Gaetano Cavalieri's Key Points • CIBJO is not concerned with the products that people create, sell or buy - only that the industry operates transparently. • Natural and synthetic diamonds were paired together in the broader jewellery industry; however, in recent years, a separation has begun. • CIBJO is in the process of an exhaustive and comprehensive review of the recommended language around lab-created diamonds. |
It was in October 2004, almost 21 years ago to this day, as I figuratively put pen to paper, when a district court in Munich issued a restraining order against the German distributor of the US-headquartered synthetic diamond producer Gemesis Corporation, from using the term ‘cultured diamonds’ when marketing its products to the public.
The plaintiff in the case was Rudi Biehler, a long-time CIBJO officer and a veteran of the country’s diamond industry, who appealed to the court to prevent the company from using what he claimed was deceptive language. The court granted the injunction, agreeing that the word ‘cultured’ was misleading.
In reaching its decision, the judges relied on the terminology and definitions contained in CIBJO’s Diamond Blue Book. In so doing, the court set a precedent in the European Union.
As some may remember, in 2004, Gemesis was one of the world’s largest producers of gem-quality synthetic diamonds.
With a factory located outside Sarasota, Florida, the company, which was established by a retired United States Army brigadier general, then had the world’s largest facilities for growing man-made diamonds for jewellery.
The introduction of gem-quality synthetic diamonds into jewellery’s product mix was a source of considerable anxiety in the industry, and there had even been calls in some quarters that the trade in them be banned.
But the World Jewellery Confederation, or CIBJO as we are often better known, did not join in the campaign.
It’s not our role to decide what people create, sell or buy. Our mission is to ensure that the industry operates with complete transparency, and that all products are accurately and unambiguously described.
This mission is undertaken so the consumer can make a reasoned, informed, and hopefully rational purchasing decision.
Birth of a new jewellery category
The concept of man-made diamond was hardly new in 2004. The mass production of synthetic diamonds for industrial purposes dated back to December 1954, when General Electric produced the world’s first batch of non-natural stones.
But it was not until the 1970s that the technology had been refined to the point where it was possible to create a diamond of a quality that could be set in jewellery.
And even then, given the massive pneumatic presses and energy requirements that were required to produce such goods, economically viable gem-quality synthetics remained an elusive dream.
What changed things was the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, and the importing to the West of previously unknown high-pressure, high-temperature presses that were smaller and less expensive to operate.
Some years later, Chemical Vapour Deposition (CVD) processes were also developed to mass-produce synthetic diamonds of a quality suitable for the jewellery sector.
Changing the rules
Before 2004, there was very little debate as to how man-made gemstones should be described.
‘Synthetic’ was a universally accepted and non-controversial term, which did not discount the fact that the chemical and physical composition of the stones indeed involved the same material as the stones created geologically, but at the same time explained that they had been made artificially by chemical synthesis.
Our opposition at the time to the use of the word ‘cultured’ had more to do with a long and unsuccessful battle we had fought over how best to define pearls that had been created in oysters with human intervention.
But, predominantly in the US, some well-financed new players were becoming involved in the game. They were setting up factories to produce high-quality synthetic diamonds, not only for jewellery, but possibly more importantly for the electronics sector, where artificial diamond wafers were seen as an alternative to silicon in computer chips.
They lobbied the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) for a less restrictive set of terminology
to describe the products they are producing.
In the late 2000s, the FTC was revising its guidelines intended to protect consumers from fraud and unfair business practices and to ensure fair competition.
Appealing to the federal body, the new synthetic diamond producers contended that, even though the word ‘synthetic’ did not relate to the physical composition of the product, but rather the way it was produced, polling evidence suggested that consumers equated the term ‘synthetic’ with the term ‘fake’, albeit incorrectly. They recommended that the less emotive ‘laboratory-grown’ or ‘laboratory-created’ terms be used instead.
The FTC accepted the synthetic diamond producer’s appeal, and the revised document, while not banning the use of the word ‘synthetic’, nonetheless recommended that ‘laboratory-grown’ or ‘laboratory-created’ be the preferred descriptive terminology.
This set off a fierce debate in CIBJO, with many of our European members strongly opposed to replacing an accurate term with one that they felt, at the very least, was deceptive.
Man-made diamonds, they noted, are not created through a laboratory process, but rather industrially in factories. If one were to be accurate, they said, such diamonds should be called ‘factory-grown’ or ‘factory-created’.
But the tides of history had clearly turned, and in 2010, at the CIBJO Congress in Munich, Germany,
we amended the CIBJO Diamond Blue Book so that it now included the terms ‘laboratory-grown’
and ‘laboratory-created’.
However, we did not insist that these were preferable to ‘synthetic’, and indeed stated that in a language where ‘laboratory-grown’ and ‘laboratory-created’ could not be properly translated, ‘synthetic’ should remain the preferred term.
And so it has been in certain countries, like France, for example, whereby by decree only ‘synthetic’ can be used to describe a man-made diamond.
Deliberately coupling natural and synthetic
As the new man-made product gained traction in the marketplace, it became clear that the companies marketing it sought to blur the distinction between what they were selling and their natural counterparts.
At the same time, without substantiating their claims, these companies emphasised that their products carried considerably less ethical baggage, as they had never been associated with bloody conflicts in Africa and had a smaller environmental footprint.
