Please e-mail all questions and article ideas to askjoia@jewelry-faq.com
Are the issues surrounding blood (conflict) diamonds real? Is there a way to ensure that any diamond jewelry purchases that one makes are free of conflict diamonds? And if it cannot be avoided, isn’t it immoral to purchase diamonds period?
- Mike
You have asked a complicated question. The simple answers are yes, the issues concerning conflict diamonds are real, and yes, there are ways to insure that if you purchase a diamond, it is conflict free.
In 2003 the UN implemented the Kimberly Process Certification Scheme. This is a very simplified explanation, but essentially what the Kimberly Process does is document rough diamonds from the the source they are mined at and follows them through to polished goods for sale to the end customer. There are currently 75 member countries which are only allowed to trade diamonds with each other. Notable participant countries outside Africa include: the United States, Canada, India, Australia, England, China, Russia, Brazil, and the European Union. Retailers in these countries are restricted from selling diamonds that are not compliant with the Kimberly Process and certified as conflict free. In addition, member countries that export rough diamonds are required to keep records of diamonds they have mined and reconcile them with those they want to sell or export. The attention the UN has given to conflict diamonds and the Kimberly Process have been remarkably effective in keeping these stones off the market. Figures vary, but there are estimates that in the 1980s about twenty percent of the world diamond trade was in conflict diamonds, by 2004 that percentage was estimated to be less than one percent. Today they represent a very small fraction of diamonds in the worldwide trade.
In order to fully answer this question I have to be honest and say that the process is in no way perfect. The fundamental flaw is that we currently do not have the technology to test a diamond (or any other gemstone, for that matter) and be able to identify its geographical origin with one hundred percent accuracy. Yes, we can make a statement to the effect of “ABC diamond has characteristics consistent with other diamonds from XYZ area”, but there is a mile of doubt possible between that determination and one hundred percent proof. And since diamonds take millions of years to form deep within the earth and it is dynamic (and often violent) geological events that bring them to a depth where we can mine them, it is possible that we will never be able to develop a test that pinpoints the origin of a diamond. So in essence it is impossible for any documentation stream, no matter how effective, to eliminate all question of if a given diamond is conflict free or not, because there is no way to authenticate that documentation from the diamond itself. Therefore, if a specific diamond area has been seized by insurgents, there is no way to simply exclude diamonds from that area. In situations where insurgents have stolen diamonds from the legitimate owners this point becomes even more muddy. Also, the criteria evaluating a specific geographic location or specific parties that wish to trade diamonds are unclear and very subjective. The current controversy of diamonds mined from Mutare, Zimbabwe is an excellent illustration of this. Quite simply, there is the concern that that the purpose for which these diamonds are being sold is a bit shady, but prevailing politics meant that they were allowed into the Kimberly Process anyway. Finally, questions have arisen relating to the role of legitimate African governments in the diamond trade, as to how they are monitoring work conditions or claiming ownership of the diamonds. In short, it is not entirely clear if these diamonds are being exported to the benefit of the people of economic infrastructure of a given nation. In short, on several points there has recently been increasing criticism of the Kimberly Process and how effective it is, with even the strongest supporters stating that a revamp is needed.
So if that is the case, should we purchase diamonds at all? I have to admit that I have been asked this question many times, and every time it annoys me. But before someone firebombs my house, I must explain that my reasons are not because I am a gemologist working in the jewelry industry. Actually, my reasons have little to do with my love of the jewelry industry at all.
#1. I am not sure that many people who ask me this question know exactly what conflict diamonds are. The movie Blood Diamond has improved this somewhat, but the explanations I get are still rather hazy.
In very simplified terms, diamonds are rough stones that were mined (or sometimes just collected) in Africa, that are sold in order to acquire funding for factions to wage insurgency or civil war against legitimate (recognized) governments, and inflict unspeakable atrocities on local populations. The movie Blood Diamond focuses on Sierra Leone, but the worst of this activity actually occurred in Angola, which was in civil war from 1974-2002, with the peak of their conflict diamond trade occurring between 1992-1998, before the UN began to take action on the subject of conflict diamonds in a series of directives leading up to the implementation of the Kimberly process. From 1998-2001 Charles Taylor’s government in Liberia traded diamonds with insurgency movements in Sierra Leone, and brokered deals to sell the diamonds to DeBeers. There is no question or dispute (even by DeBeers) that conflict diamonds are a very nasty business, and that is exactly what brought the problem to the attention of the UN. But conflict diamond activity is more widespread than that, it has also been documented in the Republic of the Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the Ivory Coast in varying degrees from the mid-late 1970s until 2005 and beyond. In the Ivory Coast it is ongoing on a limited level today.
