Your opinion please. Its time i stop researching and just ask.

[noname]

hello. i come to you all for assistance and opinions on a strand as most of my pearl research has lead me back to this forum in one sort or another. this site is a great wealth of information and here is a thanks upfront. so while i am fairly decent in identifying unmarked precious metals and gems, pearls are not yet on my list. it doesnt help that i am colorblind, but that also forces me to use many other empirical methods. but maybe you take one look at the strand and can nail it down on color alone. i could not.

as for provenance, i would prefer to withhold it. i do not want to sway opinions by means of stories which can be false to start with even if dearly held to be true. so i will begin with basic observations and move on to thoughts and questions (in bullet form).

- passes tooth test and gently rubbing pearls together. yes they have the proper grittiness.
- there are no chips of nacre revealing a bead nucleus as i have seen on some strands before.
- to me color seems very well matched but not perfect by any means, but again, i am colorblind. i can however tell that there are certainly differences in brightness and the amount of light or clarity of light that is reflected. sorry for not remembering the proper terms here. as for overtones as i have read about, i cannot say i completely understand this to give my interpretation. plainly, some pearls are very brilliant in shine, some rather dull, some slightly lighter others slightly darker.
- i would say they are heavy for their size and are definitely cold to a touch on the cheek.
- the clasp is not all that fancy and is marked on one side "14k 102 Z" this is not marked on the boomerang part, but on a side piece of the larger housing.
- the length is 16". i dont know whether to include the clasp or not, but either way, lets call it 16".
- there are 63 pearls
- i carefully measured the pearls with a micrometer and they measured from about 4.5mm to 7.8mm.
- they seem to be all rather round but definitely not completely the same. and i would not say that they do not look potato shaped. from a foot or so an observant eye could tell that they are not all the same in shape
- i weighed the strand with the clasp hanging off the scale and it was 21.2 grams which converts to 106 carats. if the string were to weigh .8 grams, which seems feasible, that would leave the pearls at 102 carats. could that be what the marking on the clasp is referring to? the weight of the pearls in carats? or maybe it is just a model number for the clasp? i dont know.
- i have inspected the pearls on a box with a small hole cut in it to set a pearl in and with a bright light behind it. i did not see any horizontal or striped bands running through them. some had a darker nucleus which would be small, but i would say that no two were the same. i can provide images of this. i got this idea from somebody on this forum.
- one characteristic of about 3 or 4 of the pearls that i would like to point out is that towards the outer layers in the nacre there seems to be a small pitted hole with a tail that follows behind it. as if something was lodged into the nacre and grew along with it causing a striped scar. you can see this in one or two of the images.
- i have peered into the pearls with a loupe as much as i could with them on the string and so far, no signs of a separation or line of change. it all seems one consistency.
- some pearls have a scaling effect on them. to me its like looking at the moon. but this is on very close inspection under a loupe. i can provide images under the loupe.
- i have viewed them under a blacklight, but it didnt help me much because that test seems to be about how the pearls react to color. images can be provided.
- the images that are provided here were taken outside on a cloudy day on paper towel and a black paper.

sorry for all that. ill cut it there but it could be much longer. thats what happens when you dont have anybody else around who wants to hear about your pearl observations. so here i leave it for your thoughts. as i really do not think these pearls have a bead nucleus, my main question is could these be freshwater pearls? just for sheer probability i will have to doubt natural saltwater. i am not opposed to breaking the string to look inside of the drill holes, but ill wait for you all to tell me if i should or not. i am very surprised i have resisted to cut the rope for this many years.

thank you in advance for all opinions. and again, thank you all for feeding yet another passion that will always remain.

best of it.





edit: upon reviewing this posting, i noticed that the images are shrunk down very much to the point where you cannot see detail. if there is a way to upload hi res images in a post, let me know and i will do so or i can email images as well. thank you.

 

[GemGeek]

They look like Chinese cultured freshwater pearls. The mark on the clasp should indicate the kind of metal. 925 would be sterling silver. The grooves and blemishes are natural. I admire all the research you did! Great job.

 

[GemGeek]

Shape is a give-away. Saltwater akoyas would be more round because of the bead. Also, the way they are attached to the clasp is a less costly way of finishing that is typically used on inexpensive freshwater strands.

 

[noname]

i enjoy the research into something that i am new at more than most else that i already knew. i pretty much knew they would be freshwater. am i correct though that they would not have a bead implanted in them that would be visable to the eye by being chinese freshwater? its all nacre pretty much right?

and again, the clasp is marked "14k 102 Z". i tested the clasp with acid and it is gold. i have a stock pile of sterling and this clasp does not react with nitric acid.

just to be curious, should i take one of the pearls off the string and slice it in half with s diamond encrusted blade just so that i can show everybody an cross section of the pearls. ive been wanting to do that for a while anyways.

thank you much.

