The Importance of Provenance and Terminology

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

Over the past few years, I've been noticing a rising trend that has given me cause for concern. A movement away from certification, full disclosure and expert opinions while leaning toward appearances and incomplete data.

Many of us understand the gap in common knowledge with respect to the differences between cultured and natural pearls. Separating the two has been an uphill battle for collectors and sellers worldwide. Despite the best efforts of dealers and retailers, this disparity has given rise to other elements of questionable practices. Before I comment, I will list points in history that have been dispelled or changing.

The term natural when applied to pearls means:

1. Present in or produced by nature.
2. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature.
3. Not produced or changed artificially. Not conditioned or reared by enhancement.
4. Characterization by spontaneity.
5. Not altered, treated, or disguised.

With respect to pearling, these terms are summarized to mean "without human intervention, by any means".

In history, traditionally harvested pearls were never called "natural" pearls, because all pearls were gathered from wild stocks. This practice led to the depletion or interruption and loss of recruitment among many species throughout the planet, particularly the tropics.

For many years, natural was to mean not factory made from other substances atypical to mollusk biology and mineralization, even though shells are commonly used. I'm certain Mr. Mikimoto did not deliberately intend to overshadow harvesting pearls from the wild by applying the term natural to his product. I trust his intention was to describe pearls reared by mollusks within a water column, as opposed to pearls created by factories, (ie) Majorca or carved shells.

Subsequent to this, the term natural has be confounded in several ways.

1. Pearls created by any mollusk, not faux.
2. Unaltered coloration.
3. The absence of post harvest treatment.

The term "cultured" was introduced to separate water reared from hand or machine created beads. Although vastly different in source, both are artificial in origin.

Despite being cultured, the term "natural color" is acceptable. Farmers can control the incidence of certain colors by donor selection, but generally have little or no control whether that color actually pans out. Some farmers have attempted the use of dyes or elementals to enhance or pronounce colors, but these experiments are rarely viable or desirable. Recently, there has been some evidence where thermal elevation of living animals can enhance, deepen or darken colors, but this is not necessarily a target insomuch as a side effect of accelerated growth techniques.

It is also acceptable to use the term "natural" to describe the absence of post harvest treatments. "Maeshori" is the term used to describe pearls that have been chemically altered, bleached, polished or otherwise modified after harvest, as to make the product more presentable in cleanliness and uniformity. Treatments such as salt slurry or mineral oil are recommended practices for cleaning and preserving pearls and thus may be considered as natural when applied to both natural or cultured pearls. That said, these latter treatments do not take away from natural pearl's origin nor does it intend to imply a cultured pearl becomes natural.

Recently, in increasing amounts I am seeing a lot of so-called natural pearls which are questionable in origin. These can be broken down into several categories.

This brings us to a third and very important list of concerns.

1. Fraudulent schemes.
2. Misrepresented descriptions.
3. Illegal or unsustainable harvesting.

All to often, we see outrageous and downright fraud from harvesters, dealers and retailers. The motivation to add value by unscrupulous groups or individuals has overshadowed ethical retailers of all pearls. The market is rife with underhandedness in an unchecked and widespread manner. Many inferior or otherwise rejected pearls find their way back into the marketplace as natural. Good quality pearls are dyed, coated or otherwise enhanced to appear similar to higher quality pearls.

prov?e?nance /ˈpr?vənəns/ noun

The place of origin or earliest known history of something.

Knowingly or unknowingly, there is little substitute for provenance. I've said it hundreds of times before and continue to uphold that unless you harvested a pearl yourself or source from licensed and reputable collectors, you have no certainty as to a pearl's origin, nor the manner in which it was harvested.

Many so-called natural pearls are incidental to aquaculture. Although many are spontaneous in onset, they are borne and reared in captivity. Most farmers are quite adept in identifying these by-products. They appear in areas of the mollusk where they don't apply their technology, namely the mantles. They are often small or malformed and have discernible features which can adequately describe them. No farmer worth their salt would dare risk a reputation or market share by wholesale of a few questionable objects. Even if farmers were to market into the gray area of "incidental pearls" there is always the risk that unscrupulous marketers will overlook or deliberately disguise this classification and rebrand them as natural.

This is where lab certification can be exploited for misrepresentation. At best, labs can affirm species and onset, but fall short of recognizing harvest techniques. There are no chemical or x-radiographic tests for harvesting methods or legality. Any person, at any time, for any reason can take an illegal or incidental pearl to a lab and have it deemed natural in origin. A certificate, cannot and must not stand alone as provenance. It can only be considered as a single point to support the overview as to whether a pearl is natural or aquacultural.

There a variety of natural pearl collectors in the world.

1. Traditional harvesters.
2. Source buyers.
3. Non-regional collectors.
4. Recreational harvesting.

Whether incidental to food gathering, traditional fishing or manufacture of other targeted objects. Examples would be mother-of-pearl, scientific studies etc. In nearly every case, the harvester would advertise for sale a single (or few) pearls. This can aide one to assume the source is genuine.

Sourced buyers are generally collectors who personally know their clients, purchasing their landed catches of other species at the source. Food grade scallops and oysters are good examples. During processing, natural pearls can be found, collected and resold. In these cases, the collector will normally have more than just one specimen even though some other pearls have unique characteristics. All the same, that person is able to identify their source although they may not necessarily divulge the individual nor the location for reasons of conservation.

Though not in every situation, this aspect gives rise to a dark side of natural pearling methods. Illegal or unsustainable methods, otherwise known as poaching. Under-utilized mass slaughter for the singular target of pearls should not be condoned, overlooked or disguised. The well being of animals is paramount to ethics, ecology, sustainability and the law. Trade in unauthorized endangered (or not) animal parts continues to be a problem in today's marketplace. Elephant ivory, rhino horns, sea coral, eagle talons, whale teeth, bear gall bladders are all examples better known to us.

CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) has done well to prevent the unlawful harvest and trade in many species, but the regulations and permits required from trade in natural pearls are often overlooked or ignored. It's also inadequate to safeguard other species from becoming endangered or extinct.

Non-regional collectors are often speculators with little or no scientific background or absent of credible sources.

The regulations concerning recreational and sport harvesting vary from country to country, but in most cases stipulate that no animals may be harassed, molested or sacrificed for anything other than food resources for domestic, non-commercial purposes. These laws usually include the rider, that in whole or in part, animals may not be bartered, traded or resold for commercial value. To Mexico's credit and like many other countries, it's even illegal for non-residents to retain sea shells from the beaches. Not necessarily because the animals are killed, but to dispel the appearance of illegality and to proactively snub the consideration of it.

At this point in time, I feel the need to broadly admonish anyone in this position. We have come a long way to bring both ethical and unethical practices to the forefront, but my heart-of-hearts tells me the latter aspects of this discussion are woefully inadequate. I cannot overstate that trading, buying or selling pearls from unknown sources, whether right or wrong invariably leads to a dark place. We need to get past the concept of treasure hunting, solely for the sake of economics or vanity. Our reputations in conservation, pearling industries and environment must never take a back seat to indifference.

This does not mean I'm unwilling to contribute or aide in natural pearl identification and education. In fact, I'm strengthened by it. I'm proud to be a go-to person among many esteemed colleagues and greatly encourage anyone to submit specimens for discussion and overview at any time. My opinion may be overwhelming or naively misleading from time to time, but in general, it's meant to support or disprove a multitude of points about natural pearl occurrences. I cannot possibly be correct in every instance insomuch as to detail my concerns on each of these points.

I welcome your comments and criticisms of this post.

 

[kiwipaul]

Hi Dave, there is much food for thought in your comments above, clearly set out and well reasoned.

I can see no solution to the flood of mis-represented, or poor quality pearls pouring out of (mainly) China.
If production continues to ramp up in FW and Chinese Akoya production this flood will only increase.
In the effort to market the rubbishy end of this glut some items will no doubt be passed off as naturals.

eBay and other retail sites seem to have no interest in enforcing consumer protection or requiring correct descriptions.
They don't even have any enforcement to prevent listing new items in antique categories.

This is where Pearl-Guide and experts like your good self can at least provide resources for those sufficiently motivated to research what they are considering buying.
My personal opinion is that the limited number of buyers looking for true naturals will be reasonably discriminating because of their high cost.

However you also raise the issue of illegal harvesting of naturals, ie poaching.
May I ask how prevalent this is? I thought natural pearl harvesting had virtually ended?
Can you clarify what is legal, and what is illegal under CITES re natural pearl harvesting?

A couple of examples familiar to forum members spring to mind, maybe you can clarify these?
First is the people of Tongareva who pull a few sacks of poe pipis up off their reef and shuck them looking for pipi pearls, which are often sold through the tourist industry.
Second is the guy who roams the Pacific regions around French Polynesia searching for exotic naturals and sells them fairly publicly and widely via various sources.

Finally I'd like to point out a couple of the extremely difficult paradoxes around CITES.
While the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora restricts trade in species and their by-products,
the biggest killer of species is not poaching, but industrialization and global warming.

We, the human race, are killing off species at an alarming rate, without raising an elephant gun, or dropping a drag net.

Secondly the arguments for CITES are now being challenged by the horrible Catch 22 that says the more you try and protect, the greater the rarity becomes, providing a greater incentive to poach.

This was argued very recently in Forbes Magazine and also published here under the title: When You Ban the Sale of Ivory, You Ban Elephants
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/when-you-ban-sale-ivory-you-ban-elephants

 

[pearlescence]

All great points Dave and Kiwipaul.
However I do think one of the biggest problems is language. If we could use the terms wild and farmed everything would be considerably clearer. Natural and cultured are understood within the pearl business mostly (though I suspect that some mistranslations re natural/cultured occur , you can usually tell from context whether it is an attempt to deceive or bad translation) but in the wider world I've often heard cultured to mean expensive rather than all farmed (- presumably these are the pearls you wear to the gallery opening or the first night at the opera?)
Even the recent V and A exhibition mostly ignored freshwater in favour of wild gulf pearls (presumably because they were paying)
On a practical level, when most customers don't know that white 'cultured' ie freshwater pearls are bleached or that Majorica pearls come from an industrial process (even when they have bought them after a tour of the factory!) then the niceties are the least of the sector's worries. But The Powers That Be could do a lot to help by dropping natural and cultured and switching to wild and farmed. And never using faux when you mean fake or imitation.
Spades should be spades, not digging implements.

 

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

However you also raise the issue of illegal harvesting of naturals, ie poaching. May I ask how prevalent this is? I thought natural pearl harvesting had virtually ended? Can you clarify what is legal, and what is illegal under CITES re natural pearl harvesting?

What is legal to harvest in one country, may be illegal to import into another. It's not just pearls. It's foodstuffs, narcotics, etc. as well. Some countries, like Haiti for example do not comply or acknowledge CITES, claiming starvation and meager workforces take precedent over international bans. Queen Conch (Strombus gigas) fall into this category. You can buy the shells, meat and pearls without hassle in many places, but when you return home to a country complying with CITES, you'll face heavy fines or even imprisonment for repeated offences.

