Culturing Conch Pearls

Around the time when I joined the forum [years! Ha! when did it pass?...] I had found a report of successful conch pearl culture at some aquaculture research facility in Indonesia. The exercise had no commercial following reported. Any idea if things went any further? [I am trying to find out the reference - it is 'hiding' right now]

this is the thread https://www.pearl-guide.com/forum/natural-pearls/1887-cultured-conch-melo.html

I also read the reports. It was for Melo melo cultured pearls in Thailand. I do not know anything else about this. However, probably just like we did, they may have been keeping things in the dark (since the Thai newsletter is now nowhere to be found).
When we started with the queen conch pearls project we published the conch relaxation technique since it was very simple and had been done with other species. However, after the first pearl came up, that was it. no telling to anybody.

I'd be very interested to know what happened to this Thai operation.
 
Last edited:
…they may have been keeping thinks in the dark…
Makes me wonder if an underworld of tissue-nucleated porcelanous pearls already exists. Certainly there is financial motivation. I'm told that pearls from the Bursa Bubo (Lamp Shell/Giant Frog/Kasturi Conch) in Indonesia have become quite common.

At least GIA is now awakened to the possibility, to refine protocol for proper ID.
 
Last edited:
Makes me wonder if an underworld of tissue-nucleated porcelaneous pearls already exists.

Your guess should be allot better then mine!

I am tempted to remain skeptical at this point. With demand for these being what it is, I cannot imagine what would such an operation feed on: either waiting a few decades hoping for a blockbuster or dropping a large doze of tiny 'news' in a small bucket of specialist buyers. Even if this works, it would be more of a prank then an industry.

There isn't a book of wonderful porcelain-pear jewels even. Just one for conch pearls, and even that one doesn't seem to be making a whole lot of difference... I mean, some time has past since Linee wanted to start a pearling industry by broadcasting his patent.

That's all I can think of, awaiting evidence of some contrary.

At least, if a long list of species can be induced to produce pearls under controlled conditions & disclosure, someone may be inspired to use such things as reference for identification? Hm... there could hardly be better, come to think of it! Even if natural / cultured may never be provable, some conditions would change - perhaps a nudge to keeping these things rare, regardless.


[N.b. - this is brainstorming, no particular caution taken to make sense!]



I also read the reports. It was for Melo melo cultured pearls in Thailand. [...]

I'd be very interested to know what happened to this Thai operation.

I will try to get more about it, however, Gia Thai is also where I would be asking first. Do you know whether they are aware of this?



... after the first pearl came up, that was it. no telling to anybody.

May I ask why now?
 
Last edited:
I will try to get more about it, however, Gia Thai is also where I would be asking first. Do you know whether they are aware of this?
My prior post regarding the tantalizing reference made to me by GIA Bangkok Director Tom Scarratt just last month would appear to indicate that GIA Asia is not currently aware of other similarly-advanced projects.
 
How about $1000 to $10000 per carat (only as long as the illusion of scarcity could be maintained).

If it isn't done with right now already, and anyone would bother, that should be easier then making those pearls, wouldn't it... Would bet we could find a few convinced that these things are 'too rare' as is.

Perhaps the 10k/ct refers to pearls large enough to predate any of this story. Those might as well celebrate, if there's ever to be a garden-variety Conch pearl.

All well?

[same as above]
 
Perhaps the 10k/ct refers to pearls large enough to predate any of this story. Those might as well celebrate, if there's ever to be a garden-variety Conch pearl.
Your supposition is that the advent of cultured conch pearls will increase the value of authenticated naturals?

Could be?
 
Just wanted to CONGRATULATE H?ctor for his work and the beautiful pearls they obtained...it has been many years since H?ctor has worked in the field of Pearl Culture...first in La Paz with Dr. Carlos Rangel, then in Australia with Dr. Paul Southgate, later at the U. of Florida with the great team that have managed to produce these "flaming beauties".
Congratulations again my Brother... :)
 
Your supposition is that the advent of cultured conch pearls will increase the value of authenticated naturals?

Could be?

I'll throw my 2c in and agree with Valeria here- collectors will always be ready to spend premium dollars on premium goods, no?

Either that, or it won't have any effect at all... the advent of synth emerald didn't change the market value of Muzo stones correct?
 
I'll throw my 2c in and agree with Valeria here- collectors will always be ready to spend premium dollars on premium goods, no?

Either that, or it won't have any effect at all... the advent of synth emerald didn't change the market value of Muzo stones correct?
My question was primarily a reflection on Pearl-Professor's post the other day, in which he referenced the crash in nacreous naturals following Mikimoto with this development.

The market will tell, certainly Naturals are in a less vulnerable position than they were a century ago. But the buyer at a minimum will need to exercise more caution, as to this point a reasonable assumption could be made. About the only thing the savvy conch buyer needed to be concerned about, other than aesthetics and valuation, was that it not be cleverly cut and polished shell.
 
Last edited:
Either that, or it won't have any effect at all... the advent of synth emerald didn't change the market value of Muzo stones correct?


Not sure precisely how it went for emeralds, but for sapphire synthetics cut the bottom of the market for a long while - about as long a the price of synthetics remained fairly high and the material preserved some respect. That's long gone.

The worst gossip about synthetic emeralds these days is that imperfect synthetics infiltrate commercial goods. It is only gossip. A similar phenomenon has been properly reported about small diamonds. Sounds like a good idea to me: keep the trouble where it is a win-win-win-win-...

At least, this is a personal conviction. I am afraid that spelled out too much [which is getting close here!] such things always amount to a case of "crying wolf", at best!.


... the crash in nacreous naturals following Mikimoto with this development.

