admin
Specific focus at the August 29 conference was on what delegates said were moves by the US to flood the market with the cultured diamonds. This, the discussants feared, was an American plot to crowd out natural diamonds from the market. Such a development, they argued would pose negative implications on economies such as that of Zimbabwe, Botswana, Namibia, Liberia, Sierra Leone and others that substantially depend on income derived from sale of the gems.
Indeed, the subject caused understandable discomfort in our delegation there. Mr Tafadzwa Musarara, chairman of Resources Exploitation Watch was on national television the other day, worried at what could ensue from the “mischievous” US move.
“The CVD (chemical vapour deposition) diamond technology was invented in the 1990s for special project but was popularised by the USA diamond industry soon after the successful KP certification of the Mbada diamonds, DMC, Marange Resource and Anjin,” said Mr Musarara.
“It is more than coincidence that the commercialisation of this technology started soon after USA had failed to stop the KP Certification and the subsequent attempt to redefine the definition of blood diamonds.
“The plot seeks to simply weaken the Marange diamond field operations and this time the Americans are using technology as a weapon. Sooner rather than later, the international market will be awash with these fake diamonds retailing at a fraction of the genuine ones.”
Mr Mark Brauner, chief executive of the International Gemological Institute, speaking at the Mumbai conference was similarly concerned.
“The arrival of the chemical vapour deposition (CVD) technology which produces synthetic diamonds is indeed a big game changer,” he told the meeting. “It takes a highly experienced diamond expert to tell the difference between a synthetic diamond and a genuine one. These man-made diamonds are a parallel to the cloning of cattle.”
Of note from Mr Brauner’s remarks is the inherent difficulty among many ordinary diamond lovers in separating a genuine diamond from a pretender. Messers Musarara and Brauner make valid points and express logical fears but they would have been much of a worry in a market that is irresponsible and poorly regulated. Crucially also, their fears would have been more alarming if the laboratory diamonds were not on the market already.
Synthetic diamonds were first produced in 1970 but were commercialised in the 1990s. They are also widely known as HPHT diamond or CVD diamond after the two respective common production methods – high-pressure high-temperature and chemical vapour deposition crystal formation methods. Initial research into the possibility of culturing a diamond in a laboratory started in the 1870s after it was discovered that a diamond is made up of carbon. Then, scientists burnt carbon to exceedingly high temperatures and cooled the molten material rapidly in a way that creates massive pressure. The resulting material is a hard “rock” which takes a predetermined colour, clarity, size and other properties.
Natural diamonds form in the earth’s mantle in regions of high temperature of up to 3 500 degrees Celsius (a diamond can withstand 5 000 degrees Celsius of heat) and high pressure of around 100 kilopascals. Volcanic eruptions that originate from such regions bring diamonds to upper portions of the earth’s crust in rocks known as kimberlites. They are mined from the conduits of the volcanoes and from nearby placer deposits in stream beds and beaches.
Whereas natural diamonds are created by geographical processes synthetic ones are produced in an artificial process.
Therefore, synthetics are a product that has been available for 20 years or so and consumers are judging them on their own, known merits. From this view, I don’t see them disproportionately disrupting a market that already knows they exist. Furthermore, there is the fact that a manufactured gem will never give you that almost invaluable appeal, dazzling natural beauty and the symbolism that a genuine one does. Of course these points will not count when a diamond is used for its more utilitarian value as an abrasive, heat resister and other industrial applications.
It is true that artificial and natural diamonds virtually look alike in terms of colour, clarity and other properties so to determine whether one is manufactured or not requires sophisticated technology.
But, as indicated earlier, this will not be a big challenge if the market strengthens existing disclosure requirements and toughens punishment on offenders. Modern markets insist on strict labelling of products. For instance, in countries where genetically-modified (GM) foods are sold side-by-side with organic ones, it is a legal requirement for a retailer to clearly mark whether the product being offered is GM or not although this is not always the case in Africa. GM foods are way cheaper than natural ones. Therefore, even in cases where labelling is not good enough one can decide what to buy and why by simply comparing prices. Failure to label GM products attracts severe penalties, normally fines.
