Pearls - A concise introduction
Pearls, for all their deep historical roots as the "first gems" (since they existed before the invention of lapidary arts) are not well understood by a majority. Pearl buying guides abound, but frequently omit important information.
The blame, I have to admit, lies with the more knowledgeable minority, who deal in them. We are rightly notorious for using the ignorance of others to our advantage, much like the carpet or pre-owned car people.
My family have broken with that tradition, believing that a few basic tenets about this small corner of science can instill more appreciation than mere mystery and awe. Fortunately, fellows we think of as friends, though they are also competitors, are joining in.
It is not that much information that has to be learned for a basic comprehension of pearls. Knowledge of mineral gems, however, can be a hindrance, as there is a more rigid relationship between value to relative freedom from inclusions (flaws), and of course size.
Pearls are formed as a result of the shell's growth mechanism being co-opted to defend against boring parasites, and occasionally other injuries. Farming basically perverts the same mechanism to produce pearls, usually as efficiently as possible, of the most saleable sort the nature of suitable molluscs, and the skill of the farmers allow.
Cultured pearls, in itself a misnomer because cultivation does not rely on the function of any microorganism, were introduced to the world by experts in mineral gemstones.... natural pearl experts were busy decrying them as "fakes".
They built upon popular misconceptions that pearls are (or should be) white and perfectly spherical. These were maintained in the pre-cultivation era by secret bleaching, and the fact that only the smallest (which tend be closest to round) pearls could be seen at close quarters by the majority.
That pearl farming made organic gems available to a larger segment of the population goes without saying. The use of machine-made spherical substrates (nuclei), however, made possible the increased incidence of more regular shape, in gradually increasing diameters. This reinforced the ill-advised insistence on perfection of shape and surface by people with no comprehension of the realities of pearl growth.
Durable pearls with round nuclei, ie those with adequate nacre coating to withstand the stresses, chemical as well as abrasive, of use, tend to have irregularities of shape and of surface. These are termed baroqueness and flaws and understood as factors detrimental to value. Only as long as good pearls, in this sense, are produced exclusively, it makes sense to prize relative perfection for its rarity.
Their marketing in the hands of individuals with only superficial knowledge resulted it the equation of quality with perfect shape and surface (and of unnatural color). The elevation of these factors of primary importance in turn forced a large portion of the cultivation industry to aim at it, at the expense of making a durable product that could be passed on (with certain limitations inherent to the hardness of all pearls compared with mineral gems) for generations. Durability was, for the first 40 or 50 years, assumed to be eternal, while the more salient exceptions were explained away by use of perfume and cosmetics, as well undefined dermal secretions; on the part of the wearer.
That this ruse lasted so long was attributable to the adherence of cultivated pearl vendors to the unwritten nondisclosure rules of traditional pearl cognoscenti. But the truth has a tendency eventually to get out, not matter how big a majority fears it will be bad for business.
The guidance to recognize imitation pearls that has been given forever to neophytes is of course to scratch or bite test. Beads are gently rubbed against teeth, to determine whether the surface is pearly (the microscopic whorls and valleys, like a fingerprint x 100, produce an unmistakable friction) or not. The latter case reveals that the luster is painted on, regardless of the bead material, which may indeed be pearls which have lost luster from thin nacre coating and over-bleaching.
Imitation pearls can usually be recognized at a distance by their perfection, and occasionally by their unrealistic size. They are usually strung with relatively thick thread, that serves to make large knots, which are necessary to cover the holes. Paint tends not to extend cleanly to the beads' holes, like nacre does to a drilled hole. Imitations are less common nowadays due to the availability of cheap pearls.
Having excluded imitations the simplest advice is to determine whether nacre coating is adequate for a chance at durability. This consists of rotating pearls and looking for reflections from within. While this is a characteristic of certain phenomenal gemstones, in akoya (ocean) pearls it is the reflection of the nearly layers of nacre in the nucleus, traditionally made from shell.
