Back in the sixties my family lived in India. It was explained to my mother (by friends and jewelers) that there were three types of pearls; real, natural and cultured. The real pearls were non-cultured pearls from the Persian Gulf, the natural were non-cultured pearls from freshwater (rivers, I suppose) and cultured pearls were the ones we call cultured pearls here, in several varieties. A number of pieces of jewelry I got were made with what they called natural pearls. My question is, are they what would be called "natural" pearls here? If so, are they really that valuable? I just have them at home and they're not insured, so I'd like to know!
Are Indian "natural" pearls natural?
- Thread starter suzanne
- Start date
MWP
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2006
- Messages
- 85
Suzanne,
The best thing to do would be to post a photo so folks on PG may be able to better assess potential value. You may be able to get a "directionally correct" opinion from the experts here.
Typically in the US Natural pearls are "non-cultured" pearls, or those pearls not created by means of human intervention. Naturals could come from either freshwater or saltwater.
The best thing to do would be to post a photo so folks on PG may be able to better assess potential value. You may be able to get a "directionally correct" opinion from the experts here.
Typically in the US Natural pearls are "non-cultured" pearls, or those pearls not created by means of human intervention. Naturals could come from either freshwater or saltwater.
SteveM
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,928
This might be a good opportunity for someone with GIA background to explain lab procedures for certification of natural vs. cultured non-bead-nucleated freshwaters. I am aware that procedures exist to easily determine saltwater vs. freshwater.
knotty panda
Pearl Knotting & Wire Expert
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2007
- Messages
- 1,766
As discussed in this forum, differentiating between natural and cultured (unless there is a big ol' bead in place) appears to have a margin for error. What does that do to the price of naturals?
SteveM
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,928
Makes me wonder why certification is considered so imperative, when it really comes down to the seller's reputation and traceable provenance. I believe I'm on record (if not, so be it here) as considering the certification process and related fees as a racket.
Excluding freshwater pearls, if you wanted to resell your saltwater naturals, you would need some certification to appease a buyer's anxiety. In fact, for very pricey naturals, every time they are sold, re-certification is usually asked for by the buyer, or should be. Certification has its uses but is not an end all and is not infallable.
How does one go about tracing provenance?
A seller's reputation may be stellar up until today but that doesn't guarantee it stays that way tomorrow. Madoff was without reproach. People were incredulous that dudes from Christie's and Sotheby's got caught price fixing in 2001. It was written about Taubman that "cheating was totally out of character for the man and that he always had a reputation for being honest in his business dealings." What about the GIA's diamond scandal involving bribery? All had stellar reputation.
Slraep
Last edited:
SteveM
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,928
As gatekeepers, we can only trust that GIA & Co. are more on the ball than SEC & Co. Lots of money involved?
Valeria101
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 2,067
Gemological research is not a huge field. Compared to finance - it's a freakin' footnote!
Name one institution with fool proof reputation...
I think all those unfortunate cases do have one thing in common: they were high stakes schemes in which buyers, sellers had an interest to cooperate in distorting prices and found the right intermediary to do that. It takes a highly idealized view of a 'free market' independent of all players to find such events troubling. Fact of life LINK... There must be safety in knowing what the 'monster' looks like even if this does not change anything in the big scheme of things, at least, I hope so.' Eh...
These being said, I have no particular reason to 'defend' either of the cited! They are pretty big and in no need of petty help!
Closer to home, perhaps neither provenance not independent expertise about pearls is an absolute standard... Better have both around then none, methinks
Would you 'touch' a natural pearl you could not identify yourself? I am not sure... but have never had to consider this seriously either...
Name one institution with fool proof reputation...
I think all those unfortunate cases do have one thing in common: they were high stakes schemes in which buyers, sellers had an interest to cooperate in distorting prices and found the right intermediary to do that. It takes a highly idealized view of a 'free market' independent of all players to find such events troubling. Fact of life LINK... There must be safety in knowing what the 'monster' looks like even if this does not change anything in the big scheme of things, at least, I hope so.' Eh...
These being said, I have no particular reason to 'defend' either of the cited! They are pretty big and in no need of petty help!
Closer to home, perhaps neither provenance not independent expertise about pearls is an absolute standard... Better have both around then none, methinks
Would you 'touch' a natural pearl you could not identify yourself? I am not sure... but have never had to consider this seriously either...
Last edited:
SteveM
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2007
- Messages
- 1,928
Suzanne, you must be wondering what you stumbled into here. Your family's Indian jeweler wisely considered Bahraini pearls as 'real' (after all, their mid-oriental origin engendered the term 'orient'). Naturals might have included other saltwater as well as freshwater.
If you are willing to post, your photos would be extremely welcome.
If you are willing to post, your photos would be extremely welcome.
Madoff had been reproached quite a bit, making the whole mess all the more disturbing.
Remarkable how the scheme kept going for so long(20-30 years?), isn't it?!!
Slraep
pearlescence
purveyor of pearls UK/EU
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2007
- Messages
- 4,109
I posed the question about the worth of certification if the labs get it wrong, but never really got an answer
No, nothing is foolproof but there is a BIG difference between making an honest mistake through ignorance, which happen to everyone, and is easily remedied with a refund(or something equal), versus scheming for personal gain due to unbridled greed. Just as there is a difference between a poor man who steals bread in order to stave off starvation, and a filthy rich man who steals because he must keep himself in the luxuries to which his baby's butt is accustomed.
