Use of the term "Pearl Plated Beads"

[Pearls_by_Angela_Carol]

There has been a term floating around the forum that should be addressed. Since this is a forum that is intended to educate the consumer it is important to be accurate and not create terms based on personal bias that have inaccurate connotations. The term "pearl plated beads" is misleading and while maybe technically accurate, is a misrepresentation of cultured pearls.

Since we all know that perception leads to what most people view as fact, this needs to be addressed. The use of the term "pearl plated bead" brings an image of a hollow sphere of some material (glass, plastic, resin...) being "plated" by a material that is totally different than the base. The comparison was made to 14K gold plated jewelry. That is extremely inaccurate, as the gold is layered on artificially by man onto some type of base metal that is generally hollow.

The term "nacre" is used to define both the substance that is layered inside the shell of mollusks as well as the secretions that are layered on top of some "irritant" to form a pearl (natural or cultured). The composition of both pearls and "mother-of-pearl" is the same. It is calcium carbonate crystals composed of aragonite and conchiolin joined by different elastic biopolymers (giving it its strength).

Cultured pearls are started with a nucleus that is cut from mother-of-pearl mainly from mussels found in the Mississippi River Delta. This is the same material that was used through the early 1900's and up until World War II to make pearl buttons. This mother-of-pearl bead (or solid nacre bead) is then layered with the nacre produced by host.

So technically cultured pearls such as Akoya are 100% nacre, just not from the same host and the nacre of the bead nuclei is in a different orientation than the nacre covering it.

The aragonite crystals in the mother-of-pearl bead are arranged in parallel layers (because of cutting the bead from the shell) and the nacre that is layered on top of that to form the pearl is deposited in a concentric-radial fashion.

"Pearl Plated Beads" should actually refer to "fake" or imitation pearls where nacre is ground (and may be combined with fish scales) and then artificially layered on top of a plastic or glass bead.

It should also be noted that the only pearls on the market today that are not mother-of-pearl nucleated are Freshwater pearls. However, the overabundance of medium and low quality makes the average cultured freshwater strand much less desirable than their mother-of-pearl nucleated counterparts.

Calling mother-of-pearl nucleated pearls 'pearl plated beads', I feel is an insult to the Akoya, Tahitian, and South Sea pearl industry. Pearl for pearl each (Akoya, Tahitian and South Sea) is much, much more valuable than tissue nucleated freshwater, and on average, aesthetically more pleasing. After all, isn't that not most important? Yes, Akoya typically have the thinnest nacre, but they are also the smallest on average and nacre deposits much more slowly.

Cultured pearls have been accepted now for nearly 100 years by every country (other than Bahrain) and the industry as a whole. Can any of you honestly say that unless you are comparing freshwaters of the 1 in a million quality, like the "Hanadama quality" Freshwater pearls now carried by Jeremy Shepherd from Pearl Paradise, that customers would choose them over a nice South Sea strand or a brilliant Akoya?

It has been mentioned that 300 million emperors can be wrong, but if they all lean one direction there must be a reason. Mother-of-pearl nucleated pearls almost always look better, show better, and are more valuable than their mantle-tissue nucleated counterparts. This is why they are still greatly favored overall.

 

[jshepherd]

You definitely do have a point, and I agree with you that most consumers do prefer Akoya pearls over freshwater. The tide has begun to shift in favor of high-end freshwaters (unthinkable 10 years ago), but most consumers do prefer the perfect round Akoya with the bright, intense luster. Aesthetically it is really hard to beat a find cultured Akoya strand.
I do agree with you, this is why you would never hear me use the term 'pearl plated bead'. Then again, I am in the pearl business, and I firmly believe our Akoya are some of the best in the world - as are our Tahitian pearls - which are mother-of-pearl nucleated as well. Our customers are looking for the piece that looks best. The purist view, which is what I assume you are alluding to, wants the purest possible pearl - in today's cultured market, that would be the freshwater. But this is definitely not to say that freshwater pearls are right for everyone. There is still a strong market for cultured Akoya, Tahitian, and South Sea - and it is growing dramatically for the latter two.