From about 2020, freshwater pearls with nuclei of other materials than shell (aka mother-of-pear), which defeat this test, but your writer has yet to encounter ocean pearls with non-shell nuclei. it was explained above that demanding perfection of shape and surface from a natural product can lead te buyer to pay a premium for its un-naturalness, or vastly more often to rubbish less durable than imitations.
However, akoya ocean pearls are beginning to be misrepresented. There is no significant akoya pearl cultivation outside Japan, though China made largely unsuccessful attempts roughly between 1980 and 2000. Naming like "Freshwater Akoya" and "Chinese Akoya" are therefore fraudulent, as serve to disguise IBN freshwater pearls, with ultra-thin nacre coating, which cannot be easily recognized due to the use of opaque nuclei.
Once these pitfalls have been eliminated, the pearls that share provenience and size are largely valued according to their visual attractiveness to a majority. Having no role to play in industry, this is not surprising. Due to the limitations in "mother" shells' size, bigger pearls have commanded, also from relative scarcity, a premium in value. In the 21st century, when labor costs even in China have become nontrivial, smaller pearls, needing more processing, have gotten more expensive.
Like any business, supply and demand, which can vary greatly over time, changes the market. Comparing different kinds of products and their relative merits requires a presence, and a certain degree of recent activity. Consumers, armed with the above insights, and taking with a grain of salt the misrepresentations (particularly in regard to provenience and naming) which are so common as to be largely transparent, can rest assured that their favorite is the best pearl, nine times out of 10.
If a sample of what is desired can possibly be borrowed, there is nothing as revealing as a side by side comparison. Vendors have no qualms about quoting prices for their closest match of a sample uttered as needing a match to make an extension, eg a necklace of twice the length. As most anyone can determine which is better, this is often more accurate than a paid appraisal.
Still, pearls are not a readily convertible commodity, as is gold or certain rigidly classifiable gemstones; therefore a poor investment for people not in the business of selling them.
Pearls have grown to such diversity as to offer something for virtually all tastes. Far from their historical exclusivity, they have become very affordable, and there is every day less reason to opine that they are not for me.
The blame, I have to admit, lies with the more knowledgeable minority, who deal in them. We are rightly notorious for using the ignorance of others to our advantage, much like the carpet or pre-owned car people.
My family have broken with that tradition, believing that a few basic tenets about this small corner of science can instill more appreciation than mere mystery and awe. Fortunately, fellows we think of as friends, though they are also competitors, are joining in.
It is not that much information that has to be learned for a basic comprehension of pearls. Knowledge of mineral gems, however, can be a hindrance, as there is a more rigid relationship between value to relative freedom from inclusions (flaws), and of course size.
Pearls are formed as a result of the shell's growth mechanism being co-opted to defend against boring parasites, and occasionally other injuries. Farming basically perverts the same mechanism to produce pearls, usually as efficiently as possible, of the most saleable sort the nature of suitable molluscs, and the skill of the farmers allow.
Cultured pearls, in itself a misnomer because cultivation does not rely on the function of any microorganism, were introduced to the world by experts in mineral gemstones.... natural pearl experts were busy decrying them as "fakes".
They built upon popular misconceptions that pearls are (or should be) white and perfectly spherical. These were maintained in the pre-cultivation era by secret bleaching, and the fact that only the smallest (which tend be closest to round) pearls could be seen at close quarters by the majority.
That pearl farming made organic gems available to a larger segment of the population goes without saying. The use of machine-made spherical substrates (nuclei), however, made possible the increased incidence of more regular shape, in gradually increasing diameters. This reinforced the ill-advised insistence on perfection of shape and surface by people with no comprehension of the realities of pearl growth.
Durable pearls with round nuclei, ie those with adequate nacre coating to withstand the stresses, chemical as well as abrasive, of use, tend to have irregularities of shape and of surface. These are termed baroqueness and flaws and understood as factors detrimental to value. Only as long as good pearls, in this sense, are produced exclusively, it makes sense to prize relative perfection for its rarity.
