Over the past seven years, the diamond industry has undergone a profound transformation, and for that reason, The Great Diamond Debate is back, and this time, the stakes have never been higher.
In contrast to typical trade media, Jeweller concludes each year with a special December issue that pushes beyond routine reporting. This year, we return to one of the jewellery industry’s most defining and unresolved tensions: the divide between natural and lab-created diamonds, and its far-reaching implications for jewellers.
The Great Diamond Debate was published in December 2018 and was sparked when the De Beers Group launched Lightbox Jewelry. While that special issue was expansive, one central issue was at play: Did De Beers embrace lab-created diamonds as a tactical move to shape competitor practices and avoid wholesale disruption? Or had the company reconsidered its stance, accepting that lab-created diamonds were not a threat, but a complement to natural diamonds?
That special issue proved so popular that The Great Diamond Debate II was published the following year. This time, the coverage was centred around pressures placed on consumers by an onslaught of marketing from an increasingly confused industry.
The world has changed since Jeweller last visited The Great Diamond Debate. The COVID-19 Pandemic reshaped global supply chains, impacted consumer behaviour, and redefined perceptions of luxury. Global lockdowns accelerated digital retail.
Indeed, the jewellery industry was compelled to adjust swiftly. Postponements to weddings and engagements, supply chain shutdowns, and the surge in online jewellery purchasing reshaped businesses.
Meanwhile, younger buyers emerged as a defining force in the market. Gen Z, Millennials, whatever you want to call them – these younger consumers have motivations that are far too often generalised; however, significant research has highlighted trends.
It can be said that a preference for ‘experiences over products’ is commonplace, and that cost-of-living pressures and the increasing availability of lab-created diamond jewellery have altered attitudes towards luxury products.
Indeed, these changes have encouraged many young consumers to question the need for conventional natural diamond jewellery to mark significant milestones.
Finally, the influence of technology on retailing cannot be ignored. Artificial Intelligence is still a relatively new ‘game-changer’ for the jewellery business. Meanwhile, the dominance of social media has intensified over the past seven years.
Taking a closer look at the diamond industry specifically, and earlier this year, fierce divisions emerged between advocates of natural and lab-created diamonds over several marketing campaigns with the same message – ‘No more Mr Nice Guy.’
In May, De Beers announced it was terminating Lightbox Jewelry after seven years. The decision was supposedly motivated by the dramatic decline in lab-created diamond prices, and was described as a commitment to the future of natural diamonds.
In June, the Gemological Institute of America (GIA) announced that it would change the language used to describe lab-created diamonds in certificates to distinguish them from natural diamonds.
It was said that using descriptive terms for the quality of lab-created diamonds – ‘premium’ and ‘standard’ - is appropriate, as most fall into a very narrow range of colour and clarity. As a result, the GIA will no longer use the nomenclature created for natural diamonds to describe these stones.
More recently, the World Jewellery Confederation (CIBJO) confirmed plans to review its position on lab-created diamond terminology. It was said that lab-created diamond businesses had 'taken advantage' of CIBJO’s ‘inclusive approach’ to advance their commercial interests, often at the expense of the natural diamond industry’s reputation and market share.
As a humorous aside, one thing has remained the same across all three issues of The Great Diamond Debate – Donald Trump has been President of the US!
With that said, President Trump’s approach to trade during his second term (2025-2029) has undoubtedly had a greater impact on the industry than the policies implemented during his first term (2017-2021).
What to expect from this special issue?
The Great Diamond Debate III will feature perspectives from across the global jewellery industry. Some contributors from previous issues will return, while others will voice their opinion for the first time.
Each contribution will take its own approach; some will delve into data such as price trends, sales figures, and market dynamics.
Others will confront more abstract questions: What do today’s consumers really want? How should companies market lab-created and natural diamonds? What defines right and wrong in an industry with so much room for interpretation?
What makes The Great Diamond Debate compelling is the sheer breadth of areas that may be covered, whether they be practical or philosophical.
On the one hand, we have the raw numbers – lab-created diamond pricing, softening demand for natural diamonds, and the ongoing challenge of distinguishing between the two categories and determining what is and is not connected.
On the other hand, the language used to describe diamonds is a minefield.
Terms such as ‘lab-created’, ‘lab-grown’, and ‘synthetic’ all carry implicit connotations and, by extension, associations with quality, origin, and value.
Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the right and wrong way to talk about diamonds is still up for debate.
The Great Diamond Debate has never set out to crown a victor. There is no sweeping conclusion or definitive winner in this series. What we’re after is something more subtle: a complete understanding of the terrain.
By ‘terrain’, I mean an understanding of the forces that are shaping the future of the diamond industry.
These articles won’t represent a swinging fist aiming for supremacy. Instead, each will provide a viewpoint, or a piece of the map. Taken in totality, this special issue will chart the world of diamonds as it stands.
READ EMAG