That being said, as I mentioned above, there is the argument that the term “conflict diamonds” does not relate to insurgency exclusively. There is also the question of mining practices and work conditions, and human rights abuses related to that, which can involve legitimate governments as well.
It is critical to understand this in regards to understanding the complex issues regarding conflict diamonds, because the exact nature of conflict diamonds is not entirely clear. And without that clarity, attempts to limit and stop it become much more complicated. It also becomes very clear that…
#2. THE DIAMONDS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM. Not really. The problem is the intent of the people – those fighting the civil wars and trying to overthrow the legitimate government, and resorting to terrorist tactics and horrible atrocities to further their cause. The diamonds are incidental, a means to an end. Yes, the sale of diamonds to fund conflict represents, over the period of over thirty five years, billions of dollars. But seriously, these countries either are or were extremely politically unstable to begin with. Racial tensions in Africa are some of the worst in the world. Political corruption runs rampant. It is incredibly naive for us to think that removing the revenue stream that diamonds represents would be effective in eliminating civil war, and I think this fallacy of understanding is not doing justice to the set of problems that Africa faces today. It is true that having less revenue would make a war effort more difficult, but all the political issues that caused the war in the first place have not changed. These people are ruthless and will stop at nothing: they are going to find money regardless. In the case of Angola, UN directives and the Kimberly Process effective ended the trade in conflict diamonds, but that country is still a mess, even though the civil war ended in 2002.
It is very easy to say, “I refuse to fund conflict, so to be on the safe side I will not buy diamonds at all”. After all you get the pleasure and warm fuzzy feeling of thinking you have done something to address the problem, without really having to do anything. I am sure everyone would be on board with ending world hunger the same way too. But the grim reality is that not buying diamonds does nothing to address the root causes of the civil wars, and it does not bring outside intervention to stop the wars either. As a course of action to make the world a better place, I have to admit that I am not particularly impressed. In the meantime people with that attitude are forgetting one very important point in the question of conflict diamonds, which is…
#3. THE DIAMONDS ARE NOT GOING AWAY. It is estimated that currently over sixty percent of the world’s diamonds come from Africa. That is a staggering amount. The source in Mutare, Zimbabwe was just discovered in 2007 and it is a big one. New discoveries are made semi regularly. Civil war destroys a country and its economy. But when the civil war is over and the political climate stabilizes, revenues from legitimate diamond trade can go a long way to restart the economy and allow the country to rebuild after the civil war. Chances are that economic stability increases political stability. So sure, not buying diamonds at all will ensure no conflict diamonds are ever sold again, but it also denies countries with very fragile economies and governments that already have limited sources of revenue a lucrative way to rebuild. And that increases the chances of insurgency starting all over again. Doesn’t that seem counter intuitive?
Sierra Leone is an excellent example of this in action. By 2002 the civil war, which started as a kind of overflow of the conflict in Liberia, devastated the country to the point where Nigerian forces, as well as a UN coalition headed by British and Indian special forces had to intervene because of the humanitarian crisis. They were able to effectively end the civil war and Sierra Leone has since established a democratic government. It has been a long and difficult road but the fact that Sierra Leone has become compliant with UN directives as well as a member of the Kimberly Process has directly resulted in a dramatic increase in revenue from exporting diamonds. That in turn has allowed Sierra Leone to gradually wean itself from outside monetary assistance without losing political stability. Quite simply, there is no comparison of the state of the country today versus 2002, and it is still improving. Diamonds are largely responsible for that.
And then there’s Liberia. At one point Liberia was brokering sales of conflict diamonds to DeBeers. Since Charles Taylor’s government was ousted in 2003, Liberia has established a new government and restructured their diamond industry, resulting in them becoming members of the Kimberly Process in 2007.
