Natural Black Pearls...?

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

These look like fairly old growth oysters. The two images look like the same oyster, are they?

 

[Rorz]

These look like fairly old growth oysters. The two images look like the same oyster, are they?

Yup i think this was the first, darker pearl....same oyster.....Ill get a more high def image so we can look a little more closely. From my memory, the image on the sand shows where the pearl was sitting originally....but enclosed in the whitish tissue at the base.

 

[jshepherd]

If keshi, not worth it. If natural, the pearl to the left is going to be the most valuable. I would check with a natural pearl dealer like Jeremy Norris to see what they may be worth.

 

[Jnorris]

Hi Rorz,
I am happy to help you assess the value of your pearls. If you like you can send additional photos to jnorris@mcn.org

 

[Rorz]

Hi Rorz,
I am happy to help you assess the value of your pearls. If you like you can send additional photos to jnorris@mcn.org

Thank you very much, I shall email some images over to you ASAP.

 

[pattye]

Rorz,

We would love more photos here, please, thanks very much in advance!

 

[Alex]

What a story - must hear the end of it pls !

Jeremy, went to look at the Natural Black drop earrings you used to have in your Exotic section - and they've gone!!!!!!!!

I'm mortified, as I used to go look at them from time-to-time and they were always there - I thought they were part of the 'family'

But, the Natural Conch ones that Hisano wore for the Black Friday video are still there.... phew...., 'cause they are my real favourites

http://www.pearlparadise.com/Natural-Conch-Pearl-and-Diamond-Vine-Earrings2141.aspx

 

[Rorz]

A few more images.....

A few more images.....

 

[Adeline Leigh]

Congrats on the find, they are beauts!

 

[Caitlin]

Is there any chance the SSEF will call those pearls keshi? I know the GIA has called some of Tom's pearls, "keshi" in spite of the fact there were no pearl farms there either. I am thinking it is a bit of a crap shoot and I would not even try the GIA for those two pearls.

I know Tom and some other natural pearl people are too polite to say so, being pearl professionals, and you won't probably dig around in the P-G.com archives enough to know there is some controversy about some of the seemingly natural pearls the GIA has called "keshi". I hope that was just a stage they were going through.

I personally believe your provenance and hope the lab will agree- Good luck and please let us know.

 

[dmj]

I never get why the fee s on a rapport are so extreeeeeem high even when they say it's a keshi you pay a retarded price that in today s Market is a big % of your pearl falue :s

 

[ormout]

Well, it would really be nice to get a chance to come across natural growing ones. We went out on Hawaii a couple of months back and we were able to chance upon 2 black pearls and another white one. They are also growing naturally which gave us the thing to get them.

I will be posting the pictures a little later when I get the chance to upload them. Your images look like keshi by the way.

 

[Rorz]

Well, it would really be nice to get a chance to come across natural growing ones. We went out on Hawaii a couple of months back and we were able to chance upon 2 black pearls and another white one. They are also growing naturally which gave us the thing to get them.

I will be posting the pictures a little later when I get the chance to upload them. Your images look like keshi by the way.

We all know natural pearls can look like Keshi......the thing is, I just can't see how these ones could be....they are from natural oysters on a remote natural reef...how could they be related to the pearl culturing process?....this, I guess is my main reason for investing to get them professionally tested.

 

[kartik master]

They looks like a Keshi pearl from photograph as well as from the x-ray. There is no need to certify it as shows cultivation in both the pearl.

 

[pattye]

Kartik,

What about the x-ray makes you say there is cultivation shown? What experience do you have in this area? Perhaps we can learn from you~

 

[Rorz]

They looks like a Keshi pearl from photograph as well as from the x-ray. There is no need to certify it as shows cultivation in both the pearl.

Yes, I am also curious how you can tell from the Xrays that they are cultured....?????

 

[DerekJ]

I thought that if they were keishi they would have a void in the Xray from the mantle tissue. The xray makes them look natural to me.

 

[Caitlin]

Only some keshi are hollow. A lot of huge natural pearls look like keshi, so the whole thing is based on your word about where you found them. Many of Tom Stern's naturals sometimes have keshi shapes, but there is no pearl farm in the area where he gets his pearls, either.

There is no way to tell a huge keshi from a natural pearl. I challenge anyone in the GIA or any other certifying agency to prove there is. I will eat crow, and face public embarrassment, if I am wrong. You should look at some of the pearls Tom got certified, only to have them say that some of the pearls were keshi. As I have said before, if those pearls were keshi, it would mean that they came from pearl farms in the first place, and who is wholesale selling enormous keshi to people from Sulu to get certified as natural? They could do better selling them themselves-if they ever allowed a pearl oyster alone long enough to produce keshi of that size!

 

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

There is no way to tell a huge keshi from a natural pearl.

In scientific terms, there are no absolutes and we should be mindful such statements. I would add to your's "by visual examination only" for clarity.

Some labs have made great strides in the past few years by identifying key features in the nucleus of homogeneic grafted keshis. Namely calcite deposition and DNA markers. These are destructive tests though. Apart from that, there is considerable evidence to support contrasted views of graft tissue in the nucleus, afterall they don't simply dissolve or become reabsorbed, as opposed to encapsulated or calcified.

In this particular case, like yourself, I also believe Rorz's description and assessment on the origin of these pearls by adding there is no conclusive evidence to suggest they are keshi.

We'll revisit the grain of sand thing later in another thread, once my work is published.

 

[Caitlin]

In scientific terms, there are no absolutes and we should be mindful such statements. I would add to your's "by visual examination only" for clarity.

Some labs have made great strides in the past few years by identifying key features in the nucleus of homogeneic grafted keshis. Namely calcite deposition and DNA markers. These are destructive tests though. Apart from that, there is considerable evidence to support contrasted views of graft tissue in the nucleus, afterall they don't simply dissolve or become reabsorbed, as opposed to encapsulated or calcified.

In this particular case, like yourself, I also believe Rorz's description and assessment on the origin of these pearls by adding there is no conclusive evidence to suggest they are keshi.

We'll revisit the grain of sand thing later in another thread, once my work is published.

So there is no test to differentiate huge keshi from natural pearls- that doesn't destroy the pearl. I will not consider eating crow if some such test is devised in the future. I said is, not will be.

Also, I seem to remember Strack just said, in Tucson this year, that the graft tissue forms the pearl sack which is not on the inside of the pearl, but around the outside, so I would not mind a better explanation of how the graft tissue can be on the inside when it forms the sack that produces the pearl?

Or maybe I misheard her. I am quite old- and deaf in one ear, but I remember I had never thought about it before, of course there was graft tissue on the inside, so her saying that it isn't, made me change my thinking. I can always change it back.

I am having trouble understanding that bolded sentence. You are saying the graft tissue does not become the pearl sack itself and is not attached to the pearl sack, but stays a separate piece of tissue, after it forms the pearl sack and stays inside the forming nacre, separated from the cells it originally produced? Sorry if I sound picky, but I want to understand what you are saying.