CIBJO Definitions

[jshepherd]

This is in response to the thread "Hong Kong-China's Pearl City".
https://www.pearl-guide.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1686

I thought it warrented a new thread as the topic I rambled into is quite heavy.

From what I understand, keshi pearls are quite acceptable in the Middle East as real pearls. We cannot refer to them as natural pearls here, and in fact CIBJO calls them keshi cultured pearls.

CIBJO on keshi pearls
Page 16 of the recently published ?Blue Book?.

5.102 Keshi Cultured Pearl
A trade name that designates a non-beaded cultured pearl formed accidentally or intentionally by human invitation in marine pearl oysters such as the Akoya oyster (Pinctada fucata), Silver/Gold lipped oyster (Pinctada maxima) and Black lipped oyster (Pinctada margaritifera) and is a byproduct of the culturing process. The creation results from the formation of a pearl sac? etc.

You have to watch out for that human ?invitation?

Now for my little rant about the new definitions which I believe CIBJO released TOO EARLY!

According to the above definition keshi pearls are indeed cultured pearls, but they can only be formed in marine mollusks. That, of course, goes against industry standard terminology. Is it a snub to the freshwater industry?? The biggest enemy of nearly every participant of the blue book?? They are defining keshi as a ?trade? term, yet ignoring ?trade? use of the term in freshwater keshi production. They cannot claim defense on original terminology, otherwise any keshi larger than the head of pin could not be called a keshi.

I submit that 5.95 (Hyriopsis schlegeli) of the same page 16 is incorrect. It is not a mistake of definition, it is a mistake of omission.

I also submit that 5.104 (La Paz Pearl Oyster) of (again) the same page 16 is incorrect. The mollusk is defined as: Pinctada mazatlanica, from the eastern Pacific Ocean, presently cultured in the Gulf of Mexico for blister and cultured pearls.

My question is this. When did the Gulf of Mexico jump Central America and become a part of the eastern Pacific Ocean? Are they confusing the Gulf of Mexico with the Gulf of California, by any chance? Clearly!

I believe the CIBJO book was released too early. If we went through all 60 pages of definitions and really scrutinized them, I wonder how many mistakes we would find. What is dangerous is that organizations, such as the GIA, are adopting the new terms as law. Did you know that the term ?nucleation? is not even in the book, or an allowable term any longer?

 

[DFrey]

Hi Jeremy,
What is "CIBJO" ?

DFrey

 

[jshepherd]

A confederation of jewelry trade organizations. Here is a link to the blue books.
http://www.cibjonews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=43

 

[Caitlin]

Hi Jeremy
I am glad you are taking a stand. I hope you have some influence.

 

[SteveM]

Quoting from CIBJO introductory comments:

"The application of the Blue Books standards is voluntary."

Jeremy, please tell us about the inevitable (and possibly suicidal) politics that would result from your?and other on-line pearl dealers?simply going your own way? I realize you do a bit of that already.

Seems to me that the overwhelming commercial influence at CIBJO is inorganic gems, which are reliant upon manipulation (cutting, polishing) for their gem application, and upon source monopolies. Given their distinct aesthetic, the advent of an independent authority for pearls would seem appropriate.

Of course, the pearl world has not lacked for its own monopolistic and manipulative commercial entities. Perhaps their alignment with CIBJO could become a convenient manner of self-identification?


Steve
Seattle

 

[Valeria101]

I believe the CIBJO book was released too early.

All links I could find on the CIBJO website either to or about the book are apparently broken. Maybe I missed the crucial one... or my computer plays dead... or the material is under 25 o'clock revision

 

[DFrey]

I down loaded the pdf format pearl book from the CIJBO site about seven hours ago and everything was working fine then.

Dfrey

 

[jshepherd]

All links I could find on the CIBJO website either to or about the book are apparently broken. Maybe I missed the crucial one... or my computer plays dead... or the material is under 25 o'clock revision

Nope, it is still there.
http://www.cibjo.us/pearl.pdf

Jeremy, please tell us about the inevitable (and possibly suicidal) politics that would result from your?and other on-line pearl dealers?simply going your own way? I realize you do a bit of that already.

Well, for the most part my disagreements with CIBJO are the same disagreements others in the industry will have. To me much of it is academia taking its own approach and asking the industry to follow its lead. This does not make sense as the academic side of the industry exists because of, and in order to serve the industry. In that sense I feel safe enough to continue with my current terminology usage.

The GIA is quick to accept the terminology proposed by the confederation, as an academic authority. But the powers that be at the GIA do not understand the pearl industry, or the science of pearls (for the most part).

Other misgivings I have about the terminology are that there are too many mistakes. Page 16 was a case in point. Only one of my assertions can be debated - the use of the term keshi. The others, even the tongue in cheek reference to human invitation instead of human intervention, are real mistakes.

A single member of CIBJO (H.A. Hanni) was responsible for the omission of terms such asnucleation, nucleus, bead-nucleated, and tissue-nucleated. As he put it, for the sake of clarity we are now to use only the terms beaded cultured pearl and non-beaded cultured pearl.

His basis of reasoning is that the terms bead nucleated and tissue nucleated are confusing as bead nucleation always is a combination of bead and tissue. Furthermore, tissue nucleation does not mean that the tissue remains in the pearl - it is not a nucleus.

