What's the catch?

They do say the pearl has a lot of nacre loss. Maybe the piece is in really bad shape. I am not sure about the diamond values.

Based on the size of the pearl and the setting it does seem much too low. Maybe they missed a zero?
 
Much as I understand, the diamonds are mere worthless chips by today standards, but these happen to be still hanging into a rather fine early example of pave which tells me that someone had allot more respect for that pearl when the setting was made. It's been a while though if that dating is right, lots could have happened to the pearl. Could even be a blister...

'Guess there's just one way to know what's up with it (ask!).
 
The pearl is a bit hard to judge from the pic. It could be pretty low quality. I have no idea of the value. Its big but I think the pearl is over dressed. IMO
 
The color and clarity of the diamonds is a notch down from what is more highly valued in today's market. It's possible that, along with the stated blemishes and nacre loss on the pearl, the valuation takes a hit. IF you do ask more about it, do share!

I noticed this auction LINK. Why would a strand of cultured pearls be paired with what is likely a strand of natural pearls that way?
 
Of course, it's just a guess--someone may have had a strand of naturals too short to be worn, with pearls on the smaller side, and wanted more of a statement piece--so added a second strand of cultured plus some additional pearls to lengthen???????
 
This reminds me of a piece just posted on How Old Is This Pearl. It looks like something you really need to see in person to see what "normal wear" etc. really mean. It would make a wild enhancer. Another auction site to cruise, oh dear, I hope this doesn't get me into trouble (time not $$).
 
Back
Top