Nautilus pearl

[GemGeek]

Steve, I used to be able to see your photos, but lately, only a red x. Is this the pearl that was "catted" or is it the bluish one?

Congratulations!

 

[Caitlin]

No red x's for me. Another mystery, but not the kind I like....

 

[SteveM]

Reposted the photo in my prior post after resaving in another graphics program. Crossing fingers, also for this one.

Here's a newly discovered pearl from a decades-old collection that has Nautilus written all over it (from poor quality remote photos). Promising quality, 10.5x10mm near round, 8.05 carats. Nice blue 'under' tone, 'tiger stripes', tranlucency, etc etc. Also with well-formed vortex on BOTH top and bottom. In fact, the tight polar spiral is highly reminiscent of Tom's much smaller original-certified pearl from the photo by Pearlshooter for the Dubai auction catalogue. Tom's pearl and this one, among others here, offer a more provocative and visually demonstrative case for Nautilus than those appearing in Bari's Pearls.

The vortex/spiral phenomenon is a central theme in this thread but does not appear to be a game-maker or -breaker. In continuing communications on the subject the sources have indicated it is useful as a very simple means of helping to eliminate Tridacna or other non-mobile mollusk as species of origin.

 

[Caitlin]

I am looking forward to your nautilus talk, complete with slides and actual pearls at the next ICPGC (ruckus for short)

 

[SteveM]

I am looking forward to your nautilus talk, complete with slides and actual pearls at the next ICPGC (ruckus for short)

Also looking forward to ICPGC II. Who's getting the ball rolling? As the one who inserted the first 'C' (for 'consequential') in the acronym, I'll be hard-pressed to demonstrate relevance.

Working title is 'In Search of Nautilus Pearl' and it will be about the twists and turns and oddities found along the way. I'm really hoping we can get to the bottom of those mysterious vortexed ('Badai Sempuma') specimens by then!

BTW I was just shown a freshly harvested 3.5ct pearl from Nautilus that appears to be nacreous, at least on one side. Finder did not keep the shell but color appears correct. Terrible images. I'm trying to confirm in which part of the animal it was found, I assume in the apertural (front) area.

Is that nacre? Could it be Nautilus?

Will we ever know?

 

[GemGeek]

I still can't see it. I wonder why only Steve's photos are not showing?

 

[GemGeek]

I renamed it and will try posting again.

 

[GemGeek]

I wonder why it would show on my computer and not here. Hmmm....
Can everyone else see a photo in my post above?

 

[SteveM]

I am seeing yours, and mine as well. Lisa also was having a problem. I wonder if the length of this thread has anything to do with it?

 

[GemGeek]

I'll try another photo and see if that is the problem...

 

[GemGeek]

Nope, I see this one. I'm am so frustrated.

 

[pattye]

Yes, I can see both photos---------

 

[GemGeek]

Ahhhrrrg!!!

 

[lisa c]

Hi guys! I see the tin cup necklace, just little red x for Steve's.

 

[SteveM]

Hi guys! I see the tin cup necklace, just little red x for Steve's.

The Spirit of Nautilus must be intervening to guard its secrets!

(I have 22MB of images successfully posted here at Pearl-Guide—no other explanation makes sense!)

 

[SteveM]

The Nautilus image in Pearls was published online over one year ago by The Pearl Professor.

Below are the two published pearls, along with a beautiful 26-carat Tridacna Maxima that I should probably reconsider?

There will be those who view Bari?s inclusion of Nautilus as an aberration in an otherwise highly credible work. Such inclusion will be characterized as premature until ID based on objective scientific analysis can be provided, or until such time as Nautilus can be easily differentiated from other pearl types with the unassisted eye.

The Tridacna got away?shucks!

But the anticipated negative reaction to Bari's Nautilus entry has already begun. As Pearls will be regarded as authoritative upon release, it is important that the fragility of the premise in this case be exposed, at risk of false conclusions.

