Natural Pearl Necklace Sells for World Auction Record $5.1 Million

[pattye]

I completely agree~very, very odd and purposely vague. Usually there is much more info in the listing.

 

[dblkprl]

http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/...6778&sid=ff1fd698-c6b5-4f10-a00e-bbf60d6187d6

It says on the Christie's auction:
" With report 78724 dated 3 March 2015 from the SSEF Swiss Gemmological Institute stating the analysed pr o p e rt ie s co nf i r m the au the nt ic i ty of the s e sa l tw a ter natural pearls." Again, though, it could be misinterpreted from the original report...

To echo MrsD, and to clarify further, from SSEF website describing what is included on a pearl report: "A distinction is made between natural and cultured pearls (beaded or beadless), saltwater and freshwater. Treatments (artificial colour modification) are given for both types of pearls."

It seems unlikely that the report could mis-interpreted. The only thing that is confusing is Christies description. What Christies DOESN'T say anywhere is that the pearls are cultured.

 

[GemGeek]

SSEF is a highly respected lab where natural pearls are concerned. Dr. Laurent E. Cartier, world-renowned pearl researcher, was almost certainly involved in examining these pearls. You can contact him and ask: gemlab@ssef.ch - or on the sustainable pearls website. I agree that the description is wacky, but I wouldn't jump to conclusions.

 

[pattye]

If no one else wants to contact Dr. Cartier, I will do it tomorrow. Please speak up if someone has already done so. Thanks for the info, Blaire.

Diamond info: With report 6127963527 dated 18 February 2011 from the Gemological Institute of America stating that the cushion-cut diamond is D color, Internally Flawless clarity, approximately 3.03 ct with within an old European-cut diamond surround...."

(I'm concerned that the link to the listing will eventually be lost.)

 

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

With report 78724 dated 3 March 2015 from the SSEF Swiss Gemmological Institute stating the analysed properties confirm the authenticity of these saltwater natural pearls. No indications of artificial colour modification (based on a sampling); accompanied by a supplemental appendix attesting to the rarity of this natural pearl necklace.

This a quote from Christie's, not necessarily the Swiss lab(?), which is why I'd like to see the original report.

Just like any one of us who'll comment on a topic, a lab report is only an opinion based on objective analysis. Applying the terms "non treated" and "saltwater" do not necessarily imply natural origin.

I've seen dubious lab reports from Europe, a few times. The EGL in particular, opting for analysis that would otherwise be countered by other labs as indeterminable. Drilling a pearl destroys the nucleus and masks the physiological properties of it's formation, hence objectivity goes out the window, leaving only partial or subjective opinion and dismisses intrinsic value. Bad science.

As to provenance, none is stated. The term "supplemental appendix attesting to the rarity" is troubling. My analysis also attests to rarity, though mathematical, supporting the unlikelihood of occurrence, not monetary value.

It's also seems odd, the species is not mentioned in the description.

To be honest, I get all warm and fuzzy when I see a strand sell for millions of dollars, but I'll never cling to this example because I have serious apprehensions about the quality of the reporting and presentation.

 

[Sea Urchin]

Oh my. This is interesting.

 

[pattye]

What reasons might the seller have for not wanting the provenance shared? Highly recommend going to the link, enlarging the photo, zoom and scan the strand ~ fascinating!

 

[GemGeek]

Dave is right to be suspicious, but his standards are a lot higher than those normally used in the pearl world. For instance, when a producer collects animals to graft, they x-ray them first to check for naturals and consider the results natural pearls. Some producers collect spat, grow them out, and when they are old enough to graft, they x-ray for naturals. Dave would likely say that both these shells have been handled by man and therefore the pearls would be a by-product of culturing, but that is not what a laboratory would say.

They were not induced, so their innards look like other naturally occurring pearls. My thought is that these pearls have been hoarded by a big producer for many years until there were enough for the stunning necklace that was offered. They didn't want to say that a large producer of cultured pearls was offering a natural pearl necklace. That would ruin the mystique.

What do you think?

 

[pattye]

Perhaps owned by a family that has some notoriety connected with it?

The clasp and diamonds appear to be antique, or old vintage, with silver over gold, but of course could have been repurposed. Would like to see the back of the clasp. Your theory sounds perfectly feasible, Blaire!

Having 4 strands might indicate European or Indian origin, as modern esthetics seem to prefer odd numbers, 3,5, etc.

(Of course I was curious about the stringing, appears to be on dark gray thread, with gimp at the clasp.)

 

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

SSEF is a highly respected lab where natural pearls are concerned. Dr. Laurent E. Cartier, world-renowned pearl researcher, was almost certainly involved in examining these pearls. You can contact him and ask: gemlab@ssef.ch - or on the sustainable pearls website. I agree that the description is wacky, but I wouldn't jump to conclusions.

