Disruptor’s Dilemma: Has Lightbox Legitimized Lab-Grown?

Lightbox

When De Beers first introduced its Lightbox lab-grown jewelry brand in 2018, the diamond world sat up and took notice. The mining giant had long been outspoken about its belief that synthetic stones were neither special nor unique. And despite having entered the field itself, the company still holds by that sentiment. Since first making waves throughout the trade, it has done its utmost to create a clear distinction between the two types of stones, touting natural diamonds as a higher-value, engagement-worthy offering, and positioning Lightbox’s products in what brand CEO Steve Coe delineates as “the accessibly priced fashion-jewelry space.”

But a look at the market four years on suggests that this message may have been lost in translation.

The opening gambit

After the initial shock of the Lightbox announcement wore off, the general theory in the natural-diamond industry was that the brand was De Beers’ strategy for negating the perceived threat of lab-grown. Understood but unspoken in its marketing was that Lightbox aimed to create an alternative stream for synthetics — one that wasn’t bridal and wasn’t in that price range.

“I think there was a great opportunity for lab-grown diamonds that De Beers didn’t want to pass up,” says Dick Garard, president of the International Grown Diamond Association (IGDA). “They thought they had a marketing strategy there…. They came out with a pricing structure, and the intent was to drive the pricing down to that point. I think their overall intent was to help augment their mined-diamond business.”

Jewelry consultant Pam Danziger also took Lightbox’s debut as a warning shot to synthetics — a way of reframing them as a lesser alternative to natural stones, not as a luxury product.

“De Beers tried to tell the consumer what lab-grown diamonds were for,” she says. “They said it’s for fashion, not for anything serious. It was like they were trying to exert market control and keep lab-grown in a separate lane.”

Of course, a company as big and well-known as De Beers can’t rock the boat without creating some far-reaching ripples, and it did — just not necessarily the ones it may have been expecting.

Stamp of approval?

If De Beers’ subliminal strategy was to create an invisible barrier around the space where lab-grown was supposed to reside, the plan did not unfold as it was meant to. Rather than decreasing interest in synthetic diamonds as a viable alternative to natural, the company’s move into the space solidified lab-grown’s legitimacy among trade members and consumers alike.

“[De Beers] kind of heightened the awareness and desire for lab-grown diamonds,” explains Adrienne Fay, vice president of Warren Buffett-owned jeweler Borsheims. “Maybe it was an unintended consequence, rather than a misstep, that by trying to point out that this is a product inferior to mined diamonds, it sort of highlighted the fact that it’s actually a product very similar to mined diamonds, and that there is a demand for it.”

The De Beers name on lab-grown jewelry became the ultimate stamp of approval for customers, agrees Eileen Hopman, owner of Hopman Jewelers in Elkhart, Indiana. Whenever she saw doubt from shoppers about the validity of synthetics, she says, she would whisper the magic words: “Even De Beers is selling lab-grown.” From there, the purchase was usually a fait accompli.

Traders, too, have taken the De Beers move as an endorsement, reports Mark Clodius, owner of Clodius & Co. Jewelers in Rockford, Illinois.

“It certainly prompted overall approval throughout the industry, and quite dramatically,” he says. “It achieved so much publicity that it was hard for jewelers to ignore it.”

“What De Beers has…been successful at is having price consistency among diamond growers.”

Adrienne Fay
Vice President, Borsheims

The bridal boom

Fay, Hopman and Clodius are among the jewelers that were already carrying lab-grown diamonds before the launch of Lightbox. From the brand’s debut in 2018 until a year later, the retailers saw a big jump in growth, with sales doubling or better every year after that.

Consumer surveys appear to support this trend. The number of bridal shoppers who feel a natural diamond is important has gone down, according to a 2021 survey from wedding website The Knot. Nearly one quarter of all engagement ring purchases last year featured a man-made center stone, it found — an increase of 11% over two years. Another study, this one by jewelry insurance business Brite & Co., confirms that lab-grown is gaining on natural when it comes to bridal appeal: The market share of synthetic-diamond engagement rings grew to more than 28% in 2021 from 19% the year before, while average spending rose 9%, not far behind the 12% increase that mined stones enjoyed.

