Hello all,
Thank you, thank you, thank you for this incredible site. For someone who knows absolutely NOTHING about pearls, the information to be found here, coupled with the detailed explanations offered by all members, is truly fantastic.
OK, on to what brings me to this fine corner of cyberspace: I've inherited what I think is a Mikimoto pearl strand, 16 inches, 54 pearls, circa late 50's, early 60's (I think). The clasp is gold (14k) with a small pearl attached to the front and an "M" inside a clamshell stamped to the back. I believe that's the hallmark of Mikimoto, right?
The pearls themselves (I will post pictures this afternoon, I promise) are quite bland. They don't look particularly shiny, nor do they seem to exhibit (to my untrained eye, anyway) any deep color. Furthermore, I can see what looks to be a ball (albeit a shiny ball) inside each pearl. Rather like two spheres, one nested inside the other.
Soooooo...my lifetime's accumulation of pearl knowledge (that which has been gathered over the last 30 hours) tells me that Mikimoto is a "big name", overpriced, pearl designer whose older products have value not so much for the quality of the pearls, but for the very fact they they come from Mikimoto, right?
As I don't have any real use for this necklace, I think I'd be interested in selling it. I have no idea of the value, nor for that matter, if it's even something that anyone would be interested in having. I showed it to a gemologist at the local pawn shop (yes, I can hear the chorus of groans coming from the board members!), and he said, "don't ask for more than $50."
I also have a pair of earings with an "M" stamped into the silver (?) base which attaches to the pearl. They're not for pierced ears, but rather the type that pinches to the ear via a screw.
I know there's not much that can be gleaned from my ramblings, especially without pictures, but I would appreciate whatever thoughts some of you might have. Pictures coming, I promise.
Mike
P.S. As you can see, I've added a picture. I know it's terrible. I haven't figured out how to make a crisp, close-up photo without it getting blurry. I'll work on it. Both pieces, I've since learned, are pre-1950 (or so I'm told). These pictures were taken indoors under artificial light.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for this incredible site. For someone who knows absolutely NOTHING about pearls, the information to be found here, coupled with the detailed explanations offered by all members, is truly fantastic.
OK, on to what brings me to this fine corner of cyberspace: I've inherited what I think is a Mikimoto pearl strand, 16 inches, 54 pearls, circa late 50's, early 60's (I think). The clasp is gold (14k) with a small pearl attached to the front and an "M" inside a clamshell stamped to the back. I believe that's the hallmark of Mikimoto, right?
The pearls themselves (I will post pictures this afternoon, I promise) are quite bland. They don't look particularly shiny, nor do they seem to exhibit (to my untrained eye, anyway) any deep color. Furthermore, I can see what looks to be a ball (albeit a shiny ball) inside each pearl. Rather like two spheres, one nested inside the other.
Soooooo...my lifetime's accumulation of pearl knowledge (that which has been gathered over the last 30 hours) tells me that Mikimoto is a "big name", overpriced, pearl designer whose older products have value not so much for the quality of the pearls, but for the very fact they they come from Mikimoto, right?
As I don't have any real use for this necklace, I think I'd be interested in selling it. I have no idea of the value, nor for that matter, if it's even something that anyone would be interested in having. I showed it to a gemologist at the local pawn shop (yes, I can hear the chorus of groans coming from the board members!), and he said, "don't ask for more than $50."
I also have a pair of earings with an "M" stamped into the silver (?) base which attaches to the pearl. They're not for pierced ears, but rather the type that pinches to the ear via a screw.
I know there's not much that can be gleaned from my ramblings, especially without pictures, but I would appreciate whatever thoughts some of you might have. Pictures coming, I promise.
Mike
P.S. As you can see, I've added a picture. I know it's terrible. I haven't figured out how to make a crisp, close-up photo without it getting blurry. I'll work on it. Both pieces, I've since learned, are pre-1950 (or so I'm told). These pictures were taken indoors under artificial light.
Attachments
Last edited:
