Normally when any species is protected its any part of the animal, so I would have to think that would include the pearls as well.
I could be making assumptions that aren't true, who knows.
Last edited:
7.3 kilo giant clam white pearl from palawan philippines
- Thread starter hydermad
- Start date
Normally when any species is protected its any part of the animal, so I would have to think that would include the pearls as well.
I could be making assumptions that aren't true, who knows.
some sourches on Cebu are exporting natural pearls and shells with blister pearls. Daniel Moesker had problems importing them some time ago. Jewelmer also arranges for a permit to export their pearls. Personally, many years ago, I bought a beautiful shell on a beach in the Philippines, which was taken away from me at the airport in Manila, on departure.
bluidragon
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2013
- Messages
- 144
If the pearl is indeed natural as it stated why is the luster chalky in appearance? It it fabulous in size but what of the orient ? What am I MISSING. I know it a world wonder .... Help
pattye
Pearl Scholar
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2005
- Messages
- 11,399
Bluidragon,
Hopefully Dave, one of our natural pearl experts will be able to explain in more scientific terms why this pearl doesn't appear like you think it should, with lustrous nacre and orient.
Pearls from giant clams look different from natural pearls from other species. Only the finest natural pearls will have high luster and orient
You will note: the Pearl of Allah is a non-nacreous pearl.
Hopefully Dave, one of our natural pearl experts will be able to explain in more scientific terms why this pearl doesn't appear like you think it should, with lustrous nacre and orient.
Pearls from giant clams look different from natural pearls from other species. Only the finest natural pearls will have high luster and orient
You will note: the Pearl of Allah is a non-nacreous pearl.
Caitlin
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2004
- Messages
- 8,502
Hi Bluidragon
The reason the subject of this thread looks likes it does, with no luster, no orient and no attachment point to the shell, is because it is not a pearl, but a chunk of shell that has has either been tumbled by man -or more likely by the ocean. I am thinking this could be a natural phenomena, rather like the chunks of ocean-washed abalone shell that land up and down the California coast. In fact I am thinking of many seashells I have seen that broke apart and were tumbled before washing ashore. Most, except the abalone, have that chalky, lackluster look. That look is the distinctive look of a shell dissolving in the surf.
The only difference with these chunks of shell is the large size and because of the size, they probably do not wash ashore, but are found lying discretely on the ocean floor. If there is an attachment point it would argue for being a pearl, but there is no attachment point making it most unlikely that it is a t. gigas pearl which are weirdly convoluted when they get that big. In addition to the 'brainy' look, such pearls also have an attachment point with the brain sprouting out. Kari's Pearls has a good example with the pearl still attached to the shell. (Which may actually beat the PoA in size but isn't very brainy looking compared to the PoA)That is what they look like. Not the example that started this thread.
The reason the subject of this thread looks likes it does, with no luster, no orient and no attachment point to the shell, is because it is not a pearl, but a chunk of shell that has has either been tumbled by man -or more likely by the ocean. I am thinking this could be a natural phenomena, rather like the chunks of ocean-washed abalone shell that land up and down the California coast. In fact I am thinking of many seashells I have seen that broke apart and were tumbled before washing ashore. Most, except the abalone, have that chalky, lackluster look. That look is the distinctive look of a shell dissolving in the surf.
The only difference with these chunks of shell is the large size and because of the size, they probably do not wash ashore, but are found lying discretely on the ocean floor. If there is an attachment point it would argue for being a pearl, but there is no attachment point making it most unlikely that it is a t. gigas pearl which are weirdly convoluted when they get that big. In addition to the 'brainy' look, such pearls also have an attachment point with the brain sprouting out. Kari's Pearls has a good example with the pearl still attached to the shell. (Which may actually beat the PoA in size but isn't very brainy looking compared to the PoA)That is what they look like. Not the example that started this thread.
Lagoon Island Pearls
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 2,006
The surface quality of a pearl is determined by the ratio of nacre to other calcium carbonate structures. Winged oysters (Pterioda) are preferred, because they are 35-60% nacreous in structure. Toothed mollusks (Heterodonta) such as clams, cockles etc. present with less than 10% aragonite by volume, the remainder being prismatic, calcitic or other randomly ordered structures.
There seems to be two types of pearls from tridacna. We occasionally see tridacna pearls which are bright white with snow globe chatoyant structures. These are desired and highly collectible, but always come with the admonishment that tridacna are endangered. Despite outrageous claims made about the Pearl of Allah, they're little more than myths. Blisters cut from giant clam shells have zero value in almost every instance. Pearls remaining affixed to the shell have some museum or scientific value, but certification, permits etc. are either impossible or prohibitive.
Basically, any trade in any Tridacna gigas parts in the west is taboo.