Unsolicited comment received today in correspondence with an accredited gemology lab (to remain anonymous, offered here as representative of the alternative view):

The two pearls in the book by Bari are really not unique, we have certified more than 100 such white pearls (ovals, buttons, drops?all perfect?with incredible flames) from about 2 cts to far more than 10 cts?
The fact that a Philippine fisherman said that they were Nautilus?well, let me tell you that the 100+ pearls we certified ALL were indicated as Nautilus by Philippine fishermen...

This isn't getting any easier!

 

[lisa c]

Did I miss something? Is that not logical? for one hundred such ("such" in this instance meaning similar)pearls to be claimed to be Nautilus? If the Philipine fishermen acquired 100 Nautilus pearls, should they have lied and called the pearls by another name?

Statistically, if there's one Nautilus pearl there have to be more, yes? So this person's logic is lame; how sad.

Is this one of those "The Earth is Flat" moments? I think this is at least a demonstration that 1)there's Good Science, and Junk Science, and 2)you can have a front row seat to a good scientific education and still not have it "take".

Hang in there. Good science always wins, given enough proofs, and you're working methodically to accumulate those, so...

 

[SteveM]

I think this is at least a demonstration that 1)there's Good Science, and Junk Science, and 2)you can have a front row seat to a good scientific education and still not have it "take".

Hang in there. Good science always wins, given enough proofs, and you're working methodically to accumulate those, so...

You have hit the nail on the head. The ongoing peer dispute regarding Nautilus pearls results from the certification of two such pearls based on anecdotal provenance ("Philippine fishermen"). The certifications are at the very least non-compliant with the certifying lab's own submittal protocol prohibiting prejudicial labeling of specimens.

I have enough experience, and 24 specimens all sold to me as Nautilus pearls, to know that 'Nautilus' is a term used very loosely among the native population, more or less as a 'superior grade' of non-nacreous white pearl.

The most important objective of my prior post is to forewarn those who will want to purchase Pearls by Hubert Bari for the quality and variety of its photographs that the book is factually compromised as a result of an unfortunate rush to judgment on Nautilus.

While this thread may be considered ultra-esoteric, we are dealing with core credibility issues. And the opposing peer entities are having a field day.

 

[lisa c]

Thanks for the clarification!

When my son was in college a couple of years ago, I became aware that college textbooks weren't an easy re-sell like they were in my day. New editions, required by the profs for the courses, are issued every year(!). Sometimes the pace of scientific advances made that necessary, sometimes it was just to generate income.

Anyway, re the Bari book, it's expensive to publish a book like that. When the Nautilus 'controversy' is resolved, the publisher can make a 'corrected' section available, for pasting in, right? but it's also an Art book, so maybe that's not a desirable option. Well, not up to me to problem-solve, just thinking out loud.

How many years do you think it'll take to resolve the controversy? Do you have an idea how many proofs your side needs to accumulate to be unassailable?

 

[SteveM]

Do you have an idea how many proofs your side needs to accumulate to be unassailable?

There are no sides, there is only the truth, whatever it may be. What is for certain is that there is not enough evidence to publish a picture in a book and put a caption on it without a disclaimer or qualifier. I did not see any such disclaimer in my quick reading of Bari's chapter.

We have established here that the unique biomineral capabilities of the Nautilus (nacreous and non-nacreous, nacre in BOTH terraced/bivalvia and columnar/gastropodia form) make it impossible to assume or predict an appropriate appearance for Nautilus pearls.

Short of witnessing and documenting an actual pearl extraction or encountering a perfect blister pearl attached to a Nautilus shell (although we do have that conchiolin-covered specimen for future dissection!), proof would comprise matching a pearl to its host mollusk or shell via DNA or mineral isotope analysis, without sacrificing the specimen in order to allow for duplication of results.

Application of available technology to pearls requires attracting the interest (and budget) of an appropriately-equipped and inclined researcher and laboratory. We've run across a few prospects in the course of this thread.

The gentle persuasion process is ongoing!