Talk:Pearl

Definitions

Under "Definition", this sentence, "Nacreous pearls, the best-known and most commercially-significant pearls, are primarily produced by two groups of molluscan bivalves or clams." CLAMS is incorrect. Clams are not and never have been a commercially significant source of pearls. Several of the Pinctada species of mollusk produce commercially significant pearls which are collectively known as "saltwater pearls". Mussels are the bivalve that produces commercially significant numbers of "freshwater pearls" The sign in would not take my email address, but I am user Quetlin

Calcareous Concretions

Would it be a good idea to have a separate article on calcareous concretions? Not only does the pearl article have an entire paragraph devoted to the largest "pearl" ever found even though it isn't really a pearl at all, but there is also an entire paragraph on conch pearls which are also calcareous concretions and not true pearls. Besides, there are other types of calcareous concretions or non-nacreous "pearls" such as melo melo pearls and scallop pearls, so there might be sufficient content to justify its own page.

And if the consensus is that calcareous concretions deserve their own page, what should it be called? In my opinion, "calcareous concretions" is too technical and intimidating, but "non-nacreous 'pearls'" might be misleading. Thoughts? SirenDrake 05:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be good to include a separate article on calcareous concretions. At the moment bits and pieces are strewn about the main article in ways that do not fit, and may be confusing. The following paragraph is a fine example.

One other kind of gemstone-quality pearl is created by a large sea snail or marine gastropod. These large, deep pink pearls are not very "pearly" although they can have a good luster. They grow between the mantleand the shell of the queen conch or pink conch, Strombus gigas from the Caribbean. These conch pearls occur naturally, although they are very rare. They are a by product of the conch fishing industry.

This is in the first section under pearl. While it is technically correct, it does not really fit into the section. Conch pearls are non-nacreous, and if they are to be mentioned we should also mention melo melo, tridacna, scallop, penn, abalone, etc. JPShepherd 15:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

- Please note that this discussion on 'calcareous concretions' is rather out-of-date as the GIA has fallen into line with most other gemmological authorities and now refers to non-nacreous pearls as pearls rather than 'calcareous concretions'. It was always a rather artificial distinction as the definition of 'pearl' and 'calcareous concretion' appear to be indistinguishable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.195.137.125 (talk) 22:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is not necessarily the case. The referrenced article shows the opinion of one individual at GIA, it does not indicate an official change in policy. Quote from article: "Kenneth Scarratt (GIA Thailand) described the wide variety of mollusks that can produce pearls and argued that the term "pearl" should be applied to both nacreous and non-nacreous materials, such as conch pearls."JPShepherd (talk) 18:12, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Policy has indeed changed at both GIA and CIBJO who have both been referring to Conch (and various other mollusc) pearls as 'pearls' for a while now.Michael314159 (talk) 04:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Just had a thought: isn't it possible for a nacreous-shell-bearing mollusc to produce a NON-nacreous pearl? I seem to recall that such items are mentioned occasionally in gemmological texts as an afterthought but I don't have a reference handy. I think that in such cases the pearl formation is incomplete or the pearl sac has formed from the wrong type of cell or something. Anyone have more info or a suitable reference? This could affect the 'calcareous concretion' and 'definition of a pearl' sections.Michael314159 (talk) 04:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. The Penn pearl would be a good example. The pearl may have nacreous parts, or the pearl may or may not be nacreous. I believe it depends on the location of pearl development within the shell. JPShepherd (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Illustration

Strand of akoya pearls from China

The picture used as illustration ("White pearls strung on a necklace") features imitation pearls. They are not real pearls. Effisk 21:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a pic I just shot of 2 strands of akoya pearls. This is not a necklace. Akoya pearls are sold in hanks wholesale. Hanks are made of several strands such as these two. Usually 16" long. These strands comes from a Chinese wholesaler. Effisk 21:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

ok, I'll just go ahead and replace the pic in the article.Effisk 02:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Why did someone revert my change? Would you illustrate an article on diamonds with a piece a glass? No. Then why illustrate an article on pearls with imitation pearls? Effisk 10:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Huh, looks like I have just been fooled by my computer's cache. My change hasn't been reverted. [/end of monologue] Effisk 10:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

myth?

