Search results

Well, doesn't say that (darn commercial statistics - never give that confidence interval!), but the 'paper' is established as a statement of the issuer's best knowledge: a 'report' not a 'certificate'. It is a sad thought that many might take these as an absolute guarantee - for once because...

Absolutely. Ever heard of a sham built carefully in the open? Could be amusing. Or better. 20% is a big number. Knowing that, would simply evaluate the transaction without considering said lab reports as a source of reference (which does not exclude deploying some third party as independent...

How would you choose such a pearl to submit for a report? Say, freshwater and saltwater. Seriously?

To have issued a report, each must have been certain about their findings as per whatever method established internally, etc. They wouldn't know of one another, would they... Only you can choose.

Would call that by another name then 'strong conviction'... but I am of a different Church and not quite aware of the intricacies of theirs. Speaking of which... As a general rule (which is allot said, but this one time, I'd take the risk), I do not equate the extreme quality of acts taken...

... maybe, but once established that everyone is suffering of the same, no longer the same issue, is it. (i.e. legitimate demand for research, rather then ... well...) GIA is not an oracle, although...I think they, as well as many commercial labs, know all too well that some of their sales...

Yeah! Wonder what history these freshwater naturals would have. Know next to nothing about traditional Chinese jewelry - including where pearls were being brought from.

Oops, now that you meantion... the sentence with it in the previous post is wrong. Rewriting correctly: "Natural freshwater pearls -Scottish and US natural freshwater pearls have been discussed here quite a bit already. I think there are other (very) occasional sources in Europe. No mystery."...

Natural CFWP -Scottish and US natural freshwater pearls have been discussed here quite a bit already. I think there are other (very) occasional sources in Europe. No mystery.

Guessing there is little reason for anyone to mind, then ... fairy easy to understand why so for most imaginary parties, except those issuing said reports.

That's pretty much what I was trying to say with the previous post: what is 'right' becomes rather personal when it comes down to what anyone can be asked to do. Even among buyers.

Nice! I assume you are talking about the major gemological laboratories... Is this situation simply a matter of carelessness (can't imagine there are that many requests for natural pearl identification), or is there no basis for reliable ID even developed?

Fancy grafting aside, is it accepted that keshi and naturals (same species) are distinguished reliably ?

Oh! Missed the date...

Not sure what 'the consumer' - whoever they might be, should take up as a general rule of conduct. Does anyone feel good being called that? [i.e. 'you, the consumer'] It might be just a quirk of language getting lost in translation, but I can't quite get used to that. [not from you right...

It rings true... Nice horror plot for natural Pinctada, Pteria and all that. Usually, such issues receive broad publicity only once proper testing is developed and there actually is a solution. Understandably so, I'd venture: otherwise the best meaning warning would be hard to tell from...

Got it. I don't think any gemollogical journal got further into these pearl properties then using the term 'flame' for an easily visible pattern. Hope one will.

Ah!... Can you point to the title?

'Thought they had made some graphic object with realistic pearl looks! Considering that the things are admired for rather subtle properties, 'bet that would be quite a feat.

Wish the future owner will be curious about their origin too! The closest I can come to a guess is by 'bundling' similarly looking pearls (by color and shape, and the apparent 'mix' of sizes apparent in jewelry - assuming maximum use was always sought out of whatever the sum total 'production'...