Despite the data, however, De Beers insists it will not hop on the lab-grown engagement train and says it still sees synthetics functioning most promisingly in fashion. The lower price point of that segment “opens up a very exciting opportunity for a much higher level of repeat purchases,” says Coe. “There are some retailers out there that are pushing the [engagement] avenue very strongly…but we see the big opportunity for lab-grown elsewhere.”

Still, by setting a bar and sticking to it, Lightbox might be missing out. The bulk of lab-grown sales at Borsheims are for bridal, and synthetics make up approximately 60% of engagement ring purchases at Clodius. Hopman, who first began carrying them as an alternative to natural stones, says they’ve become her bread and butter, making up 90% of all engagement center stones she sells. The lab-created gems have become so popular with her buyers that she has stopped carrying natural diamonds unless they’re preset in a piece she really likes.

“Like De Beers, we were initially promoting them more for fashion jewelry versus engagement rings,” she explains. “But more people came in and wanted bigger diamonds, and as the prices for mined diamonds began to increase, they were stuck settling for either a smaller diamond or a lesser-quality stone. And we began showing them the lab-grown. Once we let them know the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had sanctioned them as real diamonds, they took off.”

“There are some retailers out there that are pushing the [engagement] avenue very strongly…but we see the big opportunity elsewhere.”

Steve Coe
CEO, Lightbox

The price is right

One thing De Beers has managed to do, Fay believes, is contain the price of lab-grown, though not at the $800-per-carat level that Lightbox charges. Not even at the $1,500-per-carat price tag of its Finest line, which includes synthetic stones with a higher color range of D to F.

“De Beers, because they’re such a behemoth, they’re going to have an impact,” asserts Fay. “I think what De Beers has managed to disrupt, and been successful at, is having price consistency among lab-grown diamond growers.”

The figures seem to prove her right. Within six months of Lightbox’s arrival on the scene, the average discount for a 1-carat lab-grown diamond grew to 42% of the equivalent natural stone — up from 29% in January 2018, just before the De Beers brand launched, according to data that Reuters cited from industry analyst Paul Zimnisky. Meanwhile, wholesale prices for synthetics fell 13.3% from 2019 to 2020, according to online marketplace Virtual Diamond Boutique.

Clodius and Hopman are currently selling lab-grown engagement rings at approximately 50% to 70% of their natural counterparts’ prices, depending on the cut and carat weight of the stone, and the price they pay their lab-grown suppliers has dropped since 2018. However, they’re a bit more hesitant to attribute the latter development to Lightbox. So is Zimnisky.

“I believe it’s the overall fundamentals of the market that are pressuring lab-grown diamond prices — particularly the supply side of the equation — not Lightbox per se,” Zimnisky says. “Perhaps the Lightbox launch a few years back has accelerated this trend, but when you really look at the supply fundamentals of the space, how many new producers have entered the space in the recent past, I think it’s more production growth and production improvements that have accelerated supply [and] most heavily weighed on prices.”

“It was like [De Beers was] trying to exert market control and keep lab-grown in a separate lane.”

Pam Danziger
Jewelry consultant

Down the line

What does the future hold for lab-grown, and will De Beers play a role in how it gets there? The answer depends on whom you ask.

“Will lab-grown diamonds fall into fashion? Yes,” says the IGDA’s Garard. “But will they also still fall into bridal and high-end? Absolutely. And supply is too tight to meet demand currently, so to have a carat sell for $800? I think that’s a bit low.”

