Little festoon necklace, natural pearls?

[kyratango]

Hi all
I bought this unusual festoon necklace from Ebay one year ago.
It has been restrung and the modern clasp is marked 14k.
Tiniest pearls are 1.5mm, the two largest are 3.5mm and 4mm.
Whole length is 40.5 centimeters.
I had a try in candling some, hoping you can say something from my pics ;-)
View attachment 39159

 

[BWeaves]

OOOO, can we see the whole necklace, please?

Or a neck shot? Or both? It looks lovely.

 

[kyratango]

Here are the pics


Just realise the necklace's display features a clown!

 

[Caitlin]

That necklace does a good job of looking natural. It also looks like a very lustrous Chinese freshwater from the outside. I am no expert on what you see when you candle, but there sure are a lot of different innards to the pearls you showed. I hope to learn what the candling shows.

What kind of pearl(s) was it sold as on eBay?

 

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

Hello kyratango.

I have every apprehension of natural pearls sold on e-Bay, especially ones without certificates. There are a lot of elaborate fakes out there.
Likewise, I'm sure you understand the perils of suggesting a fake strand is authentic or vise versa.

Shape wise, this strand is less than immaculate (although it's very becoming, nonetheless). Generally, I would expect this in a natural strand, but you can understand it's also a criteria for fraud. Color wise, unless it's a magnificent strand, I'd expect some color differences. These seem well matched with a few exceptions, but again... another platform for fakes. Color treatment is known in fakes to give that slight gold overtone which mimics gulf pearls. Deliberate mis-matching is the oldest trick in the book.

You made a great start by sharing candled views. You are part way there already. Here's what I'd like to you to do and why. Views of one or a few pearls is insufficient. I would ask you to candle each and every pearl on this strand. Do your best to capture as many photos as possible. However, posting perfect images in critical focus is a lengthy task. So for the meantime, I will ask you only observe each pearl and make a note of your findings. Then compare your notes and ask yourself - Is the nuclear material markedly different or nearly identical to one another?

To be honest, at first glance at the few images, these present as tissue grafts. The dead giveaway is the size/position relationship between the nucleus and the pearl itself. All three of these views have visible contrasts greater than half the diameter of the pearl, equal and concentric. This is consistent with freshwater pearls, because after all the tissue gets a couple of years growth, with only enough clear margins surrounding them to be marketable.

One inescapable feature of natural pearls are their onset. In FW pearls, there is only one - the graft. In naturals, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of possible combinations. Therfore, even in the finest strands we'd see marked differences at the nucleus. These would include dark spots, slashes, streaks, eccentric positioning, flame patterns... basically anything is possible.

Once you've observed all of them, ask yourself this question. Uniform or not uniform?

 

[lisa c]

Dave, again enthusiastic hand clapping!!! Your methodical analysis and insights are invaluable for us. Respect and gratitude!

(and I still miss that reputation button. Hey, how about a Scholarship button instead????)

kyratango, they look very lustrous against your skin; good start with the photos! And hello , and watcha got on your earlobe, there?

 

[kyratango]

Caitlin and Dave, thank you for your comment and above all for what to do!
The necklace was bought as "vintage pearl necklace", paid around 110$ after a little bidding war
I'll get a try to candle them all, Dave!
Lisa c, hello! They are very lustrous in any background
What an eye you have! No pearls at my lobes! These are old matte jet mourning earrings

 

[lisa c]

Oooohhh Jet, love it! Good eye, I don't know, but I love earrings and saw yours peeking out, just had to ask!

 

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

I'll get a try to candle them all, Dave!

I'm not sure if you've seen this page, but it demonstrates natural nuclei.

Candled Natural Pearls

As you'll see, there's no two alike. In fact, they're not even remotely similar. FW grafts won't be exactly the same either, but they'll be reasonably matched in relation to one another.

 

[kyratango]

Yes Dave, I already saw your very nice thread! Thank you for showing it for education
The problem I have in my candling tries is getting blind by the bright light through the card hole before placing the pearl on it! I'll try some filter or wear sun glasses, haha!

 

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

Using a simple room light or table lamp (for example) to get a general idea how the nuclei appear.

If these were in my lab, I'd examine each one from all 3 axis, not just one. For example, a cylinder might appear as a square from X and Y, but not Z. which would appear as a circle. Of course, that triples the workload.

You seem gem savvy, hence only need to do a cursory inspection for our purposes. Don't worry about dozens of images or accurate views.