It is worth noting that a fine is a good penalty to enforce discipline, but the ultimate punishment is the loss of public trust that a retailer suffers by his failure to tell his clients the truth. This must apply, (if it is not already) to the diamond market as well.
The diamond sector has almost eliminated “blood diamonds” through the certification process. It has become a highly sophisticated, global market in which without certification, one cannot sell diamonds and earn as much money as one would if the trade was done through the Kimberley Process. This is the reason why producers have no choice but subject themselves to the demands of the KP if they want profitable business.
This is also the same market in which an expert in Mumbai can correctly identify a diamond from Marange or from Katanga by simply studying its nature without prior information of their origin.
Thus the standards that are in place through the KP can and must be expanded to curtail proliferation of cultured diamonds pretending to be real ones.
However, it would be too naïve to believe that, if political ends as Mr Musarara fears and greed are the motivation, every diamond retailer would honestly mark their goods. Every market has its own imperfections, but disclosure mechanisms and sanctions on offenders may have to be made stricter.
One incident agitated the market in May when more than 600 synthetic colourless diamonds were submitted to the International Gemological Institute, Antwerp, Belgium without disclosure. The lab as well as De Beers’ Diamond Trading Company intercepted the stones and issued a warning about the possibility of more undisclosed stones on the market.
“Trading in misrepresented or undisclosed products, whether inadvertently or not, could cause irreparable damage to reputation [and] undermine the integrity of the diamond supply chain, damaging both trade and consumer confidence,” said the Diamond Trading Company.
“These recent events emphasise the importance of having access to methods for detecting synthetics and only buying from sources that can be trusted.”
This is the kind of vigilance that will protect the integrity of the natural diamond and consumers.
With professional advice, discerning customers will certainly not be persuaded to cement relationships with their wives through a ring made of artificial diamond. There is that inherent value and sense of beauty that only a genuine, gem-quality diamond can give, which a processed one will not.
We have seen that with fake gold rings, fake Puma clothing items and fake Nokia mobile phones. Customers are now more perceptive, so anyone who knows what he/she wants knows which ring is actual gold or fake.
Synthetic ones are about 50 percent cheaper than natural ones so like GMOs; the price tells you whether you are buying a clone or natural.
Another factor is that a gold ring does not rust but a brass replica loses its colour soon. A genuine diamond ring does not cloud, but a fake one does in a couple of years. Artificial jewellery does not have resell value.
To help curb the problem of undeclared diamonds, says Abazias Diamonds, a diamond jeweller, “De Beers, the largest trader of diamonds in the world, is currently implementing some rules that can help consumers determine the difference between real and synthetic diamonds. This is to prevent any confusion by the customers; thus, they end up paying more for a synthetic diamonds.
On the other hand, diamond industry in South Africa has implemented the use of screening instruments that are sold in the market to help people separate genuine diamonds from manufactured stones, such as synthetic diamonds.”
But there might be no need to do the foregoing. The exclusive club of diamond loyalists loves natural diamonds because they take billions of years to form in the earth’s mantle, before they are discovered, mined, and polished. The one that is made over 48 hours in a furnace may not be as appealing. Also the ease with which the synthetics are created intrinsically lowers their worth in a diamond lovers’ eyes.
“If you’ve decided to buy a synthetic, but you’re not sure how she’s going to react,” counsels one online source, “you may want to have a few ‘non cost-related’ reasons to win her over.”
With a clear international disclosure framework, enhanced policing and above all a vigilant and knowledgeable market, I don’t see laboratory diamonds causing much of an impact on natural diamond producers.
But just in case, natural diamond producers like Zimbabwe must insist on clear labelling procedures and standards. Discipline must be enforced as well, otherwise real, valuable goods might lose their market to the look-alikes, spelling doom to producer economies which don’t have the technology to culture diamonds, but spend large sums of money extracting real ones.
Online Reporter