Zimnisky disagrees: “Ultimately, I think the Lightbox price point is the right level for the lab-grown diamond product in general. Sometimes I think it’s too low, and sometimes I feel that it’s too high, so that’s probably a sign that it’s just about right — for now, at least. However…in five years’ time, this price point will probably seem too high. I think we’ll see $500 per carat or less in 10 years’ time. Longer-term, I think the price point is what will ultimately relegate the product to more ‘fashion’-oriented — more so than marketing efforts.”

Source: Diamonds.net

What is a ‘lab grown diamond’ ?

Laboratory grown rough diamonds

What is a ‘lab grown diamond’ ?

Laboratory grown diamond term is still a source of confusion for many diamond buyers and jewellers.

Natural Diamonds have been high coveted and sort after for thousands of years.

Diamonds have always been a status symbol for the elite and super wealthy, only becoming available to the general populations after large discoveries and marketing by the De Beers group.

The demand for mined diamonds has grown over the past century, At same time the source of new ground to mine has become ever increasingly hard to find or work.

This created the need for a scientific way to create alternatives. Enter Lab grown diamonds, or laboratory created diamonds.

Many Jewellers and most consumers are still confused about the process of creating a diamond, and how these stones actually differ from mined diamonds.

Laboratory grown diamonds are precisely the same in every way to mined diamonds but one. How the diamonds carbon bond grows under heat and pressure.

The growth structure of the carbon in natural mined diamond is haphazard and mixed with elements other than carbon. Nitrogen is the most common.

Lab grown are pure carbon for the most part, with distinctive growth structures visible under high magnification in gemological equipment available at the worlds notable laboratories.

How Can You Tell the Difference Between Lab Grown Diamonds?

Short answer is you can’t.

Lab grown diamonds are visually indistinguishable from natural diamonds, Not even and expert can tell the difference without gemological tasting equipment.

DTC Diamond View at the DCLA Laboratory Sydney

While some differences in old HPHT Lab diamonds can be identified under a special microscope, there’s nothing obvious about a lab grown diamond.

So how can a laboratory tell the difference?

Almost all natural diamonds contain traces of nitrogen, This is actually what gemologists use to screen out potential lab grown diamonds for further testing.

The actual gemological test requires state of the art gemological equipment. No counter top testers can prove the origin.

Are lab grown as durable as natural ?

The fact is lab grown diamonds are identical natural diamonds in strength, most of which have no flaws which could cause durability issues.

So as to the question Is a Lab Grown Diamond a Real Diamond ?

Polished lab Grown Diamond at the DCLA

Answer is, Yes, lab grown diamonds are 100% as real as diamonds that have been mined from the earth.

Not only are they identical in every single way except origin, they have all the same optical properties as mined diamonds.

DCLA remains the only laboratory in Australia that guarantees, every diamond ever graded has been tested for origin and all known treatments.

LVMH Makes It Official: Lab-Grown Diamonds Are Luxury

Lab-Grown Diamonds

In 2018, the FTC permitted “a mineral consisting essentially of pure carbon crystallized in the isometric system” to be described as a “diamond,” whether naturally occurring or man-made. Ever since then, the jewelry establishment has been erecting barriers of entry for lab-grown diamonds into their lucrative $84 billion global market.

The Natural Diamond Council established the official party line, declaring “Crafted by nature over millions of years, natural diamonds are inherently valuable, rare and precious.” Lab-grown diamonds, by contrast, are cheap manufactured substitutes whose value is “tied strictly to the cost of production” and therefore have no lasting value.

With the most to lose, luxury brands, including Bulgari, Cartier and Tiffany (now an LVMH brand), stood firmly behind that barrier and held only natural diamonds were luxury.

But now the walls have been breached with LVMH Luxury Ventures, along with other investors, having completed a $90 million investment round in Israel-based Lusix, a pioneer in the lab-grown diamond (LGD) industry.

Lusix joins MadHappy, Gabriella Hearst, Versed and Stadium Goods in LVMH Luxury Venture’s portfolio. Its investment priorities are clear: seek out brands at the forefront of emerging trends and innovation in the luxury market.