Their marketing in the hands of individuals with only superficial knowledge resulted it the equation of quality with perfect shape and surface (and of unnatural color). The elevation of these factors of primary importance in turn forced a large portion of the cultivation industry to aim at it, at the expense of making a durable product that could be passed on (with certain limitations inherent to the hardness of all pearls compared with mineral gems) for generations. Durability was, for the first 40 or 50 years, assumed to be eternal, while the more salient exceptions were explained away by use of perfume and cosmetics, as well undefined dermal secretions; on the part of the wearer.
That this ruse lasted so long was attributable to the adherence of cultivated pearl vendors to the unwritten nondisclosure rules of traditional pearl cognoscenti. But the truth has a tendency eventually to get out, not matter how big a majority fears it will be bad for business.
The guidance to recognize imitation pearls that has been given forever to neophytes is of course to scratch or bite test. Beads are gently rubbed against teeth, to determine whether the surface is pearly (the microscopic whorls and valleys, like a fingerprint x 100, produce an unmistakable friction) or not. The latter case reveals that the luster is painted on, regardless of the bead material, which may indeed be pearls which have lost luster from thin nacre coating and over-bleaching.
Imitation pearls can usually be recognized at a distance by their perfection, and occasionally by their unrealistic size. They are usually strung with relatively thick thread, that serves to make large knots, which are necessary to cover the holes. Paint tends not to extend cleanly to the beads' holes, like nacre does to a drilled hole. Imitations are less common nowadays due to the availability of cheap pearls.
Having excluded imitations the simplest advice is to determine whether nacre coating is adequate for a chance at durability. This consists of rotating pearls and looking for reflections from within. While this is a characteristic of certain phenomenal gemstones, in akoya (ocean) pearls it is the reflection of the nearly layers of nacre in the nucleus, traditionally made from shell.
From about 2020, freshwater pearls with nuclei of other materials than shell (aka mother-of-pear), which defeat this test, but your writer has yet to encounter ocean pearls with non-shell nuclei. it was explained above that demanding perfection of shape and surface from a natural product can lead te buyer to pay a premium for its un-naturalness, or vastly more often to rubbish less durable than imitations.
However, akoya ocean pearls are beginning to be misrepresented. There is no significant akoya pearl cultivation outside Japan, though China made largely unsuccessful attempts roughly between 1980 and 2000. Naming like "Freshwater Akoya" and "Chinese Akoya" are therefore fraudulent, as serve to disguise IBN freshwater pearls, with ultra-thin nacre coating, which cannot be easily recognized due to the use of opaque nuclei.
Once these pitfalls have been eliminated, the pearls that share provenience and size are largely valued according to their visual attractiveness to a majority. Having no role to play in industry, this is not surprising. Due to the limitations in "mother" shells' size, bigger pearls have commanded, also from relative scarcity, a premium in value. In the 21st century, when labor costs even in China have become nontrivial, smaller pearls, needing more processing, have gotten more expensive.
Like any business, supply and demand, which can vary greatly over time, changes the market. Comparing different kinds of products and their relative merits requires a presence, and a certain degree of recent activity. Consumers, armed with the above insights, and taking with a grain of salt the misrepresentations (particularly in regard to provenience and naming) which are so common as to be largely transparent, can rest assured that their favorite is the best pearl, nine times out of 10.
If a sample of what is desired can possibly be borrowed, there is nothing as revealing as a side by side comparison. Vendors have no qualms about quoting prices for their closest match of a sample uttered as needing a match to make an extension, eg a necklace of twice the length. As most anyone can determine which is better, this is often more accurate than a paid appraisal.
Still, pearls are not a readily convertible commodity, as is gold or certain rigidly classifiable gemstones; therefore a poor investment for people not in the business of selling them.
Pearls have grown to such diversity as to offer something for virtually all tastes. Far from their historical exclusivity, they have become very affordable, and there is every day less reason to opine that they are not for me.