I am not arguing, “Save Africa. Buy diamonds!” I am making the point (once again) that in conflict, the diamonds are not the problem. They represent revenue, which can be used for good or to horrible ends. Just like you can use a knife to cut up the food on your plate, or kill someone. It is the intent that is good or bad, not the knife.
#4. Because of efforts made by the UN, the US, and Canada, a tiny fraction of diamonds on the open market *might* be attributed to funding conflict. Meanwhile, as I mentioned earlier, over sixty percent of diamonds come from Africa. That means that the vast majority of diamonds in the open market are creating revenue and directly benefiting Africa. But there are also forty percent of the world’s diamonds coming from other notable conflict free sources like Australia, Russia, and Canada. So the question of Africa aside, boycotting the diamond market would have a severe negative impact on completely legitimate businesses in those countries, which employ many (I can’t begin to guess how many) people that need to make money to feed their children just like we do. So to refuse to buy diamonds because of a fear of funding conflict will hurt cutters in India, diamond sorters in London and New York, and heavy equipment handlers in Australia and Canada, to name a few. If you are going to decide to not purchase diamonds for ethical reasons, these factors at least deserve some consideration first.
#5. Ultimately, I cannot tell you if you should or should not buy diamonds, or define the reasons for your decision. And why should I? Like any other choice in life your decision has positive and negative consequences and you should take responsibility for them, not foist it off on me. But I challenge you to think for yourself: if you are truly morally conscious, consider the points I have given here and do some fact checking to understand the true nature of conflict diamonds before making a decision. To make a snap decision based on propaganda and sensationalism is not truly doing the situation justice. And isn’t that what moral consciousness and awareness is about?
For more information regarding conflict diamonds, please start by reading up on Angola, Sierra Leone, the Republic of the Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, and Zimbabwe, and the Ivory Coast. Please also visit the official Kimberly Process website: http://www.kimberleyprocess.com/home/index_en.html
Finally, Time Magazine has a thought provoking article about the Kimberly Process: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2029482-1,00.html
- Jóia
Ok, so I saw the question about European cut diamonds, but I still don’t understand why rounds are worth more than fancy shapes.
- Jim
There are two reasons. The first is the most straightforward, and it is that there is more demand for rounds than any other shape diamond. The increased demands also increases the value.
The second reason takes a little more explanation, and has more to do with the way diamonds grow. Diamond is pure carbon that grows in a cubic system. In ideal growth situations, the result is a rough crystal that is octahedral in shape. But as I mentioned before, the earth is a dynamic place, and growth conditions are usually not ideal. The result is that we commonly find rough diamond crystals that are not perfect octahedrons, but many different shapes.
And that is where the shape of the diamond becomes important. Since the consumer does not like to pay for diamond they don’t see, diamond cutters prefer to maximize the weight of a finished diamond, because that increases the yield from the rough crystal. That being said, if the proportions vary too much, the diamond does not give the light return that they are famous for. Because of this, fancy shapes are a great way to maximize the finished weight of a non-octahedral rough crystal and still keep the proportions within the tolerances so that they do not compromise the light return and therefore the beauty of the diamond. Conversely, round brilliant diamonds can more “expensive” in the sense that a little more weight loss is common when faceting a round brilliant from a rough crystal that is not perfectly octahedral in shape.
So when you see an oval diamond, or an emerald cut, or princess cut, chances are you are looking at a diamond where the cutter made a conscious decision to cut that rough crystal in a way that minimized the weight loss. In the case of rounds, the higher demand for that shape means that a cutter is more likely to sacrifice a little yield from the rough crystal to increase the saleability of the finished stone and increase profits.
In the past the popularity of a specific fancy shape has meant that those diamonds are priced at a premium. A good example of this was marquise brilliants in the 1990s. Because of the increased demand, cutters actually began sacrificing weight to cut diamonds into this shape; there were even instances of them reworking finished diamonds in a different shape to a marquise because the increased demand meant better profits. Normally this happens due to a fashion trend, though, so over time the fancy shape will go back to being priced the same as any other fancy shape.
