Nautilus pearl

[SteveM]

I now have two Nautilus pearls with GIA cert.

That's great. But as everyone who reads this thread knows, GIA certificates for Nautilus pearls are refuted by the other major pearl labs as being based on anecdotal provenance and not shell structure science?thus should be considered invalid in the eyes of the pearl community. We are attempting to find scientific proof, which I sincerely hope will eventually confirm GIA's risky hunch. As one of the clam-like examples in Pearls by Hubert Bari is also GIA-certified Nautilus, I am not optimistic that will be the case.

 

[DrTKStern]

Rejecting GIA opinions

Rejecting GIA opinions

But as everyone who reads this thread knows, GIA certificates for Nautilus pearls are refuted by the other major pearl labs as being based on anecdotal provenance and not shell structure science?thus should be considered invalid in the eyes of the pearl community. We are attempting to find scientific proof, which I sincerely hope will eventually confirm GIA's risky hunch. As one of the clam-like examples in Pearls by Hubert Bari is also GIA-certified Nautilus, I am not optimistic that will be the case.

Hi, Steve,

First, thanks for all you are doing. VERY good work. My men are still hunting for a nice Nautilus blister attached by a thin stalk to the shell.

I am not quite so ready to discount GIA certs. A thorough review of the various laboratories will be one of the projects of Societe des Perles Fines (SPF). SPF welcomes the input from all natural pearl people on this topic; which comments can be posted here for now, pending full implementation of all features in the SPF website.

Highest respencts,
Tom

 

[Pearlgully]

That's great. But as everyone who reads this thread knows, GIA certificates for Nautilus pearls are refuted by the other major pearl labs as being based on anecdotal provenance and not shell structure science—thus should be considered invalid in the eyes of the pearl community. We are attempting to find scientific proof, which I sincerely hope will eventually confirm GIA's risky hunch. As one of the clam-like examples in Pearls by Hubert Bari is also GIA-certified Nautilus, I am not optimistic that will be the case.

I am confused . On page 34 of the 5th and latest edition of Renee Newman's "Pearl Buying Guide", Fig.3.47 is a picture of a: "Nautilus pompilius blister pearl. Photo and pearl from Stephen Metzler." On the next page 35 is a write up by Blaire (GemGeek) which describes Nautilus pearls, the controversy of their existence, and remarks describing Steve's pearl (fig.3.47) as....... "an attached blister pearl on a nautilus shell.......". (Shell is not pictured.)

First, I would like to congratulate Steve, Blair and other PG members for recognition in the book. Second, based on the continued discussion in this thread and Smeltzer's post #581 above, I am having difficulty understanding Steve's position in this subject matter. If I have correctly followed what you've been posting in this thread, it appears then, that no authentication of a Nautilus pearl has been made but in the Newman book, it appears that you own one. If I've missed a fact a long the way or misinterpreted something, I apologize.

Gail

 

[Caitlin]

I am wondering how confused I am too. I am thinking through everything I think I learned about this story. I want to summarize it and see how I am understanding the facts. Please all, correct me as needed.

Steve and Tom are a couple of laymen-become-experts in pearls. They have both seriously studied their subject and have gone from 1-10 in expertise since they have first appeared in these pages. They both have been reporting on the trail of Nautilus in these pages for some time. They both feel they are in service to nautilus and have a responsibility to get nautilus credentialed. They feel comfortable taking a position with their claims. It is the first step to being accepted universally by gem labs. This position is still somewhat disputable, but the evidence is firm, and building that certain pearls are from nautilus and they can be distinguished from all other pearls.

Tom had a very special relationship to the fisherman, pearl finders, of the Sulu seas that resulted in him receiving numbers of natural pearls. He also built a relationship with the lab where he took his pearls to be certified. He got many P maximas certified, but the first year, esp. he got some beaded cultured pearls- which made him refine his gathering techniques. (He also was to later report here that some of his solid nacre natural pearls were certified as keshi, not naturals. This was the first I heard of that. At first there no answers about these pearls. This year the scandal broke and the labs are uniting to take it on.)

People gave Tom pearls other than P maximas such as, tridacna pearls and nautilus pearls. The lab certified the nicest tridacnas and was studying nautilus because a nautilus pearl had never been certified. What does it take to certify a new pearl? A scientific provenance, from in situ to the lab, then verified by lab data based on distinguishing characteristics. Indisputable evidence is best, but there is a pathway to that, especially in nautilus. This lab wanted to do the work to prove (or rule out) the truth of pearls coming from nautilus and which ones they are. Eventually they certified 2 pearls as nautilus. A paper was written by the certifying lab.

I thought the results of that study Steve had done in Europe which revealed the microchrystallaneous (???) or rather, squiggly structure of the nautilus is almost unique to Nautilus; there is only one other kind of shell that has it and they live at the bottom of the sea. So far, Steve has brought his blister pearl on a nautilus to be seen by a lab. And there appears to be a unique characteristic to the structure of a nautilus pearl. It may be awhile before Steve’s nautilus overcomes all arguments, but it isn’t a bad start.