 

[Zeide Erskine]

The empire strikes back

The empire strikes back

Hi Stephen,

Calling akoyas 100% nacre is about stretching it as far as the concept goes. Fortunately I am not a dealer and sitting on a large akoya inventory, so I can afford to be reasonable. I still think it is by far the greater deception to badmouth actual cultured pearls (i.e. Chinese freshwater cultured) and hype overprocessed akoyas. Not to mention that non-nacreous nuclei are spreading and will soon become the standard the more American environmental terrorist pollute their streams and rivers so that the mussels that traditionally provided nuclei for the pearl plating industry are dying out at an escalating pace. Your little Critique of Pure Marketing did not strike me as convincing. If you make a go cart out of scrap metal from a Jaguar, put a new coat of original Jaguar paint on it and glue a silver spray-painted dead cat on the hood, this is not a new Jaguar. Period. There are people that like akoyas, let them have their pride and joy. But call them akoyas, the term "cultured pearl" they do not deserve.

Zeide G. Erskine

 

[Pearls_by_Angela_Carol]

None of this is "Pure Marketing" as you call it. It is fact. In my post I referred to Akoya, Tahitian and South Sea as they are all cultured in the same manner.

The term "cultured" in this use means the growing of microorganisms, tissue cells, or other living matter in a specially prepared nutrient medium (not educated, polished, and refined). Akoya pearls must be called cultured as this is the law - that is what they are - cultured pearls. Calling them only 'Akoyas', while in the purist's view might be romantically correct, the FCC mandates that they are to be called 'cultured'.

In fact, modern Akoya pearls are more "pearl" than the original Akoya that the patent was granted on. The very first Akoya pearls that were cultured in the late 1890's and early 1900's were cultured with gold and silver beads, not mother-of-pearl.

If you have an aversion to processed pearls, Chinese Freshwater pearls are processed as well, with chemical bleaching and chemical luster treatments. In terms of color treatments they are the most highly processed in the world. If processing were a factor in calling the pearls 'cultured', only unprocessed Tahitian and South Sea would fit the bill. These pearls need no processing at all, and most are not - the coated and color-treated strands are the exception. But they are still mother-of-pearl nucleated, cultured pearls.

If you make a go cart out of scrap metal from a Jaguar, put a new coat of original Jaguar paint on it and glue a silver spray-painted dead cat on the hood, this is not a new Jaguar. Period.

Isn't that what Ford just did?

 

[Caitlin]

A very thoughtful post. Good facts about the mussels used to produce the beads used to nucleate marine pearls. Nevertheless, I for one, immediately took to the term ?pearl plated?, not for the fancy, expensively produced, and lovely, cultured marine pearls, but for the market flooded with cheap akoyas. We even had a post from a mussel shell bead dealer about second rate nuclei with bleach this week. The cheap akoya industry is an insult to the pearl industry.

Also, I would not want to muzzle any expert with a strong point of view. I do not think it will destroy, or even hurt, the marine cultured pearl industry for this term to get about. Rather, let the opinion start up a civil debate on the cheap akoya industry.

Most beads are solid. Therefore the term does not conjure hollow beads with a thin coating of oyster nacre to me, it conjures solid mother of pearl beads with a thin coating from the oyster, which is the simple truth. As the expert said, the .4 or whatever it is,.5 thickness, is the same for 6mm and 10mm Akoyas. I don?t know what it is for the south sea and Tahitians. Yet the volume of the 10mm size makes the coating a very small percent of the volume.

The akoya industry could use some critical examination and the sellers on ebay need to be exposed as needed and pearl plated beads -or beads ?dipped into oysters? for short periods of time (my phrase) should be the shame of the industry. This forum should be a voice for quality.

I think a debatable item is whether any- or even all -cultured marine pearls have nacre so thin that the attributes of ?real? pearls are mostly lost. Not that the pearls produced like that aren?t beautiful, they are, but new standards were developed to describe quality because the old standards could not be applied. A thick coating enhances water and orient, but is harder to keep the pearl round. I would love to see all this discussed here.

You mentioned desirability factors a couple of times as being less for CFWP. That is a changing factor. The truth is that people already have an attitude that freshwater pearls are inferior- and as far as the fine cultured pearl industry goes, they have been. It was barely a decade ago that I was using rice crispy pearls. Then little circled rounds, then bigger pearl with bands while the little ones were round and shiny. Then the pearls got bigger and bigger and shinier and shinier. The percent of great CFWP is creeping up. And fine FWP were considered equal to marine pearls in centuries past and make up a huge part of the royal pearls all over Europe. CFWP are growing out of their bum rap, so the marine folks need to take note.

The Truth that this forum needs to support is that China is redefining the freshwater pearl industry and a greater percent of production is going to be fine quality pearls. I think the Chinese are striving to produce the best, so the market will change and we, this forum, can be leaders in pointing out this trend.

