Akoya lovers ... your thoughts?

I lost a post earlier. I said I thought the big one was hanadama and the little one was about a AA+. That is still my opinion
 
jshepherd said:
I've already called and spoken to them. It isn't going to be easy unless I go myself. I'm not taking a chance on this. Hisano and I are going in May (for our Japanese wedding) and we'll spend a little extra time in Tokyo. I am going to try to meet with an examiner and grade the strand against the master set myself.

The nacre is not what is different about the certificate. It doesn't match. The certificate is completely in Japanese as well, and is two versions older than the current certificate.
Click to expand...

An older cert could just mean it was sitting in inventory for a while and JPSL issues the certs in Japanese, but will provide an English version--which I think they charge more for (but you would know this better than me).

If a strand was intentionally switched, that's a very serious issue and accusation. Before we jump to conclusions, it could also be an issue with JPSL's grading system and/or standards. Jeremy, have you ever tried sending a A graded strand off to JPSL for certification or a certified strand to see if the report comes back the same? What is their evaluation procedure? I know GIA has three separate graders evaluate each submission blindly to ensure a fair and consistent grade and even then the same strand or gem could come back with a different grade if it's resubmitted for a second evaluation (rare but it happens).
 
Last edited:
Yes, that could mean it has sat in inventory for a very long time, and they do provide certificates in English, but no, there is no additional charge that I am aware of. Japanese certs are for the Japanese market and English certs are for the international markets.

I did not say the strand was switched, but there is no question that the details listed on the certificate issued do not match what was in the box. No, I have never sent a strand like this to the lab to attempt certification, but I have never seen a strand of this quality with certification either.

That may be the case (GIA) with diamonds, but not with pearls. When I visited GIA and toured the lab recently, there were hundreds of diamond graders but only one pearl grader, and the pearl grader's experience was in determining whether a pearl was natural or cultured. Quality grading is brand new at GIA and came about for South Sea pearls, not akoya, Tahitian or freshwater.
 
file.php
 
Caitlin said:
est190 You told me/us you weren't a pearl professional. How do you know all this stuff?
Click to expand...

I am the farthest thing from a pearl professional and anyou can tell from my astute observations of the little strand, i would make an awful pearl grader. Fortunately, I don't need to be a pearl expert or even know much about pearls to understand a grading process and things like blind and double blind testing. Quality control and testing practices share similarities in many industries. Consistency in results is important and this is the most challenged issue when ever you read a controversial study. For example, in the area of scientific research, before a scientific study is praised or attacked, another scientist will generally have to be able to perform the same test to attempt to dublicate the result.

As for my knowledge of GIA, I never said I was a jewelry newbie. I am no expert either, but I know enough to be dangerous. I am not in the industry or a shill if that's your concern. Anyway, GIA's grading method and system is pretty well known though. I know a bit about JPSL from reading their website--the website is in japanese, but you can read most of it using google translate. JPSL pricing and submission procedure is on the site, but i haven't looked at the site since December--so my memory could be off on the extra cost for an English language version of the report.
 
Last edited:
jshepherd said:
Yes, that could mean it has sat in inventory for a very long time, and they do provide certificates in English, but no, there is no additional charge that I am aware of. Japanese certs are for the Japanese market and English certs are for the international markets.

I did not say the strand was switched, but there is no question that the details listed on the certificate issued do not match what was in the box. No, I have never sent a strand like this to the lab to attempt certification, but I have never seen a strand of this quality with certification either.

That may be the case (GIA) with diamonds, but not with pearls. When I visited GIA and toured the lab recently, there were hundreds of diamond graders but only one pearl grader, and the pearl grader's experience was in determining whether a pearl was natural or cultured. Quality grading is brand new at GIA and came about for South Sea pearls, not akoya, Tahitian or freshwater.
Click to expand...

I only know the diamond process, but nothing about their process for reviewing pearls. Anecdotally, I know of one instance of a diamond being graded twice and coming back with different results. It's rare but it does happen--when it does happen it's a big deal.
 
