South sea keshi or reborn freshwater keshi

P

Pipypupy

Member
Joined
Dec 6, 2013
Messages
7
Hello all,

I have been lurking on this forum for a while, and I think it's a wonderful resource for those interested in almost anything to do with pearls.

This is my first post, and I would be grateful for any opinions.

I am interested in a big south sea keshi necklace, and I found this one:

http://www.rubylane.com/item/286086-2439/ULTIMATE-16-1-2-Huge

My question is, how can one tell the difference between a genuine SS keshi pearl (which may be hollow), and CFWS reborn (or second growth) keshis?

I think these are more probably reborn keshis, because of the concave/ridged shape of the pearls, the large size (which is more usual in CFWS reborn keshis), the threading method using filament (instead of knotted silk or power pro), and the 925 clasp (keshis this size retail for 4 figures), although I understand that these indicators are not definitive.

In additional, the seller has a pair of matching bracelet from the same estate with freshwaters and a big "SS" keshi, but I think those center pearls are obviously CFWS fireball reborn pearls.

http://www.rubylane.com/item/286086-2438/Pair-South-Sea-Keshi-Freshwater

What do you all think? It would be a pleasure to be convinced by the members of this forum that this is indeed a klonker SS keshi necklace. With pearls though, I have found that if anything is too good to be true it probably is.

Background note: I own true SS keshis (purchased from reputable members of this forum [whom I can recognize], before I had any idea this forum existed), CFWS reborn keshis and fireballs. I realize that many sellers, both online and B&Ms, are not as knowledgable about pearls as some of the members of this forum, especially regarding non standard shaped freshwater (or saltwater) pearls (new or old), and that there is or may be no intention to mislead. I still would like to know though.
 
I think I would tend to assume they are FW reborn type keshi unless I knew the seller had impeccable sources.

You can't go by shape, color or luster. I have FW keshi that are silvery-white (more so than most of my other FWP) highly lustrous and which display orient.

I've also seen SS keshi being sold at Tiffany's for ten times what they were selling their FW keshi for, yet they looked more or less the same to my eyes. (Mine are not from Tiffany's!)
 

Attachments

  • FW keshi silvery white.jpg
    FW keshi silvery white.jpg
    25.2 KB · Views: 123
Last edited:
the two bracelet centrepieces are certainly and definately freshwater fireballs.
On the basis that once one thing is wrong then the rest probably is, these are all freshwater. Not even keishi, just baroques. Odd stringing method for ' Custom-made for a lady of wealth and fashion likely during the past 10 years'....wire and rather low end sterling findings and what look like calottes. Certainly not made by anyone with an ounce of pearl skill
 
Pipypupy,

Welcome! Seems like you've learned lots about pearls, and I agree with you, Pearl Dreams and Wendy, all three pieces look like freshwater to me. That said, the necklace especially seems to have excellent luster in some of the photos. Certainly the pearls do need restringing and a worthy clasp. There is an additional discount currently and a return policy.

Love your keshi, Pearl Dreams!
 
Thank you, Pattye! I have a second strand that hangs just inside that one when I want to double them up; I've played with the idea of restringing them as a 36" strand but keeping them separate is more versatile, although I may restring and change their clasps (fishhooks at present) to look nicer connected end to end.
 
Pearl Dreams, pearlescence and patty, thanks for your answers, and welcome. Based on your opinions which are in line with my instinct I am giving this "south sea keshi" necklace a pass.

pearlescence, I would usually agree with your comment that "On the basis that once one thing is wrong then the rest probably is", and do agree in this instance, and for this seller; but regarding another seller, I have come across what I think may be an exception to the rule ? an instance of baroque natural (not cultivated = taken from oysters in the wild) south seas ? I really want all your opinions on it but have hesitated so far because, well, I have read so many posts where people wish to think they have natural pearls and it turns out to be either CFWS or baroque akoyas.
 
Anywhere along the supply chain, one innocent person can be mislead, and everyone down the line will assume that the pearls are natural. An identification report from a gemological laboratory that is experienced in determining whether pearls are natural or cultured is the only way to be sure. At the very least, I would only purchase with the understanding that you can get a refund if they do not pass lab testing. Having seen friends get burned, I tend to be suspicious.

Part of the problem of having people check out your potential purchase here, is that someone else may think it's a good deal and grab it before you can decide what to do. I hope you find your special pearls soon. :)
 
Personally, if I was on a pearl mission, it would be to get the ones that tickle my fancy the most. Great cultured pearls can have most of the attributes of naturals without the cost and you will sleep better at night, knowing with certainty that you received what you paid for. But if your pearl mission is to get naturals, then you need to get them from someone with natural pearl experience who will back up your purchase.