 

[GemGeek]

It's a white gold clasp, then. Twenty years ago, this would have been a pretty good strand, but these days the pearls are much better. Yes, they should be solid nacre. It can be fun to see what they look like inside. You could also put a pearl in a baggie and hit it with a hammer. (Faster!)

 

[GemGeek]

If you destroy a pearl, you would have to restring the necklace.

 

[noname]

maybe the image doesnt do the clasp justice. but even the three dead cones in my eye can see it to a yellow/gold tone when i view it in my hand. its not white at all. its yellow gold. funny enough, i can determine unmarked gold and silver better than most based upon the feel, weight, lustre, strength, flexibility and just straight intuition more than most because i dont rely on color.

i just think that a perfectly and smoothly cut pearl in half might be interesting to view for more than just myself. i dont think ive seen one yet here on this place. my work, thoughts and all else comes from the idea of slow and over time, not imediacy. well, i just realized that you can probably go to google and find the exact image of what i proposed to do. i forgot about that.

 

[noname]

i would also mention that restringing a neclace would be an easy challenge. if i am anything at all, i am precise.

 

[GemGeek]

White gold, if not Rhodium-plated, tends to turn yellow over time. I have some earring findings that "used" to be white gold. Some day I'm going to get them plated.

 

[GemGeek]

Oh dumb me. It looks kind of white on my monitor!

 

[GemGeek]

Here is a video on pearl-knotting: https://www.pearl-guide.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1367
There is another one at the top of the Lowly Beader's Forum

 

[noname]

on the video link you mentioned, what is the purpose of drawing the rest of the string through the looped, ready to be knot, before it is tied? would this have to do with a non twisting string of pearls? it seems ridiculous to me but of course i dont know, i am curious. is this how they tied pearls hundreds of years ago? to me, i thought i would do a simple knot at the end of each pearl to just keep it in place. placement of the knot of course would have to be done well, but why drag the rest of the strung string through the hole of the not yet made knot? i could watch somebody like that tie pearls all day though.

i can probably answer my own question. just yesterday i did my first attempt at replacing chipped veneer on some beautiful pieces. after thinking about how to approach it and then just going ahead and doing it, the way that i made the repairs were just about damn right. the only thing i didnt think about was the direction of the grain of wood. so, when the repaired portion is upside down, it blends really well into the the rest of the original wood. but, when viewed as it should, it is too light. this would probably be like my first attempt at stringing pearls, they would sit nice i believe and be spaced beautifully, there is something that i would be missing from all that gained knowledge. but i still want to hear thoughts on why they keep taking the string throught the loop each time before they tie the knot.

 

[Caitlin]

I meant to add. I am very impressed with your thoroughness! There are so many ways to knot. I have seen people do square knots between each pearl. I don't use that method because I don't like the way it has to be finished, ie a cup at each end instead of coming out of the end hole ,adding gimp, then going back through the end hole and at least one other pearl (both with overhand knots)to secure it better.
Pearl Dreams has a tutorial that is a sticky at the top of the Lowly Beaders club, but it isn't a video. Several people have already used her method with good results.

 

[noname]

what is the purpose to pull the tied string through the unfinished knot before it is tied? does that prevent twisting or is it to help the one tying some how? either way, i could watch somebody tying pearls like that for quite some time.

 

[GemGeek]

As you knot, the knotted pearls have to pass through the loop because all the pearls are already on the strand. You slide each one down from the other end and knot one at a time. That may not make any sense. I suggest you follow the thread about knotting with Power Pro under the Lowly Beader's forum.

 

[GemGeek]

I was taught to use a fine pair of tweezers to tie and tighten each knot one at a time with one thread. Some people use an awl.

 

[Pearl Dreams]

As to why the pearls have to be passed through the loop, every thread has 2 ends: (1) the end attached to the needle, and (2) the end where the original knot is and where, as you progress, the pearls are knotted on.

You can make a knot by passing either end of the thread through the knot loop.

If your strand is relatively short, it's easy to string on one pearl at a time and make a knot. You pass the needle end of the thread through the loop to make the knot. If the thread isn't too long, it is easy to do this.

But if your strand is quite long, the thread attached to the needle will also be very long-- longer than your arm extended-- and it becomes easy to tangle the thread inadvertently. This is why for very long strands I find it easier to string all the beads/pearls on at once and then make the knots-- passing the other end of the thread through the loop to make the knot. And since that end has pearls knotted on, the pearls have to pass through the loop. It's cumbersome, but it does prevent thread tangling.

I suppose if I did it more I would find it less cumbersome!

 

[pearlescence]

Hanging the clasp off the edge of the scale would not remove the weight from the total surely?
(If you can't get the hang of that method of knotting there are different ones - many!)