jshepherd
Pearl Paradise
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2004
- Messages
- 6,302
I think you have hit the nail on the head there, Caitlin. The value was stated as $3,500,000 based on his fairy tale account of the legend, nothing else.
What I would like to know is how Steenrod would put his credibility on the line when claiming the carbon dating showed the pearl was from 600BC. Any comment Mr. Steenrod? The latest appraisal, albeit unsigned, is dated January 17th of this year.
This is problem that I have with the appraisal. There is nothing about the appraisal which gives the impression that Mr. Steenrod even saw the pearl. It reads like an advertisement for the pearl without giving any real information. The valuation is completely based on inflation, and no real gem valuation or even identification has been determined. In his defense Steenrod did make mention to the fact that there are no comparables from which to ascertain a value, but how can Steenrod excuse creating an appraisal for a pearl without even listing its origin? If you read the appraisal you notice the glaring absence of the words "Giant Clam" or even Tridacna. How could he leave that off the appraisal?
It is also described as a one-of-a-kind religious artifact, which is apparently lending credence to the amulet nucleus theory. But if that is true then the appraisal is faulty in calling the pearl the largest known natural pearl. If there is an amulet inside (which of course there is not), the pearl would be cultured. It would not be the world's largest natural pearl any longer. It would be the world's largest cultured pearl - you could simply divide that valuation by 10.
It is all just "a pack of lies...."
What I would like to know is how Steenrod would put his credibility on the line when claiming the carbon dating showed the pearl was from 600BC. Any comment Mr. Steenrod? The latest appraisal, albeit unsigned, is dated January 17th of this year.
This is problem that I have with the appraisal. There is nothing about the appraisal which gives the impression that Mr. Steenrod even saw the pearl. It reads like an advertisement for the pearl without giving any real information. The valuation is completely based on inflation, and no real gem valuation or even identification has been determined. In his defense Steenrod did make mention to the fact that there are no comparables from which to ascertain a value, but how can Steenrod excuse creating an appraisal for a pearl without even listing its origin? If you read the appraisal you notice the glaring absence of the words "Giant Clam" or even Tridacna. How could he leave that off the appraisal?
It is also described as a one-of-a-kind religious artifact, which is apparently lending credence to the amulet nucleus theory. But if that is true then the appraisal is faulty in calling the pearl the largest known natural pearl. If there is an amulet inside (which of course there is not), the pearl would be cultured. It would not be the world's largest natural pearl any longer. It would be the world's largest cultured pearl - you could simply divide that valuation by 10.
It is all just "a pack of lies...."