quote inThe Pearl Book by Antoinette Matlins

[suzannelowrie]

On page 67 of The Pearl Book by Antoinette Matlins, she states "there may be pearls with thick nacre that don't exhibit rich luster and orient because of how the layers crystallized" OK, got that. Then she continues: "there are no pearls with rich luster and orient that do not have well crystallized, thick nacre." Working backwards from both statements, am I to understand that CFWP without rich luster and "orient" are: a) imperfectly crystallized or b) have thin nacre over a shell bead nucleus? Given that the Chinese pick up on pearl techniques faster than lightning, could they be nucleating their FWP with shell beads thus weakening their product line like SWP producers? If so, then Matlins' statement makes sense for CFWP. Next question: what percent of the CFWP harvest (if any) is shell bead nucleated? Would a FWP bead nucleus prevent "rich luster and orient"? Lastly, who is still dealing with mantle-nucleated CFWP and why don't they all have "rich luster and orient"? Are there some areas within that large space where water temperatures or maintenance techniques prevent "well crystallized" nacre?

 

[jshepherd]

Freshwater pearls that do not exhibit fine luster and/or orient are never related to a bead nucleus. It is strictly related to the nacre, and possibly oxidation of the nacre due to treatment.

The Chinese rarely nucleate freshwater pearls with a shell bead, and they do not nucleate with pearls (as has been theorized in the past). When the Chinese do use a shell bead, they most often produce either a coin or a "fireball" cultured pearl. Fireballs are those that have a tail. Most spherical bead-nucleated mollusks produce them. The rounds are very rare.

The vast majority of China's nearly 1500 tons of freshwater pearl production is tissue nucleated. The stories that we all heard 5 years ago about Chinese using pearls and shell nuclei were just not true.

 

[Valeria101]

EDITED to add: Oups... posting in the same time with Jeremy Shephard.

-----------
I am reading the quote a bit differently: to me it says that "both the quantity (=thickness) and quality of nacre are important, and both are absolutely necessary to have rich lustre on a pearl" Or otherwise saying:

- no pearl with 'thin nacre' can have 'rich lustre'

- not all pearls with 'thick nacre' have 'rich lustre'

- some pearls with 'thick nacre' have 'rich lustre'

- whether 'thick nacre' results in 'rich lustre' or not depends on the
quality of the nacre.


Frankly, I am not sure what exactly all this means as long as there is no clear identification of what 'thin/thick nacre' means and what 'rich lustre' means. Where do the akoya fall? They have thinner nacre than say, south sea pearls and both have thinner nacre than all non-bead nucleated pearls be them natural or tissue nucleated. And yet the lustre of both akoya and south sea is appreciated. Or is that not the 'rich lustre' mentioned in the text?

And so on...

Probably the rest of the book clarifies, but I do not have it.


There has been quite a bit of discussion about the availability of bead nucleated freshwater pearls on this forum. I also was curious about them after finding several accounts and examples scattered around the Net. You may want to run a search for "nucleated freshwater" if not done already. As far as I recall, the conclusion was that:

- round, fine quality nucleated freshwater pearls are/were so few that only count as an oddity,

- that there are continued attempts to priduce nucletaed freshwater pearls that result in low quality, mostly baroque pearls with characteristic 'tails',

- there are serious technical difficulties and economic issues against widespread freshwater pearl nucleation and

- round reshwater pearls resulting from tissue nucleation are already here in mighty fine quality anyway, mostly below 10mm, but with very nice ones up to 13 mm at least.

I think there are accounts of all this on the forum: until now, I have posted every reference I found about this matter here, and Pearl-Guide itself has been a major (make that main) source.

I have not had the heart to purchase round freshwater pearls just for the fun of slicing them up to see if there is a bead inside! And wouldn't... as I suppose that the producers will have no more reason to hide the bead-nucleated status of such pearls than the producers of south-sea and akoya and black saltwater pearls have now (= not much).

My 2c. I am no expert: just trying to offer a shortcut to searching references

 

[CLICLASP]

-----------

I have not had the heart to purchase round freshwater pearls just for the fun of slicing them up to see if there is a bead inside! And wouldn't... as I suppose that the producers will have no more reason to hide the bead-nucleated status of such pearls than the producers of south-sea and akoya and black saltwater pearls have now (= not much).
QUOTE]

Sorry for the pearl but..........but I did ! that terrific taste for prooving before believing : Putting a screwdriver in the hole and having a hammer knock on it
And yes there are layers of nacre over and over, but not very shiny, So all the statements above are true.
Still have the pearl, but my camera refuses to shot it close enough to show the evidence there. Just have to believe it now

 

[suzannelowrie]

reply to jsshepard

reply to jsshepard

Assuming that problems with luster/orient in CFWP are either nacre-related or treatment (of the nacre) related, then (in your own experience) do untreated straight-from-the-mussel pearls have better luster/orient?

 

[Valeria101]

Assuming that problems with luster/orient in CFWP are either nacre-related or treatment (of the nacre) related, then (in your own experience) do untreated straight-from-the-mussel pearls have better luster/orient?

Sorry if I am stating the obvious... Perhaps I have not understood the question as you meant it?

Just to clarify: you can have straight-from-the-mussel junk and world class marvels, both mixed from the same location, type of mollusc and there can be a range of qualities from the very same shell, as there can be different colors from the same shell (i.e. inasmuch as there are multiple pearls coming from the same shell - many at once or in successive nucleation, whichever applies).