 

[Zeide Erskine]

Getting it straight

Getting it straight

Right you are Caitlin. There is no point in trying to hang on to a dying concept just for the sake of it having been that way for a long time. The times they are achanging and if you cannot be an innovator, at least you will be better off being an early adopter than a laggard.

Zeide

 

[Pearls_by_Angela_Carol]

Please do not misconstrue what I am trying to say. I also sell freshwater pearls and I shun the beading quality as do most professionals. Cultured freshwater can be very nice pearls, and very good for many people.

I realize that you prefer to culture your own, but 99.99% of the consumers do not have the luxury, time or money to culture their own. Also growing your own again points to the purist mentality. Pearls of that nature would be as elusive as the few naturals left today. If even a third of the emperors subscribed to that belief, one would never find beautiful pearls in stores around the world.

Let's face it, fine quality freshwater pearls are few and far between. Only those of us who travel to Zhejiang ourselves really have the opportunity to market them - and we do - Jeremy Shepherd is a prime example. But to 'not' accept cultured Akoya pearls for what they are 'beautiful, round cultured pearls', does a disservice to the consumer that is most concerned with the beauty of the strand they wear.

 

[jshepherd]

Well put, Caitlin, and with merit.

Tahitian pearls now must have at least .8mm nacre to be exported out of Tahiti. This is now law. If it were not eBay would be flooded with junk Tahitians as it is with junk Akoyas. But if we are simply basing the average (I could say minimum, but we know average is not much more) on size of pearl, it is not much thicker than Akoya, with the average Tahitian larger than 10mm.

I agree that the cultured Akoya industry has done a lot of things to cut corners over the years. Culturing time has dropped, hormones are used to grow, and chemical treatments have become harsher - many times to simply shorten the bleaching period to garner a quicker return on investment.

But there is still that fine Akoya grade that no one can say is junk. It is the grade that has a thick enough nacre that luster treatments such as heat are not needed. Yes, they are still bleached - but so are freshwaters - nearly universally unless you buy them straight after harvest. These command a lower value, however, so it does not make sense.

I do not feel that the entire industry can be discounted. Many people are indeed trying to improve it. The creeping freshwater industry has a lot to do with it - market forces always play a role in market development.

Until freshwater pearls can consistently be as beautiful and lustrous as Akoya, there will be a market for cultured Akoya. Pearl professionals, such as myself, will continue to support it as well.

 

[Caitlin]

Hi Stephen
I keep rereading your first post and decided to to a line-item opinion. I am not saying either of us is right or wrong, I just think this is a good opportunity for a discussion. I admire your stance, i just want to compare mine.

The term "pearl plated beads" is misleading and while maybe technically accurate, is a misrepresentation of cultured pearls

.

Calling mother-of-pearl nucleated pearls 'pearl plated beads', I feel is an insult to the Akoya, Tahitian, and South Sea pearl industry.

It is not a misrepresentation of cheaply produced cultured Akoya pearls that crack in the box without being worn. I saw a post about that here last year.

It is actually an accurate term for all cultured marine pearls, though some are of much higher quality tha the worst.

Cultured pearls have been accepted now for nearly 100 years by every country (other than Bahrain

Don?t discount Bahrain. This is a place that clearly remembers what real pearls look like. You can not tell me that the best nucleated pearls can match the best natural pearls for looks.
The Hindus too, venerate natural pearls and think bead nucleated pearls are not real pearls.
Plus, natural pearl buffs around the world agree with both the above groups. In sheer numbers, that is probably more than the entire American market for pearl plated beads.

I don't begrudge Americans their taste for pearl plated beads, I am just taking notice that it is no longer the only game in town.

 

[Caitlin]

This is a both/and situation. Plenty of room for the natural buffs and their opinions of cultured pearls. They are a small minority, but a precious one. They are entitled to their opinions and use of language.

One of their (minority) opinions is that there is a qualitative difference between nucleated and non-nucleated cultured pearl processes. This is a logical point and should not be brushed aside.

I think copyright owning companies should use the opinions of the natural buffs to guide the quality control of their products. They can get product that looks more like the original naturals; they have room to improve.

 

[Satine De La Courcel]

Well Put Caitlyn! Hoobah to you!

I fopr one never thought I would ever tget to read all teh opinions I have been privelaged to read. many viewpoints, now I can not get enough of learning about Pearls in the here and now , todays markets....