The above reasoning is not completely correct in my opinion. In second generation production a tissue piece is not used in bead-nucleated pearls. Also, there are several thing that can happen in tissue nucleation, one is the tissue becoming the nucleus.

My biggest problem with these changes is the fact that they were proposed and accepted to alleviate confusion. In fact, they create the confusion.

 

[Mandy]

Is it me, or do these guys who proposed these definitions seem really ignorant? The fact that they can get something like this published is unreal! It only makes sense to me that they'd get help from those who know the business and the actual nature and situations that are involved when it comes to the pearl industry. They can't even understand all the processes that can happen when creating cultured pearls >.< Creating confusion, indeed!

 

[barbie biggs]

This seems to some degree like acadamia assuming it knows more than the people who do the actual work. Not an uncommon problem.
I still don't know what the initials mean but am getting a good feel for what they do. Not a pretty picture!

Thanks for your lucid definition of keshi, Jeremy.
barbie

 

[pearlescence]

May I just quibble or question the use of academia. Are the people who compiled and published this independent university teaching or research staff or students? If not then they are not academia. They are just people employed by someone to do something - quite different

 

[effisk]

Conf?d?ration Internationale des Bijoutiers, Joailliers et Orf?vres (CIBJO)

There's a more recent version of the book here:
http://perles.effisk.net/blog/images/pdf/CIBJO-Pearl-Blue-Book.pdf
I haven't taken the time to compare both versions.

quote:
The draft was prepared by The Pearl Steering Committee, which was appointed by CIBJO President Gaetano Cavalieri during the 2005 Congress in Hong Kong. The committee includes Swiss-based Suzy Jarell, of the South Sea Pearl Consortium; Gina Latendresse, president of American Pearl Co.; Roland Naftule, president of the Sector III of CIBJO; Ken Scaratt, Gemological Institute of America (GIA), Thailand; Tom Moses, GIA New York; Shigeru Akamatsu, vice president of the CIBJO Pearl Commission; Raitu Galenon, product manager at Perles de Tahiti; and Martin Coeroli, CIBJO Pearl Commission president and the steering committee's chair.

source: http://www.allbusiness.com/retail-trade/apparel-accessory-stores-womens-specialty/4240341-1.html

 

[Satine De La Courcel]

quote:
The draft was prepared by The Pearl Steering Committee, which was appointed by CIBJO President Gaetano Cavalieri during the 2005 Congress in Hong Kong. The committee includes Swiss-based Suzy Jarell, of the South Sea Pearl Consortium; Gina Latendresse, president of American Pearl Co.; Roland Naftule, president of the Sector III of CIBJO; Ken Scaratt, Gemological Institute of America (GIA), Thailand; Tom Moses, GIA New York; Shigeru Akamatsu, vice president of the CIBJO Pearl Commission; Raitu Galenon, product manager at Perles de Tahiti; and Martin Coeroli, CIBJO Pearl Commission president and the steering committee's chair.

[/QUOTE]

Yeah okay sure because one has a business background and can "run things" does not mean they know their product, what is best for that product line. or what they are doing ...


Many of those names are rinning bells in my head and not possitive ones either maybe its still early yet for me to really think.. Oh wait that was the taster and coffee(well I drink tea with it) machines both going off at the same time....

cheers
Ash

 

[effisk]

Yeah okay sure because one has a business background and can "run things" does not mean they know their product, what is best for that product line. or what they are doing ...

I absolutely agree. Some of these guys are however experts and do know the product. Ken Scaratt for instance.

It looks like they overlooked the "details"... the odd pearl types... and the freshies. I'm actually wondering if The Pearl Steering Committee actually did write the blue book or just let some ghostwriter do the writing.

 

[Satine De La Courcel]

It just seems to me that when too many big names get together to review or make stuff better. It often leads to the "little guy" being "forgotten" in this case its freshies and odd pearls....

why let a ghost writer do it and just let it "Slip" by??


Cheers
Ash

 

[effisk]

why let a ghost writer do it and just let it "Slip" by??

some of the mistakes are no intentional (gulf of mexico) while some others may well be intentional. I find it suprizing that no one in the committee corected the gulf of mexico mistake, which makes me wonder if the actually read the finished thing. I also find suprizing that all agreed about the definition of the keshis.

I'd like to hear what K Scarratt thinks of the book.

 

[pbazar]

I agree with Jeremy that the definition goes against current industry use.
I think he should forward his thoughts on to the committee. I know most of the members and they are good and reasonable people. Like most committee work it is hard work and unappreciated.

 

[Satine De La Courcel]

some of the mistakes are no intentional (gulf of mexico) while some others may well be intentional. I find it suprizing that no one in the committee corected the gulf of mexico mistake, which makes me wonder if the actually read the finished thing. I also find suprizing that all agreed about the definition of the keshis.

I'd like to hear what K Scarratt thinks of the book.

Agreed! I too wonder if they actually read this stuff.


Cheers
Ash-who thinks she should just go back to her research and Pearl creations. I stay out of trouble (mostly) that way

 

[GemGeek]

The steering committee is clearly comprised of knowledgeable and appropriate people. The problem is that there is no representation for Chinese freshwater cultured pearls. Without it, the interests of Chinese freshwater growers are underrepresented. It leaves the CIBJO organization looking like they are discriminating by omission.