Please keep in mind that even though there is more demand for round brilliant diamonds than any other shape, any shape diamond can be beautiful if it is a well cut stone. When picking out a diamond, it is better to go with the shape you prefer, rather making your choice based on how popular (or not) the shape is.
- Jóia
I have a one carat diamond, European cut. Why is it worth less than a brilliant cut diamond equal in size, weight, quality, clarity, etc?
- Jo
From an appraisal standpoint, European cut diamonds are tricky, and they are not necessarily worth less.
I’ve said it once and I will say it again: the purpose of an appraisal is to value an item for the purpose of obtaining insurance coverage. So when you say “worth”, I think of it in terms of appraisal value.
Generally speaking, round brilliant diamonds are worth more than fancy shapes (oval, princess, emerald cut, and so on) that are the same size and quality. The reason European cut diamonds are tricky is that they are, in a manner of speaking, the ancestor of the modern round brilliant cut. For a long time, European cut diamonds were considered undesirable because the cut is more primitive than a modern round brilliant. Also, the proportions of European cut diamond are not standardized like those of a round brilliant, so the quality of cut becomes more of an issue.
It is true that it used to be standard practice in completing appraisals to value European diamonds less than round brilliants. It was very common to estimate what the weight a European cut diamond would be after recutting it into a modern round brilliant, and then calculate the appraisal value based on the estimated recut weight. I have always thought this was grossly unfair, because replacing a 1.00 carat European cut with a 0.75 carat round brilliant is not really replacing it with something equivalent, no matter how you try to spin it. Also, it gave no consideration for the fact that there are European cut diamonds out there that are well cut: proportionate with fine polish and symmetry.
Fortunately, in the past 10-12 years fashion in jewelry has embraced vintage and antique styles, and this has created new interest in vintage and antique jewelry items. People are beginning to appreciate European cut diamonds exactly for what they are, because the well cut ones are beautiful stones, more primitive cut or no. Because of this appraisal practices have changed as well. Today, a European cut diamond should, at worst, be subject to the same pricing as a fancy shape diamond. If the diamond is not round, or has significant issues with the polish and symmetry, a deduction is taken from the fancy shape value. And on some European cuts, the ones with exceptionally fine make, I use the pricing guides for modern round brilliant diamonds to calculate the replacement value. Any appraiser that continues today to calculate the replacement value of a European cut diamond based on estimate recut weight is not up to date in their appraisal practices.
So to answer your question, due to the change of attitude toward vintage diamond cuts, European cut diamonds really are not valued less than brilliant cuts. At least, not anymore.
- Jóia
I like the idea of using synthetic stones for casual jewelry, because they are much more affordable and just as pretty as the natural stones. But based on my shopping experience, the jewelry made with artificial stones tends to be of poor workmanship – maybe not exactly poor, but not as delicate as the ‘real’ jewelry. So even if the stone is virtually indistinguishable from natural, the setting gives away that it is fake. So where to buy good quality jewelry with artificial stones?
- Olga
Unfortunately, there is a general negative attitude prevalent in the jewelry industry about synthetic stones and this is the result. It is easy to find low quality jewelry made with synthetics, but anything nicer is much more difficult to come by.
Something exciting is happening, though. In my article about natural, enhanced, synthetic, and simulated gemstones I pointed out that one of the benefits of synthetics is that because the stones are grown in a controlled lab environment, they do not have the ethical issues that genuine gemstones might have. As people have become more aware of this point, it has created new demand. And where there is demand, there is always someone to willing to provide the supply.
My point is that while they are still few and far between – a very small minority, if you will – there are retailers out there that specialize in making quality jewelry with synthetic stones. There might not be a retailer in a physical store close to you, but this is where the internet is definitely your friend in finding these retailers.
