CIBJO and "Synthetic"

But, I think it's fair to say that it's precisely *because* of the ambiguity of 'synthetic' that some are insisting on its exclusive use. I believe there are many in the trade who *want* consumers to confuse lab-grown diamonds with imitations. This is a dishonest and ultimately self-defeating attitude--lab-grown diamonds are a different product at a different price point. There is room in the market for both, and erecting artificial barriers doesn't serve either the trade *or* the consumer.

Rob, your perspective is right on the mark! It is extremely difficult to see the rationale in CIBJO’s decision when the vast majority of trade bodies have come to the realization that the only way to actually have a say in the formulation of standards for a competing segment of the industry, is to work closely with that segment, this would include the determination and acceptance of appropriate nomenclature. It does appear that CIBJO is divided on the issue, the following are quotes from a CIBJO Diamond Commission Special Report that was released prior to this years congress... “CIBJO now finds itself in the uncomfortable position that it trails behind all other major industry organizations that have rendered decisions on nomenclature of diamonds and synthetic diamonds that leave CIBJO behind. Potentially, this may lead to CIBJO's isolation in this particular matter and in our opinion that is not something CIBJO can afford.” “It goes without saying that the consumer must know what he or she is purchasing, when buying a diamond. Moreover, the consumer should not be confused by different sets of nomenclature. Therefore, it is important that CIBJO align itself with the nomenclature that has been adopted by the diamond industry's leading trade bodies, as well the major consumer markets regulatory bodies. There is too much at stake not to do so.” “To remind us all, CIBJO's mission statement reads, among others, as follows: CIBJO's purpose is to encourage harmonization, promote international cooperation in the jewellery industry, and to consider issues which concern the trade worldwide. Foremost among these is to protect consumer confidence in the industry.” Surely the leadership at CIBJO also realizes that they have no legal jurisdiction to enforce their edicts. Unless there is either Governmental signoff (which has failed to date) or agreement by the lab-grown players, these decrees are meaningless. Not to mention that mandating the exclusive use of a term when there are a variety of other legal terms available or banning the use of legally accepted terminology is walking a fine line with regards to “protectionism” or restraint of trade. Another suspect practice being employed is the argument that this is being done for the protection of the consumer. The fact of the matter is that the term "synthetic" is predominantly misunderstood by the consumer to mean fake and is therefore potentially misleading in itself, this was reaffirmed by the FTC in their ruling to the JVC with regards to the use of the term “cultured”. The following quote is from that letter... “The term synthetic, however, is problematic. When the Commission added the terms laboratory-grown, laboratory-created, and [manufacturer-name]-created to the Guides in 1996, the record indicated that synthetic is a potentially confusing term, i.e., consumers associate synthetic gemstones with imitation stones. The Commission determined that these other terms (laboratory-grown, etc.) would more clearly communicate the nature of the stone.” Regardless of whether or not you are a supporter of this new and disruptive technology, as you put it “synthetic diamond producers are not going away”. We as an industry need be working together with this new segment to ensure that the product is brought to market in a responsible and transparent manner. The simplistic and Draconian concept of trying to force your competition into using derogatory language to describe their product is riddled with problems and will do damage to all segments of the diamond trade in the long run. All of us in the natural diamond business have to understand (and start believing) that natural diamond is a unique and sophisticated product with a multitude of inherent values that lab-grown diamond will never be able to lay claim to. As a good friend of mine (who is a prominent captain of the diamond industry) puts it...”if we cannot compete with lab-grown diamonds on a level playing field and show the consumer the inherent value of natural diamond....then shame on us!” Cheers, Clark

I appreciate your thoughts but I do not agree for simple reasons which I have been trying to explain to the labs for many years, including during lab or gemological meetings: down the line the final consumer allows the whole industry (including the labs...) to make a living. There are already TOO MANY ways of naming gemstones, especially colored, with wording such as "moderate heating", "substantially filled", "heavily etc... Down the line, when a customer enters a store he needs to buy something which is worth what he pays for. I have co written an article with Richard Hughes years ago in which we were saying: "everything has to be labelled properly". So properly, as long as it is "man made", "synthetic" or "lab grown" what difference does it make?... The point is that nowadays the labs have broken down the wordings into SO MANY categories that, to buy a piece of jewellery, the lay person should either take the GIA, FGA or another course, and this is the end of the business. This is why colored stones are selling so bad. Buying a stone is reaching a point where it should be sold with a headache tablet to be able to understand what is happening... All the best, Olivier Galibert Gemologist, Gemmologiste FGA, Honours (London), ING (Paris), AIGS (Bangkok)

Greatings, Super post, Need to mark it on Digg Have a nice day