All pearls from Queen Conch MUST have an accompanying certificate verifying it has been harvested in a sustainable manner. For all of the pearls I've seen from this species, I've yet to see a single certificate. If anyone reading this is in possession of one, please post it. I'd like to see and read it. I also see (and have been offered) a considerable number of pearls from Giant Clams Tridacna gigas. No one of these offers or advertisements ever mentioned certification from CITES.

Without long winded explanations of the regulations, here's a summary by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Importing & Exporting Shellfish & Fishery Products Importing pearls is explained.

Besides this, there are several species at risk not listed by CITES. Even those not necessarily at risk or slip through legal cracks, the wholesale slaughter for pearls is not entirely ethical either.

Are pearls exempt from Service import/export requirements?
Yes. Pearls are exempt from Service requirements unless they come from or are cultivated using
any piece or part of a shellfish protected under CITES or listed as endangered or threatened.

A couple of examples familiar to forum members spring to mind, maybe you can clarify these?
First is the people of Tongareva who pull a few sacks of poe pipis up off their reef and shuck them looking for pipi pearls, which are often sold through the tourist industry.
Second is the guy who roams the Pacific regions around French Polynesia searching for exotic naturals and sells them fairly publicly and widely via various sources.

Pearls from Poe pipi (Pinctata maculata) are not listed under CITES. To my knowledge, they are considered among nuisance species in Tahiti and likely other areas of the South Pacific. I'm not well-versed in the specific regulations for nationals when it comes to poe pipi, but I do know there are rules for commercial diving operations. Natives and locals are permitted (many who breath-hold dive), but I doubt non-residents or foreigners are allowed to set up commercial operations at will, without regulations, licenses and fees, if at all.

Most countries, especially those where pearl farming is an asset to the economy, strict quotas, defined harvest areas, and seasonal closures are imposed. Landed stocks must be accurately accounted and reported.

It's difficult to be specific about the laws in different countries without considerable research, but it is safe to assume the greater number have similar laws.

Again, I have seen but a few advertisements with the term "licensed" or "validated" associated with pearls offered for sale, from even these countries. It's very apparent to me, especially with the history of natural pearling tainted and subsequently imposed regulations, it would be a calling card in marketing to clearly specify without apprehension, that harvesting takes place in a legal, sustainable manner.

Finally I'd like to point out a couple of the extremely difficult paradoxes around CITES. While the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora restricts trade in species and their by-products, the biggest killer of species is not poaching, but industrialization and global warming.

We, the human race, are killing off species at an alarming rate, without raising an elephant gun, or dropping a drag net.

A valid argument, albeit a controversial one. Industrialization and pollution for sure, global warming perhaps, although it's my opinion that "climate change" is a more appropriate term. I've seen many human caused changes over the years, but there is also considerable evidence that the planet has been undergoing major changes in weather and environment for millennia. Even if climate change was entirely man made, it would be inappropriate to lay the indiscriminate decimation of a species for the purposes of economy or vanity at it's feet.

Sustainability has never been better understood than it is today, in spite of our history and continuing bad practices. We still have a long way to go to get there and unless we act now, we risk losing some things forever.

Secondly the arguments for CITES are now being challenged by the horrible Catch 22 that says the more you try and protect, the greater the rarity becomes, providing a greater incentive to poach.

Unfortunately you are correct as this applies to many other things under prohibition. However, I don't see the trade in banned animal parts as fashionable or desirable. Pearls are a luxury and a vanity item to most consumers. Fur is a good example, where even legally harvested pelts are considered a "blood" product. For years, it was highly fashionable, even necessary. Many consumers were indifferent to the plight of animals caught by leg-hold traps, crowded pens or baby seals. To be completely honest and objective in this part of the discussion, I have a negative opinion of animal conservation merely for the sake of cute in appearance, especially in light of other fact issues. Being both a Canadian traditionalist and an ecologist, I am not opposed to culling animals for the greater good. That said, we must not be cruel, inhumane or annihilate every last one. We as a civil society are able to draw lines of legality and morality.

My post today, is one of those lines.

 

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

If we could use the terms wild and farmed everything would be considerably clearer.

Those terms work well for fish. However, most fish are caught or reared by licensed operations, not as individuals in absence or contravention of laws. As mentioned earlier, there is a gray area where farm reared pearls are rebranded as natural, merely by appearance.

 

[GemGeek]

Thanks, Dave. This very subject has been weighing on my mind. Ultimately, one can't sight-ID pearls with absolute certainty, but can have fun trying. And nothing trumps provenance.

 

[Orient]

Over the past few years, I've been noticing a rising trend that has given me cause for concern. A movement away from certification, full disclosure and expert opinions while leaning toward appearances and incomplete data.

Many of us understand the gap in common knowledge with respect to the differences between cultured and natural pearls. Separating the two has been an uphill battle for collectors and sellers worldwide. Despite the best efforts of dealers and retailers, this disparity has given rise to other elements of questionable practices. Before I comment, I will list points in history that have been dispelled or changing.

The term natural when applied to pearls means:

1. Present in or produced by nature.
2. Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature.
3. Not produced or changed artificially. Not conditioned or reared by enhancement.
4. Characterization by spontaneity.
5. Not altered, treated, or disguised.

With respect to pearling, these terms are summarized to mean "without human intervention, by any means".

In history, traditionally harvested pearls were never called "natural" pearls, because all pearls were gathered from wild stocks. This practice led to the depletion or interruption and loss of recruitment among many species throughout the planet, particularly the tropics.

Interesting discussion and this is IMO is the very basis of a major issue. What is "natural" and "how can you prove it?".

What would forum members call pearls from these scenariois:

1) A completely wild shell mollusk?
2) A completley wild mollusk but one that was moved somewhere like a holding area and then opened one day?
3) A wild shell that was operated on but in which a natural pearl was originally forming before the operation and subsequently produced a bead cultured pearl from the gonad?
3) A hatchery shell with NO human intervention and NO operation?
4) A hatchery shell from which a bead cultured pearl was removed but the pearl in question was removed from the mantle where no operation took place?