I do not have first hand experience with this, but tend to trust biologists reports as independent (as much as possible) from direct commercial interest in the final product.

Did you happen to see the thread about 'gas pearls' here? From the same spot, and created in similar conditions inside the shell (that's what makes them 'gas pearls') there were a couple of wonderful blue and white pearls and then a proteinaceous sac! Straight from the shell, same species, same place, same time... guarantees nothing. Each pearl holds it own.

All in all, I am afraid that there is no shortcut to appreciating quality first hand (or trusting some source with such an evaluation, same thing): type of pearl, location, year of harvest... not enough to guarantee that each pearl with those characteristics is a great pearl.

Sometimes industry self-regulation tried to make just such a thing happen: for example, the initiative to ban from the market all black pearls that do not fit a certain minimal standard of quality. However, as always such arrangements are not perfectly enforced and one is left with... look at the pearl and know for yourself & trust the seller. After all, these do work.

Apologies for the rant, especially if it does not fit the question. There are true experts writing here that could pick this up...

 

[Caitlin]

I think Matlin has been out of date since Strack became available.

When she wrote that -there were hardly any cfwp with brilliant luster, so she is talking about the kinds of fw pearls you can find in Walmart or on discount.com.

 

[Valeria101]

Putting a screwdriver in the hole and having a hammer knock on it [...]
there are layers of nacre over and over, but not very shiny...

Not quite the same as the 'pearl peeling' operation which is said to work though...

But you did make me want to try and look under the hood of a few LOL!

 

[CortezPearls]

Sorry for the pearl but..........but I did ! that terrific taste for prooving before believing : Putting a screwdriver in the hole and having a hammer knock on it
And yes there are layers of nacre over and over, but not very shiny, So all the statements above are true.
Still have the pearl, but my camera refuses to shot it close enough to show the evidence there. Just have to believe it now

Ayyayaaay! No need to use a hammer dear...purchase a bit of smooth sand-paper, grab the pearl between your fingers and rub-a-dub-dub until you have half a sphere. It is easy, clean and you feel much better than using a hammer...well, maybe not.

This is a photo of a Chinese FWP (dyed) that I took some time ago.

 

[CortezPearls]

Ouch! Forgot the photo...here it goes

 

[pattye]

Geez, Douglas,
We just feel more powerful with a hammer!!
Pattye
so many pearls, so little time

 

[Valeria101]

Look what you made me do!!!

[kidding, of course]


Smashed pearl... got dull shards everwhere. But not so many 'onion peel' shaped bits of nacre layers which I'd expect if separate layers are exposed reavealing their bright side.

... the exercise reminds me of something - couldn't it before the smshing fact?? - a claim for one distinct character of cultured freshwater pearls as opposed to natural freshwater: distinct layers of nacre on Xray in the letter but not the former due to better, more consistent controlled growth conditions. This one I smashed, must have had layers tightly packed inside - they would rather break than separate under the blow. Just an assumption, of course.

 

[Caitlin]

This thread stopped gathering posts a year ago, but I want to add that in the past 4 years brilliant nacre occurs in many more pearls than before, I buy commercial grade pearls mostly and the 5-6mm size have tremendous luster. This past year, most of the pearls at Majestic and Evergreen were lusterific.

I also have some CFWP that have chips gone revealing layers of nacre underneath the surface. (the "funky pearls Pattye found) Those layers still have bright luster.

 

[Ashley]

That would be an interesting picture to pull off, Caitlin- Looking forward to it!

 

[Caitlin]

I want to show you that my natural Bahraini pearls have some peeling but they are very lusterific in the deeper layers. This one was before I washed it

 

[pattye]

Hi Caitlin and All,

I know it looks like this "has chips gone" but I think more likely peculiarities of the way the nacre formed. Nearly every one of those "funky" pearls had a flat side with a similar look, although some not as lustrous as this one of Caitlin's. I thought it was probably where they had laid against the shell. Some pearls have two places like this, where it seems the nacre has worn down a layer or two.
I will attempt to put up a few photos also tonight.

 

[Caitlin]

Hi Pattye
I have many with one flat side, but these 4 are chipped. I changed my photo so go back and look again

 

[pattye]

All Right!

 

[Cathybear]

Reading about smashing a pearl with hammer got me going lol. I have some 10-11mm white freshwater pearls which I'd been told had a bead nucleus. Their lustre is different from my others, softer somehow. Shapes are from almost round to teardrop shaped to plump baroque. Most have very good listre but surfaces have slight marks. They come in peaches, pinks and lavender shades as well.
I decided to sacrifice one that was a bit spotty.
Couldn't get the screwdriver to stay put so I just hammered it. Bits shot all over the driveway. This was what I could find (might be more under the car lol).
There's definitely a bead inside, maybe 6mm, white; nacre is very very thick, about 2mm. Some discolouration on the inside of some of the nacre. I don't know if the photo is clear enough, might have another go this afternoon when the light is better. Theres an unsmashed pearl top left, half of bead nucleus to the right. Had to crop the other half to make the photo fit.
Cathy

 

[Nerida]

Hi Cathy - I'm just thinking about your pearls - some that I thought may have been bead nuked I smashed all over the driveway too - only layers of nacre in mine! BUT your post shows us where bead nukes are heading mighty fast - no lip, no tail, nice and round. Soon we won't have any clues at all, except maybe weight?