Nautilus pearl

[Valeria101]

The pearls on the for mentioned site appear to be from Tridacna.

Silly question here: three of the round whites appear to have that 'ring of fire' reflection made possible by the singular structure of the sure-fire nautilus pearls posted here too. And nautilus are harvested en masse (i.e. where's smoke, chances are...).

Sure enough, I've never seen one in person and never seen or heard of tridacna pearls looking anything but like a porcelain drop with no other funny optical features on them. This can very well be simply my lacking, of course.

SSEF may have identified 'natural' status, but not the species. I don't think any lab did that for nautilus the recent survey of exotic pearls gave GIA Thailand some systematic reference for doing just that. Doesn't seem to be any reason why the reports would not be published, but SSEF does not do that automatically and the owner appears to have considered that their registration number is sufficient... for a mere WWW presentation (understandable slippage !?).

2c [i.e. just one way to reason through the issue, I'm very outside it all, as you know]

Admittedly, a picture is only a piecture, but again...

 

[DrTKStern]

Nautilus versus Tridacna

Nautilus versus Tridacna

Sure enough, I've never seen one in person and never seen or heard of tridacna pearls looking anything but like a porcelain drop with no other funny optical features on them.
...

Hi,

I have a number of gem quality Tridacna, up to 75 carats with perfect shape. At their finest, they have a very fine flame structure easy to see under 10x, but much less flamboyant than a marine gastropod like white conch or cassis, or even white melo-melo. A good Nautilus pearl has wildly phenomenal patterns visible to the naked eye, and even emits what seems like a light from within.

Most tridacna lack flame pattern, as you say. To get that flame, the crystallization has to be very orderly alternation of vertical and horizontal columns. In a big tridacna pearl, say half a kilogram, the chaotic formation of many years eliminates that flame.

As to the frequency of Nautilus in captured animals, according to records of the Sulu Sultanate, such pearls seem to be found once in every two or three decades, which would mean far less than 1 per million animals.


Best regards,
Tom

 

[Jnorris]

Hi Valeria.
The flame pattern is typical of pearls coming from a variety of Tridacna. Most likely tridacna Squamosa. The photos that have been shared on the internet so far have all shown these same characteristics. When I return home in a few days I will post images from a few pearls in my own collection.
Best Regards.
Jeremy

 

[effisk]

Thanks Tom.
In talking with the labs it appears that you have the only pearl with a cert.

Why would Ken Scarratt write a monograph on several nautilus pearls and only certify one?

What I find interesting is the fact that most if not all nautilus pearls mentioned in the last century's literature are said to have a yellow hue yet only one of the five pearls is slightly yellow (it actually looks stained).

 

[SteveM]

Just to clarify and confirm, is this pearl (marvelous photo by TimRobinson/Pearlshooter) the pearl owned by Dr. Tom and the world's only certified Nautilus Pearl, offered at auction in Dubai for US$60,000?

I don't believe we ever got a precise measurement of diameter and carat weight.

It is quite distinct from the pearls showing 'ring of fire' effect claiming Nautilus status.

 

[DrTKStern]

Hi,

The prices in the tender were not disclosed, were entirely confidential, and while I agreed never to reveal to anyone, I will say that the figure mentioned is incorrect and should not be cited further. Whoever provided that information should contact me so I can trace the leak and fix it.

That does appear to be the photograph used in the tender. Harold and Erica Van Pelt in Los Angeles, who do most of the covers for Gems and Gemology, did a higher contrast photograph that shows more of the inner life of the Nautilus pearl.

The photograph below was taken by my wife, Princess Yolanda Ortega Stern, PhD using a Nikon D200, so you can enlarge it substantially without losing detail.

Regards to all,
Tom

 

[DrTKStern]

Ring of Fire

Ring of Fire

It is quite distinct from the pearls showing 'ring of fire' effect claiming Nautilus status.

At first, when I had several pearls showing the "Ring of Fire" I thought it meant Nautilus. They turned out to be white conch, white cassis, or other marine gastropod.

Once I knew I had finally found a Nautilus, I took it to Los Angeles for real professionals to photograph. Harold and Erica Van Pelt, light years ahead of us in understanding photography, looked at the phenomenon and called it a simple "light ring" and nothing really special to their trained eyes. In fact, they worked hard to eliminate that phenomenon from their finished photograph. I'm not able to say more than to parrot the "light ring" word I heard them use in their Los Angeles studio, and cannot explain why certain types of pearls show this, but I believe it has something to do with the crystalline structure reflecting light like tiny mirrors.