Then we come to the tricky question of identification. Even if anyone knew (how[?], unless involved in the finding of the wild shell or operations of a farm) that a particular pearl came from any of the above how would it be separated from a truly natural wild shell produced in #1 (possibly #2 too)?

I think getting people in the trade and labs, to name two parties heavily involved in this side of the debate, will never completely agree! Let's see how many here agree with each other on what would be considered "natural" or "cultured" from the above!

 

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

What would forum members call pearls from these scenariois:

1) A completely wild shell mollusk?
2) A completley wild mollusk but one that was moved somewhere like a holding area and then opened one day?
3) A wild shell that was operated on but in which a natural pearl was originally forming before the operation and subsequently produced a bead cultured pearl from the gonad?
3) A hatchery shell with NO human intervention and NO operation?
4) A hatchery shell from which a bead cultured pearl was removed but the pearl in question was removed from the mantle where no operation took place?

Then we come to the tricky question of identification. Even if anyone knew (how[?], unless involved in the finding of the wild shell or operations of a farm) that a particular pearl came from any of the above how would it be separated from a truly natural wild shell produced in #1 (possibly #2 too)?

I think getting people in the trade and labs, to name two parties heavily involved in this side of the debate, will never completely agree! Let's see how many here agree with each other on what would be considered "natural" or "cultured" from the above!

1- Natural recruitment wild stock. Natural.
2- Relayed wild stock. Enhanced.
3- Relayed wild stock. Incidental.
4- Hatchery reared stock. Cultured.
5- Hatchery reared stock. Enhanced.

Although slight, the only possible exception is in #2, where natural pearls are known to be more mature than the relay event itself. In some scenarios, it's is possible that some pearls may have already formed spontaneously. However, relaying often means physically removing stocks from naturally occurring perils, predators and changing food sources. Likewise, handling mollusks en mass can cause shell fractures, chips and reintroduction to other detrimental organisms.

These are excellent questions. There can be no comparison to natural pearls harvested under strict guidelines. In the pearl industry, we've learned long a go to never take anyone at their word unless they have a known reputation and methodology.

Of the Pterioda species, upwards of 90% of purported natural pearls fall into categories 2 to 5 and are not truly natural, but often become rebranded as such long after the fact. There is no possible way a single lab test or highly trained eye can determine what is natural merely by examination. Unless the harvester produces a license, date, location and species of harvest, it's origin will always be questionable. Lab testing must only be considered for the purposes of eliminating aquacultural nucleation, supporting natural origin. Points 2 to 5 allude the two are not mutually exclusive.

Any natural pearl presented to market without supporting documentation has only 10% the value of certified naturals. Most are harvested illegally, non-sustainably or from misrepresented sources.

It's been claimed here before, that many buyers don't care about provenance. To that end, I disagree. Sure, there will always be those with more money than ethics, but they are buying bragging rights, not necessarily a genuine product. For the most part though, those seeking a genuine natural pearl truly want a natural pearl for what it symbolizes. Purity, spontaneity, rarity etc. Motivated buyers will always be targeted by charlatans, fraudsters or just plain ignorance presented as fact.

 

[jshepherd]

Of the Pterioda species, upwards of 90% of purported natural pearls fall into categories 2 to 5 and are not truly natural, but often become rebranded as such long after the fact. There is no possible way a single lab test or highly trained eye can determine what is natural merely by examination. Unless the harvester produces a license, date, location and species of harvest, it's origin will always be questionable. Lab testing must only be considered for the purposes of eliminating aquacultural nucleation, supporting natural origin. Points 2 to 5 allude the two are not mutually exclusive.
Any natural pearl presented to market without supporting documentation has only 10% the value of certified naturals. Most are harvested illegally, non-sustainably or from misrepresented sources.

If the second assertion is true, how can the first be accurate and not conjecture?

What are your thoughts on this - http://www.thepearlcollector.com/30-45ct-parcel-of-natural-purple-pearls/

 

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

The first assertion is conjecture, but mathematically calculated based upon four of the five points supporting cultural origin, hence roughly 80%. Of the remaining 20% other factors may or may not be of concern. As such, I've halved the percentage to separate one from the other. While somewhat generalized, I didn't pull the number from thin air and it's not without a margin of error. These numbers do not necessarily apply to other species not targeted by aquaculture. Conch, scallops, clams etc. although subspecies of each are listed as endangered under CITES. Those percentages are considerably lower, they are because of different rationale. We often see threads where someone found a pearl in an edible oyster. Even though the pearl was unintentional nor anticipated, chances are it came from an aquacultural setting and gem quality aside, cannot be deemed natural solely by rarity or non-intervention.

This is why most farmers destroy inferior grades, voluntarily. In Tahiti, by law. I'm sure there is a lot of chagrin, when otherwise should-have-been-destroyed pearls become rebranded as something entirely different, then comes back to haunt the farmer in one way or another.


On the purple pearls. First of all, we know that pearl culture from mytilids is very limited and this type of product is unavailable from most aquacultural sources. Secondly, this form of pearl is known to occur naturally, often in great numbers, even from single specimens. By virtue of those two points, we know they are likely natural, but what we don't know is whether they were harvested under permit from approved or designated areas. In most countries, barter, selling or trade in recreational or traditional food harvesting whether in whole or in part is not permitted. Technically, even gathering sea shells from the beach is not permitted for commercial purposes. While nobody objects to buying or selling a piece of art deco or a mantle piece, we also agree they are not highly valuable or endangered items, hence somewhat tolerable. When we discuss black coral or giant clam shells however, those lines get crossed and natural pearls ought to come under the same scrutiny. To my knowledge, very few, if no marine mussels are considered threatened or endangered while many are considered invasive or nuisance. That situation is opposite in freshwater mussels, where most species have some level of threatened status. If indeed legitimate, $16-30/carat is a terrific buy on those lots.