I cannot refer you to a specific retailer, that is not the purpose of my blog, but I can tell you what to look for. Currently, there are three reputable companies that produce synthetic gemstones and diamonds. I endorse these companies because they have invested considerable time and money into their research and production. They also stand behind their product in that they are completely upfront about documenting and promoting their stones as synthetic. They do not want their product misrepresented as natural, because they realize that these stones have a market that appreciates them exactly as they are. Chatham Created Gems out of San Francisco has been around the longest, and started with synthetic ruby, sapphire, and emeralds, and has more recently branched out into colored diamonds. More recently there is Gemesis Diamond, which specializes in synthetic yellow diamonds, and Apollo Diamond, which specializes in colorless synthetic diamonds between 0.20-0.60 carats. Below are links to their individual websites if you want more information about their stones:
http://www.chatham.com/
http://www.gemesis.com/ Please note that Gemesis is currently revamping their website, so it will be necessary to check back later to learn more.
http://www.apollodiamond.com/
In addition, I was able to type in the name of the company followed by “jewelry” (example: Chatham Created Gems Jewelry) into a Google search, and it returned all sorts of results for various retailers. I would strongly recommend checking for feedback and reviews on these companies before doing business with them, but I am sure many of them are reputable and very pleasant to work with.
There are companies out there that sell the type of product you are looking for, and I think that as the public becomes more aware of synthetics as simply another jewelry option, rather than in the context of the negative spin around them, more companies will branch into selling these products as well.
- Jóia
With gold prices going up so fast, is my jewelry worth more? Should I get my appraisals updated?
– George
Yes! Right now we are seeing unprecedented rises in the gold market, and in diamond pricing as well, even though the increases in diamonds are below public radar. It is very likely that the replacement value of your jewelry has gone up because of these market factors.
But I must be clear here. The purpose of an appraisal is to give you a replacement value so that you can obtain insurance coverage in case the jewelry item is lost or stolen (or sometimes damaged). Since gold and diamond prices are escalating rapidly, if your appraisal is more than a year old you run the risk of not having adequate insurance coverage on the item. That means that this is really a two step process: to update your appraisal and then forward it on to the insurance company to make sure your coverage is up to date.
Generally speaking, it is a good idea to update your appraisals and insurance coverage every three to four years. It is smart to re-evaluate your coverage frequently because as life changes your insurance needs change as well. But also in the case of jewelry, if your appraisal is out of date and you do not have adequate insurance coverage on the item, insurance companies typically do not pay out significantly more than the appraisal value listed, current or not. I cannot tell you how many times I have had to explain to someone that due to out of date insurance coverage, their settlement will not come close to replacing that item without them having to pay the difference out of pocket. A lot of times they are unable to pay the difference, and so they cannot replace the item. It is terrible news to give to someone, because particularly in the case of theft they feel like they have been victimized twice.
As I mentioned earlier, since gold and diamond prices are rising as quickly as they are, and I don’t think that the upward trend will end any time soon, I think it is a good idea to re-evaluate and update your appraisals more often than every three to four years. You can either set out to do this yearly, or track precious metals prices at http://www.kitco.com/. If you see a fluctuation of 30-40% from the market when your most recent appraisal was done, it is a good idea to check into updating your appraisals and insurance coverage. Yes, it is a lot of work. But if that work saves you from losing your jewelry and being unable to replace it, you will decide that is time well spent.
- Jóia
I want to propose to my girlfriend. I would like to surprise her with a ring but I have no idea what she wants. Should I just pick something, or just propose without a ring or what?
- Zach
I think I have a way that you can surprise your girlfriend, but at the same time have confidence that you are giving her a ring that she will like. Or, at the very least, what I am about to tell you is something I have advised many prospective grooms to do over the years, with great success.
My suggestion is that you pick out a diamond, and then set it in a simple solitaire mounting as a presentation ring. Once she says, “Yes!!!” and you give her the ring, you can decide together if she will keep the diamond in the presentation ring or if the two of you will go together to pick out another setting for the diamond.
You might not know what kind of engagement ring your girlfriend would prefer right now, but chances are that you could at least find out some basic information about what kind of diamond she wants – round brilliant versus princess, versus cushion, and so on. And since in a diamond engagement ring the center diamond is typically the main part of the price, by selecting the diamond in advance as a surprise you are in effect setting the budget.
But what makes the idea of a presentation ring such a great one, in my opinion, is that you have the option of including her in the decision making process while still surprising her. The feedback I have had from couples that picked out an engagement ring together (regardless of whether or not they started with a presentation ring) was that it was a deeply satisfying experience for both people. By starting with the diamond in the presentation setting, you have the luxury of surprising her, confident that you have given her something she likes. And then you have the bonding experience of including her in the process by working together to pick out a more permanent ring.