Agreed Blaire. Having not read the report, I cannot speak to it's content any further than discussing third party quotes as presented. Pattye, please address these concerns to Dr. Cartier, that he may respond.

Any report from a gem lab may be objectively challenged on a few points. The first and most obvious being, there are no constants applied across the board. Constants apply in some cases, but not others. Bead nuclei for example, is a constant of one cultural method, but never natural origin. In the absence of beads, mantle tissue grafts present with uniform contrasts at the nuclei among multiple samples, always aseptic periostracial > prismatic > nacreous > calcareous progressions, indicating cultural origin. Incidentally, I have suspicions, some farmers don't graft with mantles, but other tissues. However, even in those cases, the contrasts in the views would tend to be uniform across the board. Conversely, natural pearls have multiple factors for onset, hence uniformity is inconsistent, if not wholly irregular. Naturals are borne of septic or aseptic lesions from either myostracial or periostracial origin. Three completely different pathways not observed in pearls of cultural origin. These determinations are unavailable to the analyst when pearls are drilled, hence the greater part of conclusive evidence is lost.

To determine a pearl strand as natural, I would expect a combination of all four of the latter described groups. The rarity of every pearl being of the same group is mathematically improbable.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. When it comes to pearls, one can never dismiss the importance of provenance. Unless one is absolutely certain with species, region, harvester and legality the rest is little more than conjecture.

 

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

Dave would likely say that both these shells have been handled by man and therefore the pearls would be a by-product of culturing, but that is not what a laboratory would say.

Agreed for the most part. The exception being age. Let's say I harvested a shell for grafting and relayed it to an area for a year before grafting. Then grafted it, unaware the natural was present. Then at harvest time, the pearl is found. Most pearls can be dated by age, much like the rings of a tree. A natural pearl of say... seven years would exceed the custodial period of three years on the farm. In the letter of that... it's natural, but in the spirit (ie) as a business it would be ill advised to market it as such. Not because it isn't natural per se, but by the impression given to the consumer or lab analyst. Pearls of ages equal or younger than the cultural co-production, undoubtedly cannot be deemed natural.

Farmers know the difference, acutely. I've heard Douglas form Cortez Pearls mention he knows these differences in his inventory and I believe him, because it's realistic, sensible and I see it in my own work. That said, it begs the question... do other farmers know this? Moreover, do other farmers know this, then pass them off as something else? We'll never really know for sure, but I suspect a great part of so-called natural pearls are merely by products or dubious grades of cultural operations. Again, full disclosure, reputation and provenance are huge factors when marketing any pearls.

My thought is that these pearls have been hoarded by a big producer for many years until there were enough for the stunning necklace that was offered. They didn't want to say that a large producer of cultured pearls was offering a natural pearl necklace. That would ruin the mystique.

I've been admonished by farmers for disclosing techniques and dispelling myths or mystique. While cultural pearl production has been in decline for some time, it's hardly a result of my work. If anything, the demand for free form shapes and natural pearls have increased greatly since I came back aboard. Even in light of these disclosures, multiple aspects of pearling remain a mystery, which the possibilities are endless.

The scenario as suspected by Blaire seems likely. As an individual collector, I could never envision accumulating the pool needed to created this piece, even if I lived my entire life on an atoll with an air compressor and a shucking knife.

 

[kelluvpearls]

So what types of pearls are these?

 

[Marianne]

Ah, that is the $5.1 million dollar question

 

[Frost Me]

This is so interesting!

 

[Jacques]

There's only one place in the world where a post like this can get so much quality discussion and detailed analysis! Awesome!

 

[pattye]

If no one else wants to contact Dr. Cartier, I will do it tomorrow. Please speak up if someone has already done so. Thanks for the info, Blaire.

Diamond info: With report 6127963527 dated 18 February 2011 from the Gemological Institute of America stating that the cushion-cut diamond is D color, Internally Flawless clarity, approximately 3.03 ct with within an old European-cut diamond surround...."

(I'm concerned that the link to the listing will eventually be lost.)

The email was sent to Dr. Cartier, so I do hope we receive a reply. I advised him any information would be shared here on the forum.

Does anyone have an idea what the value of that diamond alone would be?

 

[JerseyPearl]

Pattye, Ritani has a 3.05 cushion, IF, D listed at $162,125.

 

[pattye]

Thank you, Jersey Pearl! I didn't have any idea how to go about researching that.

 

[JerseyPearl]

Of course each and every diamond is unique, and there are many qualities that impact price...including the cut and ratios, which we have no information. Those values are pretty well established; what we don't know is the provenance of the stone. That is a very subjective thing and can impact value tremendously...say if someone famous owned the jewel. But bottom line, that one diamond worth a lot of money!

 

[Katbran]

Same diamond is on Blue Nile - I always wondered how they worked - same exact stone except its 18$ cheaper on BN lol What a bargain!