It was a business plan that made economic sense, in both the short and medium terms.
Like most mass-manufactured products, as production of synthetics ramped up to scale, the cost per item of producing them fell dramatically, and eventually exponentially.
But, because at that time they were being sold in the same way as natural diamonds, as long as the discount being provided for them on standard price-list prices fell at a slower rate than the cost of production, profit margins rose accordingly.
A similar understanding existed in the retail markets, where jewellers learned that as long as consumers were ready to accept artificially inflated prices for ‘laboratory-grown’ diamond jewellery, simply because they were considerably less expensive than pieces set with natural stones of similar sizes and quality, there was good money to be made.
But the coupling of natural to man-made diamonds was inherently problematic over the long term. Because even though it temporarily offered lucrative profits to synthetic producers and traders, the inevitable price decline caused by a glut of cheap synthetics in the marketplace would likely
drag down the value of natural goods as well.
The effects of that could be devastating, especially in countries like Botswana and Angola, where their natural diamond industries are anchors of their national economies.
Decoupling naturals from synthetics
The De Beers Group entered the fray in 2018. Already one of the world’s largest producers of synthetic diamonds for industrial purposes, it launched Lightbox Jewelry, a synthetic diamond
brand for jewellery.
In creating the new company, De Beers intended to be a disruptive force in the new sector.
Its goods would be sold at fixed prices, rather than at discounted price-list prices, initially for $USD800 per carat, be they colourless or pink or blue fancy colours.
The aim was to separate synthetics from the company’s natural diamonds, and to demonstrate that man-made stones should be marketed like fashion accessories, and not heirlooms.
De Beers would eventually wind down the Lightbox operation seven years later, explaining that wholesale lab-created diamond prices had fallen by about 90 per cent since the brand’s launch and suggesting they would continue to decline.
In announcing its decision, it said it would reallocate investment toward campaigns that are “focused on reinvigorating desire for natural diamonds.”
CIBJO has also been active in the decoupling effort. In 2019, we established a working group that later became the CIBJO Laboratory-Grown Diamond Committee. Its goal was to prescribe clear rules and standards for differentiating natural diamonds from synthetic stones.
After three years of deliberations, we released our Laboratory-Grown Diamond Guidance document in June 2021.
It prescribed clear principles for describing laboratory-grown diamonds, as well as due diligence measures that companies handling such merchandise and attending events at which they are displayed, such as trade shows, should follow, to ensure that laboratory-grown goods and natural goods are not mixed.
A key section of the document related to the services provided by gem labs to the laboratory-grown diamond sector.
It held to the principle that the confidence of consumers will be served by their receiving an accurate and objective report of the characteristics of the laboratory-grown stone that they are buying, in the same way that a consumer should always be informed of the ingredients or components of any product they buy.
We recommended that it not even be referred to as a ‘grading’ report, because that would assume that the quality of the stone was randomly decided by natural processes.
We suggested that it instead be referred to as a “Laboratory-Grown Diamond Product Specification.”
Following the publication of our Laboratory-Grown Diamond Guidance document, we approached some leading gem labs that at the time were introducing services for the increasing marketing for synthetic diamond jewellery.
Our appeals met with very limited success, although what is probably the world’s most celebrated gem lab – the Gemological Institute of America (GIA) - did agree to change the name of its ‘Laboratory-Grown Diamond Grading Report’ to ‘Laboratory-Grown Report.’
Interestingly, that same lab recently announced that it will no longer issue such reports using the traditional 4Cs system and will instead use simplified descriptors — broadly categorised as either ‘premium’ or ‘standard’, or no grade at all if the quality is subpar.
These, the GIA stated, are more appropriate for products whose appearance is a factor of quality control in the factory, rather than as a function of geological circumstance.
Back to the future
In September of this year, CIBJO released its 2025 Diamond Special Report, ahead of this year’s CIBJO Congress, which was scheduled to take place in Paris from 27-29 October.
In it, the commission’s president, Udi Sheintal, suggested revisiting and revising the Diamond Blue Book, removing the terms ‘laboratory-grown’ and ‘laboratory-created’ as synonyms
for ‘synthetic’.
“A synthetic diamond should be labelled clearly and consistently as such — just as we do with synthetic emeralds, sapphires, and rubies,” Udi wrote.
The special report caused quite a stir in industry circles. Without revealing my opinion, I would
note that the subject is certainly worthy of discussion, given our experience of the past 15 years.
With that said, I would point out that no final decision is imminent. CIBJO does not take decisions of such magnitude lightly. Our due process demands an in-depth discussion about the subject and the formulation of an amended definition that will first be discussed by our Diamond Commission Steering Committee.
It would, in turn, make a recommendation to the full Diamond Commission. If that approves the proposal, it would be considered by CIBJO’s Sector A, which is responsible for all gem materials, and would be the body responsible for making the proposal to the CIBJO General Assembly. If the General Assembly approves the resolution, it would be put before the CIBJO Board of Directors for final approval.
Assuming that this process of deliberation gets underway in Paris, it is still unlikely that any amendment to the Diamond Blue Book will be completed before the 2026 CIBJO Congress, in September next year.
As is clearly apparent, CIBJO takes all issues related to terminology and nomenclature very seriously.
THE GREAT DIAMOND DEBATE III
Table of Contents
The Great Diamond Debate Collection