Opinions wanted!!!

LBoone

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
111
Let me start this off by saying that I do not have photos of the necklace of which I am about to inquire and no longer have access to the necklace to take any, I am just asking some general questions because I know there is a lot of knowledge here and I would like to hear some opinions!!

If you are interested, there is a HORRIBLE photo on the internet here:

http://www.williamsonbrosauction.com/auction_detail.php?id=209379

Click on "photo galleries" on the right, then on Sept 22 Warehouse Auction, the pearls are about half way down on the right. If you click on the photo, you can enlarge it. It is HORRIBLY out of focus.

My husband and I do some work for a local auctioneer. This often brings me into contact with jewelry items. At his last auction, he had several pieces that he was auctioning for a woman whose name he did not (and most likely would not) tell me, all he said was "all these came from a million dollar home." (I don't know about the property values where ya'll might live, but here in NE Georgia, that gets you a LOT of house.) One of the items was a strand of pearls that he had listed as South Sea, but they were dark in color so I suspected Tahitian. I was interested and was able to see the pearls up close before the auction.

At the auction, the bidding got up to $2500 and stopped, but did not sell because apparently there was a reserve price on them. I was flabbergasted, I wouldn't have gone over $1000, and really had expected to get them for $800....

Up close, the pearls were round and large, with only a very few very minor blemishes. The clasp was stamped 14k, and had small diamonds set into it. (I thought it was a little small for the strand, but it was nice ball shaped clasp.) What concerned me was that there was little luster and absolutely NO overtone on these pearls. I examined the drill holes with a loupe and light, and they did not appear to be dyed to me, but I don't have a lot of experience looking at ones that are....

Here are my questions. I know that the dull luster would cause these pearls to be priced less than those with high luster, but what about the lack of overtone? What can some of ya'll tell me about pearls like these with no overtone? Also, both my husband and the auctioneer speculated that the lack of luster was due to the pearls having been damaged by exposure to something. The lack of luster was uniform over all the pearls. I told them I didn't think so, that I thought these were just pearls with little luster and had been matched that way. Any thoughts on that? Would chemical exposure, like being dipped in cleaner cause that perhaps?

Also, was I way off in my estimation of price, as far as you can tell with this sketchy info! The auctioneer told me the next day that the owner had paid $4000 in a retail store for the strand. I don't doubt that, but I don't see these as being anywhere near that price compared to strands I have seen at popular pearl internet stores. I am interested in these pearls, but only to a point. I have much prettier, although smaller, pearls that I bought from Pearl Paradise. These are large and would make a statement when worn, but I am not interested in them enough to overpay for them!!!! My offer at this point would be $800, unless someone has a better suggestion for me.....

Thanks in advance for any opinions or insight you might have to offer me!
 
Well, are you gonna really love 'em for $800???? Yes, the owner probably did pay that much. I do see Tahitians in the stores that are very round, charcoal, with no overtones. They probably are natural color, low luster, probably not damaged.

I'd say the owner is unrealistic about the price she can expect to get.

The thing is, LBoone, you know what great luster is all about, and you might regret spending your $$$ on these~sounds like fun work you two do!
 
My first reaction when I saw the fuzzy pic was that the pearls look dull, as in the colour being dull and does not "pop" at me, even though they appeared to be quite large in size.

DK :)
 
This should answer the question. The pearl on the left has poor luster and no overtone. The pearl on the right has good luster and good overtone. This is why luster is the most important determining factor in the value of a pearl. Both are untreated and raw - they are from a recent auction lot.
 

Attachments

  • Poor luster poor overtone.jpg
    Poor luster poor overtone.jpg
    24.6 KB · Views: 41
Last edited:
Absolutely great demonstration, thanks!
 
Jeremy: Thank you!! I can now show those photos to hubby and I think he will see what I have been trying to tell him about this strand. I think that both he and our friend are somewhat caught up in the size of these pearls. Yes, they are large. But they are not pretty. The pearl on the left in your photo looks better than these.
 
Thanks Pattye!! I have told hubby even if they DID agree to sell them now for $800, I don't want them. They are large, but not pretty. I told him to think of it as a huge gemstone that is poorly cut and has lots of inclusions (he collects gemstones.) It might be large, but it isn't pretty and not as valuable as a smaller one that is well cut and has no inclusions. That got him, along with the photo from Jeremy that I just showed to him!
 
Jeremy: Thank you!! I can now show those photos to hubby and I think he will see what I have been trying to tell him about this strand. I think that both he and our friend are somewhat caught up in the size of these pearls. Yes, they are large. But they are not pretty. The pearl on the left in your photo looks better than these.

My pleasure. If they pearl to the left is better than the pearls in the strand, it is not a good strand of pearls.
 
Back
Top