Are these really South Sea

[Lady_Disdain]

The description says South Sea but they look a lot like freshwater to me.


https://www.etsy.com/listing/951357...erest&utm_medium=PageTools&utm_campaign=Share

If it helps, the price originally was $199.

 

[BWeaves]

"Superb Radiant BIG White Tahitian South Sea Pearls 15.5-19mm 16 Inches"

I'm thinking no.

 

[JerseyPearl]

"Superb Radiant BIG White Tahitian South Sea Pearls 15.5-19mm 16 Inches"

I'm thinking no.

Ugh...I find that many include either South Sea or Tahitian in their titles along with freshwater.

 

[Pearl Dreams]

They really look like freshwaters.

 

[pearlescence]

At least using that link the listing has vanished. All freshwater and some really cack dyed dull ones at that. Plus there appear to be genuine Kasumi. Natural ones. Yeah right For £27. I'll just snap up them all...

 

[Lady_Disdain]

Someone who should know more about pearls posted that link on Pinterest, which really confused me. On one hand, I was sure they were freshwater. On the other, they wouldn't pin these...

 

[pattye]

Geez, yeah, Extreme Beads. Over the years I've bought a few gemstones from Sharon. And gone round and round about her pearl titles and descriptions. Usually the pearls are all Japanese. She absolutely will not listen. I finally gave up.

 

[JerseyPearl]

Pattye, I think it has to do with how they wish to tag their items on Etsy...however, they run afoul of the FTC regulations regarding pearls. You cannot claim something to be a South Seas pearl if it is not. Same thing with Biwa. And unless a pearl is natural, it must be identified as cultured (prominently).

This actually raises a thought I've had regarding the Pearls as One course...it would be great to add a section on labeling/identification requirements per the FTC regs.

 

[SunSeeker]

Unfortunately, the term "natural" is often abused as well, with listers actually referring to untreated cultured pearls. Some standardization might be a good idea too.

 

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

Unfortunately, the term "natural" is often abused as well, with listers actually referring to untreated cultured pearls. Some standardization might be a good idea too.

Though other factors apply, graft selection criteria is largely based upon the colors of the donor. While that may be technically considered artificial in the recipient, the color in the donor occurred naturally, even in a hatchery setting with discriminating brood stock selection.

So long as dyes or other post harvest treatments affecting color are not used, natural color is an acceptable term for cultured pearls. Unless other forms of treatment are employed, it's generally preferred to "untreated", although that term dispels all doubt.

If push came to shove and "natural" was deemed unacceptable for any part of pearl culture (it is in several countries), the term "pearl" itself would be where the change ought to be applied. However, with more than a century of aqua-cultural production in our midst, "cultured pearl" has become the standard.

 

[JerseyPearl]

The FTC also addresses "natural", when it comes to a pearl. You can only use that term if the pearl had no intervention...in other words, if it is cultured it is not natural. If you use the term 'natural color' you need to make it clear that you are speaking of that attribute only and NOT the pearl itself. Now whether or not these are widely enforced is another issue...but the regs are pretty straight forward on jewelry.

 

[Lady_Disdain]

In my point of view, the main problem is not the regulations themselves, which are generally pretty detailed in jewelry, but the total lack of enforcement. FTC has determined that stone treatments should always be disclosed and we all know how that goes. Pearls should also be well described (using "cultured pearl", etc) but it seems few sellers follow it.

 

[JerseyPearl]

Enforcement is always the problem.