Report from Tucson

[SteveM]

The photos from Dr Tom were of other rare pearls, I think.

Quite the tease, in any case. Effisk's photos, still pending close ups, also suggested iridescent nacre interdispersed with calcareous deposits. Strack to the rescue (please!)!

 

[GemGeek]

Quite the tease, in any case. Effisk's photos, still pending close ups, also suggested iridescent nacre interdispersed with calcareous deposits. Strack to the rescue (please!)!

Effisk's photos looked like calcareous concretion with chatoyant/iridescent flame patterning. Fabulous, but still unlike the shell. Remember how thin the shells are? That's part of the problem. Without a host shell, it's very hard to guarantee what gastropod the pearl came from. Elisabeth's photo looked like it could match a nautilus shell. I'm sorry to tease you. If I'd thought of it, I'd have asked her if she would mind sending me the photo in an email. Then again, the owner might only have authorized the photo for the presentation.

 

[SteveM]

Thought I'd get the previously-posted photos under discussion in one place, below. I would not normally associate chatoyance (left below) with iridescence, although I did successfully call it with Dr. Tom's Close up (posted by Caitlin, right below), at the same time asking if he was illuminating with his handy-dandy new laser (confirmed negative). The more interesting aspect to me here is the evidence for iridescent chatoyance?assuming non-nacreous. Effisk's photo (greatly enlarged, middle) is clearly inconclusive, and we've all been waiting impatiently for months for his friends to allow him another access for close up shooting.

 

[GemGeek]

Of course, I had forgotten that he lit it with the laser and thought it looked like that all the time. It makes me that much more curious to see Effisk's friend's pearls up close.

 

[SteveM]

Of course, I had forgotten that he lit it with the laser and thought it looked like that all the time. It makes me that much more curious to see Effisk's friend's pearls up close.

Dr. Tom actually said a laser was not used, but never posted a full picture of the subject pearl for perspective despite repeated requests. And we continue to wait for Effisk…We continue to be teased!

But I can't get Dr. Tom's image out of my mind, with its seemingly holographic floating surface—the closest thing to the classicist's description of 'orient' I've seen anywhere—said phenomenon reputedly impossible to photograph, also dependent upon diffraction caused by the unique properties of aragonite platelets and platelet suture patterns of nacreous round pearls.

 

[GemGeek]

Dr. Tom actually said a laser was not used, but never posted a full picture of the subject pearl for perspective despite repeated requests. And we continue to wait for Effisk?We continue to be teased!

But I can't get Dr. Tom's image out of my mind, with its seemingly holographic floating surface?the closest thing to the classicist's description of 'orient' I've seen anywhere?said phenomenon reputedly impossible to photograph, also dependent upon diffraction caused by the unique properties of aragonite platelets and platelet suture patterns of nacreous round pearls.

Oh, I thought the light was green, hence the green color. I guess I'll have to go back and re-read. I hope you don't have to wait too long for Effisk.

 

[SteveM]

The point is being missed (or avoided) here!

I earnestly hope I'm not the only one at Pearl-Guide awaiting Effisk's close ups of Nautilus pearls, or more details from Dr. Tom regarding that potentially unique pearl in the close-up posted by Caitlin.

 

[Slraep]

Effisk…We continue to be teased!

Yeah, Effisk, cut it out, will you.

 

[SteveM]

Yeah, Effisk, cut it out, will you.

Slraep,

Thanks for the support!

But assuming your encouragement is no more effective than mine, Strack's next update on Nautilus pearls will have to suffice.

?and Dr. Tom's mystery pearl reluctantly be relegated to myth?