Specifically, it invests in “Iconic luxury brands, recognized for their distinctiveness and the quality of their products and services, with significant growth potential.”

Lusix fits the bill. It is the LGD industry’s first 100% solar-powered diamond producer with its stones sold under the “Sun Grown Diamond” brand. It can grow both clear and custom-colored rough stones in its large-scale reactors and it is one of the industry’s leading producers of premium-quality diamonds.

“LVMH’s investment in the lab space is a statement that lab-growns are going into luxury in a big way,” shared Marty Hurwitz, founder of The MVEye, a research firm specializing in the jewelry market.

“Right now demand for lab-grown diamonds is through the roof and the only thing holding it back is supply. LVMH investment in Lusix will give them secure access to premium-quality supply,” he continued.

Lusix’s technology edge made it particularly attractive to LVMH. The company was founded by Benny Landa, who made his name advancing digital printing technology with his Indigo Printing Company which was eventually sold to Hewlett-Packard in 2002.

He then formed Landa Group, and under that Landa Labs, to explore nanotechnology research and applications. Lusix was spun-off in 2016 as a separate business headed by Landa and co-founder Dr. Yossi Yayon with a Ph.D. in physics and post-graduate work at the University of California, Berkley.

The $90 million investment will be used to bring a second 100% solar-powered facility online this summer.

Landa said in a statement, “We are thrilled and proud to welcome such high-profile investors, most notably LVMH Luxury Ventures, bringing their financial support and valuable industry insights. Their help will contribute greatly to our company’s success while the implications of this investment, both for LUSIX and for the lab-grown diamond segment, are profound – and so exciting!”

Without a doubt, this is exciting news for the entire lab-grown diamond industry which today is estimated to total just under $6 billion and before this announcement was predicted to double in size by 2025.

With LVMH now giving its official luxury imprimatur to lab-grown diamonds, it is safe to bet it will grow even faster than that.

“Lusix is going to double its production by 2023 which will accelerate the market even faster,” Hurwitz shared.

In a final note, Frédéric Arnault, LVMH CEO Bernard Arnault’s 27-year-old son and head of its Tag Heuer brand, was likely instrumental in getting his father to take a closer look at LGDs. Earlier this year, Tag Heuer introduced its first watch featuring lab-grown diamonds at the super-luxury price of $360,000.

“It’s not about replacing traditional diamonds with lab-grown diamonds,” he shared with Vogue Business. “We use what’s different and inherent to this technology, allowing us new shapes and textures.”

Frédéric understands what the next-generation luxury consumers want and that is being given the choice between natural diamonds with their attendant environmental challenges and lab-grown diamonds that are renewable and can be produced without the high environmental price tag.

Plus, consumers can get a bigger and often better quality stone at a lower price. That’s the kind of choice everyone wants.

Source: Pamela N. Danziger Forbes

IGI Grades Largest Polished Lab-Grown Diamond

The three lab-grown diamonds from Greenlab

The International Gemological Institute (IGI) has graded a 27-carat lab-grown stone that it claims is the world’s largest polished synthetic diamond.

Indian lab-grown company Greenlab created the marquise step-cut, 27.27-carat diamond, named Om, IGI said Wednesday. The stone, which has no color enhancement, was grown using chemical vapor deposition (CVD).

Along with Om, the IGI graded two additional lab-grown stones submitted by Greenlab, including Shivaya, an emerald-cut diamond weighing 20.24 carats, and Namah, a pear rose-cut, 15.16-carat polished. Greenlab plans to display the diamonds at the JCK Las Vegas show, it noted.

Previously, the largest known polished CVD diamond was a princess-cut, 16.41-carat, G-color, VVS2-clarity stone created by Shanghai Zhengshi Technology. The Gemological Institute of America (GIA) graded the stone in January.

At the time, the largest polished lab-grown diamond of any sort the GIA had examined was a cushion-cut, 20.23-carat, fancy-vivid-yellowish-orange, VS2-clarity diamond created using the High Pressure-High Temperature (HPHT) method in 2019.