It takes a lot of knowledge and a high tolerance for risk to search for bargain natural pearls on the internet. :)
 
Hi PearlDreams (and GemGeek),

good detective work. Um … Agreed, and it would be just too embarrassing to post about my mislabeled strands of so called "natural pearls" (alas, too many for comfort). That said, this necklace was my first purchase, and I still kind of think it may be as described rather than "A great example of something not as described!". I agree about getting any natural pearls properly certified at a lab. But I do have my reasons, and it wasn't because the seller was adamant about these being non cultivated pearls from the south seas.

1) If these had been perfectly round pearls, it would be absolutely impossible to tell. But as free form baroques, after scrutinizing all of the pearls, I can confirm that these have no round bead nucleus, as some of them are too flat to have any nucleus.

2) The looseness of the stringing, and the style of the 14kt fishhook clasp indicates that these are probably vintage. My research shows the design of the fishhook clasp is probably from from 40s to 60s, leaning more towards the 1960s. But of course, anybody can use a vintage clasp on a more recent strand.

3) If they were from the 1960s, back then weird shape baroque naturals were not in demand or wildly expensive … so it is possible that a simple 14kt clasp was used. It would not have been highly valued like a strand of round pearls.

4) The color is off white (range between cream, ivory, maybe very light gold), all the pearls have different body colors and overtones as well as shapes. Never seen that in any CFWS. Definitely natural colors and not bleached, and I think most white freshwaters from Japan and China would have been bleached white?, both back then and now?

5) If from 1960s or 70s and freshwater (because no nucleus), then could only be Lake Biwa pearls (or I guess cultured US river pearls), because CFWS at this time was typically some kind of rice krispies shapes. But it's not the typical shape of Biwas either (I ran across several strands of Biwas in my research, including on this forum). Biwas were also typically much smaller, 4 to 6mm. This averages 10mm.

6) Could be later (second generation) CFWS, but although some have flat bottom, not all have, the pearls are actually relatively plumpish and roundish, definitely not any typical CFWS shape like button, corn, nugget or potato. It's also much more lustrous than any second generation CFWS. There is one slightly potato shape, but it has a concave bottom, and … some wild pearls do slightly resemble tissue nuke freshwaters.

7) Could be much later (3rd generation) baroque pearl-in-pearl nucleated CFWS (the new hybrid mussel produces a much more lustrous nacre), but in that case, you would find many of the pearls with imperfect skin showing the inner baroque pearl that was used to nucleate it. That inner pearl sort of bumps out in the center of the new layers of nacre. None of the pearls in this necklace show that effect.

8) The clincher (for me ) is the orient. This has tremendous pink/green/blue orient on every pearl. The pearls also appear almost translucent when you hold them against a light source.

9) Many of the pearls have a sort of concentric growth ring type blemish (some have two). I see this effect where the pearls move and are grown against the shell. I have seen this type of blemish in current CFWS, but the luster, orient and transparency is totally different.

10)They could just be very good mystery freshwaters … but the surface is … I don't know how to explain it. You know how in some SS keshis you can see that the surface layer is almost like big brick-like platelets of aragonite against each other? Well, it's like that on these pearls.

I can try to post a photo of my own, but seriously, I have never come across such … translucency in freshwater, or saltwater pearls before. I will send them to a lab later, not for X-rays to determine lack of bead nucleus, but to determine wild parasitic nucleus versus SS keshi type versus tissue nuke, and more importantly, to determine saltwater versus freshwater origin … can they do that without destructive tests?

Basically, if saltwater, then it's probably natural or at least SS keshi (which I want a necklace of anyway). And I know it could also be freshwater in which case it is definitely cultured, but like I said from the timeline and other indicators I do think there's a more than 50% chance. If it's freshwater it's a really beautiful example, I would love to see more examples (and like to know where I could get more).

Thank you all very much for all opinions, I am seriously grateful for your interest and answers. I don't want to sound like someone who 100% doesn't want to know her pearls (of whatever type) are not as she hopes … I do understand these may be (and for most of you, probably have a higher chance of being) cultured freshwaters.
 