That's one story I would like hearing whole! No doubt about the effect of cultivation, but, still - assuming strict causality would make cultured pearls allot more effective at undercutting their natural counterpart then any other man-made gem. Something's got to give? And there is plenty of history to choose from...

Caitlin? :)


But the buyer at a minimum will need to exercise more caution...

A companion to the 'Pink pearl' book?

For whatever reason, this story reminds me of that of CVD diamonds rather then Mikimoto. I do not know any better...
 
Last edited:
?certainly Naturals are in a less vulnerable position than they were a century ago?
There's simply so much more consumer awareness (thanks Pearl Guide), and on top of that GIA, SSEF and the other laboratories with their ever-increasing technological means to assure proper ID.
 
I found this photo today. these are cultured pearls of 1 year growth. the scale bar is 5 mm. This time the photo is not as good as the previous photos.

I do not know much about markets (I just like challenges and this was a good one). But here are 2 more cents thrown into the discussion.

I tend to agree that there is no such ?underground? ?organized- production. These pearls would have been detected by now. If somebody paid US$10,000 per carat for a pearl, that person would have had the pearl checked, (I would) and that is a risk to the producer . There may be, however, some small operations producing little-average quality-non nucleated pearls at US$5-US$50 per ct, these can be easily produced, and would not raise doubts about their ?natural origin?, these can be sold at markets to tourists that are happy to pay $30 for a pearl (if it?s natural, good; if it?s not? it was only $30). I wouldn't pay another $30 or whatever a certificate costs to get one of these pearls analysed.

The cultured queen conch pearls have easily been identified as such. Check the eBrief. ?X-radiography clearly showed the beads or tissue-related cavities in the beaded and non-beaded samples, respectively.? So using x rays the non-nucleated can be distinguished from the naturals. I'm sure we'll keep working closely with GIA and the industry in the future.

to answer a previous question, Some of the reasons for not telling until now, are that we needed first to prove the consistency of our techniques. We needed sufficient experimentation to convince ourselves the techniques work. Then we wanted to see how different/alike our conch cultured pearls were from naturals, that?s why we worked with GIA. We wanted to know the quality and characteristics of our pearls. Having this information together and released simultaneously (both FAU and GIA released the news the same day) was a better way to do it.

Douglas: thanks a lot, I still remember my visits to Guaymas and I'm way past due for the next visit. Maybe we can do some interesting research together in the future.
 

Attachments

  • QCCP1yr.jpg
    QCCP1yr.jpg
    16.6 KB · Views: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by smetzler
... the crash in nacreous naturals following Mikimoto with this development.

That's one story I would like hearing whole! No doubt about the effect of cultivation, but, still - assuming strict causality would make cultured pearls allot more effective at undercutting their natural counterpart then any other man-made gem. Something's got to give? And there is plenty of history to choose from...

Caitlin?

In the Persian Gulf, it was the coming of oil that attracted most pearl people away from pearling. Much better wages, less risk, etc. Go home at the end of the day instead of weeks or months away........

It was coincidence that Mikimoto turned commercial during the same time. I think that the elite still bought naturals- Miki opened pearls to the middle classes as well as to the nouveau riche (and there were plenty of those in that time period!)

Have no clue about Australian naturals and Mikimoto. Anyone else?
smile.gif
 
Have no clue about Australian naturals and Mikimoto. Anyone else?


Ha! Could that be a case of cultured NOT competing with naturals? [which seems only reasonable, after all]

The question reminds me about the account by Jeremy Shepherd of the presentation delivered by Paspaley at the former Dubai pearl convention: that Paspaley has maintained an interest in important natural pearls - presumably from their own waters? - for the sake of their corporate image. It makes me wonder whether pearl culture ever clashed with the production of natural pearls in Australia, or quite the contrary, as Paspaley appeared to imply? [Note to self: sure enough, the frase was taken way out of context, and even so, the context was Dubai... ]

Still, I don't think I ever found a history of Australian pearling; possibly not looking until about yesterday has something to do with it! Is there such a thing?
 
Last edited:
Check the eBrief. “X-radiography clearly showed the beads or tissue-related cavities in the beaded and non-beaded samples, respectively.” So using x rays the non-nucleated can be distinguished from the naturals.

Is this because the grafts are much larger then the bits of tissue starting pearl growth naturally? Or is there some other distinction between the natural and induced tissue nucleation? [it was a former discussion about keshi that made me wonder about this HERE ]
 
Last edited:
Is this because the grafts are much larger then the bits of tissue starting pearl growth naturally?

Pretty sure that is the case. The graft tissue will have associated to it some proteins, mucus and other organic matter that decay and leave such cavities. This is not likely to happen in small wounds, or if it happens, the cavities are so small that may barely (or not at all) show on an x-ray.
 
Good to hear.

This logic makes keshi / natural split based on the inspection of that inner cavity, a mater of degree? [i.e. as if the idea of looking at pearl structure had simply drifted from the older success at finding nuclei to a new question. Like aspirin.]

I wonder if some - most? - natural pearl sacks are never open to the outside at all. I mean, the descriptions of pearl-forming mechanism do not necesarily imply an open injury. The idea is tempting because that sort of thing would be inconsistent with any pearl grafting procedure entirely [and that's really what pearl identification checks for these days, isn't it] - possibly leaving identifiable markers on the pearl... Who knows?
 
Last edited:
The shape of the cavity tells a lot. In a keshi where the bead was expelled, there is a a fine tail extending in the direction of expellation. Tissue nucleation definitely looks different from naturals, which are primarily caused by parasites.

Ah, the lovely trematode!

trematode.jpg
 
Back
Top