Naturals and nuclei?

[Valeria101]

Seriously?

Absolutely.

Ever heard of a sham built carefully in the open? Could be amusing. Or better.

I'm asking about Chinese freshwater pearls only. If 20% or more of Chinese freshwater pearls routinely come back from a lab certified as a "natural" because distinguishing between tissue nuked and a real natural is near impossible, do these now lab certified Chinese freshwater "naturals" have any more value than the tissue nuked ones?

20% is a big number. Knowing that, would simply evaluate the transaction without considering said lab reports as a source of reference (which does not exclude deploying some third party as independent expert -hypothetically).

Now, those reports are sale tools, and... expectations of future sale is part in buying. Inasmuch, I'd still care about those reports IF I would expect that having one agreeing with my view of the item has some bearing on a future sale. At this point, I am unsure of their popularity.

Otherwise, there are several respected gemological laboratories - if chances of a false ID are 1 in 5, I'd keep submitting until satisfied! Would not expect a seller using such 'paper' to do any less.


Sorry for the bore...

I really only have two simple rules applied here: that unreliable third party ID simply leaves the task of identification ON ME - both as buyer and seller; and they make my task marginally more difficult in the letter capacity NOT the end of the world.


I have not seen natural Hyriopsis pearls offered, and speaking hypothetically takes some edge of the matter.

Has anyone?

Whatever I might think of this problems, the world is not loosing an important buyer of natural pearls.

Knowing this, would you buy such a pearl priced as a natural?

No idea how natural Hyriopsis are priced in the first place... That alone would make such a transaction worse then gambling for me, even if I was certain of what the pearl is. [at least for the same consideration of future sale as above - I would not gamble as much as I would spend on a proper natural pearl but again, I do not gamble anyway]


All this seems so clear, I must be wrong!...

 

[knotty panda]

Pearls are assessed by labs for all sorts of reasons, not just to determine if they are cultured or natural. The 20% figure applies to the very small percentage of the total submitted for that purpose. So that makes the total margin of error for any lab very small. Also, pearls are normally submitted by strand rather than individually. It would be much easier to deceive a lab with a single pearl as opposed to a whole strand where each pearl is used for comparison.

As to the legal standard, it was an estate case in which the largest probate award in the State of Colorado's history was made. The expert who testified at the trial level based his opinion and testimony on documents written approximately twenty years previously and the individual who did the older assessments was not called to trial. The expert did not have an accredited lab and it is uncertain as to whether he ever physically inspected the pearl. That particular pearl is now the subject of a probate case in Manatee County, Florida. Gee, I wonder if they ever settled that?

 

[Valeria101]

Unless it says in big red letters on the front of the certificate 'one in five times our opinion is wrong'

Well, doesn't say that (darn commercial statistics - never give that confidence interval!), but the 'paper' is established as a statement of the issuer's best knowledge: a 'report' not a 'certificate'. It is a sad thought that many might take these as an absolute guarantee - for once because this is more or less detrimental, but it also diminishes incentives to make the 'paper' more reliable - a far worse issue , by my idealistic take. 'Eh...

There must be some record of use of such gemological reports in court - no idea here.

I've always wondered whether having had such 'paper' diminishes the seller's responsibility to the buyer! Hoping it is not the case because of the same small print.

These reports are sales aids - marketed as such very publicly. One thing I'd like to find out would be whether those for pearls are mostly issued to buyers or sellers ? Just curious. The statistic is not usually reported, but for some types it is fairly easy to guess (say, diamond reports - stones sold with them, sellers buy the paper; other types of stones... not so clear; pearls? no freaking' clue)

I am glad that there is demand for the 'paper' inasmuch as it subsidizes research that does reach acceptable certainty in those practical issues... In my utopia, all said reports would be purchased with full understanding of this and their relativity. In the meantime, doubt seems awfully frustrating!

 

[Valeria101]

Pearls are assessed by labs for all sorts of reasons, not just to determine if they are cultured or natural. The 20% figure applies to the very small percentage of the total submitted for that purpose.

I thought I was a pessimist...

Wht do you mean by 'other reasons'?

 

[knotty panda]

One reason I can think of is origin identification. I'm considering a strand labeled as Biwa so I would submit the strand to determine if they are truly Biwa or if they are just really pretty nuggets. I already know they are cultured.

 

[Slraep]

Otherwise, there are several respected gemological laboratories - if chances of a false ID are 1 in 5, I'd keep submitting until satisfied! Would not expect a seller using such 'paper' to do any less.

Exactly. It is a one in five chance error for Chinese freshwater pearls(I don't know about errors involving other types of pearls). No one in China collects CFWP "naturals" or puts any extra value on them, knowing they are not distinguishable from tissue nuked ones, even if a lab says so. Yet, a dealer/seller can keep certifing these pearls until he/she gets two certs that say "natural" and then fly to Dubai(or wherever) to sell to some less informed buyer. Because one cert from two different accredited labs = an awesome natural pearl selling price. Heheh. Not very ethical in the case of Chinese freshwater "naturals".

 

[Slraep]

I've always wondered whether having had such 'paper' diminishes the seller's responsibility to the buyer! !

Good question.