Nowadays, fish or especially shellfish (for health reasons) landed to a processor and sold at market can be tracked to it's source, identifying the fisherman, the date and location of harvest and cite the legal authority to do so. We have been doing that for decades with other foodstuffs or manufactured products. Given our history of the near extinction of many pearl bearing species, it's not unreasonable to suggest that diligent tracking of any product's origin ought to be disclosed, especially with the expectation of value-add. Not necessarily by regulation but consumer awareness. I'm pretty sure, the average individual would not knowingly or willingly buy something poached, mass slaughtered or ecologically depleted, yet it happened for decades and centuries. Unless we shed that indifference, we will never get past these issues.

In the modern world, many natural pearls are supplied by shuckers. Fishing vessels and their crew, processing plants, and scientific studies are legal entities who operate with legitimacy and may retain for commercial sale any approved by-catch provided the catch is incidental, not targeted.

In my operation, I'm allowed to collect mussels for graft, donor or scientific purposes only. Natural pearls may be retained for commercial purposes if they fall into either category but not otherwise. Specimens not meeting this criteria must be unharmed and returned to the reef for continued recruitment purposes.

I make no bones about what I do. While I do have proprietary techniques and knowledge, my operation is basically an open book. I see no reason why any other natural pearl harvesters or dealers cannot display even a moderate level of legitimacy in their operations. In other types of operations, it serves little or no point to grow things organically or by fair trade practices if you don't make these policies known to consumers. Some may hide behind a guise of conservation which is important, but not necessarily as an immediate factor in each case.

To me, there is a meaningful purpose to accurate recording and documentation. I can account for every pearl with a serial number by date, species, description, location and even cause (in many cases). I designed this system to rise above the threat of fraud or misrepresentation by scams or fake artists. A forger would have to replicate every pearl to the exact specifications detailed in my database to even begin to pull the wool over someone's eyes.

So although I've said it a thousand times before, I'll say it again... unless you know for certain where your pearls come from, you'll never know for sure after the fact.

 

[jshepherd]

The first assertion is conjecture, but mathematically calculated based upon four of the five points supporting cultural origin, hence roughly 80%. Of the remaining 20% other factors may or may not be of concern. As such, I've halved the percentage to separate one from the other. While somewhat generalized, I didn't pull the number from thin air and it's not without a margin of error. These numbers do not necessarily apply to other species not targeted by aquaculture. Conch, scallops, clams etc. although subspecies of each are listed as endangered under CITES. Those percentages are considerably lower, they are because of different rationale. We often see threads where someone found a pearl in an edible oyster. Even though the pearl was unintentional nor anticipated, chances are it came from an aquacultural setting and gem quality aside, cannot be deemed natural solely by rarity or non-intervention.

This is why most farmers destroy inferior grades, voluntarily. In Tahiti, by law. I'm sure there is a lot of chagrin, when otherwise should-have-been-destroyed pearls become rebranded as something entirely different, then comes back to haunt the farmer in one way or another.

I don't want to draw this out, but the math is again conjecture. In my experience, your estimations are far from reality, and I'd like to see evidence of the rebranding you're describing in any sort of commercial setting. Is it possible that it happens? Sure. But you're describing what amounts to a rule in lieu of an exception.

Nowadays, fish or especially shellfish (for health reasons) landed to a processor and sold at market can be tracked to it's source, identifying the fisherman, the date and location of harvest and cite the legal authority to do so. We have been doing that for decades with other foodstuffs or manufactured products. Given our history of the near extinction of many pearl bearing species, it's not unreasonable to suggest that diligent tracking of any product's origin ought to be disclosed, especially with the expectation of value-add. Not necessarily by regulation but consumer awareness. I'm pretty sure, the average individual would not knowingly or willingly buy something poached, mass slaughtered or ecologically depleted, yet it happened for decades and centuries. Unless we shed that indifference, we will never get past these issues.

In the modern world, many natural pearls are supplied by shuckers. Fishing vessels and their crew, processing plants, and scientific studies are legal entities who operate with legitimacy and may retain for commercial sale any approved by-catch provided the catch is incidental, not targeted.

You're describing the very reason it is so difficult to give true provenance to pearls that are not considered highly valuable. They are found and collected mainly by fisherman and shuckers and typically only conch are quickly resold.

Here is another one. Does this fit the 80%?

http://www.thepearlcollector.com/15-3-4-in-natural-oyster-pearl-strand-2-3-5mm-19-85-ct/

If not, can you post a link to something that does?

 

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

I'd like to see evidence of the rebranding you're describing in any sort of commercial setting. Is it possible that it happens? Sure. But you're describing what amounts to a rule in lieu of an exception.

We are talking about different things. First, there is not much of a commercial market in exclusively natural pearls and generally most of those involved can be taken at face value. They are already deemed natural so there is nothing to be rebranded. I'm not suggesting that farmers or their distributors are doing this intentionally, when the opposite is true, as I mentioned earlier most farmers voluntarily destroy inferior pearls to avoid the issue entirely.

My issue is one where once pearls change hands, they are rebranded as natural without provenance or any evidence other than... they look natural and someone is willing to pay for it. Had a look at eBay lately? It's a cesspool for exactly my point. Most are misrepresented, some fraudulent, many are just downright ignorant. The ability to find a pig-in-a-poke or a rare treasure at little cost are instances in the absolute minority of cases. Caveat emptor always applies when dealing with anyone other than reliable sources.

