Nautilus pearl

[SteveM]

This post originated as a reply to a more general thread, but it belongs here.

Buddhi says he has one, but it is cracked and not certified.

And any number of others that have come forward with their offerings, certification the responsibility of the buyer. They all look like clam pearls, and on top of that the inhabitants of Madura seem to be especially adept at turning clam and other calcareous shells into any number of rare pearl types with specialized polishing equipment.

When advised that the pearl of an Indonesian strombus (conch)?locally called Kerang Kasturi?closely resembled true Nautilus pearls, I asked how in the hell they could offer such a thing with confidence, and how a nacreous shell could produce a pearl comparable with a non-nacreous mollusk. Other than to assure checking and double-checking each diver's story, keeping files over a period of years, etc. etc. I was offered this rather intriguing tidbit:

?if night time you can see the pearl in this shell because this pearl become lighthouse beacon and this history I got it from every diver in the small island?

 

[Valeria101]

... I asked [...] how a nacreous shell could produce a pearl comparable with a non-nacreous mollusk.

Not sure about the respective species, but I thought some do [Pina] so it could be possible to others. I have not looked into this seriously, but there seems to be an interesting (if impractical) question there: if shells take several types of nacre to form, can all types of specialized tissue involved produce pearls?

I suspect this is known for the cultured species (possible from botched selection of mantle grafts?) only the tidbit of information is not terribly interesting when selecting the most useful grafts and not the complete inventory of all the mishaps possible is the one thing that matters...

Inasmuch (not much?) as natural pearls are interesting for other things but looks, perhaps this question is also of more interest regarding naturals?

Just a thought...

 

[SteveM]

Not sure about the respective species, but I thought some do [Pina] so it could be possible to others. I have not looked into this seriously, but there seems to be an interesting (if impractical) question there: if shells take several types of nacre to form, can all types of specialized tissue involved produce pearls?

This will be at the core of Tom Scarrett/GIA's paper, I assume. Meanwhile, maybe some shell experts would chime in here.

Pen shells are reported to be only marginally nacreous, and Pinna pearls that I've seen and have been offered show no pearlescence—even the 'good' ones are ugly. The Nautilus Pompilius shell, from my polished example a few posts above, displays no such ambiguity.

 

[SteveM]

Further re shells and Pinna Nobilius in particular, I happened upon a good image of a polished pinna shell (albeit drowned in acrylic) with hybrid nacreous composition. On the right is among the more recent pearls I've seen, basically a pale substitute for quohog.

Could Pinna spin out a calcareous pearl with a nacreous polar swirl in like manner to Pearlshooter's image of the Nautilus?

 

[GemGeek]

FYI: It's Ken Scarratt, not Tom.

 

[SteveM]

Tom and Ken are so entwined over this issue as to become easily confused?

 

[GemGeek]

Tom and Ken are so entwined over this issue as to become easily confused?

That's for sure!!!

 

[Valeria101]

... Meanwhile, maybe some shell experts would chime in here.

It is a big subject for a 'chime'...

I have no idea what is or isn't in the much awaited Scarratt paper. However, have some reason to believe that Nautilus pearls should have some very distinctive characteristics even if nacre structure is not an ID characteristic for most other species of natural pearls (something I was hoping it might be the case because... it is such a tempting idea, isn't it! But...)

 

[SteveM]

Here is a new arrival, offered from the Western Pacific as a Nautilus Pearl. It was chosen from a poor photograph, but keeping the images and discussions of this thread fully in mind. It is 2.7 carats, a size I felt was more appropriate to the anatomy of the Nautilus than much larger and more perfect pearls (thus more suspect) offered by the same source.

I understand now about the greenish hue in Tom's images. The pearl is not greenish in natural or incandescent light, nor did I note anything remotely green in the camera's viewfinder. But there it is.

The pearl is a cute little button with a nice 'ring of fire' that would make an interesting ring, Nautilus or not. (Still trying to get an ID on the locally-denominated kerang kasturi shell, reputed to produce pearls similar to Nautilus, but of which the seller is confident in being able to tell the difference.)

 

[SteveM]

Closer on the photo lower right.

 

[GemGeek]

Whatever it turns out to be, it is darn cool! And a beauty - love the flame!

 

[pattye]

Steve,
Wonderful photos, have to ditto what Blaire said---looks translucent!

 

[SteveM]

Comparing all the images here it is tempting to believe that I have obtained, by some bit of sheer luck and determination, the same pearl type as has been certified a Nautilus Pearl.

Like the certified pearl, this one requires magnification for best appreciation.

Pearlshooter's image of the pearl on his finger (left) was begging emulation?

 

[GemGeek]

******Wow******

 

[pearlshooter]

Yes Wow! very similar . Dose it look like it has a watery nacre with the flame below the surface? Hard to tell from the pics. Shooting something so small and showing all the detail is not easy. Sometimes you just have to see it in person , roll it in your fingers and watch its movement. Very nice.
Tim

 

[SteveM]

Yes Wow! very similar . Dose it look like it has a watery nacre with the flame below the surface? Hard to tell from the pics. Shooting something so small and showing all the detail is not easy. Sometimes you just have to see it in person , roll it in your fingers and watch its movement. Very nice.

The original photographer's observation is greatly appreciated.

Re watery nacre, that's one for the scientists (and intrinsic to the speculation that has occurred on this thread), certainly there is depth, movement and chatoyance related to the flame. Eyesight better than mine would also help.

The AGA Conference in Tucson next February promises to provide an opportunity for comparison.

 

[SteveM]

Below is another image of a Nautilus pearl, which reminds me of a beautiful water planet orbiting some star.

Here's ours in bright late afternoon sunshine. Looks like it could be inhabited!

 

[SteveM]

What Nautilus Pearl thread would be complete without?

Nautilus Pearl Jewelry!

In pressing the seller in my best Indonenglish for as much detail as possible concerning the collection and identification of Nautilus pearls, this item came out of his closet.

Weight : 0.52grm/2.6ct, white clear color, oval shape
and the gold : 11.06grm with the small diamond (indonesian diamond)
and sorry i'm not inform you before because this is i make it with my self,,,i'm very like it because the color very clear?

 

[Hanaleimom]

Does the pearl have flame? I can't tell from the photo.

I am not too fond of the design. It's too bulky and the top surface is too large for the pearl. The ring would look better with a larger pearl. JMHO.

 

[SteveM]

Does the pearl have flame? I can't tell from the photo.

I am not too fond of the design. It's too bulky and the top surface is too large for the pearl. The ring would look better with a larger pearl. JMHO.

I've only got the photos to look at, certainly it has chatoyance ('ring of fire'), which results from symmetrical flame formation. I would have no doubt about a nice flame here.

The ring is clearly an amateur job, of which the seller seems quite proud.

Additional comment: Wisely, the pearl is set without drilling!