Naturals and nuclei?

[knotty panda]

Yesterday, I ran across this quote. Here's the link to the page: last paragraph. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/pearl/freshwater.html

"Once again the Chinese have radically altered freshwater culturing, making saltwater and freshwater techniques indistinguishable. They have also introduced a new type of culturing, nucleating with small tissue-nucleated pearls. Some of China's new pearls are all-nacre, some have nacre-coated nuclei, all are unmarked. After one experimenter used small off-round naturals as nuclei, he sent the resulting freshwater pearls to a gem lab and received a report identifying them as "naturals." If pearl farmers can grow cultured pearls that test as naturals, the market may be in for a wild ride." [Emphasis added.]

Fred Ward is a gemologist and author of the book Pearls (Gem Book Publishers, Bethesda, Maryland, 1998), from which this article was adapted.

I don't have Mr. Ward's book to reference this, but I'm more amazed that a lab could be deceived. Mistaken, yes. Deceived? That's disturbing. Of course, which lab?

Is this account true does anyone know?

Also, I've heard seed pearls described as naturals despite being new stock. Do farmers intentionally graft for such small pearls or are they a form of keishi-like pearl which is just a by-product of the nucleation process? And, if so, could this be the "naturals" referenced in the article?

 

[Valeria101]

It rings true...

Nice horror plot for natural Pinctada, Pteria and all that.

Usually, such issues receive broad publicity only once proper testing is developed and there actually is a solution. Understandably so, I'd venture: otherwise the best meaning warning would be hard to tell from cheapo 'crying wolf'. Examples of both are anything but hard to come by... even just in the past few years of gemology lab notes and news.

Anyway. Sounds like a good script for a global prank some pearl farmer could pull, if they so wanted. April 1st is just around the corner, too

 

[Slraep]

Is it even possible that any CFWP be considered a natural?

 

[KAC]

well the article says they used naturals as the nuclei not CFWP - you would think that if CFWP was used it would be relatively easy to spot.

 

[GemGeek]

Wasn't this pearl-in-a-pearl thing debunked a couple of years ago?

 

[pattye]

Wasn't this pearl-in-a-pearl thing debunked a couple of years ago?

That's kinda what I was thinking-----------his info is probably 13 years old by now, and in cfwp, things have changed a great deal since then----------

 

[Pearlgully]

Although that article was "Updated November 2000", and Ward's publication was last revised in 2002, it is still an interesting topic to discuss.


Gail

 

[Valeria101]

Oh! Missed the date...

 

[pattye]

it is still an interesting topic to discuss.

Oh, absolutely! No doubt there is plenty of experimenting going on; luckily, we usually hear news fairly soon with so many experts checking in here------

 

[jshepherd]

That theory was debunked years ago by GIA in New York. They tested something like 40,000 pearls and not a single pearl had a pearl nucleus. It was thought that pearls were grounded down to perfect spheres and reinserted. But if this were the case, the growth rings would not be consistent through the entire pearl.

There are still a few people here and there that believe there is pearl-in-pearl grafting going on, but I don't believe it. When Doug Fiske and I were in China, we discussed it with a lot of industry people there. It was one of our standard questions. There was only one person who described experiments five or six years prior, but explained why it was just not possible and the resulting pearls were not any good.

 

[Valeria101]

Fancy grafting aside, is it accepted that keshi and naturals (same species) are distinguished reliably ?

 

[jshepherd]

No, not reliably at all. One lab may cert a keshi as a natural and another may cert it as a keshi. One lab may cert a cultured freshwater pearl as a natural and another may cert it as a cultured freshwater pearl.

 

[Valeria101]

Nice! I assume you are talking about the major gemological laboratories...

Is this situation simply a matter of carelessness (can't imagine there are that many requests for natural pearl identification), or is there no basis for reliable ID even developed?

 

[jshepherd]

Yep. I am talking about the majors.

Keshi and freshwater are so similar to naturals that it makes it very difficult to determine whether they are cultured or not. There are signs that can point to one or the other, and so a definitive answer can be found for strands, but loose pearls are often an educated guess.

 

[Valeria101]

Guessing there is little reason for anyone to mind, then ... fairy easy to understand why so for most imaginary parties, except those issuing said reports.

 

[Slraep]

No, not reliably at all. One lab may cert a keshi as a natural and another may cert it as a keshi. One lab may cert a cultured freshwater pearl as a natural and another may cert it as a cultured freshwater pearl.

What does that mean for people who collect natural pearls? Is there such a thing as a natural CFWP, are they collectable and what would they be worth?

 

[Valeria101]

Natural CFWP -Scottish and US natural freshwater pearls have been discussed here quite a bit already. I think there are other (very) occasional sources in Europe. No mystery.

 

[knotty panda]

So's we are reading from the same book, does the "C" in FWP mean cultured or colored? I'm not real smart so you have to dummy down to me.

 

[barbie biggs]

I thought CFWP meant Chinese Fresh Water Pearl. Somebody correct me quick. Does it mean cultured?

 

[pattye]

My impression was that it meant cultured----------