I am going to go with "heck, no." Those growth lines don't look like anything on a pearl but common on coral. The shapes don't look right, either. Notice how the description goes to great length to address these points with some very flimsy excuses (carved or tumbled beads being oval or round makes no sense).
I am also going to say that that piece is as Victorian as I am. Victorian jewelry would be gold filled or fire gilt, not gold plated. The style also looks wrong and the fittings are very crude (notice how the the beads are misaligned and the edges crooked). I have never seen pink moonstone in Victorian jewelry either.
To top things off, a gemologist from Toronto (where the seller is based) with the same name as on the appraisal was charged with smuggling rough diamonds without proper provenance from Africa to Canada.
They are not conch pearls at all. At best they are pink coral beads. The striations are definitely specific to coral. The good thing is possibly they are not the cheap bamboo coral which is usually dyed in pink and red.
I agree about the double quotes around "conch" to cover his butt. They don't look like anything but tumbled shell. Even coral would be prettier than that and worth a decent enough price to appraise it as coral.
Hello everyone, I am new here to the Pearl Guide forum. What a wonderful place this is to learn so much about pearls! This thread alone has really taught me a lot.
I happened upon this site looking for more information about a necklace that I inherited from my mother. Well, a local jeweler told me it is not real, but I'm still intrigued and fascinated by the beauty of pearls, and now I want to educate myself more before venturing into buying a real necklace for myself.
Thank you and I look forward to learning a great deal.