Real natural pearls? Worth gemological analysis?

[Pearlescent]

I inherited this strand and was told by several jewellers they might be natural, or a combination of natural and cultured pearls. I am wondering if any of you might have an opinion as to whether they are worth having analyzed by a gemologist? They are at least 70 years old, graduated (the largest measuring about 5mm). The clasp is only 14k gold, but I've been told it might be a later addition. They have some very small inclusions, look a bit whiter inside the drill holes, and one pearl shows some damage to the nacre. (See photos.) The x-ray is from my dentist. Any tips or opinions about them and whether they are worth researching would be greatly appreciated.

 

[MSC]

To my eye, those look like a really nice set of akoya pearls! I don't have experience discerning x-ray imagery for cultured v natural, but others here do, so hopefully they'll chime in. If others concur akoya, it really wouldn't be worth sending for certification. Are there any marks on the clasp? If so, post photos, please.

 

[BWeaves]

They look like cultured akoyas to me, too. They just look too round and too well matched to be naturals, although I'm sure there are round well matched natural necklaces out there. But 70 years ago puts it around the 1940s or 50s, so probably cultured pearls.

I'd also like to see a close up of the front and back of the clasp, although more so because I think it's very pretty. How long is the necklace? It really is lovely.

 

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

The drilled hole is visible in each piece. This confirms the resolution of the x-ray was adequate for the view.

The contrasts are identical to each other. There are no visible inclusions or onset signatures present.

These are not natural pearls.

 

[Pearlescent]

Thanks--here are some more photos, including a macro shot of the one pearl with visible damage--the spot revealed is matte, which makes me wonder a bit about the whole strand (?). I also include macro shots of the clasp, which I hadn't realized has tiny diamonds, they are so small! (I also hadn't realized the clasp is so dirty.) I am not sure if the clasp is original to the strand. The strand is at least 70 years old, but could also be older. If they are Japanese, they may date from a family trip there in the 1930s.
My mother had thought they were Mikimotos, which means cultured), but there is no maker's mark on them--at least not on this clasp. If they are akoyas, do you have any idea of their value? The strand is about 15 and a half inches long (39 and a half cm.) and the largest pearl seems to be about 5mm across. They have a lovely soft lustre. Very pleased to join this community!

 

[Pearlescent]

Additional photos Real natural pearls? Worth gemological analysis?

Additional photos Real natural pearls? Worth gemological analysis?

 

[Pearlescent]

small correction: I meant the largest is 5mm. across (not 4).

 

[Pearlescent]

One more question for Dave at Lagoon Island Pearls and for the board: if they are Akoyas, wouldn't a nucleated bead be visible in the dentist's x-ray? Hoping to further my education here! Thanks.

 

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

One more question for Dave at Lagoon Island Pearls and for the board: if they are Akoyas, wouldn't a nucleated bead be visible in the dentist's x-ray? Hoping to further my education here! Thanks.

Akoya nacre and shell bead nuclei are identical molecular structures. While the x-radiographic resolution appears correct, the photographic resolution of the image itself is not. That said, if you review the image you'll notice the only visible contrasts are nearest to the outside edges. This is diffusion along the "onset line" where new (periostracial) growth is present.

Likewise, this pattern is identical in each pearl.

It's important to consider how a strand is graded. Only the very finest strands are graded on all eight points of quality. Otherwise, compromises must be made. In this case color, luster and surface are primary then size secondary. After all, it's graduated.

Exact sizing, or symmetrical graduation are the most difficult criteria to establish when building a natural strand. Even when that occurs, x-ray would almost always reveal mismatched contrasts. Streaks, blotches, rings or any other pronounced signatures at any position within the pearl, not just the edges.

Even most elaborate fakes will reveal uniform nuclei in the views.

 

[Pearlescent]

Akoya nacre and shell bead nuclei are identical molecular structures. While the x-radiographic resolution appears correct, the photographic resolution of the image itself is not. That said, if you review the image you'll notice the only visible contrasts are nearest to the outside edges. This is diffusion along the "onset line" where new (periostracial) growth is present.

Likewise, this pattern is identical in each pearl.

It's important to consider how a strand is graded. Only the very finest strands are graded on all eight points of quality. Otherwise, compromises must be made. In this case color, luster and surface are primary then size secondary. After all, it's graduated.

Exact sizing, or symmetrical graduation are the most difficult criteria to establish when building a natural strand. Even when that occurs, x-ray would almost always reveal mismatched contrasts. Streaks, blotches, rings or any other pronounced signatures at any position within the pearl, not just the edges.