 

[SteveM]

My men are still hunting for a nice Nautilus blister attached by a thin stalk to the shell.

I am not quite so ready to discount GIA certs. A thorough review of the various laboratories will be one of the projects of Societe des Perles Fines (SPF).

My role here since very early in the thread has been that of Devil's Advocate, given the incredible prices being asked for the certified pearls based upon the rarity of the certificates alone. This is a quest for truth (at considerable personal expense), results be damned.

Regarding the certificates, there is nothing to discount as yet. Peer rejection among the pearl labs, as in the medical and other scientific professions, means 'Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $$$$.' Obviously, I have preceded SDPF in maintaining substantial contact with all the labs in question on this matter. But the answers must come from elsewhere, as the required technology and expertise is beyond gemmological lab capabilities at this time.

Concerning the blister, a definitive blister is already in hand.The microstructure of its aragonitic core requires careful examination at the proper time and with the proper equipment. The biology of Nautilus is going to prevent anything 'prettier' due to the mollusk's bi-monthly migration upon creating new chambers. Even in the case of shell attachment in the final body chamber, the cessation of rotation of the pearl within the pearl sac will have unpredictable, messy results, one of which is likely the example in the post linked at the beginning of this paragraph.

 

[SteveM]

I am having difficulty understanding Steve's position in this subject matter.

Hopefully my previous post helps. I could link to multiple posts of mine on this thread that carefully remind everyone that scientifically speaking, there is no official recognition for Nautilus pearls (the GIA certificates are not scientifically supported). Anyone offering a Nautilus pearl for sale in the world at this time, regardless of certificate, has only hearsay as proof.

I am not offering my pearls for sale, but I can say that the pearl featured in Ren?e Newman's book—blister status debatable due to the superficiality of its attachment—along with three others analyzed under ESEM 10 days ago (all we had time for), is comprised of the same previously-unobserved pearl aragonite microstructure that is the subject of intense ongoing investigation at this time.

Caitlin: Quite a number of months for research and scientific journal publication will be required before any definitive announcements on this matter can be made. Let's just say that we've moved beyond the speculative premise that has moved this thread for so many months.

 

[GemGeek]

Here is the quote from the book as Renee adapted it:

?There has been controversy over the existence of pearls from the Nautilus pompilius because the inside of the shell is nacreous, but the pearls are not. Pearls have been submitted for testing, but no discernible chemical or spectral difference exists between a Nautilus pearl and a Tridacna pearl. The smaller Tridacna squamosa clam pearl looks very similar, but it appears that some nautilus pearls have a ?polar swirl,? as seen in the closeup photo from Stephen Metzler (fig. 3.48). ?In order to settle it once and for all, interested parties launched a quest to find an attached blister pearl on a nautilus shell, preferably out of existing shell stock so a live nautilus would not be killed. This pearl was the first one found.

?The photo is of that very same pearl, technically a button pearl that started out as a free pearl, but caught on the lip of the chamber and was found attached to the shell by a thick thread. If it hadn't attached, it probably would have been expelled. It's 8.8mm across by 7mm high and weighs 4.4 carats. The owner, Stephen Metzler, is very excited about it.?

Renee had attended one of my talks and asked me to work with her on the book update. She was interested in using some of my photos, so I had sent along Steve's photo with his permission. Renee commented that it didn't look like a blister pearl, which is what we'd been calling it at that time. This email was my response to Renee about the pearl:

There has been controversy over the existence of pearls from the nautilus pompillius because the inside of the shell is nacreous, but the pearls are not. Pearls have been submitted for testing, but there is no discernible chemical or spectral difference between a nautilus pearl and a tridacna pearl. The smaller tridacna squamosa clam pearl looks very similar, but it appears that some nautilus pearls have a "polar swirl" as seen in the closeup photo I sent you.

In order to settle it once and for all, interested parties launched a quest to find an attached blister pearl on a nautilus shell, preferably out of existing shell stock so a live nautilus would not be killed. This pearl was the first one found.

The photo is of that very same pearl, technically a button pearl that started out as a free pearl, but caught on the lip of the chamber and was found attached to the shell by a thick thread. If it hadn't attached, it probably would have been expelled. It's 8.8mm across by 7mm high and weighs 4.4 carats. The owner, Stephen Metzler, is very excited about it.

These pearls are very rare and someone shopping for pearls would not be likely to come across one. I wanted to share with you about it because it's the most exciting thing happening on the frontier of the pearl world. Ken Scarrett of GIA Thailand is writing a monograph on nautilus pompilius pearls.

Definitely not osmena "pearls".

I stand behind what I said. At the time, Steve's pearl was at the lab and they said that they thought it had been attached to the corresponding shell.

An author has to consider the information available at the time and the importance of that information, as Bari did, and go with it. I didn't submit the information specifically for the book, but Renee found it relevant and asked to include it.