It's my opinion even the most accredited gem labs offer a subjective report to objective data. Even with modern DNA and trace element detectability there is no chemical test or light spectrum analysis to determine whether a pinctada pearl is natural or cultured aside from the presence of shell bead nuclei or typical signs of grafted tissues. Only in a minority of cases, can a pearl be deemed natural with any certainty by x-radiographic signatures or electronic microscopy alone. It is also my opinion these labs need to modify their language to suggest a pinctada pearl does or does not present with cultural features and leave it at that.

Although I have become accustomed to seeing natural initiating events in many of my pearls, many of them present with no evidence whatsoever. Especially pearls formed by blood acid/base imbalances. That said, the absence of initiating event signature, may indicate natural origin. Parasitic pearls more often than not have extensive signatures through the pearl, not just the nucleus. Most farmers, scientists and pearl experts share the consensus that the greater part naturals are formed by parasites. More than half of my collection are initiated by parasites.

The greater percentage of purported natural pinctada pearls brought to me for examination whether in person, at the auction house or by photos online rarely present with typical natural features. In fact, most present with one or more cultured features in almost every instance, whether the bead is visible, or the graft tissue formed a bump, a tail or proteinaceous patch stimulated by juvenile growth near the surface. Of all the strands or pieces I've examined in all these years, I have only seen one strand that I was comfortable with deeming natural. It was a pretty strand of graduated Basra pearls and the person who brought it in actually had a certificate, but intentionally withheld it until I was done with my appraisal. They mentioned the reasoning for it was to test the certification itself and my approach to identification. I held the strand against a light table and described each visible nucleus. Although the pearls were well matched in size, color, shape and luster, the candled views of the nuclei were largely dissimilar. If that were a strand created from FWP's to appear like a premium natural strand, the nuclei would have similarities, even uniformities. I've seen dozens of strands of this type and although I could definitively say they were not bead nucleated, I found little or no evidence to suggest they were natural in origin either.

I will challenge anyone, at any time to look in my collection of more than four thousand pieces and pick just one that might be mistaken for a cultured saltwater pearl. You'd have to look long and hard and even if one does pick a pearl, I could easily debunk their opinion with a candled view or comparison with other pearls. My point being, a lot of natural pearls bear no resemblance to cultured pearls, whatsoever. 99% are 1-3 mm. A thousand can fit in a Kodak film container, but I'd doubt you'd get more than fifteen or twenty cultured pearls in the same container.

You're describing the very reason it is so difficult to give true provenance to pearls that are not considered highly valuable. They are found and collected mainly by fisherman and shuckers and typically only conch are quickly resold.

On occasion, we'll have a contributor at P-G come up with images of extraordinary lots of natural pearls. I recall a fellow Canadian who contributed often in many of the threads. She happened upon a lot of pearls from Digby scallops. They were a dragger/processor where the scallops were shucked aboard the ship, placed in gallon pails and sent directly to market. They were not a mom and pop operation, but a factory ship. There were hundreds of pearls in that lot, enough to compile a limited edition. It was obviously a lot of natural pearls that could be identified as such, merely by their appearance as a group, not as individuals. One other time, a contributor posted a collection of pearls that was identical to mine and we could easily conclude they were from mussels. We also had a gentleman from France, who holidays in Fr. Polynesia and gathers P. mac naturals. After an entire season, came up with little more than fifteen or twenty premium pieces. Most were tiny, yet colorful in ways dissimilar to P. max, P. marg. with deep blues and brilliant oranges. We also have people who occasionally post and sell terrific abalone pearls at reasonable prices. Those folks are farmers and make no overtures that their pearls are natural, even though no effort was made to induce them. They were reared in a cultural setting and that's the long and the short of it. The issue once again comes into question when those pearls become fashioned in jewelry then resold as naturals.

Along with those images came evidence of provenance, by known fishermen or divers and the general location and species were disclosed. Their expeditions or collections were supported by documentation, whether photographs, travelogues or licensing. Although it may be incomplete data by some standards, it's far cry better than bought on speculation from eBay or from unknown sources.

My point being, the only way to make an identification of natural pearls by mere eyesight, is to look upon several in the same lot. Single pearls or pearls affixed to other objects isn't doable at a glance. In those instances, we only have our best guesses.

Here is another one. Does this fit the 80%?

http://www.thepearlcollector.com/15-3-4-in-natural-oyster-pearl-strand-2-3-5mm-19-85-ct/

If not, can you post a link to something that does?

Alexander Marcelo is known to most of us. His reputation may stand as provenance. To my knowledge, I have no evidence that he's anything other than a responsible businessman. Even though I have no idea where he sources his products, nor his policies with respect to that. My impression is he buys pearls from sources all over the globe, but physically harvests little or none himself. Thus arises my issue. Unless he knows the harvesters personally, he's at the mercy of their explanations (or lack of same). I noticed a few things about his website that give me cause for concern. For example, not one mention of CITES certification for import/export of conch pearls. That's a very serious issue. That's not just my opinion, it's the law. Only cultured pearls from conch are acceptable for import into the USA and only when proven to be harvested sustainably. Important documentation, you'd think, right? Likewise not one mention of collecting from bonafide sources and in many cases, incomplete information. The strand you've linked makes no mention of the type of mollusk they were harvested from, nor the country of origin. Of mine and other's operations, it takes years, even decades to produce a single strand. Do you in your heart-of-hearts believe that decades of work would retail for a measly 500 bucks with zero mention of the collector's efforts? Most people are overjoyed and consider themselves lucky who find a single natural pearl, no less a full strand. *rubs chin*

Natural pearling must be treated in the same manner as archaeology or paleontology. Without proper identification and documentation, the greater part of the object's value is diminished once it's removed from it's location. For that reason alone, it makes no sense to ignore the harvest history of a pearl unless one is satisfied with selling something for a fraction of it's real value or overlooking points. A pearl + provenance = premium valuation. That's Business 101 and it doesn't get any simpler than that.