I just watched an episode of The Avengers about a black pearl, and at the end they say that pearls dissolve in wine. Is that true? - Corby 23:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No way. >Eventually<, maybe, but not anytime soon. 65.41.47.6 17:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It will dissolve... when the wine turns to vinegar (acidic) Effisk 21:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Artificial pearls

Pearls can be manufactured by hand. In Manacor, Mallora (Spain) there are pearl factories that makes 'Majorcan pearls'. These are made with a glass centre, onto which the layers are added one by one. The pearls are polished extensively between layers to remove any imperfections. As far as I remember, the material for the layers consists of such things as fish scales... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.242.32.51 (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2003 (UTC)

...And therefore they are not true pearls. But you're right, perhaps some mention of imitations could be made.--Joel 22:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Need a picture of a pearl

Why no picture of an actual pearl, alone or in the context of jewelry? Surely someone reading this owns both a pearl and a digital camera.--Joel 22:19, 10 May 2005 (UTC)..

• I came here to say the same thing... --RealWingus 06:05, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

reverted bad edit

I reverted the edit by Nameneko 19:31, May 10, 2005. I changed the unit back to cm instead of mm. It is impossible for a 7mm oyster to produce a 10mm pearl. Kowloonese 22:38, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Nonsensical sentence and Titian

and is finer in proportion as the layers become thinner and more numerous.

Anyone know what this is supposed to mean? Also, why are Tahitian pearls known as Titian pearls? There's no explanation anywhere, and that makes it seem to me that the link to Titian is wrong. FireWorks 19:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Layers of nacre. They are deposited on the shell bead. One layer is a few micron thick. The thinner the layers, the higher the luster. The thicker the nacre (total of nacre layers), the higher the luster. In cold water, the layers deposited by the 'oysters' are thinner, hence the higher luster on akoya pearls (compared to south-sea pearls luster for example). Effisk 21:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Npaspaley 12:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)The concept that the colder the water - the higher the luster - is not correct. Luster is dependent primarily on the quality of the nacre tiles produced by particular pearl oysters. If the quality is fine, and there are thousands of thin layers of nacre, the luster will be fine. However, the relationship between cold water and luster can best be described as follows: it is a fact that a pearl oyster will produce finer layers of nacre during the cold winter months than in hotter summer months. It is NOT correct that Akoya pearls in Japan's cold water have a higher luster than south sea pearls from tropical warm waters. When harvested, south sea pearls generally have a much higher luster than freshly harvested Akoya pearls. Akoya pearls have quite poor luster when harvested, and it is the polishing process which delivers a high luster. Artificial luster can be as shiny as the polishing process is intended. e.g. even mirror finishes can be achieved through modern polishing processes. However, this is not the natural luster of pearls in nature.Npaspaley 12:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

okay I must admit my comparison between south sea pearls and akoya pearls wasn't appropriate. The concept that the colder the water - the higher the luster is still valid for a given oyster species though. Effisk (talk) 11:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Animal rights

There should be an Animal Rights section discussing the fact that pearl oysters are animals too, and have rights too. 201.23.64.2 00:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Symbolism

Pearls are a beautiful thing created by a reaction to suffering. For this reason it is sometimes used symbolically. --Zerothis 02:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the best way to integrate this information into the article? Is an L2 headline "Symbolism" appropriate? Should there be more info or does my short sentence suffice? Zerothis 05:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Marieaxon (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)I think the article should contain more information about the fate of the actual living creatures producing the pearls. Afterall it is not produced by machinery, and it is a living water dweller with a life cycle, which is being cut short in the progress. It also involves cruelty in my opinion and as far as I am concerned cannot be disproved. Animal cruelty in the form of disinterest in a species which is not in a form like ouselves. Like silk production it is a thing of the past and only relies on peoples laziness and aged pride for it to continue, as a desirable industry. As a vegetarian I need to know if I am in danger of supporting something unsupportable. It would be interesting to know what the waste is from this industry or how many creatures are approximately killed each year, as some pearls are produced from introducing the mantle of a mussle into the oyster which is going to produce the final oyster. It is worrying to me that pearls are being produced cheaper than ever, particularly in comparison with other jewellery items.Marieaxon (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Information wrong for subject

The subject of this article should be on the middle English poem Pearl and not on actual pearls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mango79 (talk • contribs)

See: Pearl (poem). Also note the disambiguation note at the top of this article. Vsmith 13:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Grain of sand