I'm not sure if that clears anything up. Right now, the labs are on hold about nautilus pearls. I can't wait until there is a way to confidently identify these pearls and I'm sure most of us feel the same way.

 

[SteveM]

The smaller Tridacna squamosa clam pearl looks very similar?

?the labs are on hold about nautilus pearls.

Labs on hold: This would be GIA specifically, as all the rest have always abstained.

The pearl in Newman bears no resemblance to Tridacna, so the comment would apply to such pearls as in Bari and the typical 'Nautilus' candidates.

For the pearl in question, I feel at liberty to divulge that the newly observed pearl aragonite microstructure?of which this pearl is composed?does effectively eliminate Tridacna, as well as the entire gastropod family, from species ID possibilities. It remains to confirm a specific Nautilus link, which is anticipated.

Spirit of Nautilus reluctantly reveals its secrets!

If it's naut Nautilus, it could only be Molluscus Abominabilis?.

 

[Caitlin]

Well there are always the edgy people who look further ahead and get the earliest framework of evidence built by setting the goal. In this case, the goal is that nautilus be differentiated from all other mollusk pearls and given a place of its own in the pearl pantheon. It is going to happen; just watch it unfold here.

 

[CortezPearls]

This miraculous 'pearl from the eye of a Nautilus' was sold to a London jeweler and subsequently sent to GemLab for certification (my assumption based upon GemLab director Thomas Hainschwang's description of an odd specimen with 'swirl' received just prior to our meeting in Tucson last February).

I assume it failed certification, as it has resurfaced on the seller's website.

This is a calcareous gastropod operculum (LINK to the authority on the subject), polished up a bit. The seller has reduced his price to a modest $20,000 US. But it is a full 30 carats.

It does look like an Operculum at plain view. A "Turban snail" (Turbo spp) would be able to coat its operculum with nacre if it had an unusual "accident". It is very interesting.

 

[GemGeek]

The pearl in Newman bears no resemblance to Tridacna, so the comment would apply to such pearls as in Bari and the typical 'Nautilus' candidates.

True. When you see them displayed in normal room light, they all look alike. It's when a hot spotlight is applied, that the dancing lights come out to play. Your photo and Dr. Tom's photo both look outstanding in the book.

 

[SteveM]

It's when a hot spotlight is applied, that the dancing lights come out to play.

I'll bring a couple of AAA Tridacna sp along with my best Nautilus specimens to the Ruckus, so have your spotlights ready!

 

[GemGeek]

I'll bring a couple of AAA Tridacna sp along with my best Nautilus specimens to the Ruckus, to have your spotlights ready!

That will be a treat! How many people can say they've seen one or either of them?

 

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

It does look like an Operculum at plain view. A "Turban snail" (Turbo spp) would be able to coat its operculum with nacre if it had an unusual "accident". It is very interesting.

My thoughts... exactly.

Although the photo doesn't show both sides, it appears to have the conchiolin removed.

 

[SteveM]

Although the photo doesn't show both sides, it appears to have the conchiolin removed.

Yes, thus my comment about it being nicely polished, including removal of evidence of attachment to the turbo's foot. While aragonite in composition in the case of turbo, it would be the non-nacreous, or prismatic variety.

When first posted so many months ago, it was my intention to show how the repeated mention of 'swirls' was beginning to get some folks carried away…

 

[Caitlin]

ah, you changed trocus to turbo. I have some smaml 3mm and larger 6mm trocus shells, they are solid iridescent. I used to string them with pearls- they are so beautiful!

 

[SteveM]

Glad my initial slip brought to mind trocus, along with haliotis the most nacreous of the gastropod family.

 

[SteveM]

Spirit of Nautilus has been beneficent this evening.

I had been pending inspection of three small pearls shipped in the same package as our most recent Nautilus shell with blister. The source advised they had been found in a private collection, and as I had specified all future offerings be new finds with specific finding data, decided these could wait until returning from a two-week absence in Europe.

Given the discussion above concerning the current uncertifiability of Nautilus, I'll say that all 3 pearls are at the very least M. Abominabilis (i.e., 'pearls with no other reasonable explanation').

This is a beauty. Smallish, a perfect button at 7.34mm x 5.74mm, 2.45 carats (50% larger than Tom's original GIA-certified Nautilus). Polar swirl, flashes of blue iridescence, translucency, admixture of flame structure towards the perfectly-radiated bottom, lustrous. Altogether a perfect example. AAA+++!!!

 

[Caitlin]

AAA+++!!! A perfect grade for an M. Abominabilis. Nay, AAAAA++++!!! is even better.

 

[Valeria101]

Yes, thus my comment about it being nicely polished, including removal of evidence of attachment to the turbo's foot. ?

Something reminded me of this debatable object you have been offered: a strand of large round MOP beads, each bead assembled of two precisely polished halves with 'swirls' reminding of the middle of a transversal section through a larger snail shell.

Beaders, you do know what I am talking about, right?