Royal Synthetics
January 21, 10The other day, I overheard a conversation between two diamond merchants who were debating the future of the diamond business. “The world will be running out of natural gem-quality diamonds and our future is in synthetics and simulants. We better join the future now,” argued one.
His friend vehemently disagreed. “Diamonds have a great future. The only problem is that too many among us are, with our very own hands, helping to expedite our own demise.”
Then they brought up
If we ignore the rather deceptive name of the company, which invites associations with mined diamonds (which are natural by definition), and if we also ignore the reference to a “diamond’s beauty,” we are struck by the last paragraph of this website introduction: "Laboratory grown diamonds are a pioneering concept in our industry and we believe that under the guidance of our 150-year-old reputation for innovation, gemological excellence, and ethics, Mine Diamonds offers a unique opportunity for everybody that loves colored diamonds." By the way, they are NOT colored diamonds; they are synthetic diamonds with a color. But let’s ignore that as well.
The point is that Royal Asscher – which cut the Cullinan for the British Crown Jewels – seems to present its move into synthetics as a natural progression in the company’s history. Synthetics build on the firm’s worldwide reputation of polishing natural diamonds. If you read the publicity material very carefully, it is all perfectly legal, perfectly proper. It actually gives one a “good” feeling, as if the move from natural to l
Natural colored diamonds are becoming increasingly rare and expensive, so let’s give praise that some good people have pioneered the creation of afford
Moving the Clock Forwards or Backwards
The two merchants’ conversation is timely for this column, which I had intended to dedicate solely to the forthcoming February 10 meeting in
Regular readers of this column will remember Ms. Sarah Winterton, the London-based political consultant and strategist of The Communication Group Plc., who, behind the front of some ad-hoc nameplate called CIBJO-Europe, kicked off this nomenclature initiative last year with the European Committee for Standardization (CEN) in Brussels.
The efforts led to the CEN Workshop Agreement on Diamond Nomenclature and Consumer Confidence (CWA 47). Basically, this CEN Workshop Agreement est
Financed (again) mostly by De Beers, Rio Tinto Diamonds and BHP Billiton, the IDC has now followed the footsteps of CIBJO-Europe to spearhead the next phase in the process. James Hughes of The Communication Group explained to me that “the CEN Workshop Agreement and a European Standard are two entirely separate processes. A CEN Workshop Agreement does not automatically become a European Standard; once it has been completed (following its publication in May 2009) and no further work is carried out - it remains a CEN Workshop Agreement.”
Indeed, no further work was carried out on the CEN Workshop Agreement, because the rank and file of CIBJO was shocked by the results. The organization’s formal position is that synthetics should only be called “synthetics” – and nothing else. Terms like “laboratory-grown” or “laboratory-created” are too friendly and may not turn off consumers; these terms may not give the consumers a nasty plastic taste in their mouth when buying lab-made diamonds. Even Royal Asscher would find it difficult to present “synthetics” as the natural continuation of its 150-year history.
The IDC, representing the World Federation of Diamond Bourses (WFDB) and the International Diamond Manufacturers Association (IDMA), has aligned its own rules on nomenclature with the CEN Workshop Agreement and supports the use of three descriptors. Its president, Stéphane Fischler, b
Every Stakeholder can Attend the London Meeting
The forthcoming
“However, because a CEN Workshop Agreement is essentially just an agreement amongst members of the Workshop, it is not a binding document and does not have any legal power. National standards bodies are obliged to list the document in their index but that is their only obligation. Diamond synthetic producers (or companies marketing the output) in European member states do not have to
This CEN nomenclature is a very separate product from a full European Standard and the process to achieve it is very different as a consequence. A European Standard is a formal document which, when produced, does have implications for all European member states. A European Standard updates all existing standards among European Standards bodies, and while it is still a voluntary document, it has more far more legal weight. New entrants to a market will be advised to acknowledge and follow the rules of an existing European Standard. The European Commission's "New Approach Directive" promotes the importance of European Standards where specific legislation is unlikely to exist, for example in niche industry areas.
Since a European Standard is a more formal product than a CEN Workshop Agreement, the process of creating one is consequently more formal and includes a greater level of scrutiny. It is my understanding that the Standard itself is drafted by a technical committee of experts, which is appointed by the national standards bodies. The proposed Standard is also sent out for public inquiry, allowing for consumers across all of
Last year’s exercise was useful in the sense that the CEN Workshop Agreement is an effective complement and pre-cursor to a European Standard. It provides the initial text for a Standard and shows evidence of an industry agreement before the Standard process begins. Discussions on the desired nomenclature can be conducted in an easier manner through the CEN Workshop Agreement rather than in the Standards process, which is far more rigid and cumbersome.
Why Do the Natural Producers Need It?
Last year, when the CEN process was very limited and intentionally excluded – or tried to include – meaningful synthetic producer representation, I commented that it was akin to a scenario in which the producers of natural sugarcane would be allowed to develop the marketing terminology for the artificial sweetener Saccharin…
The renewed IDC/Communication Group exercise now allows for broader participation, and synthetic producers can bring in their own troops – if they care to do so. My only misgiving is that the invitations for the February meeting were sent out so late.
The natural diamond producers need enforce
The CIBJO people seem to subscribe to the theory that the uglier the wording (from a marketing perspective), the more it will “protect” natural diamonds from the competition of synthetics. If “fake diamonds” would be an allow
With Royal Asscher now running in front of the crowd, it seems that the producers supporting the CWA47, FTC and IDC nomenclature are following the more pragmatic and sensible route. Coexistence is preferred to open conflict.
At the end of the day – and that is now proven by Royal Asscher – natural and synthetic diamonds may eventually become complementary products offered by many – if not most – industry players, including producers. Mind boggling? Not if one visits the Mine Diamonds website.
Let’s wish the IDC, Sarah Winterton and the natural and synthetics producers every success in