say 'well maybe, we aren't really sure'
if certificates are not based on 100% then they are worth very little really

 

[knotty panda]

Obviously the error rate in determining cultured vs. natural is very small. Were certs worthless, places like Christie's and Sotheby's wouldn't bother with them. The point being, 100% accuracy isn't possible. There is a margin of error. In the example I pointed out at the beginning, it indicated a deliberate deception, not a mistake made by the lab. I asked if anyone had ever heard of that before as I hadn't seen this example from an expert, Fred Ward, on the forum and Jeremy said it was debunked.

 

[Slraep]

My remark was not meant seriously. Consider the use of irony

Lawyers need to put happy faces after non-serious remarks like that!

 

[Valeria101]

If one lab finds a pearl to be cultured and another finds the same pearl to be natural of what worth is a certificate? Does it say 'well maybe, we aren't really sure'

To have issued a report, each must have been certain about their findings as per whatever method established internally, etc. They wouldn't know of one another, would they... Only you can choose.

 

[Valeria101]

2. If a lab or two does give you a "natural" verdict for a CFWP, how much are they worth?

How would you choose such a pearl to submit for a report? Say, freshwater and saltwater.

Seriously?

 

[pearlescence]

2. If a lab or two does give you a "natural" verdict for a CFWP, how much are they worth?

how much are which worth - the labs..the verdicts..or the pearls?
Offhand I would say none worth much at all
If these labs are mis-identifying pearls - even once - then their opinion is without value.
Since I am accused of being a lawyer, how would these certificates and the laboratory processes used hold up under examination in court?
I am not having any sort of a dig at anyone - just concerned that people are being steered towards paying for these inspections and they might be of little reliability.
Again, if a lab has identified a specific pearl as a nautilus, how has it done that without comparators - dna - no could not use that without damaging the pearl...so how?

 

[Slraep]

How would you choose such a pearl to submit for a report? Say, freshwater and saltwater.

Seriously?

Seriously? Yeah, I'm going to stop beating around the bush with questions I know the answer to.

In this case, I'm asking about Chinese freshwater pearls only. If 20% or more of all Chinese freshwater pearls routinely come back from a lab with a "natural" certification because distinguishing between tissue nuked and a real natural is near impossible, do these now lab certified Chinese freshwater "naturals" have any more value than the tissue nuked ones? Because if you can get two certs, one each from different labs, to state your Chinese freshwater pearl is a natural, it can appearantly be sold as such for big bucks by some dealers. Knowing this, would you buy such a pearl priced as a natural?

 

[Slraep]

Since I am accused of being a lawyer,........

Hey....., I put a happy face after that one!

how would these certificates and the laboratory processes used hold up under examination in court?
I am not having any sort of a dig at anyone - just concerned that people are being steered towards paying for these inspections and they might be of little reliability.
Again, if a lab has identified a specific pearl as a nautilus, how has it done that without comparators - dna - no could not use that without damaging the pearl...so how?

That's exactly what I mean. In the case of CFWPs certified as naturals, it is not only money down the drain for the certs, but how can they be ethically sold to buyers at prices matching other naturals.

Ahh...the pesky Nautilus pearl claim. I don't know how Ken Scarrat is going to prove its origin but after J. Norris' illuminating pic, Ken Scarrat will also have to DISPROVE that it comes from a clam. For me, at least.

 

[knotty panda]

If these labs are mis-identifying pearls - even once - then their opinion is without value.

Valeria addressed that issue. Who is to know they are misidentifying? These are certified, respected, accredited labs, whose certs are taken at face value. With a 20% error factor, they can be taken advantage of.

... how would these certificates and the laboratory processes used hold up under examination in court?

Ask the State of Colorado how this holds up in court. Under oath. Right, Caitlin? Including the appellate court! Even without certs or a lab to test. The legal standard is much less stringent than an accredited lab's standards.

 

[pearlescence]

20% error factor.? One in five is wrong? Worthless then. I would not respect a lab with a 20% error rate
Please tell me the case where these certificates held up in court as expert testimony.
Do you mean in a civil action (standard of proof balance of probabilities 51%) or a criminal action (100% certain so that you are sure). And for what purports to be expert testimony the standard is much higher.
I suppose in a legal action you could be fairly certain you could not rely on a lab certificate but I would not want to go much further than that.
Unless it says in big red letters on the front of the certificate 'one in five times our opinion is wrong'
How do they know it is wrong anyway
Still no-one answering my question about the nautilus pearl
I certainly would not base any purchase on one.