Using indirect light, very slow exposure times, etc. Princess Yolanda caught one of the personalities of the Nautilus. Another view would show a particular typhoon-like swirl at one end. If it ain't got that swirl, it ain't a Nautilus pearl.

Best regards,
Tom

 

[GemGeek]

If it ain't got that swirl, it ain't a Nautilus pearl.

I hear music!
Princess Yolanda took an outstanding photo. It's mesmerizing.

 

[SteveM]

This is endlessly fascinating.

May we know the measurements of the pearl? Is this the pearl in the 'Close Up' thread (under different lighting)? Do you also have non-symmetrical Nautilus pearls that you have not certified as yet?or is there something about Nautilus anatomy?in stark contrast with abalone?that encourages round shape?

Is there any presence of aragonite/nacre?

Anything you can provide from personal knowledge without scooping Mr. Scarrett will be devoured here!

 

[effisk]

Just to clarify and confirm, is this pearl (marvelous photo by TimRobinson/Pearlshooter) the pearl owned by Dr. Tom and the world's only certified Nautilus Pearl, offered at auction in Dubai for US$60,000?

I don't believe we ever got a precise measurement of diameter and carat weight.

It is quite distinct from the pearls showing 'ring of fire' effect claiming Nautilus status.

This pearl is 1.49 carat and 5.9mm in diameter.

I think this nautilus pearl is the most beautiful and striking of all. The flames are larger and the whirl is more visible than in the other nautilus pearls I have seen.

 

[effisk]

Another view would show a particular typhoon-like swirl at one end. If it ain't got that swirl, it ain't a Nautilus pearl.

Not all pearls studied by Ken Scarratt and identified as nautilus pearls show that swirl.

 

[DrTKStern]

The swirl

The swirl

Not all pearls studied by Ken Scarratt and identified as nautilus pearls show that swirl.

Hi, Pecheur,

Are you in London yet? See you in Basel?

Even with 20x magnification there is no swirl? Oops! Wrong again! On mine, it is VERY strong, like a magical microcosm.

Best regards,
Tom

 

[SteveM]

==========​

The pearl is a miniature universe of great beauty! But whoever ends up with it will need to display it under permanent magnification.

 

[Jnorris]

As promised a photo from my collection of clam pearls.

 

[pattye]

Indeed, magical!

 

[SteveM]

Very impressive pearl, au naturel without studio lighting or other props! This thread is prompting a new appreciation for the potential of non-nacreous pearls.

Who's responsible for Pearl Professor's gaff?

 

[SteveM]

This thread is prompting a new appreciation for the potential of non-nacreous pearls.

However, the central recurring theme here is the glaring contradiction of flame structure originating in a nacreous shell. I assume this apparent singularity will be the essential thrust of Scarratt's pending publication regarding the credibility of Nautilus Pearl certification.

[Photo from Wikipedia.]

 

[Valeria101]

At first, when I had several pearls showing the "Ring of Fire" I thought it meant Nautilus. They turned out to be white conch, white cassis, or other marine gastropod.

Clear enough: I was falling for an easy mistake - taking any slightly interesting feature as potential ID feature! Could be that the owner of those pearls fell for the same.

SSEF reports likely state that the pearls are natural, not necesarily of a certain species. At least, I would hope so since this seems to have been the right thing to do for the lab...

With this, my expectations and respect for the other non-nacreous pearls have just jumped a notch...

... I believe it has something to do with the crystalline structure reflecting light like tiny mirrors.

Aha! Much like the 'fish eye' reflection on other pearls! All it takes is some transparency and round shape, nothing too specific to any given nacre structure (should have realized this from the start, in retrospect).

Sure enough, now I'm wondering how the unusual nacre structure of nautilus is related to the polar swirl that is proof of origin... But will stop speculating and wait for the book.

 

[Slraep]

Thanks for that pic J. Norris! No comments even needed.

Who's responsible for Pearl Professor's gaff?

...and I had put him on such a high pedestal.

Slraep

 

[Valeria101]

However, the central recurring theme here is the glaring contradiction of flame structure originating in a nacreous shell. I assume this apparent singularity will be the essential thrust of Scarratt's pending publication regarding the credibility of Nautilus Pearl certification.

I'd even go a step further...

In different literatures then relating to pearls-as-jewelry, 'nacre' describes 'shell material' in general. I would expect this usage to spill over in a more academic approach to pearls too.

Nautilus - with its particular archaic 'nacre' structure, is a perfect pretext for this.