I most certainly agree that The natural Pearl buffs are just as important as the Cultured pearl buffs... A whole lot of knowledge comes out of both sides as well as many views... Keeps me more open minded. that is for sure.

Cheers

 

[Pearls_by_Angela_Carol]

Caitlyn

I keep rereading your first post and decided to to a line-item opinion. I am not saying either of us is right or wrong, I just think this is a good opportunity for a discussion. I admire your stance, i just want to compare mine.

This is what makes this such a valuable source of information. This post was not intended to discredit or discount anyone, only to shed some light on what I felt might be a misleading term to consumers and to spark some lively discussion (which I see it has). The thing that I always try to remember is that a lot of people visit here to learn a little about pearls before they make a purchase or an investment.

While the term "pearl plated bead" may not bring you (and others here) a vision of hollow plastic that is coated with some material, it may very well bring that vision to a consumer. One should not have to spend years educating themselves on pearliculture to appreciate a fine Tahitian stand or to purchase a nice set of South Sea earrings for thier wife. But I am positive that if we called them pearl plated South Sea beads, they would go to another retailer and tell them they want South Sea Pearls, not beads...

I better stop now, it is very late and I am not making sense any longer

Zeide -

Interesting on the timing of this post. I had not idea that you had been receiving letters from "the pearl establishment". Also very interesting in who is sending them

 

[Caitlin]

An Editorial that reflects my personal opinion and not necessarily anyone else's. Do not hold any one else accountable for this opinion! I appreciate the freedom this forum gives me to express my opinion, even if it is not shared.

The up side of marine pearl culturing is that literally thousands of middle class folks can wear genuine pearl nacre now. A little more than a century ago only the elitist few could afford real pearls. The pearl farms have done their best to recreate the original product's look and the result is beautiful and desirable- but don't kid yourself- none of us is ever likely to see anything more like the originals than this, so high quality in the plating process to produce lovely cultured pearls that any middle class family can afford, is important.

Of course, it would be silly for anyone who purveys marine pearls to point out the downside of culturing nucleated pearls. The downside is that they aren't really, REALLY pearls, they are the world's fanciest beads. And they are just that, beads with really fancy, expensive, and sophisticated finishes.

They ARE worth the price of production because there is no other substitute available if you want a SS or Tahitian or Akoya nacre-look and there never will be. This is it folks, the best we can do to get the pearl look because natural pearls are out of the question. And non-nucleated would be just too, too expensive to grow with solid nacre. (Or would it? wouldn't some pay for the real thing? Then we might get some real baroques as byproducts, instead of just those banded balls)

However, the Mystique has pumped up the brand names to almost obscene inflations of price for a pearl coating on a bead. This is what they seek to protect- the illusion that they are really pearls and are worth far more than the intrinsic value. The inflated price also encourages imitators to cash in at much, much lower prices by selling to the uninformed.

This Mystique also reaches farther then protecting the quality brand names- it also protects the cheats and scoundrels who produce the thinnest possible coating on the akoya pearls, then process that coating to look good, long enough to sell- and get away with it on eBay and through most national outlets that sell such "pearls". It is thieves like this that deserve to be issued cease and desist orders and driven out of business and their product called what it is- pearl plating of the cheapest variety.

The Chinese cultured freshwater pearl (CFWP) is changing the culturing landscape. It is changing the definition of what a cultured pearl can be- a cultured pearl CAN be an actual solid nacre pearl grown like that-

For the first time in over one hundred years, natural pearl buffs are seeing a cultured pearl that can be judged by the ancient standards of pearl grading! Now THIS is a pearl the natural pearl buff can relate to and promote! A pearl to get excited about! A pearl that will resurrect the freshwater pearl?s place in history- and an ancient and venerable history that is.

Natural pearl buff snobbery punches through the cultured mystique to the core of what a pearl really is. And what a cultured pearl could be.

MIkimoto, Paspaley, Tahitians, Listen up! This is a call for you all to tissue nucleate 1% of your pearls without beads. I am sure you can sell the final product no matter how expensive.

 

[Pearls_by_Angela_Carol]

..the fakes in the picture are in much better condition than the aloya that actually has a 14k clasp.

I didn't see where any of those strands were labeled as Akoya. They were all described as imitation.

 

[Zeide Erskine]

The akoya strand

The akoya strand

It is not labeled akoya. They are deservedly called imitation, however, the one with the yellow gold clasp is clearly a short-cultured akoya strand.