Please keep in mind that this is merely a suggestion in response to your direct question. Many men pick out the complete ring and propose with it. Many couples pick out the ring together. I have also seen situations where the lady did advance shopping on her own and gave a very specific wish list of what she wanted to her boyfriend. I will say this again and again, that an engagement ring is a symbol of a commitment two people are about to make to each other. As a symbol, it should strengthen the relationship between you. Because of this, I think that in the end exactly how you choose to do this should be about what will bond you tighter together as a couple. As long as it does that, there is really no wrong way to do it.
- Jóia
How is a ring sized? Do they add gold to it?
- Ellen
There are several techniques for sizing rings.
The most common method is to cut the ring at the bottom of the shank, and add a piece of gold (or sliver or platinum, whichever applies) that is shaped similarly to the shank. Then it is soldered into place. In the finishing/polishing phase the new piece of metal is blended into the rest of the ring so that you cannot see that a new piece was added. Sizing a ring down is a similar procedure, except (logically) there is no metal added.
Sometimes rings can be stretched or squished to change the ring size. This is fairly common practice with plain wedding bands. In the case of some rings which have a continuous pattern all the way around that would show a sizing seam stretching or squishing is the best option. While plain platinum wedding bands can be stretched/squished two sizes or more, the sizing range is much more limited with gold or mixed metal bands.
A third method is used for eternity bands (rings with stones set all the way around) or rings that have a continuous pattern all the way around that cannot be stretched or squished. A jeweler may ream out these rings to size them up, which means removing metal from the inside of the ring. The result is that the inside circumference of the ring is made larger, and the outside circumference does not change. Keep in mind this makes the ring thinner. If the ring needs to be smaller, a jeweler may add a shim – strip(s) of metal to the inside of the ring to make the inner circumference smaller. As in reaming, the outer circumference does not change.
For a video that demonstrates the basic method of how a ring is sized down, try this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqMTQd2kQ9I
The method that is used to size a ring is determined by the style of the ring, how much it needs to be sized, whether it needs to be sized up or down, and many other factors. There is no specific rule for which method is most appropriate, that is decided on a case by case basis.
- Jóia
How can sapphires and rubies be the same thing if they are different colors?
- Emma
Sapphire and ruby are varieties of the gemstone corundum. Corundum is an allochromatic gem, meaning that in its pure form it is colorless. Adding impurities to the chemical composition alters the color. In the case of rubies, chromium is the main cause. In the case of fine color blue sapphires, titanium is the main coloring agent.
So when someone says sapphires and rubies are the same thing, what they really mean is that both sapphire and ruby are corundum gemstones.
- Jóia
How much should I spend on an engagement ring? I remember something somewhere about two months’ salary.
- David
Actually, there is no “rule” that tells you how much you spend on an engagement ring. The idea of the”two months’ salary” was part of a DeBeer’s advertising campaign.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, an engagement ring is merely a symbol of the commitment two people are about to make. Some people place more importance on that symbol than others. This is something that should factor in when considering purchasing an engagement ring.
Also, logically, two months’ salary is going to be considerably less affordable to someone who makes, say, $20,000 a year versus someone who makes $250,000 a year. I think that the concept of two months’ salary sounds nice, but is not all that practical, considering the reality of the average salary in the U.S.
I do not have a one size fits all rule or guideline that I can give you. I have been in the jewelry industry long enough to know that public perception aside, when it comes down to actually making the purchase there is no set rule. I think that how much you spend on an engagement ring is determined by how important that symbol is to both of you, and also by the current state of your lives. Also, how much planning you have been able to put into it? Have you known you want to marry her for one month, or one year? That makes a considerable difference in the timeline during which you might save for this purchase. Two months’ salary might be fine for you, but not appropriate for a couple that has outstanding student loan debt (for example). The best I can tell you is that I personally believe (and I must emphasize here that this is merely my opinion) that as someone who is contemplating taking a giant step in changing your life forever, no symbol is worth compromising a good, solid start to your lives together. No symbol is worth going into debt over.
- Jóia