Source: Diamonds.net

Record Lab-Grown Stone Turns Up at GIA

16.41ct labgrown Diamond

The Gemological Institute of America (GIA) recently graded the largest known synthetic diamond to be created using chemical vapor deposition (CVD), it claimed Wednesday.

The stone, produced by Shanghai Zhengshi Technology, is a princess-cut, 16.41 carat, G colour, VVS2 clarity lab grown diamond. Spectroscopic readings the GIA performed confirmed the stone had no post growth treatments to improve the color, it noted.

“The first CVD diamond I examined in 2003 was a 0.23 carat pear shape, with clear brown colour,” said Wuyi Wang, GIA vice president of research and development. “This 16.41 carat laboratory grown diamond demonstrates the advances in CVD growth technology. This achievement has important implications for the many scientific and industrial applications for high quality laboratory grown diamonds.”

The previous record for a synthetic diamond grown using CVD was held by an emerald cut, 14.60 carat, F colour, VS2 clarity diamond, which was produced in India and graded by the International Gemological Institute (IGI). Meanwhile, the record for the largest lab grown diamond the GIA has examined was in 2019 for a cushion cut, 20.23 carat, fancy vivid yellowish orange, VS2 clarity stone made using High Pressure High Temperature (HPHT).

Source: Diamonds.net

Mumbai Bourse to Vote on Lifting Synthetics Ban

A rough lab-grown diamond

Mumbai’s Bharat Diamond Bourse (BDB) is on the verge of allowing lab-grown trading, with members due to vote on the matter next week.

The board of the world’s largest diamond hub has recommended the move, arguing that better detection and increased awareness have made it easier to segregate synthetic stones from natural ones. The poll will take place at the annual general meeting (AGM) at the BDB on December 28, according to the exchange’s annual report, which it released last week.

The bourse banned synthetics in 2015, but has been reconsidering the rule for more than two years and holding talks with India’s Natural Diamond Monitoring Committee on how to keep watch of the trade. The board received numerous requests for a meeting in which members could pass the amendment, BDB president Anoop Mehta told Rapaport News Monday.

“I think the vote result will be positive, because a lot of people want to diversify,” Mehta commented.

In the past, “you didn’t have many detection machines, and they were pretty expensive,” he added. “Detection…has gotten much more accessible and reasonable.”

However, companies won’t be able to start trading in synthetics immediately: They will have to apply for this right, Mehta explained. Companies active in both sectors must have detection equipment and keep natural and lab-grown stones in separate rooms, with clear markings on the door to indicate what’s inside. The BDB will cancel the membership of companies that flout the rules.

Meanwhile, the BDB board has recommended removing “natural” from its definition of diamonds, bringing it in line with industry standards, Mehta added. This will also be included in next week’s vote.

Source: Diamonds.net

Buy Laboratory created diamonds

De Beers Scores Partial CVD Patent Victory

Synthetic colored diamonds at Element Six in Oxford UK De Beers

 A court has awarded a limited victory to De Beers’ synthetic-diamond production unit in a patent dispute with Singapore-based grower IIa Technologies.

IIa infringed an Element Six patent related to diamond material that’s usable for lab-grown diamond jewelry and industrial applications, according to a High Court of Singapore judgment Friday. However, another Element Six patent for post-growth color treatment is invalid, judge Valerie Thean also ruled.

“We will continue to be vigilant for any other potential infringement of our [intellectual-property] rights around the globe,” Element Six CEO Walter Hühn said in a statement Friday. “We will defend our rights vigorously — just as any company would — because protecting our ability to get a full return on our investment in [research and development] is vital to our future.”

UK-based Element Six produces synthetic diamonds for De Beers’ lab-grown jewelry brand, Lightbox, and supplies diamond material for industrial and technological uses. The patent it successfully defended, SG 872, was relevant to optical applications such as infrared spectroscopy and high-power laser optics, as well as to the creation of stones for jewelry, De Beers explained.