I have impetuously substituted the idea that a parasite acts as the seed for the pearl, as per this page. But is this just a theory? I'm not sure. This page is perhaps more reliable.--Shantavira 12:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

First page is more accurate. Effisk 21:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Parasites can begin the process of forming the pearl sack, which in turn produces the pearl. Anything that causes an injury to the surface of a bivalve's mantle and causes some of the epithelial (skin) cells to be transferred into the soft body of the mollusk will cause a pearl sac to start growing. A bite from a fish could cause this transfer to happen. The epithelial cells are the ones that produce the iridescent colors in the shell itself and when a few get transferred into the body of the mollusk, they just keep growing in their new "home" and produce roundish blobs instead of more lining for the shell.User:Quetlin ~~Quetlin~~

I would also argue with this sentence, "The mollusk creates a pearl sac to seal off the irritation." for the same reason as cited above: The pearl sac rarely forms around an object in the wild. It is almost solely the transfer of epithelial cells into the body of the mantle that causes pearls to form in the wild. Cultured pearls can be grown with only a bit of epithelial tissue put into the mantle, or with a bead and piece of epithelial tissue introduced with it. It is the epithelial tissue with its nacre producing cells that is the invariable cause of pearls, whether an object is introduced, or not. ~~Quetlin~~ User: Quetlin

References

Vinegar?

I opened a Snapple bottle today, and it had a 'Random Real Fact' that pearls dissolve in vinegar. Maybe that's where the wine thing came from too-wine can turn to vinegar-can anyone verify this? -Rmeskill 14:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It's the acidity of the vinegar that dissolves the calcium carbonate. Effisk 21:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Color

I think we need a short explaination of what causes different color pearls to be produced. Kerowyn ^{Leave a note} 08:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Color of pearls primarily depend on the 'oyster' or mussel species. Pinctada margaritifera will produce darker pearls (Tahitian pearls), Pinctada maxima will produce white or golden pearls (south-sea pearls, depending on the subspecies, 'white-lipped' or 'silver-lipped'), etc. Another factor is the nacre color of the donor mollusc (mollusc whose mantle tissue is implanted (grafted) along with the bead. That is for natural colors. Effisk 21:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

student research

this page does not have stuff about how pearls are retrived!

Needs to be added!

Depends. If the 'oyster' is not be reimplanted with another bead, then the oyster is simply open and the pearl retrieved by hand. The mollusc obviously dies. If the 'oyster' is reimplanted, which can happen up to 3 or 4 times depending on the species, then the process is quite similar to the implanting (grafting): the oyster is held slightly open, a nucleator (the guy who implants the bead nucleus) cuts open the pearl sac using a sharp blade, removes the pearl, then implants a new bead (usually of the same size as the retrieved pearl) in the pearl sac. Please don't hesitate to add this to the page. My English is not so good... Effisk 21:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Resource for Prl locations and types

Came across this table on the GIA site, and thought editors of this page might find it useful. Gems & Gemology data depository: Expanded localities for cultured pearls, natural pearls, and calcareous concretions. Cheers. SauliH 21:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

December 2006 (UTC) Found a pearl the size of a small marble in my oyster stew.I assume, having been "cooked',its only value is as a novelty?

It isn't a "pearl" in the technical sense because edible oysters don't produce nacre (it is then called a "calcareous concretion"). It does not have the luster, orient, etc. that real pearls display and which make them valuable. So yes, its only value is as a novelty, and its uniqueness to your eyes. Effisk 19:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Natural pearl edit

While an expansion of natural pearling is welcomed the recent edit was very non-NPOV, and required extensive editing. The article now needs further copyediting and expansion to remove duplicate information, as well as some citation work. SauliH 18:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Page to be merged with Pearl

I have been working on the pearl page (and organizing it as well as will add more info on specific pearls). In due time this article will completely cover colored (whether natural or cultured) pearls. What I WOULD suggest however is to create some info pages (in due time) dealing with individual pearls such as Keshi, Melo, Tahitian etc etc. Colors are not really a way to structure pearls (one can think of natural/cultured, saltwater/sweetwater etc). Gem-fanat 10:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute Pearl intro section

"Freshadama" is a registered trademark of Jeremy Shepherd, the founder and owner of Pearl Paradise a small company in Los Angeles. Pearl Paradise uses it as the product name for their best freshwater pearls. It is absolutely not an industry accepted term for describing the quality of pearls. None of the recognized pearl grading and description systems, such as the GIA's Pearl Description System, use this word.