Guantanamo should stay open for people like Bernie and his cronies. The waterboard torture even seems fair.
Slraep
Last edited:
pearlescence
purveyor of pearls UK/EU
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2007
- Messages
- 4,109
.
That place is a blight on humanity and a shame to your country. State sanctioned torture in the 21st century. I am ashamed that my country seems to have been complicit, or did nothing to ascertain and stop. [breaking news] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6115286.ece
I hope they are prosecuted. They should be
And, by the way, those who fall victim to ponzi schemes are just as involved. They are greedy and credulous. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch (Robert Heinlein).
Last edited:
Real and natural are the same as far as I am aware. There should be no difference beteen natural saltwater and natural freshwater in terms of this description. Pearls are either natural, bead cultured or non-bead cultured. Of course there are also imitation and mabe type pearls (composite). Then there are cyst pearls and blisters, again either natural or cultured.
The answer to your question (I think): They could well be natural pearls (Indian connection and date), but like others have said, we would at least need to see some pictures to have a better idea of guiding you. If they are indeed natural, then they could also be valuable. It would depend on the size, shape, colors, general appearance etc... Once you receive further feedback from those who know about the value of such things you will then be in a better position to determine whether they are worth insuring.
Hope that helps a little.
Valeria101
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 2,067
It would be interesting to know how many of the folks paying for those reports actually believe that the 'paper' is NEVER wrong and the respective labs DO NOT make mistakes. Ever. Or their heads shall fall... or something.
'Bet that bit of information would be interesting to quite a few...
Last edited:
Valeria101
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 2,067
Well, here's a list: Madoff Clients. Even his auditor complains of having been fool(ed). Pitty-worthy indeed; something's telling me that one could sell cruize tickets to the worries of these folks [hint: it's the numbers!]. I do not know how the US law might sort out the case of 'Feeders' in such a scheme. Madoff's defense contends that he acted alone.
Folks, leave Guantanamo out of this... Seriusly
Those are never built for just one man. Trust me on this one. What is happening to this thread anyway...
Last edited:
laurenb
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2008
- Messages
- 360
Yikes, many more schools than I realized. Jewish philanthropies lost a bundle, at least two have already had to close. I wonder if the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity will recover.
The list seems a little misleading... individuals who have that kind of money to invest are often responsible for the livelihoods of many others in some way.
Not sure I've ever seen a thread drift so far so fast. Perhaps the Madoff posts deserve their own place in Other Stuff?
The list seems a little misleading... individuals who have that kind of money to invest are often responsible for the livelihoods of many others in some way.
Not sure I've ever seen a thread drift so far so fast.
Perhaps the Madoff posts deserve their own place in Other Stuff?Valeria101
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 2,067
The list is simply of the clients - those who had a choice to make about Madoff's offer. [and that looks short... hm... wonder what the complete client list looks like, if it ever gets fairly complete, a serious problem.]
Layer by layer, their clients and dependents had another - their turn to sue, apparently. One of those article linked in the previous post explain that there are precedents for wins and losses to be redistributed among the scheme's clients. To me - quite an interesting notion, I thought, as it seems to deal with the very principle of the scheme.
Far enough from the transactions with the scheme's fund, the story turns pure philosophy - 'trust', 'truth', 'justice', 'equity' - no wonder philosophers do not run trust funds... or much else, for that matter. All good points, but not about to be solved any time soon.
With all the cynicism I can muster, it is the considerable girth of those loosing customers that make me hope that the conclusion of the case will at least be interesting. [if it is... and if it does affect legislation, it can get really interesting... with vastly more important issues, such as public-sector insurance, affected]
From where I am standing, the fact that this guy went to court (instead of being elected mayor, or something!) is quite a feat.
I'll sure be watching this story. However, at the pace it is moving, running a news digest every couple of months seems to be just enough. Too much ink spill overall.
Oh well...
'Bet there is a forum entirely for that somewhere. Perhaps more then one!
Layer by layer, their clients and dependents had another - their turn to sue, apparently. One of those article linked in the previous post explain that there are precedents for wins and losses to be redistributed among the scheme's clients. To me - quite an interesting notion, I thought, as it seems to deal with the very principle of the scheme.
Far enough from the transactions with the scheme's fund, the story turns pure philosophy - 'trust', 'truth', 'justice', 'equity' - no wonder philosophers do not run trust funds... or much else, for that matter. All good points, but not about to be solved any time soon.
With all the cynicism I can muster, it is the considerable girth of those loosing customers that make me hope that the conclusion of the case will at least be interesting. [if it is... and if it does affect legislation, it can get really interesting... with vastly more important issues, such as public-sector insurance, affected]
From where I am standing, the fact that this guy went to court (instead of being elected mayor, or something!) is quite a feat.
I'll sure be watching this story. However, at the pace it is moving, running a news digest every couple of months seems to be just enough. Too much ink spill overall.
Oh well...
'Bet there is a forum entirely for that somewhere. Perhaps more then one!
pearlescence
purveyor of pearls UK/EU
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2007
- Messages
- 4,109
The interesting point raised in Valeria's post etc is that the trustees have a fiduciary duty to invest a trust fund wisely and properly. They could well face examination by the court if the trust beneficiaries chose to sue. They would then have to demonstrate that they were not greedy gullible idiots for believing that free lunches were indeed possible.