Zeide

 

[Caitlin]

As a bead stringer and dance costume designer, second hand store expert, etc, I have dealt with many faux pearl bead strands. I even had a 1950's numbered and boxed Majorica 32" inches briefly. And I have never, NEVER seen a faux strand with a 14k clasp. they have base metal or plated clasps, or as the Majorica did, sterling.

I did not identify the beads as Akoya by eye, but I immediately questioned why there was a 14k clasp. When Zeide called it Akoya, I remembered that a favorite trick of the akoya cheats is to put a 14k clasp on the worst of the akoyas to fool folks who think a cheap imitation would not have 14k clasp.

I am interested in what one can tell about the beads where the coating is off? Do they look like cheap shell beads? I have no experience with looking at nucleii - cheap or otherwise.

Edit: An afterthought. If they were frankly imitation with a gold clasp, don't you think they would have lasted longer and been in better shape than the other imitations shown, because clearly 14K says they are high quality something or other?........the only other explanation is the one I said above- it was a cheat and who does that kind of cheat? The sleazy operators who make customers write to this forum in disgust.

 

[Zeide Erskine]

To best find out

To best find out

Maybe I should contact the buyer whether he or she is willing to sell me the strand that looks like many worn akoya strands I have seen before and then I can take some close-up pictures for everybody's scrutiny. Or, better yet, a neutral party may do that.

Zeide

 

[Caitlin]

Showdown! Let her keep the clasp and just send the beads-

I would like to see a little collection of pictures of peeling akoyas
on this site. I would like to see a section to the left here on frauds, how they are perpetrated and how to avoid them-

Buy from trusted dealers, obviously.

 

[jshepherd]

If you were to do that you would start to see a collection of low-end junk freshwaters that "some" may still find attractive, but are considered garbage by most. Everyone knows that cultured Akoya can easily be damaged, especially if it were short cultured. Freshwater pearls can also be damaged, lose their luster (if they had any to begin with) and look horrible as well.

Several years ago average culturing time dropped to little more than 6 months for Akoya. This has jumped, but the lasting effect is a bad taste for cultured Akoya by many. The same thing has happened in the past with the over-production of freshwater pearls. If out of every 1000 freshwaters produced only 100 of them could even be used in jewelry and the rest were suitable to be ground into dust or painted an exotic color to be sold in beading shops for $5 a strand what would people think of the industry. Well, this has happened, and is still happening to some extent. Just recently has the quality of freshwater jumped, but it is still not widely available.

That being said, I have only been in the industry for the last 10 years. Granted, I have been completely immersed during that time and would never balk at the chance to go head to head with any pearl dealer. But I cannot imagine taking credit away from founders of the cultured pearl industry like Mikimoto, Jean-Marie Domard, or Robert Wan. They are the reason we are even discussing pearls today, and referring to their work as 'plated' just does not serve them. Showing pearls that are peeling and all around garbage is not a comparison, it is just that - showing garbage.

You all know that I am a big believer in freshwater pearls, they are getting better and I am obviously capitalizing on it. But on the same token, so are the Akoya, so are the Tahitians - each beautiful in their own right, and each desired in their own right - rightly so.

As I have said in the past, I will continue to support each industry helping them better themselves along the way. But if someone calls their jeweler and asks; "What is the nicest looking, most lustrous, round pearl you carry?" If the jeweler carries high quality Akoya, the answer will almost certainly (and rightly so) be Akoya. The jeweler should then tell the customer how to care for the strand and keep it beautiful for years to come. If the same customer is interested in black pearls, pointing that customer to freshwater in lieu of bead-nucleated, beautiful Tahitians would be a disservice.

 

[Zeide Erskine]

What is what

What is what

Hi Jeremy,

Nobody doubts that there are high-quality akoyas around. However, short-culturing is still the call of the day and you cannot make the nacre thicker in post treatment. Thus, saying that the akoya is always more valuable than a freshwater cultured pearl is dishonest. I have seen coated freshwater pearls that turned dull after the coating wore off. I have seen the same thing in Tahitians. While the coated freshwater pearls were never touted as something they were not, the Tahitians were. I also have seen many freshwater pearls both natural and cultured that were of outstanding quality and the natural ones often hundreds of years old, I have yet to see a short-cultured akoya to stand the test of time. Indeed I have seen plenty of them peel and flake just like the strand in the above eBay lot.

Zeide