This is advertising a product name in disguise. It is inaccurate and misleading.

Use of this term violates Wikipedia's core principles of NPOV and Verifiability.

Here is the trademark information from the US Patent and Trademark Office website www.uspto.gov:

Word Mark FRESHADAMA

Goods and Services IC 014. US 002 027 028 050. G & S: Pearls. FIRST USE: 20060200. FIRST USE IN

COMMERCE: 20060508

Standard Characters Claimed

Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK

Serial Number 78880694

Filing Date May 10, 2006

Current Filing Basis 1A

Original Filing Basis 1A

Published for Opposition January 9, 2007

Registration Number 3222436

Registration Date March 27, 2007

Owner (REGISTRANT) Shepherd, Jeremiah Paul INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES

Attorney of Record Christopher J. Day

Type of Mark TRADEMARK

Register PRINCIPAL

Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Pearlexpert 03:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed freshadama from image caption pending clarification. Vsmith 00:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Care of Pearls

I have heard it said that pearls need to be worn next to human skin, that it's not good for them to be kept in a box for extended periods of time. Is this true? Can anyone add a section on care of pearls? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.204.90 (talk) 00:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly, though they will dry out and crack in time if kept in very dry conditions —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearlescenceltd (talk • contribs) 17:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

A note

Can we have some information on different types of pearls, especially the Mabe pearls, also known as half pearls? rt (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I may be stupid, but i think this article lead me to misunderstanding...

I read in the pearl hunting section that some Spanish conquistadors came across a "bed of pearls". I haven't found an explanation of what a "bed of pearls" exactly is, but the first image in my mind is that the pearls where just lying there in the seabottom, outside any mollusks. Since i can't find a reason in the article why the pearl would be 'released' from the oyster, I assume I am wrong... But still, i'd be grateful for some clarification... Thanks! El edgar (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it would better be described as a "pearl bed", not bed of pearls. In the days of the pearl divers, pearl beds were where natural pearls were collected. These were areas with high concentrations of pearl-bearing mollusks and (unbeknownst to the divers) a relatively high parasitic content in the water - parasites being the catalyst of natural pearl production.JPShepherd (talk) 22:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ethics of Pearl farming

I think a paragraph on how pearls are farmed and if the mussels/oysters are dead before the pearls are removed would be helpful. I don't know if they are or not but it would be helpful to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.85.79 (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Freshwaters

The first paragraph is plagarized from another website. Add a citation to give credit where credit is due.

The second paragraph discusses American freshwater farming. Why is it in a the Japanese section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Olivegreenscreen (talk • contribs) 21:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Moved some religious references

the Hymn of the Pearl and The Pearl of Great Price are hardly New Testament scriptures. I've put them under the heading of Other Scriptures. However, I'm not sure if this is the best solution.

Reference needed for pearls=beads in European languages

"In several European languages, the word "pearl" is synonymous with "bead", which can lead to confusion during translation." - reference needed for this, which languages? Not sure if this bit of information is really even that relevant in the intro paragraph. Markowe (talk) 09:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How long do pearls last?

I believe no ancient pearls survived - as an organic matter, pearls decay after a couple of centuries. Can anyone find precise data? Omeganian (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• 2ooo years is not bad going - http://news.softpedia.com/news/Two-Millennia-Old-Roman-Earring-Found-In-Jerusalem-97599.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearlescenceltd (talk • contribs) 17:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, but that's without oxygen. Omeganian (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The oldest pearl found so far is 7,000 years old. Found in Kuwait in the As-Suiyyah region in Archaeology site H-3. (from "Sea of Pearls" Carter, Robert A., Arabian Publishing, 2012, p3 at top. http://www.amazon.com/Sea-Pearls-Thousand-Industry-Shaped/dp/0957106009/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1356382308&sr=8-1&keywords=Sea+Of+Pearls+-+Carter%2C+Robert+A.)And there has been a sparse, but continuous record of ancient pearls from then until now recorded in the book mentioned above. Some of Queen Mary's (the 1st one) pearls just toured with the Smithsonian Museum show on a natural history of pearls. They are 400 years old and in perfect condition. User Quetlin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.68.240.100 (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