 

[pattye]

Kyratango
What an interesting and special necklace, and the scale looks much smaller on, even though you gave the mm size. Looking forward to further reporting as you candle the pearls.

 

[kyratango]

Pattye, thank you for your interest, I suspected they are natural from the tiny size and shape of them! Chinese fwp seed pearls are bigger and my pearl knowledge is not scientific at all, I usually trust my feeling, deductions and handling experience
For now, waiting to have the courage to go for the candling of them all, as Dave asked for!

 

[JerseyPearl]

Regardless of its nature, it is a lovely necklace.

 

[kyratango]

JerseyPearl, thank you, I totally agree :-D

 

[Caitlin]

Your pearls do look like some of my small natural Persian Gulf pearls. So far your nuclei are quite variable so that bodes well for natural, (yes, Dave?). It looks like a restringing may have replaced a few pearls- but candling should tell that story. Take your time, but candle them all. For one thing you will get to know each pearl from the outside when you candle. I recognize almost every natural pearl I have as being one I know personally, and would probably recognize out of context.

In any case, you've got a beaut!.

Dave, that was a good insight about the variability of causes in initiating natural pearls -and the single cause of cultured! as well as how they vary inside from each other, and from the signature look of a grafted freshwater. Its part of my vocabulary now.

 

[CathyKeshi]

Kyratango, your festoon necklace of pearls is lovely ... these pearls have a gorgeous luster and luminosity

 

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

... so that bodes well for natural, (yes, Dave?)

Natural vs CFWP

Luster ----------- 0.5 - 0.5 Consistent with either
Shape ----------- 0.0 - 1.0 More common in CFWP, numerous flat spots.
Inclusions ------ 0.0 - 1.0 Does not present with inclusions.
Matching ------- 0.5 - 0.5 Equal matches are possible, but more consistent with CFWP.
Structure ------- 0.5 - 0.5 Known to be terraced aragonite, consistent with either
Size -------------- 0.5 - 0.5 Consistent with either
Color ------------ 0.5 - 0.5 Consistent with either
Translucency --- 0.5 - 0.5 Consistent with either
Onset ----------- 0.0 - 0.0 Unknown at this time. No point scored (Even though imagery supports periostracial origin)
Nuclear --------- 0.0 - 1.0 More uniform than not. No shell beads present.

Natural - 3
CFWP - 6

A better look at the nuclei could raise this score to 5 or 5.5 which is only half way there. At the very least, a score of 5 or more merits a trip to the lab.

Of the current images, only one has enough resolution (from only a single axis) and appears consistent with a tissue graft.

In the meantime, anyone who owns a FW strand can see for themselves. Hold them to a lamp and look at every pearl. Even thought they'll never be perfectly identical. you'll see similarities. Likewise Caitlin, you have some naturals... try the same with those. I'm certain you'll see differences.

 

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

Dave, that was a good insight about the variability of causes in initiating natural pearls -and the single cause of cultured! as well as how they vary inside from each other, and from the signature look of a grafted freshwater. Its part of my vocabulary now.

Mantle tissue is used to perform the graft of identical species. Hence the onset can be deemed as "periostracial" and "homogeneic" in origin. This is because the grafted tissue is already performing active mineralization from at least one side of the epithelium.

Only a medium percentage of naturals are periostracial, but almost never homogeneic (other than by it's own tissues or extreme fluke). Afterall, there's no graft donor. Parasites causing lesions may be septic and periostracial in many cases, but are considered xenogeneic in origin.

Naturals may also be formed by myostracial, byssal or visceral onset. The myostracum of bivalves is a fancy word for connective membranes. It holds all of the organs together, surrounds the adductor muscles and fastens them to the shell. Normally they do no mineralize structures, BUT with some intervention, stresses, injury or growth they'll become so.

A good example for myostracial origin are abalone horns. After all, what is normally soft tissue otherwise became mineralized. Pearls from perforations in abalone are periostracial in origin, because they form in the mantle. Myostracial pearls rarely have any visible nucleus.

Pearls may also form in the byssal glands or in the guts which could be either, depending on the stress (whether sterile or septic). Byssal lesions are generally aseptic and myostracial from strains, but if a bug gets in there it's septic and either.

 

[kyratango]

Thanks Caitlin and Dave !
Candling is exhausting... They seem to me to be beryl translucide, I can't see differences between them, impossible to get focus on such tiny things :-/
Dave, your writing is very interesting, will keep it in doc Base