So to answer your question. Is this strand part of the 80%?, my answer is yes. For all I know and what they tell (or don't tell) me, that strand could have easily come from a bag of keshis and incidentals from any farm in the world, long before the arduous task of being harvested individually, selectively and legally as true naturals.

 

[jshepherd]

This is not a discussion I wanted to get into at the beginning of a buying week in Hong Kong.

We are talking about different things. First, there is not much of a commercial market in exclusively natural pearls and generally most of those involved can be taken at face value. They are already deemed natural so there is nothing to be rebranded. I'm not suggesting that farmers or their distributors are doing this intentionally, when the opposite is true, as I mentioned earlier most farmers voluntarily destroy inferior pearls to avoid the issue entirely.

That is not true. First, most farmers do not destroy inferior pearls and for those that do, it has nothing to do with those pearls being sold off as naturals. Nearly all of the destroyed pearls have beads anyway.

My issue is one where once pearls change hands, they are rebranded as natural without provenance or any evidence other than... they look natural and someone is willing to pay for it. Had a look at eBay lately? It's a cesspool for exactly my point. Most are misrepresented, some fraudulent, many are just downright ignorant. The ability to find a pig-in-a-poke or a rare treasure at little cost are instances in the absolute minority of cases. Caveat emptor always applies when dealing with anyone other than reliable sources.

Nearly all pearls (way more than 90%) are fraudulently represented on eBay. If you were using eBay as an example, 90% would still be far from reality. 99.9% would be a closer approximation.

Alexander Marcelo is known to most of us. His reputation may stand as provenance. To my knowledge, I have no evidence that he's anything other than a responsible businessman. Even though I have no idea where he sources his products, nor his policies with respect to that. My impression is he buys pearls from sources all over the globe, but physically harvests little or none himself. Thus arises my issue. Unless he knows the harvesters personally, he's at the mercy of their explanations (or lack of same). I noticed a few things about his website that give me cause for concern. For example, not one mention of CITES certification for import/export of conch pearls. That's a very serious issue. That's not just my opinion, it's the law. Only cultured pearls from conch are acceptable for import into the USA and only when proven to be harvested sustainably. Important documentation, you'd think, right? Likewise not one mention of collecting from bonafide sources and in many cases, incomplete information. The strand you've linked makes no mention of the type of mollusk they were harvested from, nor the country of origin. Of mine and other's operations, it takes years, even decades to produce a single strand. Do you in your heart-of-hearts believe that decades of work would retail for a measly 500 bucks with zero mention of the collector's efforts? Most people are overjoyed and consider themselves lucky who find a single natural pearl, no less a full strand. *rubs chin*

Alexander Marcelo is not the owner of that website. The owner is a close friend of mine who has shown me lots with hundreds of pearls purchased from fishermen all over Central and South America where no pearl farming takes place, who has gone diving in pearl beds himself with locals and brought up individual shells with multiple pearls. It does not necessarily take years to make a natural strand like that.

Natural pearling must be treated in the same manner as archaeology or paleontology. Without proper identification and documentation, the greater part of the object's value is diminished once it's removed from it's location. For that reason alone, it makes no sense to ignore the harvest history of a pearl unless one is satisfied with selling something for a fraction of it's real value or overlooking points. A pearl + provenance = premium valuation. That's Business 101 and it doesn't get any simpler than that.

This is a completely separate argument, but I have to disagree once again. Just as in the cultured pearl world, most of time, rarity and quality determine valuation and not provenance. In some circumstances, of course it does. But in the majority of circumstances it does not.

So to answer your question. Is this strand part of the 80%?, my answer is yes. For all I know and what they tell (or don't tell) me, that strand could have easily come from a bag of keshis and incidentals from any farm in the world, long before the arduous task of being harvested individually, selectively and legally as true naturals.

This is why I think your blanket statements, math and percentages are dangerous. This is not a keshi strand. You're wrong.

 

[GemGeek]

Dave, you give us important ideas to consider when we think about how natural pearls are sourced. I do think you are viewing the subject through a narrow filter. Jeremy is correct about the availability of pearls in South America. It's not uncommon to see hanks of multi-colored natural pearls from there. Example shown.

 

[Orient]

1- Natural recruitment wild stock. Natural.
2- Relayed wild stock. Enhanced.
3- Relayed wild stock. Incidental.
4- Hatchery reared stock. Cultured.
5- Hatchery reared stock. Enhanced.

Although slight, the only possible exception is in #2, where natural pearls are known to be more mature than the relay event itself. In some scenarios, it's is possible that some pearls may have already formed spontaneously. However, relaying often means physically removing stocks from naturally occurring perils, predators and changing food sources. Likewise, handling mollusks en mass can cause shell fractures, chips and reintroduction to other detrimental organisms.

These are excellent questions. There can be no comparison to natural pearls harvested under strict guidelines. In the pearl industry, we've learned long a go to never take anyone at their word unless they have a known reputation and methodology.