Even most elaborate fakes will reveal uniform nuclei in the views.

Thanks, Dave.

 

[BWeaves]

What a lovely clasp. I don't see a diamond, though. I just see light glinting off the prongs, especially the middle prong. It's not a Miki clasp, and I could be wrong, but the pearls don't look quite like Miki standards. But it is still a very, very lovely cultured pearl necklace with a long family history, so please enjoy wearing it, often!

 

[Pearlescent]

Real natural pearls? Worth gemological analysis?

What a lovely clasp. I don't see a diamond, though. I just see light glinting off the prongs, especially the middle prong. It's not a Miki clasp, and I could be wrong, but the pearls don't look quite like Miki standards. But it is still a very, very lovely cultured pearl necklace with a long family history, so please enjoy wearing it, often!

You may be right! I will check with a loupe. They are lovely, and look lovely on, and I will assume from the messages here that they are likely akoyas and not worth the gemological research.

It's strange that 2 jewellers thought they might be natural--I suppose that is because of the very soft and distinctive lustre they seem to have.

What a resource this board is!

 

[JerseyPearl]

You may be right! I will check with a loupe. They are lovely, and look lovely on, and I will assume from the messages here that they are likely akoyas and not worth the gemological research.

It's strange that 2 jewellers thought they might be natural--I suppose that is because of the very soft and distinctive lustre they seem to have.

What a resource this board is!

I suspect that the jewelers are more likely unfamiliar with pearls. You have a lovely strand, which you should enjoy. I would restring and gently clean the pearls.

PG is a wonderful place to learn about pearls...welcome!

 

[pearlescence]

Jewellers may even be using 'natural' to mean 'not fake', as opposed to the pearl trade term where it indeed means 'wild'.

 

[BWeaves]

I agree. I think the jewelers aren't using the correct terminology. They are definitely real pearls, but they are cultured pearls, meaning a human with a pearl farm intervened to make the mollusk make a pearl. As opposed to natural pearls, which are found in the wild. It's sort of like the difference between eating beef, which is real meat, but grown on a farm, vs. going out and hunting a wild buffalo steak for supper. They're both real meat, but one was farmed and the other was found in the wild.

 

[Katbran]

Good point Wendy ...many jewellers use the term 'natural' to mean they are not Shell Pearls etc ..that they are ' real' .

 

[Pearlescent]

Good point Wendy ...many jewellers use the term 'natural' to mean they are not Shell Pearls etc ..that they are ' real' .

I think this shows how poorly understood pearls may be even among high-end jewellers, which they both were. They did mean natural in the correct "not cultured" sense (and one of them thought it might be a combined strand, some natural, some cultured). I think their opinion was based on the softness of the lustre.

Of course, the xray I got from the dentist only shows a few of the pearls, but the overwhelming certainty of respondents on this board, and the interpretation of the x-ray photo of the few pearls, which includes the biggest of the strand, would indicate they are akoyas. And from what I am hearing, the near-perfect roundness of the shape would be a sign they are cultured.

When is it evident a strand needs re-stringing? It still seems pretty secure.

 

[pattye]

Signs of a necklace needing restringing could be:

1. Thread appears dirty (darkened) and sometimes soil such as makeup collects on the pearl itself around the thread and drill hole
2. Fraying thread
3. Stretched thread so the pearl "wobbles" between knots
4. Gimp (French wire) near the clasp has discolored or tarnished.
5. You don't know when the necklace was last restrung and any of these characteristics are present, could mean the silk has started to stretch and deteriorate. The last thing you'd want is for the strand to break when you're wearing it.

Most pearls look even more beautiful once they've been carefully washed and restrung! There are directions here on the forum for both washing and stringing!

Your photos show some of these characteristics.

 

[pearlescence]

Again, I agree with Pattye re when to re-string. The real give-away for either a bad stringing job or need for a re-string is that the pearl can move between its knots - means that the silk has stretched and so is starting to fail.
With an old and unknown strand, a really hard tug and the necklace breaking would also be a giveaway - and it is a reasonable if dramatic test since the silk could have perished without stretching simply by being somewhere slightly damp for years!

 

[Pearlescent]

Again, I agree with Pattye re when to re-string. The real give-away for either a bad stringing job or need for a re-string is that the pearl can move between its knots - means that the silk has stretched and so is starting to fail.
With an old and unknown strand, a really hard tug and the necklace breaking would also be a giveaway - and it is a reasonable if dramatic test since the silk could have perished without stretching simply by being somewhere slightly damp for years!

Thanks all, I shall attend to this, and re-post a photo after they are re-strung!