Help needed on Keshi vs. Natural

[Alison]

Hi all,

I'm having an identification problem with an antique pearl necklace. I have just spoken with the lab gemologist, who tells me these are saltwater "keshi" pearls and must be classified as cultured. However, based on everything I know, this necklace dates from ca. 1910, unaltered, before any "keshi" industry was in existence.

There are 22 groups of 3 pearls here, separated by 14K gold bars and links. No thread was used; the pearls are linked by gold wire. The spring ring clasp is not modern. The gold bar links have a fine engraved design and appear to be stamped out, but the wire work around them and throughout the necklace done by hand.

After a gentle cleaning there is still tarnish visible (although perhaps not in my photo) between the wire and bars, and this tarnish is very dark brown, consistent with the estimated age of the necklace.

The necklace is 35" long -- again, a popular and appropriate length for this type of necklace circa 1910.

Taking the organic shapes into consideration, these pearls are very well matched. There is much more silver tone than shows in my photo, and the luster and orient are beautiful but not flashy, unlike modern keshi pearls I have seen.

The lab says that over half the pearls in the necklace exhibit interior voids. However, they also acknowledge that the pearls are larger than the normal keshi range.

It is my understanding that voids in pearls may be natural, or the result of tissue nucleation, or when the mollusk expels a bead and a keshi pearl forms.

I know that there are many on this forum who have much more knowledge about pearl critter biology than I do. I would be very grateful for any insights you have. Also, I intend to send this necklace out for a second opinion, and would like to ask who would be the best person to contact?

 

[Alison]

These are saltwater pearls, something that has already been determined by lab analysis. Also, they are larger than keshi size. And this arrangement of pearls and gold links is something not uncommon in American jewelry of the period 1890-1915.

 

[Alison]

I asked that the necklace be returned without a full report, that's why. I am going to send it out for a second opinion -- hoping to find someone with greater familiarity with this issue. At the moment, my suspicion is that antique pearls are being penalized for a procedure that did not exist in their time.
As soon as I get the necklace back, I will post size ranges.

 

[GemGeek]

Whatever it is, I like it!

 

[pattye]

Agreed, right in style and lovely!

 

[Alison]

They are saltwater (no manganese), not freshwater. The question remains, how produced?

There's nothing in the gold work to indicate a later date -- in the 1940s and 1950s this necklace would have been considered laughably old-fashioned. The spring ring clasp is of an older type, not the modern version.

In America, 14K gold is not considered a low-karat alloy. Cheaper versions of this type of necklace (as with any other type of jewelry at the time) were made in 10K gold, or goldfill. More expensive versions would have been made in platinum -- and would have gotten you round pearls. And for goldfill, you would have glass or wax imitation pearls.

 

[Caitlin]

Pretty pearls and chain. I hope you can find info on them.

 

[jshepherd]

The pearls definitely look like saltwater keshi, but if they are a century old, they can't be. Do you have something to show (evidence) to an appraiser that may date the piece? Even labs will not always be able to distinguish between keshi and naturals.

 

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

The lab says that over half the pearls in the necklace exhibit interior voids. However, they also acknowledge that the pearls are larger than the normal keshi range.

It is my understanding that voids in pearls may be natural, or the result of tissue nucleation, or when the mollusk expels a bead and a keshi pearl forms.

It's a lovely chain. This piece was meant to wear, often.

If this is antique from whatever period, I would be hesitant about cleaning it, for a couple of reasons. Cleaning can damage pearls, even damp cloth wiping can soften the surfaces of old pearls and exacerbate physical damage. Also, some collectors appreciate the value of antiques, when the patina finish remains.

On the dark side, metal type/weight, style of construction and clasp findings, do little to verify the authenticity of the gems, nor of their age, without distinct markings, comparative stylings or provenance. Without actually commenting on your piece itself, the world market has been flooded with new things made to look old and tens of thousands of cultured pearls are being passed off as natural.

To the best of my knowledge, voids are not a definitive indicator of natural pearls, insomuch as they are in cultural pearls, particularily in the tissue nucleated varieties. Most naturals are solid, displaying the same structure at the center, as at the surface. Or at the very least, multiple micro layers surrounding a parasitical mass.

Being a natural pearl collector, I am skeptical of any claims by default. It is only after significant analysis and evaluation by accredited gemologists or irrefutable provenance, that pearls are certified as natural. I can certainly appreciate your quest to pursue this possibility though and encourage you to continue. However, it's very important to understand, that even though I personally harvested my entire collection from the animals themselves, they have yet to be appraised by anyone. It's a costly process and valuation criteria is virtually non-existent.

The pearls definitely look like saltwater keshi, but if they are a century old, they can't be. Do you have something to show (evidence) to an appraiser that may date the piece? Even labs will not always be able to distinguish between keshi and naturals.

I agree on every point, given their appearance in these photos.

If these are indeed saltwater keshi pearls, their larger size indicates a value added feature.