This would be useful information to add to the article. - Brian Kendig (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Gastropods and the Pearl article

While it is true that commercial pearls are produced primarily by bivalves, not gastropods, at present there is neither a WikiProject Bivalves nor WikiProject Molluscs who could perhaps keep an eye on the quality of the biology (rather than gemology) information here. Therefore I am rating the article "high importance" in the gastropod project because the article is so frequently consulted (2000 people a day look at it currently). I hope this will inspire members of our project to check and improve the biology side of the article as best as they can over time. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Some vandalism

There were some bad words mixed through the content. Some were removed but may need a closer reading again. Some information may also not be accurate. Entry might need to be flagged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.87.32 (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This article is full of errors

some major, some minor, but someone who know pearls should work on it.~~Quetlin~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quetlin (talk • contribs) 21:50, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyone who spots errors in this or any other article, as long as the new (supposedly correct) information is based on a reliable published source, should feel free to fix the text themselves. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you don't want to do the work, please when you leave a note, be specific about exactly what you think is wrong, and provide a link to a published source to back that up, and then over time a more experienced editor will fix it. Invertzoo (talk) 13:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Inconsistency on cultured pearls

The present text on cultured pearls seems inconsistent on how they are formed. It begins by saying they are initiated by a tissue graft, but it goes on to say they are formed around a bead. In fact, I understand that both methods are used, but the article should be clearer about this. The pearls resulting from the two methods may also be different, as the 'tissue implant' method is likely to require a thicker growth of nacre before the pearl is 'harvested'.109.158.46.214 (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

ugh!

mother-of-pearl and nacre both hyperlinked

to the same page..

only one should have the hyperlink text, no?

cant edit it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.40.106.32 (talk) 10:49, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Possible removal from list

An entry in List of colors: N–Z contained a link to this page.

The entry is :

• Pink pearl

I don't see any evidence that this color is discussed in this article and plan to delete it from the list per this discussion: Talk:List_of_colors#New_approach_to_review_of_entries

If someone decides that this color should have a section in this article and it is added, I would appreciate a ping.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Curiosities

The last para of the lede doesn't make sense; I suspect that a sensible sentence may have been added to it, without paying due respect to the surrounding prose, thus confounding innocent visitors. As a consequence, I can't tell what kind of object is considered to "have no value except as curiosities". Is it funny-shaped pearls? Pearls from mussel shells? Pearls that lack lustre? (I think lustre is probably the thing at issue, but this para doesn't mention it - the word "shine" is used, but I think in this context that's not really enough). We are discussing here objects that are generally considered valuable, so we should be clear about this matter.

I suppose this paragraph is a palimpsest (like most of Wikipedia). I haven't tried to use tools to figure out who made what changes; I don't think anyone is at fault. The only citation is to FTC rules. Can it be deleted? Should I just delete the para, and wait for someone to complain?

I don't know much about diemons and poils and joolry. I've bought them for women on occasion, but I have relied on jewellers to tell me about the qualities of the objects I'm buying. MrDemeanour (talk) 16:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

removed quote

"The most famous Margarita necklace that anyone can see today is the one that then Venezuelan President Romulo Betancourt gave to Jacqueline Kennedy when she and her husband, President John F. Kennedy paid an official visit to Venezuela" is from the novel, here [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camelspank (talk • contribs) 20:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Saltwater pearl mussel?

article Cultured freshwater pearls had a red link saltwater pearl mussel, which I corrected to pearl mussel (eg we have pearl oyster). Although we have the article freshwater pearl mussel--Estopedist1 (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

"Seed Pearl"

this term appears in the caption of the Georgian ring, and is a common term in language. Neither this article nor any other on wikipedia defines it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7E:75B:6000:5EB:19A0:6372:FA3F (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Imitation Pearls

I removed a couple (unsourced) points in the article related to imitation pearls being inferior in quality. These seemed unencyclopedic. I'm sure there's a case for cheap replicas lacking the qualities mentioned but it requires sourcing. And probably doesn't cover the whole set of imitations. The language mentioned seems written by people with a vested interest, though I've done no investigation or have proof. Exaisle (talk) 12:27, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Science

Pearl diving 2.50.148.49 (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)