GIA is diamonds first, colored stones second, and pearls third, if nothing comes after colored stones. Up until 2010, GIA only determined whether pearls were natural or cultured. Akira Hyatt of GIA New York developed their pearl grading program, which is still in its infancy. Ken Scarratt, a brilliant researcher and pearl expert, is also at the top of the natural pearl game at GIA, and he is in Bangkok. One other GIA pearl expert (Doug Fiske) wrote the "Pearls" course and is now retired. Those are the three experts that I know of.

I'll probably ask Caitlin to retire this thread in the next day or so to be revisited when all questions are answered.
 
I have seen a sample GIA report for an akoya strand, but the report didn't explain GIA's evaluation standards. I wouldn't call the comments "grades" since that's not what GIA seems to provide. I don't know what objective standard GIA requires for a strand to achieve a good or excellent for luster etc. It seems like the style of the report could stand some more fine tuning as well.
 
funny... I did not like any of those strands. Shows you how little I know about Akoya ............

Big strand looked over processed to me ( maybe because it was shot close to the small strand ) and I did not like the pink in it. Looked artificial to me. Also, skin was not clean, so I did not think it's top quality pearls...

Small strand just did not look good...

I guess that if I ever jump into buying Akoya, it will have to be the natural Hanadama pearls that Jeremy carries.
 
Well, we've had posters with issues with Hanadama pearls, I believe.

- Karin
 
est190 said:
Even if it is the second, it's terrible for jpsl but it doesn't make the pearls hat PP or other seller any less beautiful or valuable nor does the certification make a lousy strand look sexy. The certification is only paper that serves as proof of quality, but in the end you are wearing the pearls not the paper. There are other reputable organizations--EGL and GIA-- that can give a quality report for pearls albeit for a slightly higher price.
Click to expand...
It would mean you're paying more at retail for inferior pearls, though. I would venture to say most retail pearl buyers aren't very well educated on the subject, and many that try to educate themselves will find information saying "certified hanadama are the best, top-quality akoya" and then end up with, well, what was pictured here.
 
Hello Mike! Mwaahh!

OK. One is certified hanadama, albeit not the best one possible and the other one is passing for Hanadama? That is creepy. The little one, though not unattractive, has flaws on almost every pearl visible in the first shot, esp. The big one has no flaws, no pits, no hammer marks, a perfectly smooth skin. I say you can not really see flaws on it, because there are none!!!! Show me where they are!

They are both pinked. That is the point on which they have the most in common. The small ones have an almost hammered look to the skin. Nothing wrong with that intrinsically, but to say they are hanadama or passed the Hanadama certification process is simply, not true. They are vastly inferior pearls to the actual Hanadamas pictured. If you can't see that, then you should not be opining.

I originally graded them at AA+ and Jeremy said it was too high a rating! I can't see them, so I trust Jeremy's assessment. If he says they are not even AA+, then it would be an actual crime to sell them as Hanadamas.

Listen to Jeremy, if you want to learn something and not just fling an opinion out there, LOL! So these pi**p**r pearls came with some kind of certification that doesn't match the strand, let alone appear to be an authentic Hanadama certicate or an old one reissued, or something. I am not sure about this part, but it is what I think I understand. Now, where are the ethical naysayers?

One last thing. I want to hear where those pearls came from......
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
Akoya earrings from local store The Netherlands
Replies
10
Views
921
Anna102
A
D
12th Anniversary purchase
Replies
10
Views
521
CortezPearls
CortezPearls
T
Dyed freshwater pearls?
Replies
5
Views
910
MotherOfPearlTrumpet
MotherOfPearlTrumpet
M
Are these close enough to combine?
Replies
1
Views
452
jshepherd
jshepherd
MissPanda
Questions Before Purchasing a Mikimoto Necklace
Replies
2
Views
700
jshepherd
jshepherd
Back
Top