 

[Valeria101]

Exactly. No one in China collects CFWP "naturals" or puts any extra value on them, knowing they are not distinguishable from tissue nuked ones. Yet, a dealer/seller can keep certifying these pearls until he/she gets two certs that says "natural" and then fly to Dubai (or wherever) to sell to some less informed buyer. (

'Less informed'? You are in a generous mood


As long as the lab reports are based on public research - regardless of whether the technicals are accessible to potentially illiterate pearl buyers or not, got to give civilization some due - I'll admire that from a distance..., so to speak.


Last time I checked, ethical behaviour is supposed to get its reward in the next world(*). Whereas getting shot in the foot...




________

(*) happy to leave it at that, otherwise righteousness would have a monetary value and that's ...

 

[Caitlin]

Back in 2005, Gina LaTendresse thought we were tossing the terms "Freshwater" and other types of cultured pearls around improperly when we did not specify "cultured" each time the name of a type of pearl was used.

As Gina is as highly thought of as anyone in the pearl world, I immediately started doing it that way. It was certainly cumbersome, so I shortened it to CFWP. At first I often stated the full term with the abbreviation, but now I seldom do.

To say cultured freshwater pearls IS to say "Chinese", though Gina's family runs the American Pearl Company and her father perfected a method of producing nucleated CFWP, so China probably should not have sole ownership to the acronym.

I further advocate saying "cultured akoya" ,"CSSP" and "CT" too. Those yummy looking pearls are not natural (they are carefully crafted by people) and only natural pearls are pearls without any qualifications.

Almost a century after this was beat out in the courts of France, cultured pearls are still in a different class than naturals and the natural pearl people get really testy about that. They are surrounded by a sea of cultured pearls and need to keep the old terminology.

I think the word "cultured" brings very good connotations with it. It can be associated with the exqiuiste sophistiction of the techniques to produce the roundest and most colorful pearls. "Cultured" also refers to the interaction of people with the care and tending of the growth process.

I think "cultured" should be used with pride.

 

[pearlescence]

One small final query - many posts mention 'accredited' labs. Who accredits them? Is there a world pearl/gem lab accreditation bureau which checks on their accuracy etc?

Knotty, from your account that case proves little or nothing and an expert accreditiing something from a 20 year old piece of paper which could not be tested in court itself would not even be allowed in an English court..it is hearsay. All the present expert could testify on here was that it was certainly a piece of paper.

 

[Valeria101]

One small final query - many posts mention 'accredited' labs. Who accredits them?

Not aware of accreditation for gemology laboratories (those could be 'accredited appraisers', or 'accredited gemologists' perhaps? - different story)


To clarify what I was referring to throughput:

Just thought of the group of more prominent gemological laboratories offering pearl reports, that are also independent research institutions... GIA, AGTA, SSEF, Gubelin, GAAJ ... 'could be missing a couple. Left allot aside intentionally: I simply do not know much about smaller operations and their services to refer to them (say, such as the Hamburg institute where Ms. Strack works - fits the profile, but not the scale); gemology associations also produce reports and research, but may not have any certification business at all (Gem-A and the Australian associations, say) and same goes for academic sources.

I am not aware of any overarching accreditation body for any of these. The reports issued by said major labs are subject to harmonization of terms and whatever distinctions in practice are fairly well known, if not always plain English.

Should be fairly simple to line up their offers of pearl reports, fine print, fundamental research and all. No mystery whatsoever.

Quite frankly, I do not know by heart what exactly each would put on a pearl report, what can and cannot be object of such a report at this time, etc. (ex. 'natural color' for natural and cultured pearls - yes; origin per species - some types; Japan versus China - don't think so; 'bead versus tissue nucleated? - not sure; nacre thickness? - don't think so; natural versus cultured - yes; that's their raison d'etre, value? - never, IDs are kept clinically distinct of appraisals for all the good reasons, etc.)

PS: was writing this in the same time you were, Knotty.

 

[knotty panda]

EGL comes to mind. Labs assess. They do not appraise. (Although it appears EGL does appraise.) GIA is accredited by virtue of being an educational institute. I don't know how the others hold themselves out to be leaders in the industry.

Wendy, I'm sorry you take issue with my very short description of events which have transpired in Colorado, but you asked how lab reports would hold up in court and I gave you an example of where they were not required. I can't change what occurred. Perhaps that was a poor example, showing the opposite to answer your question, but I thought you would enjoy the subtle irony.

 

[knotty panda]

To say cultured freshwater pearls IS to say "Chinese", though Gina's family runs the American Pearl Company and her father perfected a method of producing nucleated CFWP, so China probably should not have sole ownership to the acronym.

In light of cultured Biwas, a Japanese process, there are several countries with freshwater culturing processes.

 

[Valeria101]

No, not reliably at all. One lab may cert a keshi as a natural and another may cert it as a keshi. ...

Just noticed this mid-way through a bibliography search:

Quite upfront: SSEF Facette, No.16 [this link opens Pdf]

page 17. "Especially gonad-grown bead-less cultured pearls (product of a first bead rejection), often called “South Sea Keshi” in the trade, are sometimes difficult to identify. Recently, the SSEF has investigated the potential of micro x-ray tomography to identify pearls." etc.

Considering that SSEF only has access to the gear through collaboration, the 'sometimes' there sounds serious.

 

[SteveM]

?a dealer/seller can keep certifing these pearls until he/she gets two certs that say "natural" and then fly to Dubai(or wherever) to sell to some less informed buyer?

This would be the 'deserving customer' I have mentioned on occasion.