Pearl of Allah, Fact; Pearl of Lao Tsu, Fiction

Jeremy
I thank you for throwing your expert knowledge of pearls and sensible logic to the problems associated with the misnamed pearl of Lao Tzu.

I would still like to see the actual carbon dating document, because it is NOW known that the surface of the ocean is 400 years old and all carbon dated objects, even ones with known ages, date to at least 400 years ago.

Nowadays they have tables or something to help them correct for the actual reading.

My guess is that this pearl would now date to about 100-200 years old and that would be my most generous guess.

Even if it is actually 600 years old, the most reputable appraisor so far, is not claiming any possible connection to Lao Tzu.

I think the original estimates by Roy Waldo Miner fit right in that range also.

I do not understand how the Sparrow appraisal authenticated the artifact/pearl. How did he really know he saw the original? I would think it would have called for a second authentication, if it were going to be appraised.

More later
 
Since the carbon dating is a hoax, and both the appraisals are wrong, I wonder how much else is a hoax. I would almost be willing to bet that the story of Bin Laden and the $12 million dollar drug dealer is a complete hoax as well.
In the article I read and mentioned earlier, the party who supposedly worked on the deal distanced himself from any such claim to have anything to do with the Osama Saddam connection to the author. In fact, he denied it. The lawsuit Barbish brought against him and others was thrown out of court according to the local Colorado Springs newspaper.

I also think the story of the offer from President Marcos is a flim flam as well.


The truth is that is is an ugly oversized tridacna pearl that appeared in 1939 in NYC and was presented to Roy Waldo Miner, the shellfish expert at the American Museum of natural history. Its only claim to fame is that it can be called the largest pearl in the world because the shellfish experts agreed it was a pearl and not a non-nacreous, calciferous concretion, which it is.
 
Well, it would appear the Pearl of Allah is not the largest clam pearl. Our very own Kari has this and the clam! Check out her website for more pics and dimensions.
 

Attachments

  • kari.jpg
    kari.jpg
    16.4 KB · Views: 78
Here is a link.

And it is for sale.

BTW, If the Pearl of Allah was a also a blister pearl, then how did it get moved from tridacna to tridacna?

BTW If the Pearl of Allah was 2,400 years old, then this one must be also! It is very much of a size with the POA
 
Last edited:
Yiks!

... now that we've seen BIG timers, anyone knows if there is such thing as an attractive Tridacna pearl? Attractive aesthetically, not by lore alone, that is.
 
These probably aren't common, but they do occur.


If there are these two, very much of a size, there are more. It is just that few people but WD Cobb would think of a way to make money from one, so he brought it to America and to Ripleys Believe it or Not gallery.


Everyone else went "oooooo, ugly!" And gave it a pass, except for kari's pa.

Here is one she has on her site also found off Palawan. she says it is a strombus gigas It has two holes and is hollow.
 
I think she is mistaken re: the Pearl of Allah being a blister. I haven't seen that anywhere else. Actually, Kari, I may have someone who may be interested in acquiring your pearl inasmuch as you also have the clam. Send me an e-mail and we can discuss. :)
 
Kari does not have the clam & pearl, she was quoting someone else.

There is a form at the bottom of the page for interested parties to contact her about it.


Two big ugly carboniferous concretions, one with a huge hype and the other may actually be larger, so It may be that the Pearl of Allah has lost even that claim to fame.


Now what do we have left? Looks like a big fat nothing that weighs almost 14 lbs.......


That pearl has bad mojo, bad karma, bad facts, bad business dealings, It will never measure up to the greedy eyes that were flim-flammed by Cobb into investing in it, in the first place, thinking it was something it isn't.


Who wants to get in there and change the Wikipedia story?
 
Update: Things are happening fast and furious. There's no satisfactory resolution to some of the things that are happening, but as soon as there is a satisfactory resolution, I will let you know.

One thing I can tell you, in the appraisal by Lee Sparrow, he references a quotation by Dr. Roy Waldo Miner from the Mensa Bulletin dated Feb., 1969. Unfortunately, Dr. Miner died in 1955.
 
Caitlin Williams said:
Now what do we have left?

At the risk of repetitiveness, the Nagasari Tree Pearl (where's the tongue-in-cheek smilie?).

(Caitlin: You see?there is a purpose for everything!)

Seriously, isn't it interesting?

Steve
Seattle
 

Attachments

  • Nagasari.jpg
    Nagasari.jpg
    51.3 KB · Views: 75
Caitlin Williams said:
I just had to post this.:p

A fitting "home for our "brain". :D

They are are asking 98million dollars:eek:

Those are real diamonds the one in the forehead alone is valued at 8 million
THis is from Caitlins post #61. Just an update. I saw on CNN last week this thing sold for $100 million. lol I morbidly want to know who the owner is.
 
LOl...well you never know who bought it. MAybe the brain's owners found this forum and thought "What a great idea.."
 
Caitlin, Knotty and Jeremy-

I have shamelessly spent most of my free time today devouring this thread! Any updates? Has anybody continued on researching the origins/claims/pure unrivaled silliness published? I am dying to know!!!

Every time I thought about adding something (worthiness of carbon dating which is not always accurate), Pearls being transferred from clam to clam, etc I realized I was about two months too late! :eek:

The Saga must continue! :D
 
I'll defer to Jeremy.:)
 
I say we get that article formatted and online as soon as I get back... Now seems like as good a time as any. If someone really did pay $100 million for it they will not be too happy to read it, that is for sure.
 
Oh no, Jeremy, you're confusing two ugly over-priced things. The $100M price tag went to the diamond-studded skull. There's a real skull under that thing. Is that creepy or what!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20517869/
 
I think it was just used as a model. The skull was not actually part of the piece the way the article was written.
 
Raisondetre said:
I think it was just used as a model. The skull was not actually part of the piece the way the article was written.


No, the skull was shown on CNN as having gone for 100 million. The diamonds weren't disassembled. That is why I referred people to post 61. I was surprised to see it pop up again on tv after seeing it here months ago. Just goes to show people will buy anything.
 
I think Raisondetre is right and I read it wrong. I thought it was platinum-clad! But Salem's right too. It was cast from a real skull. Still creepy!
 
Back
Top