IIa, which grows CVD goods for distributor and sister company Pure Grown Diamonds (PGD), must stop making, using, importing or maintaining possession of products that infringe patent SG 872, Thean ordered. She also called for the cancellation of Element Six’s patent SG 508, which relates to the annealing of chemical vapor deposition (CVD) diamonds.

“IIa Technologies has developed its proprietary process in the last 15 years, and is proud of the work we have done to bring lab-grown diamonds to the world,” Vishal Mehta, IIa’s CEO, said in a separate statement. “The current judgment will be considered in its entirety, and then the company will take necessary steps to protect its interests.”

The lawsuit, which Element Six filed in 2016, comes amid heightened patent-related legal activity in the synthetic-diamond sector. Last month, WD Lab Grown Diamonds sued six companies — including IIa and PGD — accusing them of infringing its patents for synthesis and treatment.

Source: Diamonds.net

FTC Drops ‘Natural’ From Definition of Diamond, A Win for Lab-Grown Producers

DCLA can you tell the difference

In what can only be described as a victory for laboratory-grown diamond producers, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has dropped the word ‘natural’ from its definition of a diamond, essentially redefining ‘diamond’ to include non-mined gemstones, as part its new guides for the jewelry industry. It further gives additional leeway to existing standards regarding the description of lab-grown diamonds (and metal alloys), and has dropped ‘synthetic’ as an appropriate descriptor of lab-grown diamonds except under certain circumstances. “The revision makes relatively far-reaching changes in what’s allowed as far as marketing lab-grown diamonds,” writes JCK’s Rob Bates, “and these changes almost entirely tilt toward the lab-grown sector.”

According to section § 23.12 of the Guides for the Jewelry, Precious Metals, and Pewter Industries, “Definition and misuse of the word ‘’diamond’,” the FTC writes: “A diamond is a mineral consisting essentially of pure carbon crystallized in the isometric system”, whereas it previously read “natural mineral”. “The Commision,” reads the Guide, “no longer defines a “diamond” by using the term “natural” because it is no longer accurate to define diamonds as “natural” when it is now possible to create products that have essentially the same optical, physical, and chemical properties as mined diamonds.” Later in the explanation of its changes, the commission describes why it sided with Diamond Foundry: “Diamond Foundry asked that the Commission remove “natural” from the diamond definition. It contended, “[t]he fact that diamonds exist in the soil of Earth” is “not a necessary attribute.” In its analysis, “The Commission agrees. The final Guides therefore eliminate the word “natural” from the diamond definition. When the Commission first used this definition in 1956, there was only one type of diamond product on the market – natural stones mined from the earth. Since then, technological advances have made it possible to create diamonds in a laboratory. These stones have essentially the same optical, physical, and chemical properties as mined diamonds. Thus, they are diamonds.”

‘Synthetic’ no longer recommended

In addition to this fundamental change to the definition of ‘diamond’, the FTC has opened the door to a much wider range of discriptors for lab-grown diamonds, provided they are not confusing for consumers. The Guides details its consideration of “cultured diamonds” according to the issues presented by the International Grown Diamond Association (IDMA) and Diamond Foundry on the one hand, and the Diamond Producers Association and Jewelers Vigilance Committee on the other. While the former did not get all it asked for (such as restricting the use of “ethical” or “conflict-free” diamonds to those from countries adhering to US labor standards), they tilted the balance in their favor. As Rob Bates points out, “In the past, the Guides listed the following approved descriptors for non-mined diamonds: laboratory-created, laboratory-grown, [manufacturer-name]-created, and synthetic. The new Guides still recommend the first three descriptions – though they no longer include synthetic. They also say that manufacturers can use other phrases if those terms “clearly and conspicuously convey that the product is not a mined stone.” And while adjectives such as created, grown and foundry are not recommended as descriptors, the commission says if the “suggested terms could be used non-deceptively in context (e.g., as part of an ad highlighting that the product is man-made), there is nothing to prevent marketers from doing so.”