Last edited:
I have read everything you have written about those pearl and want to make two points only
1 the loose knotting yes, but very white for old. I suspect just bad technique
2 to me they look more like ripple/kasumi - ish and that I what I would have thought they were if you had not argued your case. I have a strand of white 'ripples' which certainly look like big white south seas - even when you hold real white ss next to them. only the flaws give away the difference

I think that all too often natural is used to mean 'from some mollusc as opposed to made in a factory fake' rather than the more narrow specialised meaning the pearl world applies to it. (also cultured is problematic)
perhaps it is time to start using the more clear and accurate terms 'wild' and 'farmed'
 
Pipypupy, I admire the amount of critical thought you have applied to your evaluation. You have made some great points to consider.

I'm still having a hard time believing the pearls are natural. Baroque cultured pearls can also have translucency. From your description, it sounds like the necklace is certainly beautiful enough to merit the price paid.

Tinges of gold appear on south sea pearls and "kasumi-type" pearls.

You may find it fun to get your own, better photos, but it can be challenging to photograph pearls. Try indirect natural light on a white paper towel with a macro setting (little flower). I can't wait to see more photos. :)
 
pearlescence said:
I think that all too often natural is used to mean 'from some mollusc as opposed to made in a factory fake' rather than the more narrow specialised meaning the pearl world applies to it. (also cultured is problematic)
perhaps it is time to start using the more clear and accurate terms 'wild' and 'farmed'
Click to expand...

Yes, as someone who is obsessed with naturals, I believe this is the case. People who are not familiar with the "correct" terminology unintentionally misuse this word all the time. I think "wild" (instead of "natural") makes more sense at this point. Although, then we have the problem of computer keywords hitting on "wild" for descriptions! (for example, people will say "wildly beautiful" or "wild shapes" to describe the pearls). Although not as often as natural I suppose.......

Jodie
 
Hi and Welcome

The thing about pearl liars is that they rarely charge what the piece would be worth were it real. $625. isn't bad for a big soufle, compact fireball type CFWP. The equivalent in actual genuine SS keshi that big, is that it costs over $6,000 dollars on a very quick google. The guy who has it is not my favorite seller, but he doesn't sell FW as SS, his is SS So go googling and find out what a SS keshi that big is worth.

Ps I didn't go to tahitian pearls.biz, but I bet he costs less but still many times more than the asking price for the rubylane piece. OK I did go. He has ringed baraque necklace for in the 600's, but no keshi in that range. Keshi, if it is actually called that in SS pearls is rare and highely desirable.

I do admit, your piece LOOKs like SS Keshi, but that is what freshwater pearls can do. Whether or not it has beads, it is assuredly a freshwater piece. The piece you argue for absolutely could not ever be genuine SS keshi for that price.

If there is any doubt whatsoever, about a particular piece being Tahitian or SS, it is invariably freshwater.

Having said that if if it as big as it looks, you didn't over pay any more than for any rubylane piece.

Heck if it were real, each pearl that that siz3 would retail for $400-$600.00. So sorry, but believe it.

We have all been fooled by beautiful fw pieces!!!
 
Hi,

I was hesitant too, as the seller has sold two other pieces as cultured SS but from the photos I think they are cultured freshwater (one potato, one off-round, but you can see the typical freshwater shape and surface markings). That said, she has also sold as "natural" (meaning as opposed to "cultured" what I do think are antique Victorian/Edwardian seed pearls). So in this case the word natural does not mean cultured in a mollusk with human interference as opposed to man made in a factory, although I agree that all too frequently the term is used that way by many people.

Please do not go by price alone. I understand a single pearl that size would retail $400 to $600 … but only if you were a pearl specialist selling it as guaranteed natural (I have been to the two recommended sites, and ebay seller). This did not come with a certificate, it's at best a layman but hopefully not totally ignorant guess. Here are two close up photos, one is of the better, smoother side, the second, the not so nice side with concentric marks etc. There is no potato pearl, it looks more like a shortened bullet with a ring at the top and concave bottom. There is one slightly bi-colored pearl. Many but not all of the pearls have a small flattened bit, but the flattened bit is relatively smooth not pluckered or slightly druzy. Color is many shades of beige (I think champagne may be a nice word for beige), from off white to very light gold. I hope the photos show the orient, but I think it's better in real life.

It is FOR SURE a)not nucleated, b)not ripple (I have Japanese and Chinese kasumi), c)not fireball or reborn keshi.

It may be SS keshi, as the transparency/luster/orient comes closest to some single Indonesian champagne and bicolored keshi I have purchased from forum recommended members. These have more orient than my Indonesian SS keshis.

I have only one undrilled SS pearl with this concentric marking at the bottom (slightly button, 9mm). If I were purchasing single pearls I would consider these birth marks as flaws.