I thought differences of opinion would arise and it shows that at least two people who responded would not agree with the above. What is "enhanced"? They are either cultured or natural surely? It is bad enough separating some keshi from some natural so having another "enhanced" ID is just complicating matters. As I said earlier even if definitions are agreed upon in theory identifying such pearls from each scenario is another matter altogether. There is bound to be overlap so some common ground on identification needs to be found. It appears from your text that you feel comfortable identifying pearls by sight & experience. Even with high tech RTX and CT imaging this is often not possible so your claims and confidence are quite a surprise to be honest. Candling was only ever useful (to clearly identify pearls) in cases of thin nacred akoya or possibly even very thin reject quality nacred maximas, and it is never scientifically used on distinguishing Keshi from naturals or vice versa as far as I am aware. It may be an interesting exercise with naturals but it cannot be used to prove anything IMO.

Probably the wrong time to discuss this lengthy matter when HK is upon most of us as Jeremy states.

 

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

This is why I think your blanket statements, math and percentages are dangerous. This is not a keshi strand. You're wrong.

You asked my opinion on that strand. I looked at the strand, read all the available data and gave my opinion. I did not say for certain it was a keshi strand, just ("for all I know") it could be. I went as far to ask if you actually believed it to be natural, for which you responded. Your quote took my response out of context.

I can be wrong all day long on any matter, but this just proved my point on the issue. P.r.o.v.e.n.a.n.c.e I cannot glean from data not presented. Bad data in, bad data out.

That was an unfair test. Besides that, I refuse to be pitted against someone I have no quarrel with. It does nothing to address the skullduggery going on elsewhere.

Dangerous?

 

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

What is "enhanced"? They are either cultured or natural surely? It is bad enough separating some keshi from some natural so having another "enhanced" ID is just complicating matters. As I said earlier even if definitions are agreed upon in theory identifying such pearls from each scenario is another matter altogether.

Enhancement is meant to describe some intervention with wild stocks, but in the absence of directly inducing a pearl. Releasing hatchery fish to open seas is enhancement. To me, relaying shell stock from one location to another is aquaculture. Some would argue that a four year old pearl found in a shell relayed a year or two ago... or even older than the graft would technically be natural. I run into this problem almost every day at the Lagoon Island grow out site. I keep them separate because I cannot objectivity consider them natural. The few I get there not worth risking the greater harvest of true naturals from the outer reefs.

Candling was only ever useful (to clearly identify pearls) in cases of thin nacred akoya or possibly even very thin reject quality nacred maximas, and it is never scientifically used on distinguishing Keshi from naturals or vice versa as far as I am aware. It may be an interesting exercise with naturals but it cannot be used to prove anything IMO.

I agree, it's only meant to add or subtract one, two maybe three points when making an overall determination. It's better than not doing it at all. I posted threads on candling and color palettes, not to be a go-to guy, but as a teaching aide so others may learn and make their own observations.

 

[jshepherd]

I refuse to be pitted against someone I have no quarrel with. It does nothing to address the skullduggery going on elsewhere.

But you started this thread. You've made some very pointed statements and claims that I know are inaccurate. This is a public forum but it is also Pearl-Guide, which is an authoritative site and a permanent online record. In my opinion, leaving the posts above without debate goes against the mission and purpose of this community.

I will respect your decision not to continue this debate but I would like to know something. You've mentioned this Mr. Marcelo more than once, that you know him and that invoking his name could stand for provenance. Given your strong opinion on the importance of provenance, how do you know Mr. Marcelo? Have you met him or spoken to him?

As luck would have it, I had a great conversation with the pearler of The Pearl Collector yesterday here at the Hong Kong show.

 

[Caitlin]

I just want to say that I have no idea who Alexander Marcelo is. However, I just LOVE, LOVE, LOVE!!!! his website!!! This is a guy who knows pearls! Not only that, he has a realistic idea of what they are worth to the public that finds his website. His prices are realistic. All I can say is this guy knows his pearls- just take a look at the site closely. This is the natural pearl website I have been wanting to see. Please, everyone, go over there and come back and say what you think!

I don't know Marcelo, But I do know several abalone pearl hunters who go out to where the natives are and buy pearls. We have a member who does this along the gulf of California. He has shown us many varieties of pearls, though he mostly finds abalone. I know at least two -three other abalone pearl hunters who have posted here.

Dave is the only scientist I know who is collecting those northern pearls, but he is just one of the people I am aware of in various parts of the world, who collects natural pearls.That is exactly what Dr Tom did/does around Sulu, where he has special permission to collect pearls for the local govt.The ones he buys are usually out of local family collections. There is our intrepid poe pipi gatherer whose fabulous photos grace our pages. There are the Rankins who collect a lot of naturals besides abalone and don't pay for certs. We also have a natural pearl guy here, jnorris, whose opinion I respect more than anyone else I can think of. I have been looking at his pearls and following his opinions, for years and always look for him at the Tucson Gem show.

It is impossible to collect and keep provenance on natural pearls already collected, which is the vast majority of the world's natural pearls - Old natural pearls. There are not many people going after new natural pearls but the ones I do know - are so far past getting certification for every pearl they ferret out -or is brought to them- Tom did that for a couple of seasons but he has joined jnorris and other old time collectors in using his word as the basis of the certification. First, they do know their naturals and second, if they should goof up, they stand behind their word, but I venture to say it has been a long time since jnorris saw a cultured pearl he thought was natural.

I see Dave being the change he wants to see, amongst scientifically newly-found naturals, but it will be a long time before the age old art and craft of pearl hunting among locals is a transparent process. There never was a pearl hunter, in my estimation, that would ever consider telling anyone where he got his pearls!!!!
So kudos for Dave's idealism, but his wishes are windmills as far as provenance goes. All any person has is his/her own knowledge of pearls, plus trust in the source. That is why I will continue to play the game of, "Guess if these pearls are natural" I learn a bit every time I guess wrong!

 

[Caitlin]

I just had to come back and add that that necklace is wonderful and I also love this ring. And also, I signed up for his newsletter.