As for using the word “cultured” to describe non-mined stones, the commission said it should be qualified, as the term on its own often leads consumers to believe a diamond is mined. The commission suggests marketers use words such as “man-made,” “lab-grown” or “foundry” to qualify “cultured,” thereby avoiding confusion about a diamond’s origins. However, marketers should not use the word “synthetic” to qualify “cultured,” the FTC noted, as it creates confusion among consumers, who believe the term indicates a stone is fake or artificial. Yet the commission goes even a step further in loosening its guidance on the use of ‘cultured’: While it still recommends against using the term cultured on its own, it now says that cultured can be used even if not immediately preceded by one of the approved descriptors.

Several commenters cited in the report, however, stated that the commission’s proposed guidance is inconsistent with international standards, which ban even the qualified use of “cultured” to describe synthetic diamonds. For example, a standard adopted by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in 2015 prohibits using “cultured” and “cultivated” to describe synthetic diamonds, and requires sellers to describe such products as “synthetic,” “laboratory-grown,” or “laboratory-created.” The JVC contended that the purpose of the ISO standard is “fully aligned” with the FTC Jewelry Guides. The fact that the FTC decided otherwise points to a rift between the new American standards and international ISO standards (a not uncommon rift nowadays). While the FTC removed ‘synthetic’ from its suggested descriptors, it declined to prohibit its use (another request by diamond growers), arguing that the term is not deceptive in every instance. But it did rule that it is misleading to use the term synthetic to “suggest a competitor’s lab-grown diamond is not an actual diamond.”

The changes, approved unanimously by the five-member commission, cap a six-year process of revamping the much-talked-about standards for marketing jewelry and gems. This revision marks the Guides’ first major overhaul in 22 years.

Source: thediamondloupe.

WFDB RESPONDS TO REVISED FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION GUIDELINES

The World Federation of Diamond Bourses (WFDB) has responded to the revised U.S. Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) guidelines released last week as they relate to the issue of descriptors for diamonds. The new guidelines are not in line with the Diamond Terminology Guidelines as agreed last year and implemented by the WFDB, the International Diamond Council, the International Diamond Manufacturers Association and CIBJO, the World Jewellery Confederation, said WFDB President Ernie Blom. However, he pointed out that the new guides do require that all lab-grown diamonds must be clearly and conspicuously disclosed.

“We have a united stand regarding nomenclature which was agreed with all the combined knowledge and experience of the leading industry bodies, but the FTC appears to have moved in a different direction,” Blom said.

Previously, the FTC’s guidelines approved non-mined diamonds: laboratory-created, laboratory-grown, [manufacturer-name]-created, and synthetic as descriptors, and while the first three remain, it has removed the term synthetic. “We feel that these changes provide too much of a bias towards the lab-grown diamond sector,” said Blom. “We appreciate the hard work of the FTC, but we do not feel that the views of the diamond sector were taken sufficiently into account, though we acknowledge there was consultation with American industry bodies. The guidelines do not include the views of the global diamond trade which the WFDB represents, although we are pleased that lab-grown stones have to be clearly marked as such.

“Our paramount aim is always consumer confidence and the revision has the potential to cause a degree of confusion. The FTC notes that manufacturers that make diamonds in a factory setting are free to use other descriptors as long as they ‘clearly and conspicuously convey that the product is not a mined stone,’ but we feel that this might provide too much latitude in their marketing claims.

“We appreciate that the FTC rejected a bid by diamond growers to include terms such as [manufacturer-name]-grown, foundry, created, and grown. These are stones created to order in a factory. We are also pleased that the FTC makes clear that any descriptors for non-mined diamonds must be absolutely clear and prominently displayed to consumers. A diamond sold without any descriptors must be a natural diamond.

“We hope that the door is still open for us to go back and approach the FTC in order to try and persuade the organization to re-think its decision,” Blom added.