These are definitely vintage, it's not from the last 10 to 15 years of CFWS culturing. BTW the string is yellowed/grayed. It could be freshwater, but I really haven't come across any vintage freshwater pearls like this. Older freshwaters did not reach this size, or color. These are not matched by color or shape, but roughly by size and orient (I would say the only thing these pearls have in common is their uncommon orient). If these are cheapie CFWS from the last 10 to 15 years, I doubt anyone would use a 14kt clasp of any sort (my CFWS examples, which were bigger, came with plated lobster clasps). And, someone would have to spend a lot of trouble picking pearls to make sure that there were no usual freshwater shapes (potato, ringed or otherwise, potato nugget (flat on one side), corn (flat on both sides), drop, button (round, flat) … if they went to that much trouble why would they leave in so many pearls with so many flaws, and why wouldn't they at least pick matching colored pearls? According to online anecdotes, when SS pearl culturing first started (in Australia, Philippines and Indonesia), wild mussels were harvested live to nucleate beads in, and the amount of natural pearls found in those wild mussels was the same percentage as in pre culturing days. Only an infinitesimally tiny percentage was gem quality (round, white and good size). What happened to the non gem quality? These pearls are not round (not even off round, they are relatively plumpish compared to CFWS barqoues, and some are slightly plumpish buttonish, but nowhere near to round), not white (ivory, cream, champagne, light yellow, one a bit pinkish, beige), have great orient (I know new CFWS pearls and older biwas have good luster and orient, but size and timing, and just not the same IRL), and of a size that is too big for biwas or US freshwaters (or early CFWS), too big for akoya keshis … but correctly sized (9 to 11mm is an accurate baroque range, say most of the pearls look 9mm face front) to make it possible they were found in SS pinctada maxima shells harvested from the wild. After all, Australia has been harvesting up to 500,000 wild SS oysters per year for the last 50 years. Natural pearls have only come back in favor in the last 15 years, and the pearls that merit their high prices are gem quality ones that need an x-ray to determine origin. These are very imperfect. And even if these are only keshi and not wild, as is definitely possible, I have read online that saltwater keshi pearls used to be a bargain for quality versus price (most small SS and akoya keshi used to be sent to India as there was no Western market in terms of demand or knowledge). I have been to the non recommended website mentioned, those have to be considered current retail internet prices … and, um, I am afraid that particular online store is also not my favorite for it's tendency to exaggerate B&M retail prices. That said, I have found single strands of SS, Tahitian or even sea of Cortez keshi from reputable sources for US$1k to $1.5kt ballpark, admittedly graduated so the ends are smaller though the middle may be bigger.

Once again, thank you all for your answers and interest, if anyone has pearls like these, please do post a photo and share with me where you got them. I tried to get the colors as close as possible, it's off white, ivory, dark ivory, cream, beige, bit of light gold … every pearl has a slightly different body color. In terms of overtones, if the usual overtones are rose, silver and cream, IRL I would say mostly cream with some pink, I can't see any silver or gray. The colors are warm rather than cool (though in terms of touch the pearls are very cold when you put them on at first).


http://www.flickr.com/photos/110889923@N07/
 
Last edited:
Sorry, but I think they are baroque (non-keshi, non-ripple, non-nucleated) freshwater pearls, which do come in those colors and shapes.

If you check out baroque pearls being sold by Chinese sellers on eBay, you'll see shapes, colors and surface markings like those. Some are quite lustrous.

As far as the clasp, it is well-known that Chinese sellers commonly use clasps that are stamped 14K but are not, in fact, 14K. Just recently I bought a strand of petite pearls for my daughter on Etsy which were advertised as 14KGF but when they arrived the clasp read 14K-- and I am sure it is not 14K. (I do not say all Chinese sellers do this, but it is common enough.)

I believe if you decide to send them in to be certified, you will discover they were freshwater baroques.
 
First, those photos are outstanding. That is why I am sure now that they are not south seas and not natural, but they are really beautiful. The luster is gorgeous and the flaws just add character as the strand is nicely matched for baroques.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Keshi south sea pearls - opinions?
Replies
15
Views
2K
BWeaves
BWeaves
M
Are these south sea pearls? thank you
Replies
9
Views
2K
KarinK
KarinK
P
Are those Freshwater or South Sea pearls?
Replies
4
Views
949
pearl2020
P
lary007
South Sea Keshi project
Replies
10
Views
2K
jeg
jeg
D
12th Anniversary purchase
Replies
10
Views
2K
CortezPearls
CortezPearls
Back
Top